1036 Railways Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] . The Land Law.

that the present amendment also involves the construction of a new line altogether. It makes the Shepparton Railway start from a new point - a place called the Gravel Pits-and adds two miles to the length of the line. I don't want honor­able members who support the amend­ment to' be able to slide off on a false issue.

Mr. LYELL.-I don't like to give a silent vote, seeing that I shall, if there is a division, feel compelled to vote for the Government proposition. That conclusion on my part may surprise some honorable members, but my reasons for it are very clear. I think it was the duty of the Upper House, if they disagreed with the Government propositions with respect to the Oakleigh and Goulburn Valley Rail­ways, to strike the sub-sections and sche­dules relating to them out of the Bill, and not to attempt to substitute anything for them. If the question simply lay between the eastern and western routes, I would gladly vote again for the latter. At the same time, if we admit the right of the Upper House to substitute one line for another, the precedent may be found ex­tremely inconvenient. For instance, it might involve an arrangement of this sort: that the Assembly having decided upon a railway from Melbourne to Balla­rat via Geelong, the Council might amend the plan so that the line should reach Ballarat via Ballan, and assert that the change they proposed was only a devia­tion. I don't think the Council's amend­ment in the present instance involves only a deviation of the kind we accepted in 1871. ~ Mr. MACKAY .-Shepparton is the goal in both instances.

Mr. LYELL.-Yes; but the terminal points are not the same.

Mr. CASEY.-Let me . explain that the reference made by the honorable and learned member for the Ovens to the Council's amendment in the provision of the Land Bill of 1869, for the appropria­tion of £200,000 per annum for railway purposes, was not quite correct. No doubt the Council amended the clause by making the repurchase of debentures sub­ject to the approval of the" Legislature" instead of that of the "Assembly," but this House totally disagreed with the amendment. It was only after the coil­ference on the Bill that the word "As­sembly" was struck out, and the words " Governor in Council," which were never suggested by the Upper House, inserted in their stea,d.

The motion for disagreeing with the amendment was carried without a division.

The other amendments made by the Legislative Council were disagreed with.

The Bill was then ordered to be returned to the Legislative Council, with a message setting forth how the amendments had been dealt with.

The .House adjourned at four minutes to eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, October 10, 1877.

Administration of the Land Law: Selectors' Grievances: . Land needed for Railways-Bunyip Railway Statiou­The PQlice and the Francbise-Life-sentence Prisoners­Deep Sea. Fishing-Law Reform--Tbe Civil Service: Competitive Appointments-London and Liverpool and Globe Insurance Company's Bill-Supreme a.nd County Courts Procedure Bill-Inebriates Act Amendment Bill­Brighton Land Vesting Bill-Criminal Cases Appeal Bill -Civil Service Promotions-Drafting Bills-Operation of the Education Act-Supply: Mr. Eaton: Yan Yean Water Supply: Geelong Wa.ter Supply: Public Works: Harbour Improvements at Warrnambool: Clearing' the Murray and the Goulburn.

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

PETITIONS. A petition was presented by Mr.

COOK, from cab-owners, draymen, market gardeners, and wood-carters, praying for a reduction of the import duty on maize.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAND LAW.

Mr. f;HARPE called the attention of the Minister of Lands to the fact that several persons had been refused their Crown grants by the Lands department because they had declined to sign a con­dition to allow the Government to take hereafter any of the land which might be required for railway purposes on payment of £1 per acre. The matter would be better understood by reading a circular letter, one of which had been forwarded to Thomas Church, a farmer, of Dookie North. It was as follows :-

" Office of Lands and Survey, "Melbourne, 7th September, 1877.

"Sir,-Referring to your application under section 31 of the Land Act 1869 for a grant of your selection in the parish of Dookie, I have to request you will be good enough to state whether you will accept such grant with the following condition inserted therein :-

" 'Excepting and reserving unto us, our heirs and successors, the use of such parts of the said land with full right and free liberty to resume

The Police. [OCTOBER 10.J Law Refo1'tn. 1037

the same as shall, from time to time, be required for or be set out or otherwise become a Govern­ment railway, we paying for the same at or for the price of 20s. for every acre of such land so resumed, but without giving compensation for severance, such railway to be set out by our Governor-in-Council of Victoria or the Board of Land and Works of Victoria.'

(Signed) "JOHN L. LEWIS, "For Secretary for Lands."

He believed that in. some instances se­lectors had been asked, before they took up their land, to sign such a condition as this; but this was not done when Church and other selectors took up their land. He presumed the Minister of Lands was. aware that to run a railway through a small selection was to make it entirely useless to the selector. He begged to ask the Minister whflther he considered it fair and reasonable to ask owners of land to enter into such arrangements with the Government?

Mr. LONGMORE observed that some time ago the practice complained of by the honorable member for Moira (Mr. Sharpe) existed in the Lands department, but he had decided that only in those cases in which the selector took up the land subject to the condition referred to, should the condition be embodied in the Grown grant.

BUNYIP RAILWAY STATION. Dr. MACARTNEY asked the Minister

of Railways whether he would supply a goods shed to the Bunyip railway station, and how soon ?

Mr. WOODS stated that there would be no 'time lost in supplying sufficient accomniodation at the station referred to.

THE POLICE. Mr. D. M. DAVIES asked the Chief

Secretary whether he would provide, in the new Electoral Act, for the extension of the franchise to members of the police force?

Mr. BERRY said a new Electoral Act ~as not contemplated this session. Per­sonally, he had always been in favour of extending the franchise to the police, but the matter had not been considered by the Cabinet.

LIFE-SENTENCE PRISONERS. Mr. L. L. SMITH inquired of the

Minister of Justice when the Government would give th.eir decision with regard to the case of the life-sentence prisoners?

Mr. GRANT said he hoped very shortly.

RAILWAY CONTRACTS. Mr. WOODS laid on the table, pursuant

to order of the House (dated August 2) papers relating to the Gippsland (2nd section) and Inglewood railway contracts.

DEEP SEA FISHING. Mr. LEVIEN asked the Chief Secretary

whether he would place on the Additional Estimates a sum of money to enable deep­sea fishing to be fairly tested? He re­marked that a very general opinion pre­vailed that very large fishing resources might be opened by properly testing the neighbouring seas, and that the matter was one in which the Government might properly lend some assistance, and par­ticularly as ordinary fishermen had not the necessary appliances.

Mr. BERRY observed that the Govern­ment did not intend to take any steps in the matter, because they thought it one in which private enterprise might very fairly engage.

LAW REFORM. Mr. DWYER inquired of the Minister

of Justice whether the Government in­tended to introduce, this session, any mea­sure of law reform other than the Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Procedure Bill now before the House ?

Mr. GRANT replied in the negative.

CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS. Mr. DWYER asked the Chief Secre­

tary whether he intended to introduce any Bill, or frame any regulations, making appointments to the civil service com­petitive ?

Mr. BERRY said the Government in­tended; next session, to introduce a Civil Service Bill. Whether the principle re­ferred to by the honorable and learned member for Villiers and Heytesbury would be entertained in the measure he was not prepared to say. It might to some extent. At present the Minister of Public Instruc­tion was having a report prepared which would contain all the information obtain­able about the practice at present in vogue in other countries.

LONDON AND LIVERPOOL AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY'S

BILL. Mr. LANGRIDGE moved-"That so much of standing orders, numbered

respectively 10 and 26, which prescribe the months in which the notices for a private Bill

1038 Supreme and County [ASSEMBLY.] Courts Procedure Bill.

are to be given and published, and the month in which the petition for a private Bill is to be de­posited be suspended or dispensed with, with a view of introducing a Bill intituled 'A Bill to enable the Liverpool and London and Globe In­surance Company to sue and be sued in the colony of Victoria in the name of the company, and for other purposes.' "

He explained that the Liverpool and Lon­don and Globe Insurance Company was an English joint-stock company doing business in Victoria. It had invested large sums of money in the colony, and yet unfortunately it was in the position that it could not sue or be sued. Then again, it had local trustees, and if any of them resigned, died, or left the colony, other trustees had to be appointed, and the company was put to large expense in having all its documents made out in the names of the new trustees. It was to remedy these two difficulties that the Bill had been framed. He might add that a similar measure had been passed both in New South Wales and Tasmania. He believed there was no objection on the part of the Examiners of Private Bills to the suspension of the standing orders re­ferred to. The same standing orders had already been suspended this session to allow of the introduction of the National Insurance Company of Australasia's Ex­tension of Powers Bill. .

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

Leave was then given for the introduc­tion of the Bill, and the Bill was brought in, and read a first time.

SUPREME AND COUNTY COURTS PROCEDURE BILL. -

Mr. DWYER moved for leave to in­troduce a Bill to assimilate the procedure and practice of the Supreme Court and the County Courts, and for other pur­poses. He explained that the object of the measure was to assimilate the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court to the practice and procedure which obtains in the County Courts; in other words, to simplify pleading.

Mr. F. L. SMYTlI seconded the mo­tion, which was agreed to.

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

INEBRIATES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion of Mr, CASEY, this Bill was read a second t\me, a.l1d passed

'~lfough its remaining stages .. ' .

'"'"

BRIGHTON LAND VESTING BILL. The amendments made in this Bill, in

committee, were considered and adopted. On the motion of Mr. BENT, the Bill

was read a third time and passed.

CRIMINAL CASES APPEAL BILL. Mr. L. L. SMITH moved that this Bill

be read a second time. He said-I am thoroughly cognizant of the fact that the Minister of Justice is opposed to the Bill. Nevertheless I trust that every other member of the Ministry will calmly listen to what I have to say in support of the measure, and then exercise his own indi­vidual judgment with respect to it. I know also, from what transpired when the Bill was introduced, that the late Attorney-General also intends to oppose the measure. With two such legal lumi­naries against me, it is with' a certain amount of diffidence that I rise to move the second reading. However, I am con­soled by the fact that it has been usual for gentlemen of the legal profession to oppose measures of law reform.

Mr. DUFFY.-No. Mr. L. L. SMITH.--.:....As a rule. The

object of the Bill is to enable those who are convicted of criminal offences to be placed in the same position as those who fail in civil actions-in other words, to give them power of appeal. As honorable members ar'e aware, appeals in civil caBes are indulged in, I might almost say, to excess, and yet, under British law, there is no power of appeal in criminal cases, although that power exists among' foreign nations. In this colony, we have had instances of persons being wrongfully convicted of criminal offences, some­times through the peculiar stupidity and obstinacy of the jury; sometimes through a wrong or prejudiced sum­ming up, though perhaps unintentionally wrong or prejudiced, on' the part of the judge; and sometimes by witnesses per­juring themselves. I know it is asserted that in the case of a conviction obtained through perjury on the part of a witness the person convicted can practically have the benefit of a second trial by the per­sons against whom perjury is alleged being brought to trial for that offence. But that is easier said than done. These cases of perjury are seldom carried through because of their extreme difficulty. In the first place, perhaps the only person who can actually prove that a witness has committed perjury is the prisoner himself,

eriminal Cases [OCfOBER 10.] i039

and of course his testimony coul<.{ not be taken, or, if it could, it must be taken cum grana salis. In the next place, we know that' the Crown law officers, as a rule, are very loath to take proceedings in cases :of perjury; and if proceedings in such cases are taken, they are very apt to cause a nolle prosequi to be entered. In conse­quence, it is very seldom that a witness is prosecuted for perjury. In the next place, the people who may suffer are usually too poor to be able to follow up a prosecution for perjury. A man may be found guilty of a crime, and, although conscious of his innocence, may be wholly unable to do anything to right himself for wan.t of friends and means. I know uiany' in­stances of the kind. For example, there is the case of Spearin. We know, as far as our common sense can guide us, that the people on whose testimony Spearin was convicted perjured themselves, and that Spearfn is an innocent man. That is the opinion of the public generally.

Mr. GRAN'r.-No. Mr. L. L. SMITH.-At all events

public opinion so oscillates as to the in­nocence or guilt of Spearin, that it seems only fair that the man should have a new trial. Had he possessed the power of appear, probably before this time his liberty would have been restored, and the stain attaching to his name and fam~ would have been removed. Then there is the case of' Shanklin with all its hideousness. I believe the aspect of that case. would have been entirely changed if the opportunity had been given for the examination of a certain witness, who was not called at the trial. Now, I ask honorable members who belong to the legal profession to throw aside their pre­judices and say whether they can see any reason why there should be such a dif­ference in the eye of the law between property on the. one hand, and life and liberty on the other? Of course, we know that our English forefathers thought a great deal more of property than they did of life, and I suppose it is to that circumstance that we may attribute the existence, at the present time, of the power of appeal in cases of property, and the non-existence of that power in cases of life and liberty. Now I don't ask that a man, directly he is convicted, should have a fresh trial. "\Yhat I propose is that when a man has been convicted of an indictable offence, there shall be power for 'some one -on his behalf to go before

the j~l.ciges, of the' Sti~reme 'Oourt . and move for' a l;iile' nisi for' a -new triaL Should the rtile be 'granted, the "question whether ·there should be a new trial would have to be argued, ,and th,e' jti.dges would have to 'de~~de wh~ther the~~ were any flaws in the evidence,w,hether the judge who tried the ca$e- manifested any'pre­judice . in . his summibg up, or w.hether under any' Circumstances 'justice had not been done, and if the judges came to the conclusion that,' from legal or other reasons". there o~g4t .... to be a new trial, .it. would.· .'be .~ompetent for them to order it. I ~n;t aware that sen­tence is frequently deferred in criminal cases, pending the consideration of law points raised during the' trial;' and I find that 119 cases were so reserved in England during ten years,.a~d that'in 37 of those cases the convictions were set aside. Now presuming the power of re­serving questions of law. had not existed, 37 persons would have been wrongfully consigned to a felon's doom, to the ruin of their prospects and the disgrace of their families. Attempts have been made to obtain the passage through the Imperial Legislature of a Bill to allow of an appeal in criminal cases-first, . in 1844, by Sir Fitzroy Kelly, now Lord Chief Baron of the Exebequer; and again in' 1858, by Mr. McMahon~ The second Bill passed its second reading by a majority of 54, but the measure 'was afterwards abandoned because it contained certain clauses which interfered with the existing law. Cer­tainly the abandonment of the measure was not because of its principle, which was that life and liberty should have, at any rate, the same chance, the same jus­tice, and the same fair play that property has. Mr. J. Roland Phillips, a writer in the Law Magazine, says-

"It is not to be sUrprised at that intelligent foreigners who study our institutions and our laws should have arrived at the conclusion that property is far more important and more pre­cious in our sight than life and liberty."

And Mr. Wilde, a legal gentleman, for­merly Sheriff of London, made this state­ment when giving evidence before a committee of the House of Lords :-

"I am perfectly satisfiea that many persons have suffered punishments where they have been positively innocent of the crime with which they were charged, and which, if there had been any court of appeal-with, of course, proper officers appointed~to whom the parties accused might have stated the grounds of appeal, there would have ·beeq ~ reversal of their conviction <?r s~n~e~~{}~'" " '

ft..,

1040 Criminal Cases [ASSEMBLY.] Appeal Bill.

Mr. Wilde mentioned that, within the space of nine months, during his shrievalty, no less than six persons were saved from death H in consequence of investigations showing that they had been improperly convicted." If this be the case with re­gard to capital offences, how much more likely is it to be the case with offences of less magnitude? Sir Fitzroy Kelly, speak­ing of the ignorance of' jurors generally, says :-

"When the fallibility of human judgment, when our proneness to error, was taken into con­sideration, there was, unhappily, too much reason to fear that of the sentences which deprived our fellow creatures of their property, of their good names, of their liberty, of their life, a no slight proportion were sentences founded in error, and therefore resulting in fearful, in fatal injustice­were sentences under which innocent persons suffered a most iniquitous punishment.",

Mr. Townsend MacDermott, in moving, last year, the second reading of a Bill similar to this, stated that in 1857, there were reserved in England 36 cases of criminal conviction, and in 15 of those the convictions were quashed; and yet we know that frequently it is only on the mere impulse of the moment that a judge says H I will reserve this point." It may be said that we have in the Crown law officers in this country a court of appeal in criminal cases; but t~at court of appeal is not at all satisfactory, because, as the Crown law officers are political officers­and I say this without intending the slightest reflection upon the gentlemen who are now at the head of the Law de­partment or their predecessors-they are liable to pressure or to their kindly feelings being worked upon. Moreover, such a court of appeal is not in accordance with the feelings of Englishmen, who like to see proceedings open and above-board, and to hear the why and the wherefore of judicial decisions. The reversal by the Crown law officers of a conviction is not a clearance of a man's character. The finger of scorn may be pointed at his children on account of their father ob­taining his liberty not on the clear equity of the case but through political or other influence. What is the course of the Crown law officers when a man is con­victed of a criminal offence, and it is represented to them that there are exte­nuating circumstances? They send to the judge who tried the case, and the judge brings his notes to them, and upon that basis the decision of the Crown law officers and the Executive is given. But , . Mr. L. L. Smith. ',-.;>,

"

is it to be supposed that the resume of the case which the judge may give to the Crown law officers will differ from the summing up which he has previously made to the jury? In saying this I desire it may not be inferred that I am casting the slightest reflection on any judge. But judges are human beings, and are therefore fallible; they have their prejudices like other individuals.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY. - Supposing the verdict of the jury is not in ac­cordance with the summing up of the judge?

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-If a judge sums up for an acquittal and a jury convicts, that is an argument in favour of my pro­position that there should be a power of appeal. I remember a case in which Mr: Justice Fellows sentenced a man to only one hour's imprisonment because he was dissatisfied with the verdict which the jury returned; but what chance has any man, under the present state of the law, of getting his character cleared of the stain cast upon it by a verdict of " guilty" being returned against him on a criminal charge, although he may be wholly in­nocent of the crime?

Dr. MADDEN.-If the prisoner in the case referred to by the honorable member had been tried by a second jury, he would have been han'ged to a cer­tainty.

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-That only shows that judges and juries are not infallible. Let the honorable member look at the reverse of that case. If the jury, through stupidity or obstinacy, brought in an im­proper verdict, which saved the man from being hanged, might not a man be hanged in another case for a crime of which he was innocent because a jury improperly convicted him? The case to which I refer, therefore, really affords an illustration of the desirability of allowing' an appeal for a new trial in criminal cases. What is complained of is that if a jury finds a man guilty, whom all the world knows to be innocent, he has no court to appeal to, and no chance of ob­taining his liberty before the expiration of his sentence, except by the clemency of the Crown. Even if the clemency of the Crown is ultimately exercised in his favour, how will that clear his character? What will compensate an innocent man for being kept in prison waiting the law's delay, or, rather, the delay of the law officers of the Crown? Look at the time

Criminal Cases [OCTOBER 10.] Appeal Bill. 1041

that the law officers have had the case of Spearin under consideration. Suppose that man is innocent.

Dr. M:ADDEN.-I don't think he is. Mr. L. L. SMITH.-The case has

been deemed of sufficient importance to receive consideration from both the pre­sent Government and the late one, but it has never been determined.

Dr. MADDEN.-Yes. Mr. L. L. SMITH.-Did the honorable

member, as Minister of Justice in the last Government, come to a determination upon it?

Dr. MADDEN.-I did. Mr. L. L. SMITH.-Then why have

the present Law officers been asked to adjudicate upon the case? Such cases simply show the necessity for a proper court of appeal. Why should they be dealt with higgledy-piggledy? Why should a man's life or liberty depend upon the action of a Minister? If a dozen influential men go to the Crown law officers in reference to any case of the kind about the time of an election, we know what the result will be.

Dr. MADDEN.-I don't know that any case can be found which will justify the honorable member's insinuation.

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-I simply wish to show that political and other influences are sometimes Drought to bear upon the Crown law officers in these cases, and that they should not be adjudicators in such matters. Supposing that a man is sentenced and sent to gaol who is after­wards proved to be innocent of the crime of which he has been convicted, what redress is it to him to be released by the clemency of the Crown? What compensation does he receive for being herded with felons? What compensation is there under such circumstances for the stain cast upon the man's character and that of his family? There ought to be· an opportunity to persons convicted of any crime to apply to a court to order a new trial, so that an innocent man may be able to get his irmo­cence publicly established without having to be imprisoned, and to trust to the clemency of the Crown to obtain his re­lease. It should be made a matter of justice and not a matter of clemency. It is an acknowledged principle of British law that it is better for 99 guilty men to escape than that one innocent man should suffer. Surely, then, I am not asking very much when I ask that a man convicted of a crime shall have the opportunity

of applying to the Supreme Court for a rule nisi for a uew trial. That is the object of the Bill. It does not give any man convicted of a crime the actual right to a new trial, but simply enables him to apply to the Supreme Court for a rule nisi for a new trial, and provides that, if the rule is made absolute, there shall be a new trial, and that "the same shall be had in like manner as if no former trial had taken place." The application for a new trial must be made within eight days after the conviction, and the grounds upon which the Supreme Court may make the rule absolute and order a new trial to take place are as follows :-

" That the verdict of guilty has been contrary to evidence, or to the direction of the judge, or for the improper reception or rejection of evidence, or other mistake, .01' for any gross misbehaviour of the jury among themselves, or for surprise, or discovery of new evidence sub­sequent to the trial, or for any other cause where it shall appear to the court that a new trial will further the ends of justice."

I am sure that no honorable member can reasonably object to a new trial being granted on any of the grounds here set forth. I have already mentioned that in 1858 a Bill for allowing a new trial in criminal cases was read a second time in the House of Commons, by a majority of 54. On that occasion the Attorney-General of England said- .

"He felt it to be his duty to support the second reading of the Bill, because he was favor­able to the principle that there ought to be an appeal in criminal as well as in civil cases."

Amongst other members of the House of Commons who spoke in favour of the prin­ciple of the Bill was Mr. John Bright) who remarked-

" All the Bill asked the House to do was to go on with the process which had been proceeding slowly for years past. Some time ago prisoners were not allowed to have counselor sworn evi­dence, and he could not conceive anything more brutal than such a state of things. He had had under his notice a great number of cases in which he had had a strong conviction that if they could have come under the notice of a court of review the result would be different. They had been told that there was a court of review in the Home Secretary, but nothing could be worse than such a tribunal." .

Abundance of other testimony to the same effect can be adduced. The Bill, as I indicated a short time ago, is the same, with a few verbal alterations, as the measure introduced last session by Mr. MacDermott, to whom I am in a great measure indebted for the arguments which I have brought forward in sup~ort of it.

1042 Oriminal Cases [ASSEMBLY.] Appeal Bill.

The subject received most serious con­sideration at the hands of Mr. MacDer­mott, who deeply regretted that his mea­sure did not become law. I might quote many authorities in addition to those to which I have referred, in support of the establish~ent of a court of criminal appeal, but my time is so occupied with my pro­fessional dnties that I have not been able to look them up. I think, however, that I have said sufficient to commend the Bill to the attention of the House. I hope it will not be used as. an argument against the measure that the reform it proposes to effect has not yet been adopted in Eng­land, because we know that in vote by ballot and various other matters England has been proud to follow the example set by this. colony. I trust that we, will not be afraid to do justice-to give an oppor­tunity to 'persons who are convicted of a crime, of which they are innocent, to bring their case before a court .of appeal. Any one of us might some day be in that position.

Mr. GRANT.-Sir, I know that the honorable lll,ember for Richmond (Mr. Smith) has brought forward this Bill from a most humane and philanthropic motive. He is-much to his credit-one of the very few who take any interest in the outcast and the fallen. I regret, however, that I do not see my way to approve of the measnre, particularly in its present form., It appears to me that' the honorable member has confounded two things which are essentially distinct and separate, namely, the administration of the civil law and the administration of the criminal law. With regard to the administration of the civil law, t~le only parties interested iu a civil suit are the plaintiff and the defendant. The parties may bring forward such evidence as they choose, and the judge directs the jury to weigh that evidence and give a verdict according to the balance of testimony. In the case of the administration of the criminal law society is interested; in fact, the due administration of the criminal law is the very foundation of society. The Crown is bound to bring forward all the evidence that can be obtained, because the Crown is Ol~ly interested in the adminis­tration of justice. The Crown is just as much interested in the acquittal of a prisoner if he be innocent as in his con­viction if he be guilty. There is no such thing in a criminal case a's weighing evidence. The judge always~' tells the

jury that, before 'they can convict, ,the Crown prosecutor must prove the guilt of the prison~r, while every facility is given to a prisoner to have his innocence estab­lished. Fot instance, if a prisoner is poor he has only'to give the names of h~s wit­nesses and they will be subpcenaed ~or him by the police, and in capital cases attorney and counsel are' employed for his defence at the expense' of the Crown. Again, look at the proceedings which are gone through before a trial for a criminal offence in order to ensure that justice shall b~e done to the accused. ln the first instance the prisoner is taken' before a magistrate, and a prima facie case must be made out before he can he committed for trial; and" .there is a second ordeal; because the evidence is submitted to the Crown Prosecutor,'who has to satisfy himsel;f that it will ~e likely to procure a conviction, or an information will not be filed against'the prisoner. 'Then it is notorious that on the trial the benefit of every doubt is given in favour <?f the prisoner. It is . impossible to conceive anything calculated to prote'ct the innocent more efficiently ahd effectively than the administration of Justice in an English court. It is quite ~ niatter of' surprise to foreigners to see the fairness which is ex­tended by the English judges to pris~ners upon their trial. This being the c~~e, it is not conceivable that we can improve upon the administration of Justice:: in criminal trials. I may also remark that if any point of law arises in the course of a criminal trial about which any doubt :can possibly be entertained, it is invariu.b'ly reserved for the opinion of a court of appeal. If a new trial is granted to prisoners, in order to bring the administra-:­tration of the criminal law into analogy with that of the civil law, a new trial ought to be granted to the Crown in cases in which the Crown thinks that a prison~r has been improperly acquitted. Does the honorable member for Richmond contend for that position? If he contends that a prisoner who is convicted of a crime should have a new trial, a fortiori, he must admit that a prisoner who is acquitted ought to be placed upon his trial again. I cannot understand the justice of allowing a new trinJ in the one case and not in the other. How is the court in banco to be satisfied that the jury arrived at a wrong verdict in convicting a prisoner when the judge directed' them that, before finding the pri­soner gtiilty, they must be convinced that his guilt, was proved to a demonstration?

CrinJinal Cases [OCTOBER 10.] Appeal Bill. 1043

How is the court to arrive at the con­clusion that the jury were wrong with­out a rehearsal of the whole trial-with­out having the advantage of seeing the witnesses in the box and observing their demeanor? Then supposing the court granted a new trial, it is impossible to conceive that a second jury would ever convict the prisoner,· for they would natu­rally say to themselves-" The Supreme Court have set aside the verdict of the first jury, on the ground that it was wrong, and how can we arrive at a different conclusion from that of the three judges." There are many other reasons why the House should consider· well before assenting to a Bill which involves such a radical change in the administra­tion of justice as the measure now before us. With regard to the way in which cases where petitions have been presented to the Crown by prisoners convicted of crimes have been dealt with in this country, I have received the following memorandum from the Secretary of the Law department:-

,e In this country there has been no case in which it has been clearly and unmistakably proved that an innocent person has been wrong­fully convicted. There have, however, been cases, such as those of Ryan, Richardson, and Edgar, in which, after due inquiry on the part of the Minister-who in this country performs in such cases the duties corresponding to those of the Home Secretary in ;England-it has been found desirable to release the prisoners, on account of doubts which existed as to their having actually committed the precise offence alleged against them. The practice here in such matters accords with that in the mother country. The. representative of the Crown is petitioned, and the matter is referred to the Solicitor-General or Minister of Justice, who makes sucb inquiries as he may find necessary, amounting to a complete investigation of every­thing connected with any case under notice. IB effect. this is a new trial, with facilities for ac­quiring information and turning it to account which do not present themselves at a formn.l trial. Upon the result of such an investigation the Minister advises His Excellency the Go­vernor, and if good grounds can be shown, the prisoner's release ep.sues, by virtue of the pre­rogative of mercy. There is a case now under investigation, viz., Spearin's, in which the pri­soner's innocence is strongly urged, but up to the present no sufficient facts have been disco­vered to warrant His Excellency's interference." In reference to the first statement in this memorandum, I may say that, to my own personal knowledge, there was an instance some years ago· in which a person found guilty of murder, and respited the even­ing before tb<? day fixed for his execution, was innocent of the crime. That was in 1861, when I was a member of the Heales

Administration. The cases of Ryan, Rich­aI'dson, and Edgar, all occurred during the period that the honorable and learned member for the Ovens was Attorney. I

General, and such evidence was obtained ill those cases (resulting in the libera1.ion of the men) that it would have been im­possible to have brought forward on a new trial in a conrt of law. In the case of Spearin, which was brought under my attention, after going through nIl the affi-davits submitted to my predecessor in office, I saw no reason whatever fqr re­commending the Crown to interfere. The matter has again been brought under the notice of the department, but, being unwilling to interfere, as I lllLve already expressed an opinion on the case, the Attorney- General has undertaken to in­vestigate it, and it is now under his con­sideration. I may say that in every case of the kind the greatest pains are taken to ascertain whether there are any grounds to justify the interference of the Crown. The arguments· against allowing a llew trial in criminal cases are very ably dealt with in Mr. J. F. Stephen'S work Crimi­nal Law in England. After discussing the question of allowing a llew trial in criminal cases, and the objections to the system of having cases in which represen­tations are made that a man has been im­properly convicted decided by the Home Secretary, Mr. Stephen says:-

IC The true remedy for this state of things would be to constitute a court of law charged with the duty of doing openly n.nd judicially what the Home Secretary at present does in secret. It might be enacted that if it appeared to the Secretary of State for the Home Depart­ment that, after the conviction of any person for any crime, new evidence or new reasons to doubt the truth or accuracy of the evidence actually given had been discovered, or if the judge who tried the cause were dissatisfied wi th the verdict, the Home Secretary might call together It court, to be composed of the j"udge who tried the cause, one other judge, and the Home Secretary him­self, who should call before them any witnesses they pleased, and examine both them and the prisoner (if tllE'Y thought :fit) in open court; and also (if they thought fit.) hear arguments by counsel, and finally deliver judgment, either confirming, quashing, or varying the verdict of the jury as they thought proper. In order to protect the constitutional authority of the jury, it would be necessary to provide expressly, as a condition precedent to the summoning of the Court, that t.he Secretary of State should certify that new evidence had been discovered, or that the judge should certify that he was dissatisfied with the verdict. In this way the prerogative of mercy would be confinecl to its proper func­tion-that of mitigating the severity of punish­ments in particular cases. The absurdity of ·pardoning guilt on the ground of innocence

1044 Criminal Cases [ASSEMBLY.] Appeal Bill.

would be done away with, and the public would know in a definite authoritative form 00 what grounds the verdict of a jury was overruled."

Though I cannot approve of the measure before the I-louse, I think that it may perhaps be desirable to legislate on the question in the direction indicated by Mr. Stephen's suggestions. I have therefore instructed counsel to frame a Bill based on those suggestions, and, when it has been prepared, I will submit it to my col­leagues. If they approve, I will also submit it to the judges and to the profes­sion.

Mr. CASEY.-No; -certainly not. Mr. GRANT.-That is my personal

view, but I have not yet mentioned the matter to my colleagues. The mode sug­gested by Mr. Stephen for reviewing a case in which a prisoner thinks that he has been wrongly convicted would not be open to the same objections as that pro­posed by the Bill introduced by the honor­able member for Richmond, to which I am totally opposed.

After· a pause, Mr. CASEY rose and said-As it does

not appear that any honorable member desires to reply to the able speech of the Minister of Justice, I will offer fi few remarks on the subject. No doubt the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) thinks that this measure is one which ought to be engrafted on our statute­book, but I do not think great weight can be attached to the opinion of a layman on legal matters. -If I were to introduce a measure affecting medicine and surgery, probably I would not be able to convince the honorable member for Richmond that I possessed such. knowledge of the subject as ought to induce the Legislature to make a radical change in the existing state of things. One reason why English jurists have been slow to make any altera­tion in the direction which the honorable member who has introduced tbis Bill de­sires is that to do so would practically afford a rich maI\ an opportunity of defeat­ing the law. One of the privileges of a British community is that the rich and the poor are governed alike-that the law is administered the same to the one as to the other; but what would be the case if, by such a privilege as is proposed to be given by this Bill, a man convicted of felony could apply for a new trial, and for new trial after new trial ?

Mr. L. L. SMITH.-The Bill does not say so.

Mr. CASEY. - Important witnesses might disappear,from one cause or another, while a new trial was pending, and thus persons who ought to be imprisoned would be enabled to go at large and defeat the ends of justice. On the other hand, if ll.

prisoner were improperly acquitted by a jury the Bill does not provide that the Crown shall be able to place him upon his trial again. This is one-sided legislation. Again, wealthy prisoners would be able to avail themselves to the fullest extent of the means of obtaining a new trial, but prisoners who could not afford to employ lawyers would be unable to take advantage of it. These are some of the objections which have restrained British communities from going in the direction contemplated by the Bill. We are, however, not with­out a power of appeal in criminal cases at the present time. If any question of law is raised during a criminal trial, the judge invariably reserves it for the opinion of a higher court ; and in misdemeanors a new trial can be obtained on the ground of the improper reception of evidence or mis­direction of the jury. The only effect of passing the Bill will be to give new trials in cases of felony. Until a short time ago it was understood that by the law of England a new trial could be granted even in cases of felony. In 1851, in the case of The Queen v. Scaife, re­ported in 17 Q. B. reports, although the prisoner was convicted of felony, a new trial was ordered on the ground that the deposition of a witness had been improperly received in evidence. There was no doubt that a new trial could be ordered in a case of misdemeanor, but in this case-the only one of the kind that can be found-the Court of Queen's Bench granted a new trial where a man had been convicted of felony. It has subsequently been declared by the Privy Council, in the case of The Queen v. Bertrand, that there is no power to grant a new trial in felonies. Bertrand was tried in Sydney for murder, a few years ago, and convicted, but an applica­tion was made for a new trial, and the Supreme Court of New South Wales, on the authority. of the Court of Queen's Bench in The Queen v. Scaife, granted a new trial. The Attorney-General of the colony appealed to the Privy Council, who, in delivering judgment, reviewed the progress which has been made as to the granting of appeals under British law. On this matter the Privy Council said-

Criminal Cases [OCTOBER 10.] Appeal Bill. 1045

"That this improvement has been made in the exercise of a wise discretion, and perhaps inherent powers, for the advancement of justice; that new trials had commenced in civil matters, and advanced in them gradually, and, upon con­sideration, from one class of cases to another; that thence they had passed to criminal pro­ceedings, first, where the substance was civil though the form was criminal, and thence to misdemeanors, such as perjury, bribery, and the like, where both form and substance were criminal." A new trial . may be had, both here and in England, in cases of misdemeanor, but the Privy Council decided, in The Queen v. Bertrand, that a new trial cannot be granted in felonies, thus overruling the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in The Queen v. Scaife. I see no practical necessity for such a Bill as the one before the House. The honorable member for Richmond, in speaking about appeals in civil causes, seemed to o'Verlook the dis­tinction between la wand fact. "Vhen juries find their verdicts upon facts there is no appeal either here or at home against their decisions. When a new trial is granted it is owing either to a question of law, misdirection by the judge, the im­proper reception of evidence, or some similar ground; but there is no means by which a new trial can be obtained, whether a verdict has been given for the plaintiff or defendant, merely upon the facts. Why, then, should that be allowed in criminal cases? There is never any disinclination, as far as my experience enables me to form an opinion, to reserve any point of law raised on behalf of a prisoner at his trial; on the contrary, judges are invariably willing to reserve such questions for the consideration of the full court. I think 'no reasons have been given why the well-beaten tracks which have been laid down by the prac­tice which has hitherto prevailed should be departed from, and most certainly some very strong and sound reasons should be given before we make such a radical change in the law as this Bill would effect.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the prin­ciples of the Bill, but simply to reply to one or two of the remarks of the honor­able member for Richmond (Mr. Smith). I do not agree with the honorable mem­ber that judges go before the Law officers with a bias in favour of whatever views they have previously entertained in regard to any particular case; in fact, they do not go before the Law officers at ali, and

it is only in capital cases that they are asked to attend before the Executive Council. When a man is convicted of a capital crime, and sentenced to death, the Executive Council afterwards consider his case; the judge who tried him reads over his notes of the evidence, and the prisoner has the advantage not only of having the evidence adduced at the trial sifted by every member of the Executive, but also any subsequent collateral evi­deuce brought forward in his favour that can be gathered together. Nothing can be more careful and humane than the consideration which is given in such a case before it is determined that the ex­treme penalty of the law shall be carried into effect. I have known a man con-' victed of murder liberated, at the instance of the Executive Council, because the judge before whom he was tried said that he was illegally convicted.

Mr. DWYER.-I am certainly in favour of having some tribunal to which there may be an appeal on the facts of the case in criminal matters, as well as on the law; but I think the plan which the Minister of Justice proposes to adopt, in accordance with the views of such an eminent authority as Mr. J. F. Stephen, will- meet the case. The honorable gen­tleman stated that when the Bill is pre­pared it is his intention to submit it to the judges and the members of the legal profession. I don't know that that would be a wise course to adopt. I think th~t, after the measure receives the approval of the Cabinet, the Minister of Justice should submit it to Parliament, whose function it is to legislate upon the subject, and that he should not go outside for the pur­pose of gathering opinions in support of it. It may be objected that if there is a court of appeal in criminal cases juries will not be so careful in arriving at a just verdict as they are now, when they know that the full responsibility of the conclu­sion at which they arrive rests upon them. If a jury are aware that a second trial can take place, it is possible that they may not be so careful as they ought to be-that they will come to a verdict more hastily than they otherwise would do; in that aspect, I think that the establishment of a court of appeal would be more to the dis­advantage of prisoners than their advan­tage. I hope that the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Smith) will withdraw the Bill, after the announcement by the Minister of Justice of his intention to

1046 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Puhlic W01'ks Department.

introduce a measure to carry out the plan suggested by one of the most eminent authorities of the present day upon the criminal law.

Mr. F. L. SMYTH. - I certainly approve of this Bill. If a prisoner con­victed of a misdemeanor can obtain a llew trial under certain circumstances, why should a similar privilege be denied to a man convicted of felony? It is a complete anomaly that the law should allow a new trial against a conviction for misdemeanor, involving fine or imprison­ment, but not in cases in which the punishment is death. If a new trial is allowed in any class of cases, surely it ought to be in cases where men's lives are endangered? The case of Spearin affords a strong illustration of the desir­ability of allowing a new trial in crimi­nal cases. If the offence of which that prisoner was convicted had in­volved death instead of imprisonment and flogging, the Plan would no doubt have been hanged a few days after his con­viction; and. yet one of the principal witnesses. in the case has confessed that the charge against Spearih was the outcome of a copspiracy. Notwithstanding the expression of opinion by the Minister of Justice in regard to this case; I hope.that the Attorney-General will arrive at a different conclusion upon it.

At this stage, the time allotted for giving precedence to private, members' business having expired, the debate stood adjourned until Wednesday, October 17.

CIVIL .SERVICE PROMOTIONS. Mr. DWYER moved-

" That there be laid before this House a return of all classified officers in the civil service pro­moted between 1st January, 1874, and 1st Octo­ber, 1877, before having attained the head of the class from which promoted, giving the time' by which each officer fell short of the time neces­sary to attain the head of his class."

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

DRAFTING BILLS. Mr. DWYER moved-"That there be laid before this House a re­

turn of all Bills drafted for the Government, including those drafted by its officers, between 1st January, 1872, and 1st October, 1877, giving the titles of the Bills, the names of the drafts­men, and the fees, (q any) paid in respect to each Bill." " ,

.Mr~ LEVIE~ seco~ded .the, ~otion, which w:as·agr!a·edto, .. :,." :;, ,.: .. ":'"

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. Sir J. O'SHANASSY moved-

"That all petitions from Roman Catholic residents in Victoria, presented to this House during the present session, complaining of the operation of the present Education Act, be referred to the Committee of Supply."

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

SUPPLY. The House then went into Committee

of Supply.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. On the vote of £12,629 to complete

the vote (£19,409) for the Public Works department,

Mr. DUFFY called attention to the item of £485, the salary of the accountant of the department. I-Ie said that officer received the same amount of salary in 1874, when he was promoted to be ac­countant, and when he was promised that, in the Civil Service Bill which was about to be introduced, his classification and, salary should be raised. Unfortunately, that Bill had never been introduced; and, at the present moment, two other clerks in the same office also received £485 a year, although they had not anything like the responsibility of the accountant, or to give guarantees as high as those required from him. He (Mr . Duffy) begged to suggest that an increase to, that officer's salary should appear on the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. A. K. SMITH stated that he knew the accountant of the Public Works de­partment to be a very deserving officer.

Mr. NIMMO remarked that the' gen­tleman in' question had been in the public service 24 years. .

Mr. PATTERSON said that every­thing that had been stated in favour of the officer alluded to was perfectly true. He would take the case into consideration, in the hope that he would ·be able at some future time to deal with it.

MR. EATON. Mr. BARR stated he would never nave

a better opportunity than the present of calling attention to the case of Mr. Eaton, late an inspector in the Public Works de­partment. He presumed that if honorable members were made aware that an injus­tice had been committed, they would be at onc~,anxious to remedy it without regard to legal technicalities or. party feeli~g.: Jl

Supply. [OCTOBER 10.J JJlr. Eaton. 1047

Tho CHAIRMAN. - The honorable member for Maryborough (Mr. Barr) will be out of order if he travels from the ques­tion immediately before the chair.

Mr. BARR moved that the Chairman report progress. He said he would not take this course did he not believe he would not have another chance during the session of bringing Mr. Eaton's case forward. He was not acquainted with Mr. Eaton,. never having even seen him; and all he knew of his case he had gathered from the report of the select committee appointed last year to investigate it. The report of that committee contained the following decisions :-

"First: The plan by which Mr. Eaton's work has been judged does not agree with the specifi­cation, and, therefore, cannot be the plan of the work.

" Second: The work on this plan-which the contractor did not do':""and which comprised the charge made against Mr. Eaton by Mr. Kawerau, is not in the specification.

"Third: That Mr. Eaton was charged with the value of this work when, according to the evidence of the Inspector-General, he should not have been charged with it.

" Fourth: The plan given to Mr. Eaton by which to carry out the work agrees in every particular with the specification, and the work done agrees with both.

"Fifth: That the original plan of this work has been lost.

"Sixth: That Mr. Eaton has been wrongly charged, and therefore wrongly censured."

Upon the basis thus set out, the committee made the following recommendation :-

"Your committee find that Mr. Eaton has been wrongly disinissed, and therefore recom­mend that his salary be paid from the date of his dismissal to the present time, and that he be reinstated, or receive a retiring allowance in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act."

It appe~ed that, although the list of the committee ~ncluded such highly respect­able names as those of Mr. Stewart, Mr. Walker, Mr. Inglis, )Mr. Crews, Mr. Cope, Mr. King, Mr. A. T. Clark, Mr. Richard­son, Mr. Longmor~, Mr. Whiteman, Mr. Johnstone, and Mr; Garratt, their report had not, up to th~present time, been act~d upon. Was 'it likely that such gentlemen would. mrive at any but a proper opinion .on the subject placed before them? Moreover, it seemed that they were put in possession of better and more abundant information on the matter they inquired into th~ any previous com­In~ttee appointed to perform the same duty. Mr. Eaton'~ ca~e. had stood over ev:er sin.oe 1866; ;W;~s it,-gGip.g to ren;utin ~4elvedt .• year after ~ y~ar ? - ~f. inju~tW~

like that which he complained of was to remain longer unredressed, public feeling with respect to the thing would assuredly be roused. What were the intentions of the Government on the subject?

Mr. PATTERSON remarked 'that, as he stated a few nights before, Mr. Eaton's case had been more than once before P.ar­liament, and also made the subject of different decisions. It was, he thought,' somewhat unfair to the Government that they were called upon to deal ,,:ith a num­ber of old cases of grievance, of many years' standing, when they had quite suf­ficient to do in attending to the affairs of that sort which arose in their own time. He fully believed that Mr. Eaton was un­fairly dism~ssed.. The complaint against him was that he published a pamphlet which set forth that he was receiving a large salary from the Government, and rendering nothing like adequate service in return; and, for making that truthful statement, Mr. R. S. Anderson, the then Minister of Public Works, dismissed him. Certainly, if every public officer in Mr. Eaton's position who would not receive his pay for nothing in silence, or without attempting to expose any abuse of which he was cognizant, was to be dismissed, the effect must be to set a dangerous pre­cedent and lay down a very bad principle. Mr. Eaton might not have been the most competent officer then in th~ public ser­vice, but dismissr:l was not the treatment he ought to have received. Nevertheless, there were circumstances connected with his case that told a good deal against him. For instance, the question of plans, on which so much stress was laid by him, was remitted to a board of gentlemen specially qua~ified to deal with it, namely, Mr. Wat·son,'Mr.Wells, and Mr. Galt, and their finding was that he had unduly favoured a Government contractor. It was after receiving this report that the chril service bpard, appointed to deal with the whole matter, decided against him in very. I strong terms, and that, in conse­quence, he was reprim.anded by the Minis­ter of Public Works in 'Office at the time. If ever tlIere was a stage of his case at which)le ought to have been dismissed it

. was then; but he was kept on for years afterward~, and, so far, his offence was condoned. SOPle time sllbsequently he published his famous pamphlet, and the statement$ in it were.so extraordinary that he (M):. Patterson). hims,el£. moved for a committee of inquiry into them. It appeared

1048 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Eaton.

a most surprising thing that a man should be in receipt of a large salary from the State, and yet be doing nothing for it. Nevertheless, when, in consequence of the action he (Mr. Patterson) took, the affair was investigated by the committee of 1874, it was clearly proved that the man had been in receipt for some years of a salary of £485, for which he discharged n<? adequte duties. Something had been said of reckless imputations being made in that pamphlet, but, in view of the charges and counter-charges that had been brought up between Mr. Eaton and various officers of the Public Works department, blame on that score might be said to rest pretty evenly on both sides. The committee of 1874 complahied that the Inspector-General of Public Works did not place before the Minister of Public Works a memorandum clearly setting forth Mr. Eaton's position; but Mr. Wardell's reply was that every successive Minister of Public Works was carefully made thoroughly familiar with the subject, and that either not one of them felt that his duty to the State re­quired him to interfere, or else the political influence of Mr. Eaton overcame in every instance a proper sense of Ministerial re­sponsibility. At all events, Mr. Eaton was allowed by each of them to remain, drawing his salary, and doing nothing for it. All he (Mr. Patterson) could promise was that he would again look into the merits of the case, and endeavour to do justice with respect to it. At the same time, if the present Government were to set about finally dealing with all the old grievances that had arisen under the regime of their predecessors, they would have very little opportunity of performing their proper duties. The finding of the committee of 1876, the last that sat to investigate the Eaton case, differed from the finding of the committee of 1874, and also from that of the boards of inquiry appointed in connexion with the matter, and the circumstance deserved attention. He did not wish to reflect in any way upon the committee of last year, but he felt bound to say that they appeared to have been rather one-sided in taking evi­dence. Some of the members seemed decidedly favorably disposed towards Mr. Eaton from the start. His own opinion was that had Mr. Eaton been allowed in 1874 to retire from the public service, a proper arrangemen.t would have been made.

Mr. Patterson.

Mr. RICHARDSON said he would not have risen to say a word on the present occH,sion but for the fact that the Minister of Public Works charged the select committee which sat last session to investigate the Eaton case, and of which he (Mr. Richardson) was a member, with having called evidence in a one-sided fashion. He gave that charge a distinct denial. He did not know Mr. Eaton in any way-he only saw him once-except through the proceedings of that committee. The evidence of Mr. Wardell alone was amply sufficient to prove that the man was wrongly dismissed, inasmuch as the plans upon which the complaints against him were founded were not those which were given to him to carry out, while the plans he really receivell were un­doubtedly thoroughly followed. The latter plans were produced before the committee by Mr. Wardell himself. No doubt the Government would give the matter fair consideration.

Mr. LANGRIDGE stated that he was a member of the committee of 1874, and was thoroughly surprised at Mr. Eaton being dismissed on the strength of the report they brought up. He never antici­pated such a conclusion.

Mr. COPE said he was a member of the Eaton select committee of last session, and never, in all his political experience, did he know a more disgraceful case brought forward. In the first place, it was charged against Mr. Eaton that he did not make the contingent reduction from a certain contractor's work which, according to certain plans, he ought to have made; whereas it was shown by the evidence of the contractor himself that the plans upon which Mr. Eaton was accused were not the same as those which were given him to go by. There was a specification actually lodged in the Public Works department which proved the same thing. Another charge against Mr. Eaton was that he gave information to a contractor which prevented the Government from defending an action which that contractor brought against them; but it was disproved upon the most indubitable testimony. Furthermore, it was shown, on the testimony of the very gentleman who made the drawings, and who was at the present time altogether independent of the Public W ork& depart­ment, that the plans which went against Mr. Eaton were not in existence until some six days after the contract with

Supply. [OCTOBER 10.] Mr. Eaton. 1049

which it was supposed to be connected was signed.

Mr. KING considered Mr. Eaton had been most improperly treated. Not every man would be so what was called foolIsh-he doubted whether he would, under the circumstances, have done the thing himself-as to make the fact that he was allowed to receive £485 a year without doing anything for it a matter for serious complaint; but inasmuch as Mr. Eaton's doing so showed his staunch honesty, it was unjust to make him· suffer for it. He (Mr. King) perfectly remembered that the case between Mr. Eaton and Mr. Wardell at one time as­sumed such a shape that it became neces­sary for one of them to leave the public service, and that Mr. Eaton, as the junior officer, had to go. For the Minister of Public Works to say that the committee of 1876 took evidence in a one-sided way was most unfair. Furthermore, he might mention that the animus displayed against Mr. Eaton by Mr. Wardell was most ob­vious, and that many of the reflections cast by the latter were most gratuitous, unnecessary, unjust, and untrue.

Mr. KERFERD thought the Min­ister of Public Works acted most im­properly in casting upon a predecessor, with respect to the performance by the latter of a very unpleasant duty, a re­flection which had no just foundation. It was impossible for any impartial per­son capable of weighing evidence to read the report upon which a former Minister of Public Works came to the decision which his successor now impugned, without ar­riving at 11 similar conclusion. He (Mr. Kerferd) hoped that when the present

.matter came again before the House the Minister of Public Works would repeat what he had said that evening against his predecessor, in order that the latter might have more justice done him than was possible under existing circumstances.

Mr. PATTERSON asserted that there was nothing in the report of the committee of 1874 to justify the decision upon it arrived at by the Government of which the honorable and learned member for the Ovens was the head. It was remarkable that the members of that Government who were in office last year had so little con­fidence in their former conclusions on the subject, that they were content to allow another select committee to be appointed to inquire into the matter all over again.

. Why, if they thought Mr. Eaton was VOL. XXVI.-4 G

rightfully dismissed, did they not on that occasion bring their majority into play in order to prevent a fresh committee from being appointed? He had promised to give the report of that commi ttee every a tten tion, and he would fulfil his promise. He did not mean to reflect on the gentlemen who composed the committee, many of whom were among his personal friends, but he did not think they kept fairly in mind the effect of Mr. Eaton's own evidence in 1874, and the report, with respect to the plans given to Mr. Eaton, which was ar­rived at by the professional board. He regarded Mr. Wardell as having treated Mr. Eaton with great leniency. One cir­cumstance brought to his consciousness by the present discussion was that, until a new Civil Service Act was passed, merit in the service of the State would often have to go unrewarded, for want of ability on the part of the Executive to re­move useless public servants out of the way in order to promote deserving ones.

Mr. MIRAM S considered' that, if the Assembly ought to stand on its privileges with regard to the Council, it ought equally to do the same thing with regard to the Executive, and insist upon its vote being respected. Last session the House, by a majority of five, decided that a certain sum of money should be paid to Mr. Eaton. Why did he not get it?

Mr. MUNRO explained that the vote alluded to, which was not that any money should be paid to Mr. Eaton, but that His Excellency should be asked to place a certain sum on the Estimates for him, was only carried on the last night of the ses­sion, and after the Appropriation Bill was passed. No doubt honorable members were then under the impression that the money would be paid.

Mr. RICHARDSON thought it right to say that Mr. Wardell gave evidence before the committee of 1876 in a really excellent manner. With respect to the report of the professional board, alluded to by the Minister of Public Works, it ought to be borne in mind that it was only through the evidence of professional gentlemen, including the Inspector-Gene­ral, that the com~ittee were enabled to get at the right plans about which honor­able members had heard so much.

Mr. KERFERD said he had never con­tended that it was not the action of the Cabinet of the day that caused Mr. Eaton's dismissal ;' but why, with that fact before him, did the Minister of Public Works

1050 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] J.l'Jr. Eaton.

try, in the first instanc,e, to single out his predecessor as responsible for the whole affair? No doubt when the proper time came he (Mr. Kerferd) and the honorable member for Maldon, who was Treasurer at the time~ would be perfectly able to defend the course they' pursued.

Mr. NIMMO considered that the Go­vernment' ought to feel complimented by being looked to to redress all the griev­ances of by-gone years., One vital circum­stance in connexion with the evidence given to the committee of 1876 was that the condemnation of Mr. Eaton was brought about on false evidence. He was judged by plans with which he had nothing to do, . while the proper plans, which would have justified him; were kept out of .the way. All this opened up matter for' serious consideration. Mr. Eaton having endured such injustice be­cause of the false plans produced against him, what ought to be done to,those who hid the true plans? He (Mr. Nimmo) could not bring himself to believe that Mr. Wardell was in any way responsible for the right plans not having been brought forward at the right time, but, inasmuch as he was, doubtless, misled in the matter by some one, that some one ought to be punished. But for the moral cowardice of one Minister of Public Works after another, in letting Mr. Eaton receive pay year after year without doing work for it, the present difficulty would never have arisen.

Mr. COOPER contended that Mr. Eaton's treatment ought at least to be equal to that which would be received by a convicted prisoner who was suddenly found to be entirely innocent, and the victim of false evidence. Assuming the statements which had been made to the committee concerning the hiding of cer­tain plans to be correct, honorable mem­bers ought not to lose a moment in re­dressing the shameful wrong Mr. Eaton had had done to him.

Mr. BAYLES observed that honorable members had not before them anything in the shape of tangible evidence to show that the statements they had listened to, concerning Mr. Eaton having been con­demned on false evidence, were absolutely correct. It would only be fair and even­handed justice· to leave the matter with the Government for their consideration and inquiry. ,

Mr.BAR'R sta~ed that, in b~inging the matter before the comm~ttee, he had pur­posely avoided saying anything reflecting

upon anyone. All that he asked was that justice should be done to one whom he believed had been wronged, and for that reason he had confined himself to the statements contained in the report of the committee. After the promise of the Minister of Public Works to take action, he would not further press the matter.

Mr. LEVIEN said the action which the Minister of Public Works proposed to take was no action at all. As he un­derstood, the Minister declined to deal with the question. His impression was that the Minister said that Mr. Eaton had suffered a great wrong, but he could not be expected to deal with the case, because he was not responsible, and he had quite enough to do to deal with cases which had cropped up since he had been in the department. He hoped the matter would be referred to the Cabinet, and that they would deal out substantial justice to Mr. Eaton, who undoubtedly ought to be re­compensed either by a money vote or by some proper and suitable appointment.

The motion for reporting progress was put and negatived.

Mr. LANGRIDGE called attention to an item of £2,000 for" temporary assist­ance by clerks, draughtsmen, assistants to measuring and quantities surveyor." For the last three or four years, he under­stood, a system had been in force in the Public Works department of letting con­tracts on the basis of quantities taken out from the plans and lithographed, copies being furnished to the contractors, and of attaching what was termed a sche­dule of prices to each contract. He had very great doubt whether the sys­tem answered. The system. meant the measuring, while the work was in pro­gress, of every stone, every piece of timber, and indeed everything in con­nexion with a public work, first, on behalf of the Government, and, secondly, on be­half of the contractors, and the proceeding must cost a large sum of money which he supposed the Government had to pay. In fact a staff had to be kept simply for the purpose of measuring work. But large contracts were carried out successfully before it became the practice to attach a schedule of prices to each contract. He believed the practice was adopted by the department on the recommendation of a board which sat some three or four years ago ; but, inasmuch as some very large contracts would have to be let in the future, he hoped the Minister of Public·

Supply. [OC1'OBER 10.J Tlte Yan Yewl. 1051

Works would give the matter his atten­tion, with the view to ascertain whether the system could not be dispensed with or be very much modified. . Mr. PATTERSON observed that his attention had ab:eady been called. to the great expense involved in the wor~ of measuring up, and he would take ca,.re to hAve the matter inql\ired into wjth a view to see whether, while paying due reg~rd to efficiency, some of the. ~oney could J;l.ot be saved. He believed that one recommenda­tiol.l of the sy~tem' was that it was not possible for contractors under it to make large fortunes. I

Mr.-;MACBAIN ~uggested to the Min­ister of Public Works that he should act with gre&t care in this matter. The prac­tice now in force was. adopted on the re­commend~tion of a ~oyal commission, and should not be departed· from without good and satisfactory reason~. It was the prac­tice in force in the old country in con­nexion with almost all Jarg~ Government contracts, and experience showed that it was far more satisfactory and economical than. the practice which previously pre­vailed in this colony. He believed that the more the present praotice was investi­gated the more would its advantages be realized.

'£he vote for th~·Public Works depart­ment ;was then agreed to.

YAN YEAN WATER SUPPLY.

On the vote of £8,i4~ (to complete the vote of £14,345) for the staff of the Yan Yean Water Supply department;

Mr. CARTER "inquired whether the Government had' t!1ken the necessary. steps to secure an adequ~te supply of water to the metropolis during the coming summer? There was plenty 9f water in the Yan Yean reservoir, but' he doubted whether the mains were sufficient.to bring down enough water to fill the retioulation pipes, which. were being extended in every direction. . ..

Mr. PATTERSON said he did not think any department was managed so well as the Yan Yean. As fast as money came in from the sale of water to the public, it was laid out in pipe extensions. There' was an ample supply of water in the reservoir at Yan Yean, and every po~­sible precaution had been taken with the vie~ of averting any such deficiency of supply during the coming SUDllDer !1S -the honorable member for St; Kilda (Mr; ,Carter) seemed to apprehend. ;rn

4G2

a very short time another reservoir would be constructed at Kew, and, when that 'Yascompleted, ~elbourne and the suburbs would be placed beyond the possibility of experiencing the scarcity which prevailed a few years ago. It need not be supposed that the Govern­ment were making any profit out of the Yan Yean, because all the revenue over and above the interest on the loan and the amount necessary to meet working expenses was spent in reticulating various parts of Melbourne and the suburbs.

Mr. CARTER stated that the view put forward by the Minister of Public Works was quite inaccurate. The citizens of Melbourne had paid for the whole cost of the Yan Yean works by means of water rates, and, if previous Governments had kept faith, the works would have been handed over to the city before this. The works were constructed on the dis­tinct agreement that, whenever the rates amounted to a sufficient sum to pay the cost of construction, the works should be handed over to the city of Melbourne. There was no reason or justice in the citizens of Melbourne paying water rates simply to enable the Government to spend the proceeds of those rates in other parts of the country. The fact was that Go­vernments had found the large revenue of £70,000 or £80,000 per annum derivable from the Yan Yean so exceedingly con­venient that they did not like to part with it. The consequence was that they had not only neglected their duty with respect to water supply, but they had also pre­vented Melbourne carrying out that scheme of flewerage which it was intended ori­ginally should be carried out in conjunc­tion with the Yan Yean works. He was aware that the Yan Yean reservoir con­tained plenty of water; but the Minister of Public Works had not answered his question as to whether any steps were being taken to put down an additional main to bring the water into Melbourne.

Mr. MUNRO observed that the talk which was continually indulged in about the citizens of Melbourne~ paying all the money for the Yan Yean was one of the most. outrageous mistakes he had ever heard. The inhabitants of the city of Melbourne numbered 60,000; the inha­bitants of Melbourne and the suburbs numbered upwards of 200,000. (Mr. Carter-" I inch'Lded the suburbs.") The honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter) desired the Yan Yean works to

1052 Suppiy. [ASSE:MBt Y. ] The Yan Yean;

be handed over to the Corporation of Melbourne, on the plea that the citizens had already paid the cost of those works; but the inhabitants of the suburbs would be very sorry to see those works in the hands of the City Council. He was sure that the suburbs were better supplied with water than they would be if the works were in the hands of the City Council. It was the duty of Parliament b see that the Yan Yean works were utilized as much as possible for the benefit both of Melbourne and the suburbs, and to guard against the appeals which were constantly put forward that the profits arising from the Yan Yean should be applied to the carrying out of sewerage works for Melbourne. For the City Coun­cil to want the control of a water system which extended for a considerable dis­tance outside Melbourne was something which passed his comprehension.

Mr. CARTER stated that the honor­able member for Carlton had misunder­stood him. He was not one of those narrow-minded people who, when they spoke of Melbourne, meant the city only. He said that the population of Melbourne was 200,000, but that of course included the population of the whole of the suburbs. Of course, the city of Melbourne paid the largest proportion of the rates, simply because the property was more valuable, and the rating was according to value, but the city was quite willing that the suburbs should join it in the management of the Yan Yean scheme. All that he wanted to know was whether steps were being taken by the department to enable Melbourne and the suburbs to be properly supplied with water during the coming saason.

Mr. PATTERSON remarked that con­tinual steps were being taken in that direction. (Mr. Carter-" Is there to be another main ?") Really the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter) did not comprehend the situation when he talked about another main. If the honorable member saw the plans of the mains and the reticulation of Melbourne, he would not talk about another main. From the Yan Yean there ran an open aqueduct to a certain point, and then there were two large main pipes running down to Preston; from Preston there were a great number of large feeders or distributors extending in different directions, including Bruns­wick, Collingwood, and the city of Mel­bourne. Further provision for supplying

the south side of the Yarra would be made by means of the reservoir at Kew. The plans of the Yan Yean system wanted looking into to enable anyone to under­stand its various ramifications. Before the honorable member for St. Kilda talked of another main, it would be well for him to ascertain how the city of Melbourne was supplied at present. There could be no question that it was well supplied. Indeed every attention was being paid to the matter by the Chief Engineer for Water Supply. Why almost every day he (Mr. Patterson) had a report from Mr. Gordon with reference to the Yan Yean.

Mr. CARTER said if Mr. Gordon was of opinion that another main was not re­quisite he was willing to accept the opinion, but he had been under the im­pression that the present mains from Preston could not possibly carry the quan­tityof water necessary for the supply of Melbourne.

Mr. A. K. SMITH observed that a third main was being laid down fr.om Preston. About 26,000,000 gallons per day were brought down from Yan Yean to Preston, and, by means of three mains between Preston and Melbourne, the me­tropolis could be supplied with something like 18,000,000 or 20,000,000 gallons per day, which was an ample supply, and which was not exceeded in any part of the world. At the same time, he could understand what the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter) referred to, and which really was the mismanagement that allowed the water to fall too low in the Preston' reservoir, and did not provide a main of sufficient calibre to bring the quantity required into Melbourne. That mismanagement resulted in the construc­tion of a second main, and a third was now being laid down. He apprehended there was no danger of the supply falling short on that account during the next or any subsequent hot season. One diffi­culty connected with the supply of water hitherto was that the reticulation pipes originally laid do}Vn in Melbourne were too small; and therefore it was important for the attention of the Chief Engineer to be specially called to the necessity of seeing to the equalization of pressure. He be­lieved the arterial mains from Preston suf .. ficiently large to supply all the water likely to be consumed, particularly if the depart­ment would only insist upon the consump­tion being by meter. In several towns in the. United States, where an immense

Supply. [OCTOBER 10.] Tlte Yan Yean. 1053

quantity of water was consumed waste­fully and surreptitiously, the introduction of the meter system resulted not only in a greater revenue, but also in a great saving of water. One matter which would have to occupy the attention of the department in a very short time was the necessity of enlarging the gathering ground for the supply of the Yan Yean reservoir. For some years, owing to the regular rain, there' had been no difficulty in furnish­ing an adequate supply of water; but old colonists recollected periods of drought, which might occur again, and which, if they did occur, would seriously limit the supply of water from the gathering ground to the reservoir. Then again, the Minister of Public Works had stated that as revenue from water rates came in, it was applied to the extension of the reticulation pipes, and if the consumption continued to increase as it had done within the last few years, it would in a short time overtake the natural supply. It had been pointed out that a considerable supply of water of superior quality could be obtained from the Watts river, and it would be well for surveys to be made with the view of ascertaining how far the water supply to Melbourne might be supplemented from that direction.

Mr. PATTERSON remarked that a survey of the Watts river was commenced the previous week, in order that intending settlers might know exactly the limits within which they might take up land, it being intended to make the rest of the area a water supply reserve. The other suggestions which the honorable member for 'East Melbourne (Mr. Smith) had made would receive his best attention. He might point out that with a reservoir at Rew, for the purpose of supplying the districts south of the Yarra, and three mains on the north side, there would be n<>-. difficulty in regularly supplying Mel­bourne and the suburbs with the quantity of water the honorable member had re­ferred to. He desired to add that the Yan Yean department gave him greater satisfaction and less trouble than any other he had to do with. It was thoroughly well worked, and, under such circum­stances, he believed the public would never consent to the control of the Yan Yean being handed over to the Corpor­ation of Melbourne.

Mr. DIXON asked for information as to the condition of the reservoir at Rew . . Application had frequently been made by residents of St. Rilda for the extension

of the reticulation to streets which would yield 12t or 15 per cent. on the outlay, and the reply given, while the late Min­ister of Public Works was in office, was that it was impossible to make extellsions in that direction until such time as the reservoir at Rew could be constructed. That was the answer given to an appli­cation for the laying down of about half a mile of main pipes to supply a large number of small householders, and yet shortly afterwards, during the reign of the same Government, two miles of mains were laid down in order to convey water to the residence of the honorable and learned member for the Ovens. There were several streets in his district, the inhabitants of which were thirsting for water, where the laying down of pipes would be attended by good returns, and the answer which those people received to their applications was that water could not be supplied to them until the reser­voir at Rew was constructed. Under these circumstances, he was very anxious to know what progress was being made with that reservoir.

Mr. PATTERSON stated that the Additional Estimates which the Treasurer proposed to bring down would contain provision for constructing the reservoir at Rew. Steps had already been taken with a view to the purchase of the site, an area of 8t acres belonging to somebody living in Tasmania. He believed that the owner was asking a large price for the land, and no doubt the powers contained in the Lands Compensation Statute would have to be brought into operation in connexiOll with the matter.

Mr. STORY suggested that, during the recess, the Minister of Public Works should make inquiries as to whether some alteration could not be made in the gather­ing ground beyond Whittlesea. There was no scarcity of water, and it came from the mountains as clear as crystal, but before it got to Yan Yean it was in such a condition that it needed time to settle. What really was required was the employment of labour in the improvement of the catchment area. Were that done, there would be no difficulty in finding plenty of water for the supply of Mel­bourne and the suburbs.

Mr. COOPER observed that if the YanYean works ought to be handed over to the City Corporation, as the hon­orable member for St. Rilda (Mr Carter) advocated, simply bec~use the citizens of

1054 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Warrnamhool Harhour.

Melbourne had paid in water rates a sum equal to the original cost of the works, on the same principle the Eastern Market ought tq be free to the public, simply because the dues hitherto paid amounted to far more than had been expended by the corporation on that market.

Mr. CARTER remarked that if the City Council had agreed that the rent paid for the Eastern Market, when it amounted to a sufficient sum, should be taken as the purchase money, and that thenceforward the market should be free, they would have carried out that arrange­ment with the good faith for which they had been uniformly distinguished, and he only regretted that the Government did not act in the same spirit.

Mr. LAURENS asked the Minister'of Public W ork~ whose duty it was to value, for water-rate purposes, properties which were not valued by the municipal valuator? Only the previous day, it came under his notice that the Hotham Town Council had to pay water rates to the amount of £10 per year for their muni­cipal offices, and yet in those buildings very little more than drinking water was consumed. He did not find among the departmental staff provided for on the Estimates any such officer as a valuator. Of course, he was aware that each muni­cipality supplied the Government with a copy of the municipal valuation, on the basis of which the water rates were col­lected, but he was anxious to know whose business it was to value municipal offices, and property of a similar description which was not included in the municipal valuation.

Mr. PATTERSON observed that the department had rate collectors, and did the best it could with regard to municipal offices and other property which might not be included in the municipal valuation.

Mr. LAURENS remarked that munici­pal valuers were under the obligations of a Statute, and had to make declarations before they proceed to value. To that extent private proprietors were secure, and it seemed strange that quite as much protection was not afforded to public pro­perty. There was one other matter which he desired to impress upon the Minister of Public Works, and that was that the same privileges which were enjoyed by the city of Melbourne with respect to street watering should be extended to the suburban municipalities.

The vote was agreed to.

GEELONG WATER SUPPLY. On tJi~ vote of £490 to complete the

vote (£779) for the staff of the Geelong Water Sup'ply department,

Mr. KERNOT called attention to the fact 'that until a recent period the water supplied frofll the 'Geelong waterworks was very impure, and that its' purification by means of what was known as the lime process had, been carried out in such a manner that the water was too hard for ordinary washing purposes, and the mana­gers of the woollen factories feared that they would have to discontinue its use, and revert to Barwon water. The fact was that the lime had been used without regard to scientific management.

Mr. PATTERSON, remarked that an anom:'ly prevailed in connexion with the Geelong waterworks. The collection of the revenue was vested in the Public Works department, whereas the reservoir and the works were under the control of the Mining department. He would under­take to. bring the matter mentioned by the honorable member for Geelong (Mr. Kernot) under the notice of the Minister of Mines; who, no doubt, would promptly attend to it.

The vote was agreed to.

WARRNAMBOOL HARBOUR. On the v:ote of £150,760 to complete

the vote (£280,760) for' various public works, . Sir J. McCULLOCH called attention to the item of £4,600 for harbour improve­ments at Warrnambool. He observed that all the Governments that had been in office for a number of years past had admitted the necessity for something being done towards improving the ·harbour at Warrnambool. The Minister of Public Works in the Government of' which Mr. Francis was the head recommended that a sum of £10,000 should be placed on the Esti­mates for that purpose, but, owing to a change of Government, that proposal was not carried; and the present Treasurer, when he was in:· office on a former occa­sion, admitted the n~cessity for something being done to give greater facilities at Warrnambool for the>. loading and unload­of vessels. There could be no doubt that in a country like thi~, where the oppor­tunities for water carriage were so few, it was important that every port should be made as convenient as possible for the pur­poses of commerce, because the carriage of

Supply. [OCTOBER 10.] Warrnambool Harbou1'. 1055

goods by water was far cheaper than by any other mode. He believed that the commerce of Warrnambool was not fairly understood. In 1875, the exports from that place were 27,800 tons, the value of them being £286,627; and the imports were 13,000 tons, the value of them being £520,000. So that it would be seen that the traffic of the port of Warrnambool was something considerable. Under these cir­cumstances, he contended that if anything conld be done to improve the harbour it ought to be done. He was aware that some honorable members were of opinion that harbour works to be of any value could not be constructed at Warrnambool for less than £100,000, but last year the Inspector-General of Public Works, in conjun,ction with the municipal engineer, submitted to the late Government a plan according to which all that was really necessary, all that was required by the people of the district, could be accom­plished for £30,000. Under those cir­cumstances, the late Government entered into a contract for £30,000, towards which the House had already voted £10,000. Of that vote only £5,400 had been ex­pended, so that the £4,600 on the present Estimates was merely a re-vote; but unless the Government really intended to carry out the work as contracted for it would be far better not to pass the item at all, be­cause to expend this £4,600 and then allow the whole matter to drop would be attended by no good whatever; the money would be utterly wasted. He thought the committee were justified in consider­ing this matter from a point of view dif­ferent from that taken by some honorable members on a former occasion, for the reason that within the past few days a report had been made by Sir William Jer­vois on the works now being constructed at Warrnambool. (Mr. Berry-" No.") What he meant to say was that Sir William J ervois had made in public a statement with regard to the works now being con­structed at Warrnambool, and which would involve an expenditure in the whole not of £100,000 but £30,000, and had intimated that he intended to send in to the Government a report of his views on the subject. It must be admitted that Sir William Jervois was eminently quali­fied-perhaps better qualified than any other gentleman who had visited the colony-to advise the Government on the subject, and this was what he stated at Warrnambool a few days ago :-

"He had also directed his attention to the harbour works of War1;nambool, which he had regarded, first, with reference to the considera­tion whether any harbour works were necessary; secondly, what plan should be adopted; and thirdly, whether the present plan was the best to meet the requirements of the harbour. He had no hesitation as to his answers on these three points. As to the first, it must be con­sidered, when looking at the country round Warrnambool, that so much produce must re­quire a port where it could be easily shipped. As to the third, if harbour works could be com­pleted, no doubt the situation was peculiarly adapted for such works. On the third point--­the works which were now being carried out­he did not at this moment see any improvement which could be proposed in that which was being done. He ventured with modesty to say that he had some little title to form an opinion. He had for many years minutely observed the harbour works of Alderney, of Cherbourg, of Portland, and of Dover. He had seen the har­bours of Alexandria and Port Said, and many others, had studied their construction, and knew their capabilities, and was acquainted with their weaknesses and strong points, and with the nature of their construction in every case. It appeared to him that the works in progress at Warrnambool were capable of fulfilling the required conditions, and he could not suggest anything by way of improvement of that plan. He would the.refore have great pleasure in reporting to the Government of Victoria that these works should be proceeded with." After that statement from a gentleman so well qualified to pronounce an opinion upon the subject, he (Sir J. McCulloch) trusted the House would not stultify the action of a past Parliament, by allowing the works already constructed to become utterly useless, as they would be unless the scheme was carried out to completion. He considered that for the sake not merely of Warrnambool, but of the large and im­portant district of which Warrnambool was the outlet, it was necessary that the port should be made convenient for the landing and shipping of goods. He trusted the Government would give some assu­rance that a further sum of money would be provided in order that the works already commenced might be carried out to completion. The £4,600 on the Esti­mates would be expended in the course of the next three or four months, and he presumed that the Government did not wish that the works should then be brought to a stand-still.

Mr. DWYER expressed the opinion that it was proper on the part of the Govern­ment to make inquiry not only as to whe­ther works in progress would be beneficial, but whether they would confer the greatest possible benefit that could be obtained from the expenditure. He thought that

1056 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Warrnambool Harbour.

every credit was due to the Government for not having decided hastily, or without due inquiry, to place any sum on the Esti­mates for harbour improvements at Warr­nambool. They deserved credit also for availing themselves of the opportunity of asking such a high authority as Sir Wil­liam J ervois to report in respect to these harbour works. Before that report, he (Mr. Dwyer) had doubts, which were shared by many persons, as to whether the works were the best form of works that could be carried out for the benefit of the port. He expressed those doubts at an interview which a deputation had on the subject with the Minister of Public Works, and he was severely taken to task for it by some persons at Warrnambool ; but in doing so he considered that he was only performing his duty both to the particular locality more immediately concerned and to the country at large. He thought it was doubtful whether the particular form of works which had been commenced ought to be carried out, and that it was desirable further inquiries should be made before any additional sums of money were expended upon them. Inquiry had since been made by Sir William J ervois, who was the highest competent authority, not only here but probably in the British dominions, and that gentleman had not only spoken favorably of the character of the works, but said that he could not even suggest an improvement upon them. Under these circumstances, the same duty which, be­fore Sir William J ervois' report was made, led him to express doubts as to the utility of the works, now compelled him to say that not only should the works be con­tinued, but that they should be carried out in the mode in which they had hitherto been proceeded with. He considered, in fact, that it was the duty of the' Govern­ment to ask honorable members to vote a sufficient sum of money to complete the works now in progress. If Warrnambool was not a place calculated to hold its own -if its commerce was declining-it would be quite justifiable for the Government to refuse to proceed further with the works; but the fact was that the trade of the port had actually doubled itself during the last 1 ° years, the value of its imports and exports now amounting to something like one million sterling per annum, whereas in 1867 it fell short of }:alf a million. This was an element which ought to be taken into consideration

Itlr. Dwver.

in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the ha:rbour improvements should be car­ried out or not. It was sufficient to turn the scale in favour of the comple­tion of the works, even if there was no other reason. He hoped that the Govern­ment would pay due respect to the recom­mendation of Sir William J ervois, who had no local prejudices, but was perfectly unbiased and disinterested in the matter. Having invited the report of that officer, they ought to act upon it.

Mr. NIMMO remarked that he would ha ve great respect for any report fur­nished by Sir William J ervois on works of an engineering character; at the same time, it must not be forgotten that engi­neering, like medicine and the law, was divided into several branches. For ex­ample, there was road engineering, mili­tary engineering, and hydraulic engineer­ing, and it was very rare to find a man who was an authority in all departments of engineering-just as rare as it was to find a lawyer who was an authority upon common law, equity, and criminal law. He could not lose sight of the fact that, long before the ,:isit of Sir William J ervois, the port of Warrnambool was inspected 'and sur­veyed by the highest engineers of this colon y, and each of them came to the conclusion that these works would involve an expenditure of about £120,000 before they could be made of any utility to the port, and condemned the idea of any such expenditure being incurred. The local authorities, who very naturally questioned the accurracy of the findings of those engineers, engaged, at their own expense, the services of the best marine engineer in Sydney, and his report was confirmatory of the reports of the Victorian engineers. He had every respect for the report of Sir William J ervois, but that report wa,s no doubt based upon the plans and sec­tions of the harbour improvements as they would be when completed. Very likely Sir William J ervois said that the plans were the best that could be prepared for the purpose, but they involved an expen­diture of £120,000, as they were designed to meet requirements which .did not exist at the present time, and could not possibly exist for very many years to come. Be­cause Sir William J ervois said that the plans were the best that could be pre­pared, that did not prove that the works were now required. He (Mr. Nimmo) apprehended that an expenditure of £120,000 on harbour improvements was

Supply. [OCTOBER 10.J Warrnambool Harbour. 1057

far greater than the importance of Warr­nambool demanded. He trusted ·the Government would pause before recom­mending the granting of any additional money for a work which was of very doubtful utility, to say the least of it, while there were many needful works that required to be executed-works .con­cerning the utility of which there could be no doubt. There certainly ought to be a further report and survey before any additional expenditure was incurred. He understood that during one election con-' test the walls of Warrnambool were placarded with the announcement-"V ote for McCulloch and £10,000 for the Warr­nambool Breakwater." He did not blame the honorable member for Warrnambool for this, but he certainly thought that the general body of the taxpayers of the country ought not to be saddled with an expense in consequence of the return of any particular man for a particular dis­trict.

Mr. BAYLES stated that he had been connected with Warrnambool for over 25 years, and had watched its progress from a port with a few trading schooners until now it was the most important port in Victoria outside Port Phillip Bay. (Mr. Munro....;.."What is the depth of water at the anchorage?") He would refer to that presently. The honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Nimmo) spoke of the port of W arrnambool having been in­spected by some eminent engineers before the visit of Sir William J ervois, but he would ask the honorable member who those gentlemen were? Colonel Ward was one, Mr. Wardell was another, and Mr. Gordon was a third. Against their opinion was the authority of Sir 'Villi am J ervois, who was thoroughly competent to express an opinion about harbour works. As to Sir William Jervois' ex­.perience on such matters, he would quote that gentleman's own words:-

"He had for many years minutely observed the harbonr works of Alderney, of Cherbourg, of Portland, and of Dover. He had seen the harbours of Alexandria and Por.t Said, and many others, had studied their construction, and knew their capabilities."

The estimate of the gentlemen who stated that the harbour improvements at Warr­nambool would cost £120,000 was based on the calculation that the breakwater was to be of bluestone, which would be very expensive, and therefore their esti­mate was considerably in excess of what

was proposed to be carried out now. It appeared, and there was the testimony of Sir William J ervois in support of this opinion, that to carry out the works to an extent which would be amply sufficient to protect the jetty, and enable all the shipping in the port to lie alongside the jetty and discharge cargo in all weathers -in fact, to do all that was necessary for a great many years to come-would only cost £33,000. The evidence of the cap­tains of vessels trading to Warrnambool was to the effect that even what was already done was of advantage to the port in keeping the bay, to a certain extent, quiet. The statistics quoted by the honorable member for Warrnambool showed that the trade of the port fully justified this expenditure. During the last six months-the dullest time of the year - the exports from Warrnambool amounted in value to about £150,000, and there was no other port outside Port Phillip Bay which did such an export trade. Portland could not show such a trade. The expenditure contemplated on harbour improvements at Warrnambool was small in' comparison with the trade of the port. He would like politics to be altogether excluded in the consideration of such an important question. (Mr. W oods­" Was that the case at the election ?") He could assure the honorable member that it was made an election cry by one party just as much as the other. One party claimed to have originated the vote, and the other to have carried it out. He wished to. see the question dealt with on its merits, apart altogether from politics. Mr. Fran­cis, when Chief Secretary, after receiving a report from the Inspector-General of Public Works, admitted that Warrnambool was entitled to this breakwater, and that it was necessary it should be carried out. Mr. Fraser and Mr. Langton also visited the port, and each arrived at the conclu­sion that the works ought to be gone on with. He was convinced that if any members of the present Government visited the port and investigated the sub­ject they would come to the same conclu­sion regarding it. The carrying out of the works would be for the advantage not only of Warrnambool but of the large producing and 'consuming district around it, the trade of which had to be filtered through 'Varrnambool. Not less than about 25,000 tons of potatoes were an­nually exported from Warrnambool, and on one occasion he saw as many as six

1058 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.]. Warl'nambool Harbour.

steamers and seven or eight sailing vessels lying in the port, all waiting either to discharge or receive cargo. It was but just that reasonable facilities should be provided for the quick loading and un­loading of vessels, and he hoped the Go­vernment .would see their way clear to carry out improvements to the extent con­templated when the £10,000 was origi­nally placed on the Estimates. With. reference to the use of cement blocks instead of bluestone, he might mention that it was proved that a large quantity of kelp grew on the cement blocks, which had the effect of staying the motion of the water, and helped to cause the sea to be calm and smooth inside the anchomge when it was tough outside. He was satisfied that if the Government instituted any further inquiries than had already been made, the result would be to confirm previous reports as to the usefulness and necessity of the works.

Mr. MUNRO observed that the honor­able member for Villiers and Heytesbury (Mr. Bayles) had not answered his ques­tion as to the depth of water at the anchorage at Warrnambool, having no doubt found it jnconvenient to do so. The honorable member for Warrnambool stated that unless additional money was voted to complete the works the small item of £4,600 might as well be struck out altogether. He had no objection to take the honorable member at his word, and move that the item be struck out. Its omission would not only gratify the honorable member for W arrnam bool, but would also gratify those honorable mem­bers who did not wish to see money unnecessarily and improperly expended. Eighteen months ago the first vote for these works was passed by the most disgraceful abuse of power ever seen in a deliberate Assembly. No plans were in existence, and no estimate of the ulti­mate cost of the works was given. When information was asked for by the honor­able member for Maldon and several other members, the then Minister of Public Works (Mr. Jones) resorted to the "iron hand," and moved" That the motion be now put," and thus the vote was carried nnder the gag, information about it being refused. On a subsequent night, when the vote was reported to the House, infor­mation was again asked for, and a brief memorandum from Mr. Wardell was sub­mitted, estimating that the works would involve a total expenditure of at least

£110,000. He would refer honorable mem­bers to Hansard, vol. 23, p. 2,661. No other" information was furnished to the House, and no plans were submitted. But at that time the honorable member for Warr­lrambool was monarch of all he surveyed. (Mr. MacBain-" As you are now.") He did not, however, intend to ask the House to vote £10,000 with the view of eventually incurring an expenditure of £110,000,

. without giving a scrap of information as to how the money was to be expended. A great deal was now made by the honor­able member for Warrnumbool of the opinion given by Sir William J ervois, who, after being feasted at Warrnambool, declared that it would be very nice indeed that money should be expended there. That opinion was on a par with one sub­sequently given by Sir William J ervois in South Australia, when, without know­ing anything about the country, he said that a railway to Port Darwin would be a most excellent thing. Both state­ments were made after dinner. These were not made as the calm cool report of an engineer expressing a professional opinion, but were made simply to please or amuse his audiences. If hon­orable members who were opposed to the carrying out of the harbour works were invited to a dinner at Warrnambool perhaps they might be a little more gene­rous. If the £5,400 which had already been expended had been pitched into the sea, at all events it had done its work as it had secured the return of Sir James McCulloch for Warrnambool at the last election; and it would be better to keep the £4,600 for the next election. If after then the honorable member managed to get the "iron hand" into operation again, no doubt he would obtain £50,00U or £100,000 for Warrnambool. The honor­able IQ.ember for Villiers and Heytesbury spoke somewhat disparagingly of Portland, but Portland had not yet been represented by a Chief Secretary. Perhaps when Warrnambool became tired of its present representative the honorable gentleman would go to Portland, and then it would become a place of very great importance. As a matter of fact, how­ever, the bay at Portland was far superior to that at Warrnambool, the depth of water at the anchorage being 17 fathoms as against 3~ fathoms. (Mr. Bayles - "What is the advantage ?") The advantage would be seen from the fact that, if a breakwater were erected at

, Supply. [OCTOBER 10. ] Warrnamhool Harhour. 1059

Warrnambool, where there were only 3t fathoms of water, it would be swept away by -the first heavy storm, just as was the case last year with the breakwater in the harbour of Wick, on which £200,000 had been expended. A breakwater at Warr- . nambool would inevitably be swept into the sea unless about half a million of money was expended in carrying it out into very deep water, where the roll of the Southern Ocean would not be so heavy as to destroy the works. It had not been proved to the satisfaction of Parliament, or of any impartial individual, that one shilling of the money which had been ex­pended on harbour works at Warrnambool had been spent to advantage, or that any practical utility would arise from the out- ' lay. He did not in the least object to the honorable member for Warrnambool occu­pying that position for the rest of his life. or to Warrnambool getting the benefit of the expenditure of any public money ~o which it was fairly entitled; but he (lId object to money being forced through the Assembly simply for political purposes, and being used for political purposes at the general election. As to the stat~ment which had frequently been made III the press and elsewhere, that the last Berry Government placed the £10,000 on the Estimates for W arrnam bool, a greater falsehood was never coined. The fact was that, in 1875 the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Anderson) in the Kerferd Go­vernment prepared estimates for. pl~blic works in a number of country dIstrIcts, including Warrnambool, but, as the Trea-' surer found that he would not have the means at his disposal to carry them out, they were omitted from the Estimates sub­mitted to the House. Shortly afterwards, when. the Berry Ministry took office, a' deputation, accompanied by the honorable member for Warrnambool, waited npon the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Patterson), and asked that the £10,000 for harbour improvements at Warrnambool should be restored to the Estimates. The reply' which Mr. Patterson gave to the deputation was as follows :-

" The Minister of Public Works said that his attention had already been directed to t~e omis­sion from the Estimates recently submltted to

• P.arliament of provisi?n for many p~blic works in the country distncts of great Importance. For the Warrnambool harbour works the late Government had made no provision owing to want of funds. Tbe policy of the present Go­vernment would be to prosecute all such public works with vigour. The finances had in some way fallen behind, a difficulty the,Government

had to surmount, but, subject to the approval of the Cabinet, and to success in raising revenue, the works at vVarrnambool harbour would be pro­ceeded with. Whether a work of this magnitude, involving a probable expenditure of £110,000, should not be charged to a loan rather than to ordinary revenue, would be a que~tion for con­sideration but he had no doubt that III some shape 01' other it would find a place in the Additional Estimates."

It would be seen that the total expendi­ture contemplated was £110,000. Well, all that was done was that the Minister of Public 'Vorks promised to subrpit to his colleagues the whole of the votes for pub­lic works which had been struck off by the preceding Government, but they-were never submitted, and were never placed on the Estimates. The honorable member for Warruambool becaine' Premier and Trea­surer of the ilext Government, and what did he do? Out of all the items in ques­tion, the only ones which he pla\!ed on the Estimates were the vote for Warrnambool and a vote for Geelong, hopiNi by t~e latter that he would secure the support of the ex-Chief Secretary (Mr. Berry) and the Opposition for the £10,000 for Warr­nambool. The Opposition at that time, however, were a little more lively than .the present Opposition; they protested agamst the injustice of voting that £10,000, and determined to stop it, which they would have done if the" iron hand" had not been brought to bear upon them. The money had really been pitched into' the sea, but honorable members were told that it had been very usefully expended because it was arowing kelp. He thought that pub­lic I';oney could be applied to a better purpose than growing kelp. In ~on­elusion, he begged to move that the Item of £4,600 for harbour improvements at Warrnambool be struck out.

Mr. HUNT called attention to an item of £3,000 "towards clearing the rivers Murray and Goulburn," and asked what portion of the Goulbul'll it was intended to clear?

Mr. PATTERSON replied that there had been some dredging at the mouth of the Goulburn, but it was bel~eved that the principal portion of the £3,000 could be more usefully expended on the Murray than on the Goulburu.

Mr. A. K. SMITH remarked that though a good many different kinds of enaineers-marine, hydraulic, and mili­tm; engineers-had visited Warrnambool, it appeared to him that the question of whether the harbour improvements at

1060 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Warrnambool Harbour.

that port should be carried out was going to be settled by political engineers. The honorable member for Warrnambool had not been much in the Chamber lately, and his presence that night had no doubt led the honorable member for Carlton to move that "the item of £4,600 be struck out. He remembered that not very long ago there was a vote of £10,000 for im­provements at Carlton. (Mr .. Munro­"Not in my time.") He (Mr. Smith) found no fault with that vote-he be­lieved it was absolutely necessary-but he also believed that it was absolutely necessary to go on with the harbour im­provements at W arrnambool. The hon­orl\ble member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Nimmo) was barking up the wrong tree when he spoke of an estimated expendi­ture of £110,000 on those works, because the honorable member for Warrnambool had stated that, though the original estimate of the Inspector-General of Public Works was £110,000, there was an amended proposition to provide the accommodation required at an expense of £30,000.

Mr. MUNRO said that was never sub­mitted to the House.

Sir J. McCULLOCH asserted that it wa-s.

Mr. A. K. SMITH observed that £10,000 was voted last year contingent on the works costing £30,000.

Mr. MUNRO challenged that state­ment.

Sir J. McCULLOCH said it was dis­tinctly stated at the time that the works would cost £30,000.

Mr. MUNRO asked the honorable mem­ber to produce the estimate.

Sir J. McCULLOCH remarked that the honorable member for Carlton knew perfectly well that it was estimated that the works would cost £30,000.

Mr. MUNRO replied that there was no such estimate submitted to Parliament.

Mr. PATTERSON said that the works had always been spoken of as part of a scheme which must involve an expenditure of at least £110,000. Sir William J ervois was never asked for a report on the sub­ject; he merely made an after-dinner speech, and it would be found that he alluded to the whole scheme, and not to part of it. The honorable member for Warrnambool himself constrained the In­spector-General of Public Works to re­duce the amount and modify the scheme

to meet the requirements of the people of Warrnambool at the time. It was to cost £30,000, and what afterwards? (Sir J. McCulloch-" Nothing.") After the £30,000 was expended the next cry would be - "What use are the works unless you complete the scheme?" All the professional evidence went to show that to improve the jetty accommodation was the proper thing to do. That was the reason wby they should proceed cautiously. If the House was willing to spend £ 11 0,000 or £ 120,000 at Warrnambool, let it be done. The Government bad not the slightest ob­jection, but it should be clearly understood whether the money was to be appropriated out of the general revenue, at the rate of £10,000 per annum for the next 10 or 11 years, or whether the expenditure should be provided for out of a loan. Perhaps it would be better to discuss that question first. The honorable member for Warr­nambool contended that the whole scheme for the defences should be submitted before any money was voted on account of it; and why should not the whole of the scheme for the expenditure of £110,000 on the Warrnambool breakwater be sub­mitted before the House was committed to it? As the actual expenditure usually exceeded the estimate by a third or a balf, he had no doubt that a breakwater of 600 yards in length would cost £200,000 be­fore it was finished rather than £ 110,000. The Inspector-General of Public Works had always regarded the first 200 yards of the breakwater as only a portion of the scheme. (An Honorable Member-H It will be of no use.") A breakwater of 200 yards might shelter the small jetty in fine weather, but to be effectual it must be carried out to a distance of 600 yards. That was the report of the Inspector­General, and it was supported by the opinion of Mr. Gordon and Colonel Ward. It was unjust to the Inspector­General to take him to Warrnambool, and endeavour to press him to use language in reference to the breakwater he never meant. He was glad that Sir William J ervois had borne out what the Inspector­General had said in regard to the whole scheme, and that was all he had done. Were the Government to do what the late Chief Secretary did-induce the Inspector­General to approve of something being done that was contrary to what he thought ought to be done? The scheme which that officer regarded as the proper one W8,S wholly different from that which the

Supply. [OCTOBER 10.J Warrnambool Harbour. 1061

late Ministry compelled him 'to assent to, for he had over and over again distinctly stated that the breakwater to be complete must be extended for 600 yards (which would cost £110,000), so that it might shelter the town. pier as well as the small jetty. Were honorable members ready to take £10,000 a year out of the revenne for the next eleven or twelve years for a work of that description? As to the item of £4,600 to which the honorable mem­ber for Carlton objected, it could scarcely be struck off the Estimates, because the money was already actually expended; but, considering the circumstances under which the original vote was launched, and the work inaugurated,. he (Mr. Pat­terson) did not consider the Ministry under any moral obligation-certainly not the obligation usually resting upon an Executive to carry forward what their predecessors commenced-to see it com­pleted. The whole thing was from first to last what the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Smith) called a piece of political engineering. Good ports outside the Heads were what the colony greatly wanted, but before any considerable amount of money was, with that object in view, expended at either Portland, Warrnambool, or Belfast -which it was intended to improve by opening up the mouth of the Moyne-the exact basis on which operations should be carried on ought to be clearly laid down. The Government must take up the thing as a whole or leave it alone altogether. He was glad the honorable member for Carlton had done the Government the justice of contradicting the statement so often made that it was the Treasurer and himself (Mr. Patterson) who pri­marily initiated this Warrnambool break­water business. It would be found in the records of the Public Works department that the Minister of Public Works who first proposed to appropriate money for the purpose was Mr. Fraser, who took steps' in order that honorable members might be asked to vote £10,000 for it, together with certain other amounts for other public works in varions parts .of the country. He was not able to carry out his intention, but subsequently, when the Berry Government of 1875 was in office, they placed the whole of the sums on their Estimates, intending to provide for them by means of their land tax, which, however, they lost. What followed? They retired from office, a~d the late

Chief Secretary coming into power, his plan was to reject everyone of the items save the £10,000 for his own consti­tuents. With what result? That all the public works he then refnsed to have anything to do with were now restored to their proper place on the Estimates, where they stood as a judgment against him.

Sir J. McCULLOCH remarked that he had told his constituents, over and over again, that there was no chance of getting their breakwater completed if voting the money for it were made a party question, and it was now quite clear that the matter was made a party question. An Honor­able Member-"Who made it one ?") . He did not. The first he ever heard of it was when the Treasurer, before his constituents in Geelong, in September, 1875, distinctly asserted that Warrnam­bool was a place that ought not to be neglected by the Government. With what was posted on the walls at Warr­nambool concerning the subject he had no more to do than the Treasurer. Furthermore, it ought to be remembered ·that 'at the particular time those posters' appeared the honorable gentleman was himself at Warrnambool, having come there to oppose his (Sir J. McCulloch's) re-election, and that he then emphatically stated that the £10,000 ought to be provided by the Govern~ent. He did not say he had himself placed it on the Estimates, but he expressed the opinion that it ought to be so placed. As to what had been said about £ 11 0,000 being re­quired for the Warrnambool harbour, he (Sir J. McCulloch) had always opposed the granting of any such sum for the purpose. He had always spoken of that amount as far too large, and, as the Minister of Public Works knew very well, he' told him so in his own office. He then stated to him that the opinion of practical seafaring men, as well as of engineers, was that a breakwater of 200 yards would meet all the require­ments of the place. (Mr. Patterson~ "The professional opinion is that the breakwater ought to be 600 yards long.") No doubt the work would be still better if it were made to extend for 600 yards, but it was certainly never his desire that it should be so extended, nor did the people of Warrnambool wish. it to be supposed that so large an under­taking in their behalf was at all necessary. Itsurprised him to hear that Mr. Wardell

1062 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Warrnavzbool'Harhou11•

considered that the breakwater could not be completed except at a cost of £110,000, because that officer told him that he was perfectly satisfied of the great value of the works in progress, and was confident that they could be executed for £30,000. Moreover, he assured the people of Warr­nambool, over and over again, that he had perfect confidence in what had been under­ta~en, that its cost would not exceed £30,000, and that it would well meet the requirements of the port for a long time to come. The Minister of Public Works stated that Sir William J ervois had given or was about to give a report to the effect that the bre'akwater ought to extend for 600 yards, and be carried out at the cost already mentioned, namely, £110,000. (" No.") Most certainly that was 'what the honorable gentleman led the House to believe." (An Honorable Member-"Have you any knowledge of what Sir William Jervois thinks ?") He (Sir J. McCuHoch) simply knew that Sir William J ervois had expressed an opinion most favorable to the work that was being carried out, namely, the construction of a 200 yards breakwater, and stated that he could sug­gest no improvement upon it. He (Sir J. McCulloch) had not the slightest desire that honorable' members shoUld commit themselves to a f~rther expenditure upon the projected breakwater unless they were perfectly satisfied that the work ought to be proceeded with; and, if the Govern­ment would ask Sir William Jervois for a report on the subject, an'd the report, when it came; set forth that the work ought not to becompleted~ he would have nothing more to say. ,Furthermore, if the Government stated that they only proposed to stop going on wIth the work for want of further information on the subject, he would be :content to let the m~tter rest for the present on that basis. With respect to the remarks of the honor­able member for Carlton, he could only say that the honorable member frequently spoke so excitedly that there was no know­ing to what length his words would run. Surely he must often, when at his home at night,. regret the language he had used. What he said that evening was quite in­consistent with the facts of the' case. It was to be hoped he would look at the matter differently before he had done with it. That an expenditure 'of £110,000 was contemplated when the vote !or the Warr­nambool b,reakwa.ter was, taken: two years ago :wa's a ~omplete misatatement~·· . It· was

Sir J. McCulloch.

asserted in plain words by the then Mill" ister of Public Works that the cost of the entire work would .not exceed £30,000, and, as a matter of fact, a contract for that amount or thereabouts was shortly afterwards entered into upon the usual understanding that if more than £10,000 was not voted, the agreement on the sub: ject would cease to be binding. He (Sir J. McCulloch) trusted that, however,hon­orable members might choose to -regard the affair, his constituents would not be required to suffer from the circumstance that he represented them. Surely the

, time was not far distant when money would be voted for districts regardless of the character of- their representatives, and of whether -they sat on the Go­vernment or the opposition· side of the House. He believed that nothing could be fairer than his request that the whole question should rest on the basis of a report on the subject to be procured by the Government. from Sir William Jervois. '

Mr. A. K. SMITH' expressed the hope that the Government would, if they did not at present see their way clear to continue the construction of the Warr­nambool breakwater, seek at the earliest moment to obtain a report on the subject from Sir William J ervois. The almost European reputation of that gentlem~n would undoubtedly secure the utmost re­spect for his opinion on the point. ,His (Mr. Smith's) idea, in view of the immense extent of the exports and im­ports at the port of W arrn~bool, was that it would not be too much to raise the money required for the work-:"even if ,the amount was £110,000-by means of a puqlic loan. A trade equal to 27,000 tons of exports and 13,000 tons of impor.ts per annum' would easily pay 5, or '6 per cent. on the outlay. In reply .to '. what the honorable, member :for . Carlton said about kelp growing over the blocks already laid down, he would mention that he could quite understand' the circum­stance alluded to: being a proof of, the enduring nature of the structure. .

Mr. MUNRO asserted, that "it, 'was a fallacy to suppose that, when' the. vote, for the breakwater was passed in '187 6, honor­able members' 'were told that' the total expenditure on' the work would be no more than £30,000. He challenged the p~oductioi1 of any record in Hansard or elsewhere of any such statement. 'The point now .. was-would the. expenditUiie

Supply. [OCTOBER 10.] Warrnambool Harbour. 1063

of £:W,OOO meet the requirements of the port? The municipal engineer of Warr­nambool, who surely ought to know more of the subject than any engineer who merely paid the place a flying visit, was of a decidedly contrary opinion. It was clearly the duty of the Government to obtain a report on the matter from Sir William Jel:vois without delay .. If he (Mr. Munro) could see his way to per­manently benefit the port of Warrnambool in any proper or reasonable fashion, he would be eager to follow it, irrespective of the honorable gentleman who repre­sented the district or anybody else.

Mr. RICHARDSON said he was not at all sure that honorable members could approach the present suoject without po­litical feeling. At the same time it was hardly necessary for the honorable mem­ber for Carlton to be so severe upon the honorable member for Warrnambool. He might guess that the feelings of the latter must be already greatly harrowed by see­ing the position in which this particular public work, the offspring of his "iron hand," was placed. It would indeed be inn teresting to know the exact nature of the thoughts that passed through the honor­able member's breast that evening, when he contrasted the present proceedings with those which transpired when money for the Warrnambool breakwater was first voted. When his (Mr. Richardson's) thoughts recurred to the subject he felt great regret, but surely the sentiments of the honorable member must amount to something more than regret. At the same time there was no doubt that on every occasion of the present kind honorable members ought to dismiss all political associations from their minds. He often thought how bad it was for the colony to have, throughout its hundreds of miles of coast, but one good harbour and port, and he had often wondered whether a second harbour could be constructed at Warr­nambool; but he had lately learned, on very good authority, that that place was by no means the best that could be selected for the purpose, and that it owed its pro­minence, with respect to public expendi­ture, merely to the fact that it had secured Sir James McCullochforits representative. That honorable gentleman stated just now that when the £10,000 for the breakwater was voted honorable members were clearly. shown that the work could be successfully, executed for '£30,000; but how did that assertion tally with the circumstance that

on that very occasion the honorable mem­ber for Maldon quoted a variety of autho­rities to prove that the undertaking was something upon which no money at all ought to be expended, and that whatever funds were devoted to it would be thrown away? Indeed, in view of all the circum­stances of the case, it was hardly possible to suppose that so careful a political econo­mist as the late Chief Secretary was would ever have consented to the expenditure had its object been the improvement of any place but the one which lIe repre­sented. For instance, during the debate alluded to reference was made to a report from Mr. Moriarty, who laid down the opinion that the proposed breakwater would so effectually block the channel that the entrance to the harbour would soon be closed up by a sand bank; and also to the report furnished to the Public Works department by Mr. Wardell, Mr. Gordon, and Colonel Ward, who expressed an opinion adverse to a breakwater at all, and especially one only 200 yards long. They held tl;1at an expenditure of £30,000 upon the latter would be perfectly use­less. In fact, in his (Mr. Richardson's) opinion, the work was entered upon under conditions that would not justify a man, who had only his own rilOney to spend, in the erection of the smallest house. .

Mr. MUNRO stated that, under the circumstances, he would withdraw his proposition to strike o~t ~he' item of £4,600.

Progress was then reported. The House adjourned at eleven o:clock.

LEGISLATIVE COUNOIL. Thursday, October 11, 1877.

Visit of the Governor: Assent to Bills.

The PRESIDENT took the chair at· eighteen minutes past six o'clock p.m., and read the prayer.

ASSENT TO BILLS. At twenty minutes past six o'clock, the

Usher announced the approach of His Excellency the Governor. Immediately afterwards, His Excellen.cy and suite entered the chamber.

The members of tlie Legislative Assem-bly having been summoned, .'

1064 Assent to Bills. [ASSEMBLY.] Frank Spearin.

His EXCELLENCY gave his assent to the following Bills :-

1. Justices of the Peace Act Amend­ment Bill.

2. :Melbourne Market Site Bill. 3. City of Melbourne Corporation

Rating Bill. 4. Public Works Loan Expenditure

Validating Bill. 5. Land Tax Bill. The mempers of the Legislative Assem­

bly withdrew, and His Excellency and suite then retired from the chamber.

The House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past six o'clock, nntil Tuesday, October 16.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Thursday, October 11, 1877.

Queensland Chinese Act-Coliban Water Supply-Frank Spearin-Gippsland Railway: Engineering Staff at Moe­General Sessions: Benalla and Wangaratta. - Supply: Public Works: Harbour Improvements at Warrnambool: International Exhibition at Melbourne: Reclamation of West Melbourne Swamp: Industrial Schools: Defence of the Colony-Visit of the Governor: Assent to Bills.

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

RAILWAY CONTRACTS. Mr. WOODS presented a further re­

turn to an order of the House (dated August 2) for papers relating to the Gipps­land and Inglewood railway contracts.

QUEENSLAND CHINESE ACT.

Mr. BIRD asked the Chief Secretary whether, as it appeared that the Royal assent had been given to the Queensland Chinese Act, the Government would take early steps to introduce a simila~ measure in Victoria?

Mr. BERRY said that the same neces­sity did not exist ,here as in Queensland for an Act like the one which had recently

, been passed by the Legislature of that colony. If any difficulty should arise in regard to the Chinese in Victoria, the Government would be prepared to take some action commensurate with the re­quirements of the case.

COLIBAN WATER SUPPLY. Mr. R. CLARK (Sandhurst) asked the

Minister of Mines when the Coliban water supply scheme was likely to be com­pleted?

Major SMITH said he was informed by the Chief Engineer for Water Supply that there was only one contractor who had not completed his contract within the time specified. His time had been ex­tended, but it was fully expected that the contract would be completed by the end of the present month. All the ordinary works would then be finished, except the reticulation of the districts to be supplied with the water.

FRANK SPEARIN.

Mr. ZOX asked th~ Minister of Justice what course the Government intended taking in the case of Frank Spearin, now undergoing a sentence of ten years' im­prisonment for a' criminal assault?

Mr. GRANT, in reply, read the fol­lowing memorandum from the Secretary of the Law department:-

" This case came under the personal notice of the Attorney-Generalin May, 1875, when Messrs. McKean and Wilson informed him that a charge of conspiracy was about to be preferred against the Uttings in regard to the prosecution of Spearin. Consequently, a postponement of the trial of the Uttings, who had been committed for perjury, was sought. A reply was sent." [The reply stated that the Attorney-General had no power to postpone the trial. If, how­eyer, Messrs. McKean and Wilson would be so good as to place in the hands of the Crown Solicitor satisfactory affidavits, upon which the Prosecutor for the Queen might proceed, the Attorney-General would not object to the neces­sary application being made on the last day of the present sitting of the Central Criminal Court.] "The 'Prosecutor for the Queen was duly in­structed, and at the close of the sitting of the Central Criminal Court for the month, he re­ported that, having received nothing from Messrs. McKean and Wilson to support an ap­plication for an adjournment, 'he had no course open but to nolle prosequi.' Meanwhile Messrs. McKean and Wilson submitted statements as to the character of the Uttings. The Prosecutor for the Queen reported thereon. Messrs. McKean and Wilson, on 4th June, 1875, stated that they were instructed to apply to the Court, or a judge, for a grand jury under the Act No. 502, in con­sequence of the nolle prosequi, and sought copies of the depositions for the purpose, but they did not go on for the grand jury, nor has anything been done, so far as is known to this department, in respect of the' conspiracy' case. In July, 1875, a petition was presented in Spearin's be­half by Messrs. McKean and Wilson. This petition was fully reported on by the learned judge and the Prosecutor for the Queen on the case, and no sufficient grounds having been dis­covered for His Excellency's interference, advice was tendered accordingly. Various Ministers have investigated the matter, and have fully considered the voluminous documents therein. Copies have been laid upon the table of the Legislative Assembly, and as yet no good reasons had been found for advising the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. The papers h:l.ve, since

General Sessions. [OCTOBER 11.] Benalla and W dngaratta. 1065

the advent of the present Administration, been placed in the hands of the Attorney-General, who is now engaged in a further investigation of the whole matter."

GIPPSLAND RAILWAY. Dr. MACARTNEY asked the Min­

ister of Railways whether he had any objection to state what were the duties now being performed by the engineering staff at Moe; and whether it was his intention to shift their camp?

Mr. WOODS said that the staff at Moe, which consisted of an engineer and two assistants, were at present engaged in measuring up the contractor's work, but their services would probably not be required after the 31st of December next, when the contract time expired, and they would then be available for other work.

GENERAL SESSIONS. Mr. GRANT moved-"That an address be presented to His Ex­

cellency the Governor, praying that courts of general sessions may be held at Benalla and Wangaratta." He said that under the Judicature Act of 1874 (No. 502) no new courts of general sessions could be established unless they were asked for by an address from both Houses of Parliament. Applications had been made during the last :five or six years by the people of Benalla and Wan­garatta for the establishment of courts of general sessions at those places, and he thought that their request ought to be complied with. Benalla was 50 miles from Beechworth, the nearest town at which general sessions were held, and m.any witnesses and other persons were put to great inconvenience in having to go so far as Beechworth.

Mr. LALOR seconded the motion. Mr. KERFERD asked whether there

were any statistics to justify the additional expense which would be incurred by the establishment of courts of general sessions at the places mentioned in the -motion? Up to the time he left office the number of commitals was so few that the applications for the proposed courts had always been refused; but it was possible ~hat there might now be good and sufficient reasons why they should be acceded to. He also desired to know if the Government proposed to erect local gaols, or if the prisoners convicted at Benalla and Wan­garatta were to be conveyed to the Beechworth or Kilmore gaol to undergo their sentences.

VOL. XXVI.-4 B

Mr. GRANT replied that he thought it was not desirable to increase the number of country gaols, and therefore it was not his intention to recommend that one should be established at Benalla or Wangaratta. All prisoners convicted there would be sent to Beechworth. In the establish­ment of courts; of general sessions the convenience of witnesses ought to be con­sidered, as well as the question of expense. A large population was now settled in the districts of which Benalla and Wangaratta were the centres, and the representatives of those districts in both Houses of Par­liament had strongly represented that courts of general sessions ought to be held at both places. The Government felt that the!'e was no longer any justifi­cation for refusing to comply with the request. .

The motion was agreed to, and a message inviting concurrence therein was ordered to be forwarded to the Legislative Council.

SUPPLY. The House then went into Committee of

Supply. Discussion (adjourned from the previous

evening) was resumed on the vote of £150,760 to complete the vote (£280,760) for various public works.

Mr. LEVIEN said that the subject more immediately under discussion when progress was reported, the previous even­ing, was the item of £4,600 towards the cost of the Warrnambool breakwater. He thought it was highly desirable that, in dealing with this question, honorable mem­bers should, if possible, set aside all party feeling, and determine to do what was right and would be beneficial to the country. An expenditure of £10,000 had already been incurred, and, in order to make that outlay of the slightest use, it was necessary that a further sum of £20,000 should be expended. He under­stood that £30,000 would construct a breakwater which would afford good pro­tection to the harbour for the present, but that, if the trade of Warrnambool continued to increase, it might be desirable at some future time to extend the break­water at an additional cost of £70,000 or £80,000. Howeverimproper the initiation of the undertaking might have been, the Government would be responsible for throwing £10,000 into the sea if they did not complete the contract. It was re­ported that a condition was inserted in the contract which would oblige the

1066 Supply. . . [ASSEMBLY.] Public Works: .

GO,vernment to pay:.a. heavy fine unless "they went on with, ,the works.' The con­tractors, in fact, had laid o~ltla considerable sum of moneY'in> appliances for depositing the large' blocks.of-concrete, and it was rumoured that. compensation would have to be paid" to . them unless they were allowed to .complete ,the' works as origin .. ally ,contempJated. This' ,phase 'of the matter' was one .which ought not to be lost sight of. He was astoni'Shed, and he thought honorable members might very well be disgusted, at' the. exhibition which the Treasurer had, made of. himself in the course of the' discuss~on on this question., In a speech which he delivered 'at Geelong on the 16th August, .1875;_ the honorable gehtlejn~n said- , . '

"Th'e, harbour works 'at:Warrnambool 'are works which t believe to be absolutely necessary for that rising and thriving port. It certainly seems strange. ,that out of, ail expenditure of £4,500,000 a sum.·of £10,000 could 'not'be set apatt to continue'these important works."

At Warrnambool, ,the honorable member was reported to have said-

,,' He'had placed "£] 0,000 on the Estimates for Warrnambool harbour works because it ,was a righteous thing, and he was connected with the country party, which sought to secure a fair. sbare of expenditure ~or·tp.~ country."

Whether it was the. statement made at Warrnambool or the statement made in the House which was not true was im­material-he left the honorable member to accept either alternative-but it was certainly a very degrading state of affairs when reliance could not be placed on the statement of a public man. Though he was not an advocate of the "iron hand," and was not present, in consequence of ill­ness, during the" stone-wall" performances, he maintained that if ever there was any justification for putting in force the "iron hand" it was when the' members of an ex-Government attempted to talk down the vote of £10,000 for harbour works at Warrnambool, which they themselves, when in office,. declared to be a righteous thing. In 'the division which took place on the vote on the 23rd of··M.arch, 1876, the honorable member for Ararat said ~." re was perfectly true that this sum 'was placed on. .the Estimates by the Berry Ministry ." Would the Chief Secretary still deny the fact? Did the honorable gentle­man think t,hat the vote was righteous and proper bc:;cause he expected' it would purcha.se .the -support of the' honorabl~ member~ for Watrnamtiool), and then sud-: <ltlnly tind: thdti~it W'~.~·:unrighteGus...;..a·

Mr. Levien.

disgraceful expenditure of public money­when he discovered that the honorable member for' Warrnambool was not to be bought with £10,000? He hoped that hon­orable members on the Ministerial benches would not support the Government in their determination not to complete the works to the extent of £30,000. If they did, the £10,000 which had already been expended would have been literally thrown

: into the sea. He trusted that the Go­vernment would reconsider their decision

, in the matter .. He also desired to know : whether an item of £30,000 for " erection of mid repairs and additions to post and telegraph offices throughout the colony," included a sum for the extension of the telegraph to Drysdale, the necessity for which he had on several occasions brought

: under the notice of the Government of the • day. He likewise thought that some in­formation should be given about the fol­lowing items :-£24,500 for the erection of court-houses, &c.; £7,000 "towards the erection of an industrial exhibition building" in Melbourne; and £500 for "opening-tip quarries and testing free­stone."

INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION. Mr. GILLIES called attention to the

item of £7,000 towards the erection of an industrial exhibition building, and asked if the Treasurer could furnish any infor­mation on the subject in addition to that given in the Budget speech, when the honorable member stated that the proposed building would probably cost about £100,000? He did not know whether the Government intended to fix upon' a site for the building themselves, or whether they had had any designs for the structure prepared. He trusted that the Govern­ment would supply some information to Parliament on the subject before they even went so far as to authorize the commence­ment of the foundations of the buiiding.

Mr. BERRY said that the question of the site and the' kind of building to be erected upop' it would certainly be ,sub~

'mitted ,to : Parliament' 'before .the matter wasfirially. dedided upon."' One of t~e reasons why the item of £7,000 had been placed on the Estimates was t9 afford honorable members an opportunity of raising a discussion upon the subject. It would be better for honorable members to , reject the vote if they disapproved of the project; but, if the"vote was agreed ,to, the Government woul~ take ~t ~~r g~nted:

Supply. [OCTOB'ER I1.J Internati01ial· Exhibition. 1061

that the proposal was approved of on its merits. It was not intended to incur any large expenditure until the whole of the plans were prepared and laid before Parlia­ment next 'session, but inquiries would be made without delay, so that the building would be completed in time to hold an in­ternational exhibition in it before the end of 1879. He believed that the Paris Ex­hibition Commissioners were now making inquiries with respect to the best site, and were in communication with the City Council on the subject. If an opportunity of deciding that question arose before the termination of the present session, he would be glad to submit the matter to Parliament without delay, as it would be a great convenience to the Government to be able to proceed with the project as rapidly as possible. (Mr. Kerferd-"What is the proposed expenditure?") He had already stated that it would probably be about £100,000, but he hoped to have more information on the subject shortly.

Mr. GILLIES stated that he under­stood the erection of this building had been suggested with the view of holding an exhibition to which not only the neighbouring colonies but countries in Europe and : America should be invited to send contributions.' He did not know if any steps had been taken to ascertain whether the Imperial Government would assist this colony to obtain the assent of various countries in Europe to send ex­hibits here. If no steps of the kind had been taken, he thought that ought to be done. It was a matter of extreme impor~ tance to Victoria that' the proposed exhi­bition, if held at all, should be a successful one. It would be the worst possible thing that could happen to the colony if it erected a magnificent structure, capable of receiving exhibits from almost all the countries of the world, and Europe and America refused' to send any exhibits here at all. He hoped that communica­tions would be made to the Imperial Go­vernment, as well as to the Governments of the neighbouring colonies, on the sub­ject, before the proposed structure was commenced, and when replies were re­ceived Parliament would be in a better position than it was at present to judge whether it would be desirable to incur the large expenditure which the erection of the building would entail.

Mr. CARTER asked how it was pro­posed to raise the rest of the money? The City Council would not be likely to

consent to have one of the public reserves spoiled by the laying of· foundations on which there was to be no superstructure.

Mr. KERFERD observed that when an exhibition was held i~ Melbourne to' which exhibits were sent from the other colonies there was always 'it difficulty in regard to the question of duties, and the . protection of patent rights. On the occa­sion of every 'Suc~ exhibition Parliament had 'h~d to pass· a special ACt to protect the exhibits.. If there was to be a build­ing erectea in Melbourne witll:· 'the view to the holding of an international exhi­bition, would it not be wise to pass an Act for. the man~gement and control of it, so that the Act, when placed on the statute-book;· could be sent to'the various countries whose co-operation was desired, to acquaint them with the state' of the law on the subject, and enable them ·to know exactly under w:hat circumstances they could' send exhibits here? The in­troduction of such a measure would also afford Parliament an opportunity of tho­roughly considering the whole matter.

Mr. BERRY said that; immediately after the debate on the Budget, he com .. municated, through the Governor, with the Imperial Government with respect to this matter.' He was anf(ious, first of all, to know whether any European power contemplated holding an exhibition after the Paris Exhibition, and before or at the time of the proposed international exhi­bition in Melbourne in '1879. After a while a reply was received, but unfortu­nately telegraphic communication through departments'iras not always of a satis­factory character, and probably the pro­posal· of a colony like this to hold an international' exhibition was liable to be misunderstood at home. It' would take some little time before the beight of the ambition of the colony was understood. Another telegram was afterwards sent, to which a reply had also been received. Generally speaking, he might say that the reply on the part of the Imperial Govern­ment was very cautious, as might naturally be expected. . They had some difficulty in separating Victoria from the rest of the Australian colonies. They apparently had an idea that it ought to be an Australian exhibition. All this went to show how little they understood what Victoria required. No doubt when the arrangements were thoroughly understood any reasonable co-operation would be given by th~ Imperial Government. At

1068 Supply_ [ASSEMBLY.] Warrnambool Harbour.

all events there was no exhibition likely to take place that would conflict with the one proposed to be held in Melbourne. Of course, if any substantial reason arose, the Government could change the date for holding the exhibition, but otherwise they would adhere to the time he named a few weeks ago. The year 1879 was fixed because of the expectation that, if that year were selected, a large number of ex­hibitors at the Paris Exhibition might be induced to make arrangements to send their exhibits to Melbourne before taking them back to their own countries; and thus the chances of the success of the exhibition would be greatly increased. He did not suppose that there would be such a large exhibition in Melbourne as would be expected in a European capital; but, looking at the relations of Victoria with the East, as well as with England, America, and many other countries, there could be very little doubt that the project would be a great success-infinitely be­yond anything that had hitherto been achieved in this part of the world. The Paris Exhibition Commission was one of the most practical and energetic commis­sions that had ever been appointed in this colony. The chairman had been r~com­mended to be appointed as an executive commissioner to proceed to Paris, and it was the intention of the Government to give effect to that recommendation; Part of the duties of the secretary and the executive commissioner would be, in their different routes to Paris-for they would not travel the same way - to make known to the countries through which they passed that it was the inten­tion of the Government of Victoria to hold an international exhibition in Mel­bonrne in 1879, and endeavour to get the co-operation of those countries, and induce them to send exhibits here. He had every reason to believe, from the practical ability and energy displayed so far, that very con­siderable success would attend the exertions of those gentlemen. When they reached Paris and England they would place them­sel ves in communication with the English commission for the Paris Exhibition, of which the Prince of Wales was chairman, and endeavour to interest them.in the ex­hibition proposed to be held in Melbourne, and generally to further the objects of this country in that direction. The Govern­ment anticipated that their exertions would be marked by a very considerable success; and if the vote of £7,000 were

Mr. Berry.

passed they would use their best endea­vours to bring the matter to a satisfactory issue. The honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Carter) might be quite sure that no unsightly unfinished building would be erected, the intention being to make the structure a permanent addition of beauty to one of the public reserves. The Go­vernment would consider the suggestion of the honorable and learned member for the Ovens, but probably it would be time enough to give effect to it next session.

WARRNAMBOOL HARBOUR. Mr. BAYLES asked whether the Go­

vernment intended to pay a visit to Warr­nambool, in order to ascertain whether it would not be advisable to carry out the proposed harbour improvements in accor­dance with the plan contemplated when the present contract was entered into? He was quite sure that a personal visit would satisfy the Government that the works" ought to be proceeded with.

Mr. BERRY replied that he did not think that it would be of any advantage for the Government to make a personal visit, but he was very glad that the honor­able member had afforded him an oppor­tunity of offering a few remarks upon the question. He thought the very fact that he requested Sir William J ervois, when he went to Warrnambool in connexion with the defences, to pay attention to these harbour works, and subsequently to favour him with his views upon them, was a very fair evidence that he (Mr. Berry) did not intend to regard the vote of £4,600 in the spirit honorable members opposite imagined, but that he was willing to look at the question purely as a matter of public policy, apart from all other con­siderations. A somewhat angry discussion had taken place upon the subject, but it was perhaps not to be wondered at, looking at all the circumstances. He, however, did not think that members on the Minis­terial side of the House were to be blamed for the complications which surrou'nded the case. His own views on the subject had never changed from the time that he first spoke upon it. If they could obtain a reliable opinion that the harbour works at Warrnambool could be carried out for a reasonable amount of money, so as to be effective, the Government saw no reason to alter their policy with respect to that port any more than in regard to any other port of the colony. It had always been the policy of this Government-a policy which

Supply. [OCTOBER 11.J Warrnambool Harbour. 1069

distinguished the present Ministry from its predecessors-to distribute the resources of the country fairly in all parts, and to allow the country districts to have a fair share of the public expenditure, which had hitherto been too much absorbed by the metropolis. The reason why they only placed on the Estimates for the Warrnam­bool harbour improvements the balance of the £10,000 voted last year was simply because there was a diversity of opinion as to what the works would cost. They resolved to have reliable information be­fore proceeding further. He did not think it unreasonable, as not more than half the vote had been expended at. the close of the financial year, to merely revote the balance this year, and have a proper survey made, and a clear opinion as to what would be the effect and cost of the works, before incurring any additional expenditure. In doing so, he thought they were only taking a reasonable pre­caution. If he had reliable engineering opinion to the effect that for the amount of the contract-£30,000 or £32,000-what the port of Warrnambool required could be' effected, he did not hesitate to say that the work should be proceeded with. Probably that assurance would ~ettle the matter, and do away with any prolonged debate so far as this vote was concerned.

Mr. SERVICE asked the Treasurer whether he had received any report from Sir William J ervois on the subject of the improvement of Warrnambool har­bour?

Mr. BERRY said he had not yet re­ceived any report. He gave an intima­tion to that effect twice the previous evening.

Mr. SERVICE observed that he had read a report of some remarks made by Sir William J ervois at a dinner at Warr­nambool, in which he expressed in general terms his approval of the scheme of har­bour improvement, and also his opinion that it could be successfully carried out. He believed Sir William J ervois would not have made' any such statement for a mere ad captandum purpose, and there­fore he was prepared to receive the state­ment with every respect. He was only sorry Sir William J ervois did not go on to say whether the scheme, if carried out at only one-fourth the expense originally contemplated, would be of any use at all. The Treasurer had stated that the GovernJ?ent would inquire into the

matter, and that 110 doubt was the proper course to take. At the same time it was well worth bearing in mind that these inquiries might go on for ever. There had been inquiries on this identical subject for the last ten years. Govern­ment officers had been sent down again and again, and people had been brought from Sydney, to report on the matter. At the present time, there were four or five official reports in the, possession of the Public Works department. The latest report, furnished in 1872 by Messrs. Ward, Gordon, and Wardell, and con­firmed by Mr. Wardell in a memorandum which was read to the Assembly last year, was to the effect that the 200 yards of breakwater at Warrnambool, on account of which the £10,000 vote was taken, would be utterly useless. After that, unless the Government intended to dis­miss Mr. Wardell and Mr. Gordon, or unless those gentlemen said they had reason to change their views, he doubted whether any Government could go any further. According to the opinions of those gentlemen, the £30,000, which was the amount of the present contract, would absolutely be thrown into the sea. Even with respect to the whole scheme, although Mr. Wardell, evidently under severe pres­sure-when Mr. Jones was Minister of Public Works-gave a sort of half assent, a reluctant approval, to these works, yet it was perfectly evident that the mode of improving the Warrnambool harbour re­commended by these authorities was the extension of the jetty accommodation. He (Mr. Service) was one of those who opposed this expenditure at the time it was first initiated, but he did so not out of the slightest feeling against Warr­nambool or its representative. Had he the honour of being at the head of the Public Works department, he would adopt precisely the tone and spirit adopted by the Treasurer; at the same time it seemed useless to manifest a conceding spirit, and to make further inquiries, if the engineering reports he had referred to were in the possession of the depart­ment.

Mr. GILLIES observed that it must be more satisfactory to the Government and to all parties concerned that a matter of this· kind should be dealt with more from the point how it affected the interests of the colony than as a purely personal matter. With reference to what the hon­orable member for Maldon had said about

1070 Supp(y. [ASSEMBLY.] War'J'nambool Harbour.

the differences of opinion among engi­neers on this particular subject-(H Mr.· Service-H I said there were no differences of opinion.") But there had been diffe­rences of opinion. He could point out two or three apparently opposite opinions some­times given by th~very same gentleman. (Mr. Service-" On this subject?") Yes. Ent unquestionably breakwaters and har­boUl' improvements were works about which it was difficult. to obtain really good pro­fessional opinions. What had South Aus­tralia don\3 in this direction? For years it had been extremely anxious to gain the whole traffic of Riverina, and with that view it had projected certain works at the mouth of the Murray. In order to ascertain what works should be con­structed, it sent to England for one of the mest celebrated engineers obtainable-an. engineer who had special knowledge on the subject of river and harbour works, having dev:oted himself for years to that branch, one of the most difficult branches, of engineering science. Now it was scarcely fair to press a first-class engineer like Mr. Gordon, who possessed special qualifications in another department. of engineering; or an officer like Mr. "Var­dell, of whose knowledge. in the particular branch 'to which he had applied himself n&t one word could be said in dispamge­lll'ent; or even the Engineer-in-Chief of Railways, for an opinion on a subject which each of them openly and candidly aeknow ledged he had not studied as a speciality. It was only from a man who h81d studied this particular branch of en­gineering as a speciality that a thorolighly good and· reliable opinion could be ex­pected. It was as unreasonable to expect an engineer to give a reliable opinion on a branch of engineering which he had not studied, as to expect a physician to suc­cessfully perform a surgical operation. He did not know, as a matter of fact, whether Sir William J ervois, eminent mili tary engineer as he was, had special lmowledge on this subject. He would imagine he had not. But unless a man had really special knowledge with regard to the construction of breakwaters and harbour works, it was waste of time to as:k for his opinion.

Mr. DWYER apprehended that there was no more finality about the opinions of engineers than there was about the opinions or other persons. If a patient had to wait until half-a-dozen doctors could agree about the particular course of treatment he should

receive, the patient probably would be the first to settle the difficulty. 'Vith respect to harbqur and other engineering works, there were many examples of differences of opinion among engineers about certain works which had subsequently been carried out. It was once thought an impossibility to pierce a tunnel under Mont Cenis; and at one time the most eminent of English engineers pronounced the Suez Canal to be an impossibility. In the same way, with re~pect to Warrnambool, engineers had given opinions to the effect that no har­bour works of any pmctical utility could be carried out there for a moderate amount. But it was necessary to :take into considera­tion the quarter whence those opinion's came, and the quarter whence the desire emanated for those opinions. It appeared that the Government thought the opinion of Sir William J ervois of such value that it was desirable to have it with respect to the improvement of Warrnambool har­bour, and he thought that no other con­clusion could be come to than that, as Sir William J ervois could not suggest an improvement on the scheme now being carried out, it· was important that that scheme should be carried out as soon as possible. It had been said that the pro­longation of the jetty would be the proper thing. But that would be useless unless the jetty could be prolonged into water which was not only deep but placid. In his opinion it would be useless to extend the jetty into d'eep water, inasmuch as it would be utterly impossible for any vessel to remain steady at that extended jetty dUl'ing tempestuous weather, or even during only slightly rough weather. Re­ference was made the previous night to Portland, but Portland had a better and safer harbour than Warrnambool, and that was a reason why more attention should be paid to Warrnambool. There was no necessity for a large expenditure on har­bours which were naturally good. Then, again, in connexion with the question of harbour improvements, the wants not only of the place itself, but of the back coun­try-the sources from which the shipping was fed-should be taken into considera­tion. Contrasting the amount of traffic at Warrnambool with the amount of traffic at Portland, the sum which it was pro­posed to expend upon harbour improve­ments at Warrnambool was not at all out of proportion. He was very glad the Treasurer bad addressed himself to tbis I!!ubject. He was satisfied both with the

Supply. [OCTOBER I1.J Warrnambool Harbou1'. 1071

tone and the substance of what the hon­orable gentleman had said. He was con­fident that the Government were taking the proper course, and that there need be no further anxiety on the part of the Warrnamboolites or the people of the surrounding country that justice would not be done to that port.

Mr. BAYLES desired to state, in reply to the assertion of the honorable member for Maldon that no engineer was favorable to the construction of the breakwater at Warrnambool, that Mr. Wardell was favorable to it, and that Captain Stanley, of the marine survey, told him, only a week ago, that the work could be made a success. He hoped the Chief Secretary would have the place inspected by the most competent authorities whose services he could command.

Mr. ZOX thought the committee might be congratulated on the improved tone which marked the discussion on this oc­casion, as compared with that which prevailed the previous evening. The Treasurer had stated that, before he al­lowed any further money to be expended on the Warrnambool harbour works, he would have professional and competent opinions as to the utility of those works, and abide by the result. The cC?mmittee, he thought, could scarcely ask for more. If the same motive had actuated every Government in connexion with the carry­ing out of public works, there woul~ be little reason for the complaints made from time to time as to the waste of public money.

Mr. LANGRIDGE remarked that for some years past he had taken an interest in Warrnambool, and he could state that there was scarcely a port where more money had been expended or more money had been thrown away. Something like ten years ago there w~s an expenditure of £50,000 in turning the cQurse of the Merri river, and he believed no good had resulted fr<;>m' that expenditure. The reason he voted against the £10,000 which was granted last year for harbour improvement was that he felt, from what he: s~w during a visit, and from what had been represented to· him; 'that the. money; was· not being ~xpended. in a . proper manner. He wouldha ve been willing to' vote for £20,000 had he been satisfied that the expenditure would have been on proper works. He hoped there·would·be no further expenditure in a di,r~ction which would be unattended b1-' publi~

advantage. He believed that if the pre­sent scheme were carried out to comple­tion, eight or ten years would elapse before any benefit was derived from it.

Mr. A. K. SMITH called attention to a remark made the previous evening, that Sir William Jervois had given an opinion without consideration on the work of harbour improvement at Warrnambool, and mentioned that he had received credible information, from persons who were competent to speak on the subject, that Sir William J ervois took the greatest pains to satisfy himself as to the condition of the works, and made full inquiry as to the tides, winds, and rainfall. In fact there was no doubt that Sir William had made such a thorough examination of the place as would warrant him hi sending the report which he doubtless woulfl send to the Treasurer. He was sure that an engineer of such eminence would not sub­mit a report hastily or without due.' con­sideration. It· seemed to him .that Sir William J ervois was only exercising a wise discretion in taking time to consider the information he had acquired .. ' No doubt the Treasurer WOllid hear froUl him in a very short time. .

Mr. SERVICE observed that the Mel­bourne Harbour'TrU:st ha~ sent to Eng­land for some celebrated marine engineer to come out here ·and p,dvise:as to the works which should be,undertaken for the improvement of the porVof Melbourne, and suggested that, if such a person, did come out, the Government should take ad·· vantage· of his presence .her~ .to Qbtain his opinion as to th~ work§! at ,Warrp.aijlbool and other places .. The, .honOI;abIEl.,mem­bel' for Rodney (Mr. Gilliee) had pointed out that an .hydraullc engineer.differed from a marine . engineer, and that, too much importance should. not ~,e 'atta,ched to an opinion up?n mariI\~. ell:gin~ri;ng of an hydraulic engmeer, howeyer.emment he . might be; but. his (Mr., Ser.viC;,e's). com­plaint was that the honorable-mew-bel' and his coUeague, the head of. the late Go­vernment, without having the opinions .OJ any engineer e:x;cept opinio1:'s,agaiJ:ls~ them, colIlllii~teCl ~he co~try_ t,Q.'ap. e~peJtditure of £30;000.: .The repor.t, submitt~d by Messrs. Ward, Gordon, and Wardell, in December, 1872, ~ta~ed- . . "Our op¥o~_of . tile "sc~eiiie lS.:.....:..r1;t.~ fi:J:st

200 yards of the propo~edpier wpuld be :use1e,ss. as a break' water, and of use as a whl:td.m still weather.on;ly.", j'.'<., ::-;l'·!·;"'~L'_ ". :,(

Thi~ wki rue'rWbrk~ ffiR~ ft~w'hsflp~6Posed

1072 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Indust1;iaL Se/tOols.

to form for £30,000, of which £10,000 had already been voted; and the com­mittee were asked to vote the other £20,000 in order that the £10,000 should not be thrown away; but, according to the testi· mOllY of the engineers, the whole £30,000 would be thrown away. The)eport went 011 to say:-

"A breakwater 400 yards long would be in­sufficient as such, and, for any useful effect, it would be necessary to make one of 600 yards in length, of which we estimate the cost at £110,000, and this could not be relied on to se­cure smooth water at the jetty in all weathers."

That report was confirmed by Mr. W ar­dell last year. No doubt, as so much had been said of W arrnam bool in the House, something ought to be given to placate it; and he was glad to see that the Government realized their full re­sponsibility in the matter.

WEST MELBOURNE SWAMP. Mr. WRIGHT called attention to the

item of £19,000 "for draining and re­claiming the West Melbourne swamp, and a~ked whether this expenditure was pro­posed in order to improve the sanitary condition of the city?

Mr. PATTERSON observed that the contract for the work was entered into by the late Government? The sanitary condition of the city would be improved by the reclamation of the land, which would no doubt yield a handsome return. Some of it might be used for market gardens; and it had been suggested that another portion might be utilized for docks. Whatever might be done with the land, there could be no . doubt that the reclamation was a most useful work.

Mr. GILLIES remarked that the drain­age of the swamp was indispensable if undertaken on sanitary grounds alone. It was a disgrace to Melbourne that the swamp should have remained as it had for so many years. However, although un­dertaken only on sanitary grounds, he had reason to think that the work would be commercially advantageous. He believed that the land, when reclaimed, would re­turn at least 20 per cent. on the outlay. Some persons who knew Melbourne well asserted that the return would be 30 per cent.

Mr. WRIGHT stated that he had no objection to the expenditure if it were for the improvement of the sanitary condi­tion of Melbourne, but he thought that to spend a large sum of money with the

view to make land fit for market gardens was unwise.

Mr. PATTERSON observed that the work of reclamation was going on, and he had no doubt of a successful result.

Mr. LAURENS expressed his satis­faction at hearing the honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) assert that the reclamation of the West Melbourne swamp had been undertaken on sanitary grounds, and that it was a public shame that it had not been undertaken before. At the same time it was satisfactory to know that the reclamation would be remunera­tive. He was glad to have this· oppor­tunity of correcting a statement made by the Chief Secretary the other evening. The Chief Secretary alleged that he ap­plied to him for a grant of £2,000 for a drain for North Melbourne, but the pur­pose for which he asked for the money was the completion of the reclamation of the West Melbourne swamp. Without that further expenditure the reclamation would not be completed, and many of the evils at present existing would continue.

INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS. Mr. BARR called attention to an item

of £6,000 for reformatory and industrial school buildings, and asked the Treasurer whether it was intended to add to the great pile of barracks already erected at Sunbury? He hoped the Government would arrange for the accommodation of the industrial school children in some other locality less bleak and exposed.

Mr. BERRY stated that it was not intended to incur any expenditure at Sunbury. The vote was much smaller than last year, and that fact might be taken as an indication 6f the wish of the Government that expenditure in this di­rection should be reduced as much as possible. He considered the cost to the country of industrial schools and reforma­tory establishments was excessive.

Mr. A. K. SMITH remarked that cases had come under his notice of chil­dren being sent to the Industrial schools simply by collusion between the father and mother ; and he believed that if the same practice continued many buildings in addition to those already in existence would be required. He trusted the matter would receive the attention of the Govern­ment, and that legislation would be brought to bear upon it.

The vote for public works was then agreed to.

Assent to Bills. [OCTOBER 11.J Railways Bill. 1073

DEFENCE OF THE COLONY. On the vote of £100,000 "towards the

erection of forts in Port Phillip Bay, and providing armament, in accordance with the recommendation of Sir William J er­vois,"

Mr. BERRY intimated that it was his intention to bring down a Bill to authorize the adoption of the whole of the recom­mendations made by Sir William J ervois, and honorable members would then have a full opportunity of discussing the entire subject. The present vote would be dedicated to carrying out what was con­sidered the most essential portion of the defence scheme.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY expressed ap­proval of the idea of bringing in a Bill to authorize the construction of the whole of the defence works, and suggested that a similar course should be adopted with respect to the construction of all large works in the future. In that way the inconvenience arising from the voting of only a port.ion of the money required for a particular "vork, and the non-voting of the balance owing to a cb.ange of Govern­ment or Parliament, would be obviated.

Mr. O'HEA inquired when the reports of Sir William J ervois would be printed and circulated?

Mr. BERRY stated that the final report, the report which would embrace the recom­mendations with reference to the western ports, had not yet been received. He ex­pected it shortly, and, as soon as possible after it came to hand, the reports would be printed and circulated. .

The vote was agreed to. The resolutions were then reported to

the House.

ASSENT TO BILLS. At twenty-one minutes past six o'cl.ock,

the Usher of the Legislative Council brought a message from His Excellency the Governor, requesting the attendance of honorable members in the chamber of the Legislative Council.

The members present, headed by the Speaker, and attended by the Clerk, the Clerk - Assistant, and the Serjeant - at­Arms, proceeded to the chamber of the Legislative Council.

Returning in a few minutes, The SPEAKER announced that His

Excellency had been pleased to assent to a number of Bills.

The House adjourned at half-past six o'clock, until Tuesday, October 16.

YOLo xx \'1.-4 I

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, October 16, 1877.

Money Bills in the Legislative Council-Railway Construc­tion Bill-Brighton Land Vesting Bill-Inebriates Act Amendmcnt Bi1'J - Mining on Private Property Bill­Ptlrl~onal Explanations: The Honorables W. Campbell, T. T. a'Beckett, and W. Highett-Courts of. General SeBBions a~ Benalla and Wangaratta - Police Offences Statute Amendment Bill- Parliamentary Costs Bill­Waterworks Act Amendment Bill-National Insurance Company of Australasia's Extension of Powers Bill­Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill.

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

PETITION.

A petition was presented by the Hon. R. S. ANDERSON, from Roman Catholics residing at Wangaratta, calling attention to the position of the Roman Catholic body with regard to the State educational system, and praying for relief.

MONEY BILLS.

The PRESIDENT laid on the table, pursuant to order of the House (dated October 9), a return relating to Money Bills, and Bills incidentally involving taxation, amended by the Council.

The Hon. R. S. ANDERSON moved that the return be printed.

The motion was agreed to.

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION BILL. This Bill was returned from the Legisla­

tive Assembly, with a message intimating that they disagreed with the several amend­ments made in it by the Council; and that they disagreed to the amendments in clause 3, because they were "infractions of the privileges of the Legislative Assembly, in­asmuch as they would, in their conse­quences, lay a charge upon the people."

The message was ordered to be consi­dered on the following day.

BRIGHTON LAND VESTING BILL. '

This Bill was received from the Legis­lative Assembly, and, on the motion of the Hon. J. BALFOUR, was read a first time.

INEBRIATES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was received from the Legis­lative Assembly, and, on the motion of the Hon. J. BALFOUR, was read a first time.

IOi4 Personal [COUNCIL.] Explanations.

MINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BILL.

This Bill was received from the Legis­lative Assembly, and, on the motion of the Hon. H. CUTHBERT, was read a first time.

PERRONAL EXPLANATIONS. The Hon. W. CAMPBELL said he

wished to offer a few remar ks by way of personal explanation. Statements had been publicly made to the effect that cer­tain honorable members of the Council, who were interested in the Hobson's Bay Railway, had, during the discussion of the Railway Construction Bill, exercised an improper influence upon honorable members with respect to the question of a direct line of railway from Melbourne to' Oakleigh. As a shareholder, and also a director of the Hobson's Bay Railway Company, he disclaimed- having attempted to influence in the slightest degree any honorable member of the House with re­ference to the subject. He challenged any honorable member to say he had ever spoken to him on the matter.Further­more, he studiously avoided taking any part in the discussion of the qnestion; he absented himself from the private meeting of members which was held to determine what course should be followed with re­gard to it; and he also refrained from voting upon it. Consequently, he was

. justified in asserting that the accusations he alluded to were without foundation, so far as he was concerned, and, he believed, the same thing might be said of the other honorable members of the Council who were also interested in the company. Had it been in their power to exercise such an influence, it would have been most pre­sumptuous on their part to do so. He regarded the statements to which he re­ferred as intended to cast a stigma on the Council, inasmuch as they were calculated to lead to the inference that honorable members were capable of being unduly infl uenced.

The Hon. T. T. A'BECKETT remarked that, inasmuch as Mr. Campbell had thought it necessary to make an explana­tion on the subject, he also would state that he had never attempted, in the smallest degree, to influence the opinions of a single honorable member with respect to the Railway Construction Bill so far as it related to the Hobson's Bay Railway Company. He regretted very much indeed to find the action, in connexion with the

Bill, of the members of the House who were also shareholders of the company referred to in a purely political spirit, although, assuredly, the measure was one which ought to be dealt with solely with regard to the public welfare. The in­terests of the Hobson's Bay Company ought never for one moment to stand in the way of those of the public; nor had the contrary ever been, in any way, urged in its behalf. A fair consideration for the company, without the slightest sacri­fice on the part of the community, was certainly expected at the hands of the Legislature; but that was all the repre­sentatives of the shareholders ever hoped for or desired. He would refrain, on the present occasion, from saying more than that he took no part in the discussion of the Rail way Bill so far as it referred to the proposed line from Oakleigh to Mel­bourne, and studiously absented himself from the division on the subject.

The Hon. W. HIGHETT stated that he was a shareholder in the Hobson's Bay Railway Company; but he had never, either inside or. outside the House, endea­voured 'to influence a single honorable ~ member in its favour. With respect to the extent to which the Railway 'Con­struction Bill dealt with its interests, he would add that he carefully avoided voting on the question or taking part in its discussion .

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT said that, during the whole of the debate on the Railway Construction Bill, he carefully ~ observed the conduct of the honorable members who, he was informed, were largely interested in the Hobson's Bay Railway Company. He felt bound to add that every honorable member connected in any way with the company studiously avoided taking any part in the debates on the Bill, so far as it related to the com­pany's interests; and, furthermore, he did not believe that any of the honorable members who had just addressed the House had in any way, directly or indi­rectly, attempted to influence a single vote on the sub;ect.

GENERAL SESSIONS. A message was received from the Le­

gislative Assembly, communicating the fact that they had agree~ to an address to the Governor, praying that courts of general sessions might be held at Benalla and Wangaratta, with which they desired the concurrence of the Council.

Parliamentm'Y tOCTOBER 16.J Costs Bill. 1075

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT moved that the Council concur in the address.

The motion was agreed to, and the address was concurred in.

POLICE OFFENCES STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL.

The Hon. R. S. ANDERSON (in the absence of Sir C. SLADEN) moved the second reading of this Bill. He said the object of the measure was to bring within the scope of the Police Offences Statute "any person who sings any obscene song or ballad, or writes or draws any indecent or obscene word, figure, or representation, or uses any profane, indecent, or obscene language," &c., and to render him liable to a penalty not exceeding £10, or, in de­fault of payment, a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months; and also, to subject to penalty "any person guilty of permitting any horse to serve a mare for breeding purposes, or of permitting a mare to be brought to a horse, or a horse to be brought to a mare in order to ascertain if she is in season for taking the horse for breeding purposes, in or within sight of any public street or thoroughfare." Every persop. living in a country district must be aware that the provisions of the Bill were of a desirable kind.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time,

and committed pro forma.

PARLIAMENTARY COSTS BILL. The Hon. H. CUTH;BERT moved the

second reading of this Bill. He said its object was a very desirable one, namely, to furnish means whereby parliamentary costs of any kind could be taxed. Under its provisions a taxing officer would be attached to each House, committees would be able to award costs as between the promoters of and the petitioners against a Bill, and the taxation of costs as between a parliamentary agent and his client would be provided for. The measure was drawn to correspond with two recent English enactments with respect to the same sub­ject, and it would undoubtedly supply" a great want.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR thought the Bill a very useful piece of legislation, but he doubted whether there was any occa­sion to make it refer to the Council.

The Hon. R. S. ANDERSON stated that there were many costs incurred in connexion with private Bills as well as other matters before the Council, with

412

respect to which the services of a taxing officer would be very acceptable.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time,

and passed through committee without amendment.

WATERWORKS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

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

Clause 6 (discussion on which had been adjourned from October 9) was agreed to.

On clause 8, repealing section 8 of the principal Act,

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT moved that the clause be struck out of the Bill. He said this step was necessary in conse­quence of the amendments made, on the motion of Mr. Robertson, in clause 2.

The motion was agreed to, and the clause was omitted.

. The remaining clauses having been agreed to, the Bill was reported with amendments.

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AUSTRALASIA'S

EXTENSION OF POWERS BILL. On the motion of the Hon. F. T. SAR­

GOOD, this Bill was read a second time.

REGULATION AND INSPECTION OF MINES BILL.

This Bill was recommitted. The Hon. H. CUTHBERT moved

that clause 6, providing general rules to be observed as far as practicable in every mine, be amended by the insertion of an additional rule, as follows :-

"When a fence shall have been temporarily removed from any entrance to a shaft, whether on the surface or at any drive, a strong hori­zontal bar shall be securely fixed across such entrance not less than four nor more than five feet from the surface or the level of the drive, as the case may be."

He said that recently, for want of a pre­caution of this nature, a very serious acci­dent occurred at one of the large mines at Clunes. A miner, walking along one of the drives 400ft. below the surface, forgot that it led to the mouth of a shaft 75£t. deep, which was left open, and, in conse­quence, he fell down the shaft and was killed.

The Hon. F. T. SARGOOD suggested that progress should be reported, in order that honorable members might have time to consider the amendment.

1076 Telegraph Extension. [ASSEMBLY.] Crown Solicitor.

Mr. CUTHBERT acquiesced in the suggestion.

Progress was then reported. The House adjourned at nine minutes

to six o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Tuesday, October 16, 1877.

Telegraph Extension to the Gippsland Lakes-The Crown Solicitor-Acclimatisation of South-European Industries - Gippsland Railway: Transmission of Mails - Local Government Act (Ra.tes) Amendment Bill - Supply : Public Instruction: Operation of the Education Act: First Night's Debate.

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

TELEGRAPH EXTENSION. Mr. F. L. SMYTH called the atten­

tion of the Chief Secretary to the neces­sity for establishing telegraph communi­cation between Sale and the entrance to the Gippsland lakes via Bruthen, as was shown by the following statement pub­lished by the Gippsland. Times, of Octo­ber 8, as from its own correspondent at the Lakes entrance :-

"The Glengarry, while attempting to come in yesterday evening, went ashore on the outer western spit, and it is hard to say what will become of her, as she is in a very bad place. The late heavy rains have had a good effect upon the entrance, as they have formed a new channel, which is straight, and there are from eight to ten feet of water on the bar. Lake 'l'yers, which has been closed up for a long time by a sandbank between it and the sea, burst a few days ago, and for a short time the rush of water out was tremendous."

Were telegraph communication established between the Lakes entrance and Sale, whef!.ever such a disaster took place as that which befell the Glengarry, help could be promptly afforded, because the Thomas Norton and another steam-tug were used on the lakes. The question was one which affected not merely Gipps­land, but also the mercantile community of Melbourne. He begged to ask the Chief Secretary whether he would communicate with the Postmaster-General on the sub­ject?

Mr. BERRY stated that the question had occtlpied a gre'at deal of the attention of the Government. Early in the session, the other honorable member for Gippsland (Sir Gavan Duffy) brought it under the notice of the Postmaster-General and himself; and he had had several conversa­tions with the Postmaster-General on the

subject. No doubt the length of telegraph which was required was great for a com­paratively sparse population, but the paragraph which had been read showed that telegraph communication would be of great value in the case of a vessel being in distress, and that was an element of the case which could not be ignored altogether. He had promised a member of the shire council, who waited upon him that day, to consult the Postmaster­General as to what could be done. If the whole work could not be executed, perhaps a commencement might be made. At all events, it was the wish of the Government to do in this direction what the funds at their disposal would enable them to do. '

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. Major SMITH presented a return to

an order of the House (dated August J 4) of the attendance of children at State schools; also a return to an order of the House (dated October 4) for information relating to training schools.

Mr. MIRAMS, by leave, without no­tice, moved-

" That there be laid before this House a return showing the number of schools in the colony having less than 30 children in average at­tendance, together with full particulars of their cost."

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

Major SMITH laid on the table the return asked for.

PETITION. A petition was presented by Mr.

SHARPE, from the Wangaratta Borough Council, praying for an amendment of section 520 of the Local Government Act.

THE CROWN SOLICITOR. Mr. DWYER asked the Minister of

Justice whether it was the fact that the Crown Solicitor employed some of the officers of his department to perform pri­vate work for himself, or work for which he received private fees?

Mr. GH.ANT, in reply, read the fol­lowing memorandum which had been addressed by the Crown Solicitor to the Attorney-General :-

, "October 16, 1877. "In reply to your memo. of the 12th instant,

I beg to state that I have never engaged the services of any official in this office whose time was, in the remotest degree, demanded in his public capacity.

South European Industries. [OCTOBER 16.] Gippsland Railway. 1077

"I have my own articled clerks, who are not fully occupied in any business I have for them to do.

"On, however, one occasion lately, in an action in which I was employed (I think because I was Crown Solicitor) by an officer in Her Majesty's naval service, and when I was myself particu­larlyengaged on public business, and in order that it might not suffer, I asked the common law clerk to accompany and assist my articled clerk in the taxation of the bill of costs. And on another occasion, in the same case, my articled clerks got assistance in copying depositions from some of the clerks who were then not fully en­gaged, but the time so occupied has been more than repaid by my son and my articled clerks, who have done a great amount of copying for the Government, whereby a considerable ex­pense has been saved which would otherwise have been necessarily incurred.

"I have occasionally employed the engrossing clerks to engross deeds, &c., for me at night and after office hours, but in such cases they have been paid by me the usual stationers' charges.

"The fact that I have now filled my present office in the public service for nearly 40 years will, I doubt not, afford a sufficient guarantee that I would not convert the services of any public officer to my own private benefit, and I trust that I am actuated by a sufficient sense of honour and duty to prevent me from so doing.

"HENRY F. GURNER.".

SOUTH EUROPEAN INDUSTRIES. Mr. DOW asked the Chief Secretary

whether he would take such steps as would have the effect of utilizing the visit to Paris of the Victorian Commis­sioners to the International Exhibition, in the way of introducing from the Con­tinent into Victoria experts skilled in the culture and after-treatment of the pro­ducts peculiar to the petite agriculture of the south of Europe, and which pro-

. ducts there was reason to believe might be profitably established in Victoria, taking into account the similarity in the climate of both countries?

Mr. BERRY observed that every effort would he made by the Government to utililize the Exhibition at Paris to the fullest possible extent. A large amount of money had been voted for the purpose of having the colony properly represented at that exhibition, and it was the wish of the Government that that money should be expended in the best possible manner. Both the gentlemen who would represent the colony at Paris-the ex­ecutive commissioner and the secretary­would have instructions to keep the Go­vernment well informed as to whether anything could be done in the direction suggested by the honorable member for Kara Kara; whether the services of ex­perts really useful-because it should be

recollected that the colony had had ex­perts before-could be obtained to assist the vine-growing interest in Victoria, and whether it was possible to acclimatise any other industry of South Europe success­fully in the colony.

GIPPSLAND RAILWAY. Dr. MACARTNEY asked the Minister

of Railways whether he would direct the trains on the Gippsland Railway to be ruri at such hours as would enable the mails between Melbourne and towns in Gippsland to be delivered within the shortest possible time? He stated that if the mail were to leave Oakleigh at seven o'dock in the evening, it would reach Sale by eleven o'clock the next morning, and thus Gippslanders would have six hours in which to answer their correspondence.

Mr. WOODS stated that the cause of the present irregularity in the delivery of the Gippsland mails lay with the Postal department, and not with the Railway department. In drawing lip the time table, after consultation with the Postal department, 9~ hours were allowed for the journey by road from Bunyip to Mor­well-a distance of a little more than 40 miles-but this time did not seem enough, as on several occasions the train had been detained two or three hours. The Rail­way department had no control over the coaches, but he was informed that the Postal department had insisted that for the future the coaches should not take more than six passengers .

PASTORAL AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS.

Mr. LONGMORE laid on the table a return to an order of the House (dated August 8), showing the acreage occupied by pastoral tenants of the Crown, the rent which they paid to the State, and the number of persons employed by them, and giving similar information with re­gard to the land taken up by selection.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Mr. LONGMORE presented a return

to an order of the House (dated Septem­ber 11) showing the cost of the depart­ment of Agriculture, including the expen­diture on the experimental farm at Dookie.

DIFFERENTIAL RA.TING BILL. Mr. PATTERSON moved for leave to

introduce a Bill to authorize the councils

1078 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

of municipal districts to impose extra rates in particula.r subdivisions. He ex­plained that the Bill was a copy of the measure which passed the Legislative Assembly last year, but which failed to pass the Legislative Council, chiefly be­cause it was sent to that House at so advanced a period of the session.

Major SMITH seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

The Bill was brought in, and read a first ti:r;ne."

-PUBLIC INSTRUCTION.

The House then went into Committee of $upply. 0

On the vote of £234,599 to complete the vote (£484,599) for the department of Public Instruction,

Sir J. O'SHANASSY said-Sir, the : subject now under consideration is the vote for the maintenance of elementary schools established in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament passed in December, 1872, and amended by an Act passed in 1876. From all I can learn-and I speak only from statements made to me, because I was not a mem­ber of this House during the period­no discussion whatever has taken place since the passing of the Act of 1872, upon the vote for education. The amount provided for on the Estimates has been voted, but no discussion has taken place as to the items of the vote, or on any of the incidents connected with the Educa­tion department. If I am wrong, I shall be very glad to be corrected. I take it that so large a vote, embracing, as it does in my judgment, one 0 third of the taxes proper paid by the people of this colony, is a subject sufficiently large in its cha-

o racter, as far as the mere financial aspect of the case is concerned, to call upon Par­liament at all times to rigidly watch this expenditure and scrutinize it with great care. Therefore I think no apology is required from me for calling the attention of the committee to this matter. I find that in the Imperial Parliament, when a vote is brought down for the purposes of education, whether in England and Wales, iiI Ireland, or in Scotland, the Minister in

o 0 charge of the department invariably makes a 0 short statement of an administrative character showing what has been done in the past with regard to the system of elementary education in each country:

Major SMITH.-The repor~ 9~ ~he Education departn~ent (loes ~~af ~ere~

Sir J. O'SHANASSY. - Reports are also printed there, but the Minister deems it only due to Parliament, when he asks for a vote, to make a short impartial ex­planation of the operation of the law in force. I do not know whether tha.t has been done in the past here. Certainly it has not been done in the present. But the importance of the subject, apart from its financial aspect, is considered so great by the House of Commons, that it is in­variably done there. The last occasion when it was done was in July, when an address was delivered by Viscount San­don, who represents the Education de­partment in the House of Commons. Although there is no responsible Minister of Education in England as there is here, there is in the House of Commons a gentleman prepared to answer for the de­partment, and to explain what is the operation of the law. It does not follow that any gentleman who holds such an office in the House of Commons or the Government feels himself in the slightest degree compromised by the principles of the law. It is the invariable practice, under the system of responsible govern­ment which prevails in the United King­dom, for a Minister or a Government to administer any Act irrespective of his or their own views as to whether that Act is right or wrong. They are not called upon, in the administration of the law, unless they have the power to change it, necessarily to express any opinion of their own upon the subject. Consequently the administration of the law, as it appears to me, is totally distinct from the prin­ciples embodied in the law itself. Judging from the reports in the Times newspaper, it is invariably presented to Parliament from that point of view, whatever the Government that may be in office. But here the theory has been laid down that no person should have the administration of an Act unless he concurs with the principle of it. I 0 was never more astonished than when I first heard of this doctrine, and I could not avoid commenc­ing my remarks on this occasion without pointing out what a great error it is with regard to constitutional government. We might as well expect the judges of the land or magistrates, when called upon to punish persons, or to give a decision in civil cases, to administer the law accord­ing to their own opinions of what the law should be. It is not necessary for the

. impartial administration of this or any

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.] . Public Instruction. 1079

other law that the administrator should agree with it. An honorable man will endeavour to find out what the law is, and endeavour to administer it accord­ingly. Certainly it is not necessary that each member of a Government should be one at heart with the principles of the law he is called upon. to administer; otherwise the most interminable confusion might arise in transacting the affairs of the country. To show that this statement is correct, I will venture to trespass upon the committee with a few extracts from the speech delivered by Viscount Sandon, in the House of Commons, on· the lOth July last. Speaking of the state of edu­cation in England and Wales, Viscount Sandon said-

"During the year the number of public ele­mentary schools had been raised to 14,273, or an increase of 1,056, the accommodation afforded being now sufficient for 3,426,000, an increase of 280,000 upon the preceding year. . . . Since last year 460 new board schools, giving accom­modation for 1 70,000 additional children, had been established, while in the same period the number of voluntary schools had been increased by 580, giving 110,000 additional seats. . . . The position, therefore, was that, since 1870, there had been established 1,600 board schools­including 600 voluntary schools transferred to the boards - which gave accommodation to 556,000 children j that in the same period there had been established 5,000 voluntary public and elementary schools, affording seats for 1,100,000 additional children. The present state of the case was that rather more than 500,000 seats had been provided by the boards at a cost of £4,427,000, and a little less than 3,000,000 seats had been provided bv voluntary effort on an outlay of about £ 13,000,000, supplemented by the Government grant amounting to £1,750,000, so that the total capital expended by the coun­tryon education was something like £19,000,000. There could be no need therefore, he thought, for the country to blush as to the amount of work it had done in reference to the great work of education." Further on, Viscount Sandon said-

" With regard to the number of teachers, there had been an increase during the year of 2,100 certificated teachers, 460 assistant teachers, 2,600 pupil-teachers, and 32 in training colleges. As far as t he attendances of children were con­cerned, there had been an increase of 200,000 on the books and 150,000 in average attendance. . . . With regard to the work done by the children, he could have wished that more had been presented for examination in the higher standards j but he thought the fact as it stood was accounted for by the circumstance that the sys­tem was comparatively new, and had not as yet become thoroughly organized. He was confirmed in this view by the case of Scotland, a country which had had a much longer experience of com­pulsnry elementary education than England: While in England 87 per cent. of the children submitted for examination passed in reading, the percentage was 94 in Scotlapd. As far .

as writing was concerned, the percentage was 79 in England and 88 in Scotland, the pro­portions in reference to arithmetic being 70 per cent. in England and 81 in Scotland. . . . As far as the cost of the education of the children was concerned, he found, by com­parison between England and Scotland, that the expenditure per child in all schools, board and voluntary, was £1 13s. 4!d. per head per annum in England, and £1 16s. lid. in Scotland. The rate for education in England amounted to 3s. 9id.; in Scotland to lOs. 2d. The Imperial grant in England was lis. Sd.; in Scotland it was \ls. 10d. It was worthy of notice that where the voluntary contributions went down there the rates went very largely up. He re;. joiced to observe the very satisfactory rivalry which existed in many quarters between the voluntary and the board schools. Everything seemed to point to this, that people were giving themselves to the great work of seeing that the children of the country had good schools, and that in those schools they were well taught, and had all the benefits and advahtages which Par­liament intended to secure for them." It will thus be seen that Viscount Sandon does not enter, as a partisan, into the spirit or nature of the Imperial Education Act of 1870, or the Amending Act of 1876, but he gives to the House of Commons a fair view of the operation of the law. So much for the way in which the duty of a Minister is regarded in the House of Com­mons with respect to a question of this kind. And now I desire to point out what is the law which Viscount Sandon has to administer. This is what is provided with regard to the parmI t :-

"The parent, not being a pauper, of any child who is unable by reason of poverty to pay .the ordinary fee for such child at a public ele­mentary school, or any part of such fee, may apply to the guardians having jurisdiction in the parish in which he resides, and it shall be the duty of such guardians, if satisfied of such in­ability, to pay the said fee." The parent is thus held by the State to have a duty to perform to his child; and, in the event of the parent being in such poverty that he cannot pay the school fees the guardians of the poor are to provide the means for the education of his child. This is the law both in Scotland and Eng­land. So far there is a grand distinction between the obligation which the Imperial Legislature imposes upon the parent and that which the law of this country does. Then, again, if the compulsory provision of the law has to be enforced, it is done not by the Government but by the local school board or the school attendance com­mittee. Either of those bodies can take steps to bring the case before magistrates, and obtain an order, and by that order the child is directed to be sent to a parti­cular school, but the parent has the power

1080 Supply. [ASSEMBLY. ] Public Instruction.

of determining what school it shall be. lt is not in the power of the magistrates there, as it is here, to send the child to any school they like, but the parent has the power to determine what school it shall go to. Again, in Great Britain no child can be sent under compulsion to a school in the management of which the con­science clause is not observed, and if the religious rights of the child in any such school are interfered with the punishment by the Government is the withdrawal of the grant-in-aid from that school. -Still further, if a parent is in poverty-if he can prove that he is unable to sustain his child if its labour is dispensed with by it being sent to school-that parent is en­titled to relief from the guardians of the poor. It is the duty of the guardians to pay the school fee of any child whose parent is unable to pay it by reason of poverty. Provision is also made for sending children to certain schools at which meals are given, and for these the parents must· pay if they are able, but if not the meals are provided gratuitously. It will be seen, therefore, that the law in Englnnd clearly and carefully distin­guishes between the duties of the State ftnd the position and rights of the parents. Every protection is thrown around the parental authority, the State seeing, as far as possible, that elementary instruction is given without infringing in the smallest degree on the conscientious scruples of the .parents. This being so, I would not be performing the duty I have undertaken if I did not point out the vast distinction which exists between the education law in operation in England and that in force in this colony. Here, under the measure passed last session to amend the Educa­tion Act of 1872, a parent who neglects to send his children to school is brought before the magistrates by a truant officer, or at the instance of the local board of advice, and he is fined. No one steps in to provide the fine if he is unable to pay it, and he may go to gaol. A parent may have a great objection, for conscientious reasons, to send his children to a State school, but there is no protec­tion whatever for him on that score. There are some other matters of an administrative character in the English system which show how, under that system, everything that human ingenuity can d-evise has been provided in order to respect conscientious scruples while' pro­moting the interests of education. With

Sir J. 0' Shanassy.

regard to the standard of education, our Act merely provides that the inspectors, without any check whatever, can grant certificates to children as having passed the standard in reading, writing, and arithmetic; but in England no such uncontrolled power is given. There, by the latest Act, every guarantee is taken that the certificate shall be a bona fide one, showing not merely that a child has passed the examinations to the satisfac­tion of an inspector, but that he has attended a certain. number of times at school. A child cannot, in fact, obtain a certificate in England unless he has both attended school a certain number of times

,and attained a certain standard of pro­ficiency in reading, writing, and arith­metic. In connexion with this matter, I may call attention to a novelty in the Victorian Education Act, namely, the provision with regard to teaching what are called "extra subjects." So far as the operation of this principle is con­cerned, I think the most ardent admirers of the Act must come to the conclusion that it has been an absolute failure. The Imperial law provides a very different kind of thing. Provision is there mnde by which grants are to be given to chil­dren who have attained efficiency in extra subjects. In fact, in England there is a bonus given to encourage children to ad­vance above the ordinary standard of education; but here a hindrance is placed in their way by the imposition of a fee for extra subjects. This is a most material difference - a distinction of very great importance. I find that in Victoria, during the past year, out of 1,500 schools, the fees paid for extra subjects amount to upwards of £4,000. The total number of children on the school rolls is stated to be 231,000, with an average attendance of 106,000. On classifying the schools in accordance with the return moved for by the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mimms), I find that there are 500 schools with an average attendance of only 21 children, costing the State £60,000, apart from buildings; or, adding the proper proportion of the departmental expenses, about £7 for each child. It must be remembered that, though the average at­tendance at those schools is stated to be only 21, no guarantee is given as to the number of days those 21 children are at school. It is most remarkable that out of these 500 schools, only six pay anything at all in regard to extra subjects, and

Suppl,y. [OCTOBEn 16.J Public Instruction. 1081

those contribute the magnificent sum of £30. In the face of these facts, I think no one will say that the section of the Act providing for the payment of fees for instruction in extra subjects has been any­thing but an absolute failure, judged by its results. I may here mention that the return from which I have obtained these figures - a "return showing the State schools in operation with an average at­tendance of 30 and under, together with full particulars of their cost "-is printed in such small type that it almost requires the aid of a microscope to read it, espe­cially by persons who, like myself, are somewhat advanced in years. There is no reason why honorable members should be subjected to the annoyance of having such returns printed in the smallest possible type. I think that I have now made clear to the committee the leading distinctions between the education law in operation in England, Wales, and Scotland, and that which exists in this colony. The difference in the expenditure is also a very material matter to be considered. For England and Wales, with a population of 22,712,000, according to the last census, the total vote for education this year was £1,910,629; for Scotland, with a population of 3360,000, the amount was £488,782; a~d for Ireland, with a population of 5,411,416, it was £645,000; or a total of £3,034,000 for a population of about 34,000,000; and this, it must be reme~­bered, is a great increase on the expendI­ture of former years. I am speaking simply of elementary education. Of course, these amounts only represent the money paid by the State, for in Great Britain education.is supported by private subscriptions and fees, as well as by grants from the State; while we in this country undertake to educate every child free, that is, at the expense of the State. The average cost of education in the United Kingdom, as far as the State is concerned, is not quite 2s. per head of the population. N ow what does educa­tion cost the State in this country? I find that for the year ending the 30th June, 1873, the total expenditure, in­cluding buildings and everything the State then provided in the shape of education, was £226,463. The present Education Act was passed in December, 1872, but no large vote was taken to bring it into operation until the com­mencement of the financial year 1873-4,

and in that year the vote jumped up from £226,463 to £502,616, being an increase of nearly £300,000 for the first year the Act was in operation.

Major SMITH.-There was a jump of 30,000 scholars the same year.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-If there was a jump of 30,000 scholars the same year, it does not appear that those scholars were not at school before. They were taken out of private and other schools. I think I will be able to show later on that the increase was not the result of this extra expenditure of money. There is one thing I may mention here. I would like to' know whether the Treasurer's cash balance was seized upon in the year 1873-4 to provide the increase in the vote represented by the difference between £226,463 in 1872-3 ,and £502,616 in 1873-4? I am informed that such was the case, but I cannot trace it, as I have not been in office since. I mention the matter now publicly in order that I may be corrected if I am wrong.

Mr. SERVICE.-That could not be done as long as the money was all on the Estimates.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The impres­sion on my mind was that it had been done, and therefore I thought it best to mention the subject publicly. In the year 1874-5, the education vote was £559,a38; in ] 875-6, it was £536,~92; in 1876-7, £449,740; and for the present year, 1877-8, it is £484,599. I would like to ask whether this amount will be the whole vote for] 877-8?

Major SMITH.-No. Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Then it is

only fair that the committee should be informed how much will be put on the Supplementary Estimates. I estimate that the additional amount will be about £40,000, and I hope the Minister of Public Instruction will correct me if that is in excess of or le'ss than the actual, sum which will be required. It will thus be seen that during the last five years we have spent for the purposes of elemen­tary education the very respectable sum of ,£2,532,585, or an average of about £500,000 per annum.

Mr. RAMSAY.-That includes build­ings.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-But it does not include the loan. This is the total amJ'unt in the Appropriation Acts for those years for educational purposes. I

1082 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

have had 11 return furnished to me show­ing that, from 1872 to 1878, the educa­tional expenditure will have included £2,454,299 for salaries; pensions, £6,703 ; rents and buildings, £497 ;936; and from the loan, £268,220; making nearly £800,000 for rents and buildings. It therefore appears that in these few years there will have been expended on educa­tion about £3,200,000; and this does not take into account the amount which will have to be placed on the Supplementary Estimates for the present year. This is the state of our expenditure in relation to education under the existing Act. Now I ask whether there is any comparison between this, considering our means and population, and what I have pointed out is the expenditure in England, where there is no great comparative difference in point of wealth? When I was in England, ten years ago, the popull1tion there, as a gene­ral rule, appeared to be remarkably well off. It may be that in particular seasons they are not very well to do; but, on the whole, they are tolembly comfortable. There is a vast disproportion between the cost to the State of elementary education in the United Kingdom and in this coun­try. An effort has been made by the State to supply children in Victoria with elementary education at a cost which, I venture to think, few people have con­templated up to the present time. In the debate in the House of Commons to which I have already referred, Mr. Cham­berlain, one of the members for Birming­ham, made the following statement :-

" In our colony of Victoria the average attend­ance of children at school increased from] 35,000 to 200,000 in two years after the abolition of fees." Where the honorable member got his in­formation from to make such a statement I am at a loss to conceive; but, as we read the debates of the House of Com­mons, I trust that he will do us the cour­tesy to read the report of this debate, and 'see if his statement is borne out by facts. The question arises-What have we got in exchange for the large expenditure which we have incurred on education? There can be no doubt that the expendi­ture is large in proportion to our resources. If it goes on increasing year by year, where is the thing to end at all? School buildings form a heavy item of the ex­pense. These State schools are multi­plied in every quarter, I do not know from what motive-whether it be from" proper representations" or other influences-but

Sir J. O'Shanass!/.

I know, as a matter of fact, that in many instances schools have been built where they were not required at all. Besides new schools being built, various denomi­nations have rented their schools to the Education department at nominal rates. I find from a return presented this evening that in some cases the rent iii! as low as 2d., 6d., 8d., 10d., lld., and Is. per year. I cannot conceive why the rental is so small, unless the denominations hope for a change in the law by which they will get back their schools.

Mr. SERVICE.-Is it not 2d. per head, instead of 2d. per year?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-No. Any honorable member can examine the return fOl: himself, and he will see that there is at least one case where the rental charged is 2d. per annum, and there are several instances where it is as low as 6d. and 1 s. We must therefore take into account not merely the schools which the Govern­ment have erected and paid for, but also the fact that other buildings are being rented at nominal sums; so that in order to push out the State system of education we are taking advantage of the past. The report of the Education department for the year 1876-7 says :-

"The following statement shows the work which has been done towards the supply of the requirements of the colony in the matter of school buildings since the passing of the Act :-

"Number of new schools erected since the passing of the Act, 579-£381,082 10s.4d.

"Number of schools enlarged ditto, 76-£29,343 18s. lld.

"Number of schools reconstructed and re­paired ditto, 65-£1~,215 15s.

"Number of new schools now in course of erection, 133-£1] ],398 12s.3d.

"Number of enlargements of existing schools ditto, H-£6,950 15s. 7d.

"Number of reconstructions of existing schools now proceeding, ll-£1,241 8s. 5d."

So that, practically, 878 schools have been built since the passing of the Act, and are now used in carrying out the State system of education, in addition to those rented by the department. At the time the Act came into operation the number of schools in existence under the common and denominational systems was upwards of 1,100, and, therefore, making allowance for those which have since been closed, the total number of State schools now is about 1,500; so that no exertion has been spared by Parliament to push out the existing system, and make it, if possible, a great success. In fact, a· hot-bed or forcing process has been adopted, by the

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.] Public Instruction. 1083

power of money, in order to endeavour to make the present educational system the success which Parliament an.ticipated it would be when it passed the Act of 1 !j72. In saying this, I think that I am fairly stating the case. It must be remembered that, in order to attain the results which have been achieved, the expenditure has jumped from £200,000 a year to an average of £500,000 or £600,000. What is the corresponding gain in point of attendance? Two months ago I asked for a return in order that Parliament and the country might know what advantage it is getting for the very large expenditure which the present educational system entails. Amongst other information I desired was "the number of daily attendances of each child for the year lR76-7." This is a very important matter, in order to enable us to ascertain whether we are getting value for our money; but I am informed now, after the lapse of two months, that the information cannot be supplied.

Major SMITH.-It would cost £2,000 to supply the information asked for by the honorable member.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-If the school rolls had been kept in the same way as under the old Board of Education, the return could have been prepared at little or no cost. A return, however, has been furnished by the department this after­noon, showing "by approximation" some of the particulars I am anxious to ascer­tain. It appears that the number of children enrolled in State schools during the year 1876 was 171,583. The return, I may state, has been compiled from information obtained from 85 schools, though there are 1,500 in existence. The names of the 85 schools are not given, but I take it for granted that they have been selected impartially by the officers of the department, and not with the view to show the most favorable results. It appears that the numoer of children who did not attend in accordance with the Education Act was as follows :-Quarter ending September 30, 1876, 13,527; quarter ending December 31, 1876, 18,480; quarter ending March 31, 1877, 21,738; quarter ending June 30, 1877, 20,628. With regard to the" number of daily attendances for each child for the year 1876-7," the return simply says­H this information cannot be given." The reports for 1870 and 1871, when the educational system was under the control of a body called the Board of Education,

bring out the fact that the daily attend­ance of each child on the school rolls at that period was about 123 days. Had the rolls been kept up under the new sys­tem of education in the same manner that they used to be under the former system, the information which the Education de­partment says cannot be given could have been furnished without any trouble. The children are stated, in the document which has been supplied by the depart­ment, to have attended school as follows during the past year :-For 60 days, 20,123 children; for 90 days, 20,493; for 120 days, 62,455; for 200 days and upwards, 18,508. In considering the average attendances, we must bear in mind that the climate of this country is very different from that of Great Britain and America, and much more favorable for children to attend school a greater number of days in a year than in either of those cOlmtries. Well, after the great flourish of trumpets there has been as to the success of the Education Act in bringing the children into the schools, the result is set forth in the figures I have just quoted. Will any one be bold enough to assert that this result is anything like commensurate with the amount of money expended 011 our present educational system compared with the cost of the system which it has superseded? In 1872, the total number of children on the school rolls was 135,962, the average attendance being 68,436; and, as I have already stated, the reports of the Board of Education for 1870 and 1871 show that each child attended 123 days in the year, or thereabouts. It is very remark­able that the reports of the Education department contain no information on this most important and material fact, namely, the number of days which each child attends school under the present system, and that the department, when challenged to bring forward the information, says that it cannot be supplied. I cannot un­derstand why it has not been supplied, especially as it was always furnished by the Board of Education, and the officers of the department are the same officers who were employed by the board. The truth of the matter, I suppose, is that if the information were given it would make the present educational system compare most unfavorably with the system it has superseded. It is, however, the duty of the Minister of Public Instruction to gi ye the fullest information to Parliament as to

1084 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

the operation of the Act, and not to sup­press an important item which was in­variably clearly and distinctly set forth in the reports issued by the Board of Educa­tion. So far as the information contained in the return which has been furnished this afternoon goes, it is most damaging against the existing system. The report of the department for 1876-7 says-

"The total number enrolled in capitation schools has been reduced from 18,680 in 187.1) to 12,913 in 1876, and the number in average

.attendance in these schools from 8,146 to 5,788. Though many of the scholars are transferred to State schools when aid is withdrawn from capi­tation schools, the latter are often continued as private schools, so that the closing of the capi­tation schools has an effect constantly in opera­tion to decrease the numbers in attendance at State-aided schools, and to reduce the increase in attendance." The writer of this must be a humorist. If he had said that he found a certain number of capitation schools in existence, and went and blocked them up as much as he possibly could, by building new schools, by renting some of those in ex­istence, and thus reducing the attendance at others, he would have stated the simple fact; but he says that the closing of the capitation schools has had the effect of decreasing the attendance at State schools, whereas the contrary is the fact. The writer ought to have stated that the de­partment is not able to draw from the capitation schools the number of children expected, so as to fill the new State schools. Under the old system about 68 per cent. of the children did attend school; but under the new system the attendance has been going down year by year, and there is no way of accounting for the de­crease except by the fact that compulsion is a failure, and that the free system of educa­tion does not attract all the children. The average attendance in 1874was 104,375; in 1875 it went down to 101,495; and in 1876 it was 106,758 out of a total roll of 231,560. Look at the number of children who are now within the school age who had not attained to that age six years ago. Why does not the average attendance advance in proportion as the number of children of school ages increases? That is not ex­plained in the report of the department 01'

in any Ministerial statement. Scarlatina, fever, and such causes are assigned for the attendance not being larger; but, if the re­ports of the Board of Education are looked through, it will be found that during the time the old system was in operation scarcely a year passed without typhoid

Sir J. O'Shanassy.

fever or some other epidemic prevailing, and affecting the attendance of children at school. Therefore sickness cannot be said to account for the smallness of the present attendance at the State schools. The promoters of the Act, when the mea­sure was before the Assembly, stated that the new system was not to be more ex­pensive than the one it was to supersede. Mr. Stephen, who was called the father of the Act, said so, and so also did Mr. Langton, who supported it strongly; while the present Chief Secretary, who was op­posed to it, said the probabilities were that the expenditure would not increase beyond £25,000 a ye~r. They were out in their calculations, apart from the cost of buildings, something more than £200,000 per annum. It was anticipated that economy would be effected by the amal­gamation of a number of small schools; but what has happened? About 500 new schools have been added at a vast cost, and have produced a marvellously small result. On looking over the return show­ing the State schools with an average attendance of 30 children and under, I see that there are 40 schools with an average attendance of only 12, each child costing the State £7 or £8 per annum; and probably not more than half the 'children belonging to those schools attend 120 days in tIl(' year. The inspectors call attention to the fact that in some parts of the country the State, in order to have a small school, incurs an expense which amounts to giving a bonus of as much as £50 to each family living in the locality. Instead of the expense of education being kept down, it has been multiplied to a degree that the authors of the Act never contemplated. I have already referred to the system under which extra subjects are taught, and shown that it cannot succeed. The Act must be amended in that respect. It was contended by the promoters of the Act that under it the quality of the in­struction given in the schools would be improved; but any impartial person read­ing the reports of the inspectors will come to the conclusion that the quality of the instruction is inferior to that imparted under the Board of Education. Reading is made a mechanical thing, arithmetic a mechanical thing, and grammar and geo­graphy a sort of cram, the children being taught so that the masters may get cer­tain results, but knowing nothing of the subjects when questioned about them afterwards.

Supply. [OCTOBER 16. ] Public Instruction. 1085

Mr. RAMSAY.-That is not the case. Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I refer the

honorable member to the reports of the inspectors. Mr. Gilchrist, the inspector for one of the metropolitan districts, in his report dated the 14th of April, 1877, says-

"Taken as a whole, the district is not in a highly satisfactory, but only in an average state of efficiency. It has such a mixture of good, moderate, and indifferent schools that it is, I believe, a fair specimen of the colony generally. I know that some districts are in a more effi­cient state than this is, and I believe some are in a less efficient condition."

I have carefully conned over the reports of the inspectors, and let my statement th~t the quality of the education is worse under the present than it was under the old system be controverted, if it can be, by a comparison of the reports of the in­spectors for this year with their reports when the Board of Education was in existence. As regards the attendance, this is what one of the inspectors says-

ee For every 100 scholars on the rolls for the past year the a~erage attendance was 54, the number of pupils who had attended at least 120 days (the minimum prescribed by law) was only 59, and the average number of days attended by each pupil was no more than 131, or about 57 per cent. of the whole number of actual school days."

The reports of the inspectors point to the fact that there is an anxiety on the part of the teachers so to work the schools as to get the largest possible amount of money out of them. One states that this is done by keeping the junior classes without their proper share of instruction, and concentrating attention chiefly on the senior classes. I do not know when the report of the Education department for 1876-7 was written, because it is not dated. It was presented to Pf.trliament in July last. If it had been dated-and I do not see why it should not have been­we would have been able to determine how far the present Minister of Public Instruction is responsible for it. The report bears the honorable gentleman's signature, but, as he only took office about the end of May, I would like to know whether he simply had time to put his signature to it before it was printed, or whether he compared it with the state­ments of the inspectors before signing it ? The report sa ys-

"In appendix E. will be found the general re­ports of the inspectors, containing their opinions on the state of education in their several districts. 'fhe results of the examinations held by them

during the year show that good progress con­tinues to be made, the average percentages of results for 1876 being 74645 as against 70'04 for the year 1875."

Now this is not sustained by any extracts from the inspectors' reports. Under the former system, when the BOH,l'd of Edu­cation wished to sustain any statements it made, it quoted the portions of the inspectors' reports on which they were based. Ragged schools were to be ren­dered unnecessary under the new system, because all neglected children were to be brought iuto the State schools; but has that been done? By the comparative smallness of the attendance at the schools, it is quite clear that it has not. From what we observe in Melbourne, and in other places, we see that the neglected children are neglected still. One of the inspectors states that a voluntary associa­tion has been formed at Geelong to pro­vide for the educational wants of these children in that district. Again, it was said that the religious difficulty would be got over by the free and compulsory sys­tem of education-that children of all religious denominations would be forced into the State schools. If there is any respect in which the system has failed it is in not having overcome the religious difficulty. Human nature is so consti­tuted that you cannot get over that diffi­culty by what is called a purely secular system of education. It has been proved that the Roman Catholic body, who con­stitute a very large portion of the popula­tion, cannot by any possibility be induced to accept this system. Then the school teachers were to have been satisfied by the new system, and their condition much improved. What do the teachers them­selves say in their own newspaper? They state that faith was deliberately broken with them by the Government who introduced the measure. It was promised that they would be made mem­bers of the civil service, be classified, and have retiring allowances, and so forth. Has that been done?

Mr. SERVICE.-The teachers have practically been made members of the civil service.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-They have not been brought under the Civil Ser­vice Act. They are placed under certain departmental regulations; but there is no guarantee that, if a change of Go­vernment took place, or a change of public opinion, they would get any of the

1086 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Puhlic Instructiol1.

privileges which were promised to them. The teachers complain loudly that faith hns not been kept with them in this mntter. Then, with regard to night schools, it is confessed in the report that night schools have failed. The report states that it is unreasonable to expect persons who are at work all day to attend school at night; and it is pointed out by the inspectors that the only way in which to secure an attendance of scholars is to encourage it by a fee, and that is so much opposed to the fundamental principles of the Act that they will not recommend it. It is also pointed out, and I notice the fact with regret, that on the ground of morals night schools cannot be "a success. And so night schools go to the wall. With regard to the infant children attending school, according to the inspectors' reports, their numbers go to swell the school rolls, but, in reality, no such thing as infant educa­tion exists. And now I come to the position which was assumed at the time of the passing of the Education Act, that to supersede the Board of Education by a responsible Minister would be a great improvement. I don't think I can be accused of having any personal feeling with reference to this matter. Not one of the four or five gentlemen who have filled the position of Minister of Public Instruc­tion can "say that I have any personal feeling towards him. But I am speaking of the system; and I ask what has the change in our educational system led to? I assert that it has made the whole depart­ment of education substantially a political institution. Instead of the education of the country being controlled by a board that had the confidence of the public-a board representative in its character-it is controlled now by a Minister, who changes with every Government, and who is able, at the opening of every State school, to deliver a lecture on political subjects, and who identifies himself, sub­stantially and politically, with the party in power for the time being. I want to know whether that is a great success? The Minister is clothed with authority to appoint masters and mistresses throughout the country, to dismiss them, to remove them from one school to another, and this power can be exercised just as the party supporting him may desire. Practically, instead of being a responsible Minister, he is an irresponsible Minister. There are no means of fixing responsi­bility upon him for his acts unless there

Sir J. 0' Shana88Y.

happens to be a majority in Parliament that will haul him over the coals. Con­sequently, what was thought the great gain of having a responsible Minister in charge of the Education department is to my mind no gain at all. Then, again, the present Minister of PubJic Instruction is also Minister of Mines, and, finding the work too onerous for him, he has been compelled to call in the assistance of another irresponsible Minister. Further, he has been compelled to appoint mem­bers out of this House as a board to investigate charges against teachers, both male and female, and I understand these gentlemen have to sit with closed doors; they cannot carryon their investigation in public. This is what the possession of a responsible Minister has done for us. I ask whether that is a proper system to continue? I am not able to say how much of the time of the Minister is taken up with the performance of the duties appertaining to the head of the Min.ing department; but I should say that the honorable gentleman must have abun­danc"e to occupy his attention, between ten o'clock in the morning and four in the afternoon, at the Education depart­ment alone, seeing that no less than 3,500 teachers are his subordinates, and that he has control over 1,500 schools spread through the length and breadth of the land. The administrative work con­nected with a department of such magni­tude must leave the Minister no idle time if he does his work properly. Not only has the honorable gentleman to transact the business of the Mines and the Educa­tion departments, but he has- to attend meetings of the Cabinet; he has also to attend the sittings of this House, which occupy as a rule until eleven or twelve o'clock at night; and further, he has to make grand tours, by special trains, to open State schools. These are some of the functions the honorable gentle­man has to perform, and it is quite clear that he cannot perform them without calling in the assistance which he has called in. While on this point I may remind the Minister that when, on a recent occasion, I raised the question of school attendance, he told me he would consult Professor Pearson, and if he found my statements were correct a report on the subject should be furnished, but this has not been done.

Major SMITH.-The information was contained in Professor Pearson's report

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.J Public Instruction. 1087

which appeared in the public prints some months ago.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I don't think it touches the point as to how many of the children enrolled attend school during the year. In addition to what I have stated, that this office is necessarily a political one, I don't think I am travelling at all out of the way when I say that before the last general election constant appeals were made by the then Minister of Public In­struction and the then head of the Govern­ment to the people of the country with reference to State education. The sub­ject was introduced in every possible way at the general election. Therefore I think I have proved my case that this depart­ment of Education, if not intended to be so originally, has become practically a political institution. Now at this stage of the discussion I may fairly ask the Minister of Public Instruction and the Government whether they do not see, without waiting for Professor Pearson's final report, that amendments are required both in the Education Act itself and in the administration of it? I consider it only a reasonable request, seeing that five years have elapsed since the passing of the Act, that the House should be fa­voured, if not this session at all events next session, with the views of the Go­vernment as to the direction in which they propose to amend the measure. I am aware that the Minister of Public Instruction has made several speeches as to the direction in which amendments should go, but it appears to me that he has overlooked that what the Education Act deals with is primary education; and that a jump from free instruction in the elements of education-reading, writing, and arithmetic-to free education at the University is a flight of such magni­tude that I doubt indeed whether any such proposal will ever become law. If honorable members will take the trouble to look at Germany or any country which has perfected a system of public education, they will find that, to se­cure anything like one harmonious whole, it is necessary to begin at the lowest school, and build up the system by degrees until the top is reached. But this jump­ing from one extreme to another is some­thing which has not been attempted in any country of the world, and I hope that such a new-fangled notion will not be counte­nanced, and particularly as the amend­ments of the law and administration which

. are required are amendments in another direction altogether. A sketch of the Prussian system of education is contained in the following paragraph which I find in the Statesman's Year Book for 1877:-

"The Prussian schools are divided into 11 classes, namely, first, elementary, embracing village or town schools; second, 'biirgerchulen,' or citizen schools; third, real schools, or schools in which languages, arts, and sciences are taught; fourth, seminaries, or schools for training ele­mentary schoolmasters; fifth, colleges; sixth, industrial schools; seventh, schools of architec­ture; eighth, schools of mines; ninth, schools of agriculture; tenth, veterinary schools; and eleventh, the universities."

I think the Minister of Public Instruction must see that the country which has ob­tained credit in all parts of the world for reaching the highest standard in the matter of public education, could not have secured that result by the adoption of the plan fore­shadowed by the honorable member, of stepping at once from the primary school to the university. And here I 'desire to point out one gross injustice connected with the administration of the present Act, the injustice of confining the prizes given for the University to children taught in State schools. I want to know what for? What reason is there, when public money is appropriated for prizes, why children educated at the cost of their parents at primary schools should not have the op­portunity of competing for the prizes with the children who attend State schools? Having dealt with the ques­tion of school attendance, expenditure, and the amount of the instruction given, I will now proceed to call attention to the petitions which have been presented to this House during the present session. I find that the Roman Catholic community have presented no less than 53 petitions complaining of the operation of the Edu­cation Act. Those petitions have come from Geelong, Mansfield, Daylesford, Gisborne, Riddell's Creek, Sunbury, Du­need, North Fitzroy, Melbourne, Mount Prospect, Collingwood, BalIan, Gordons, Bacchus Marsh, St. Kilda, Keilor, Essen­don, Broadmeadows, Hotham, Ballarat, Smythesdale,. Ararat, Stawell, Carlton, Clunes, Talbot, Sandhurst, Barkstead, Chetwynd, Coleraine, Colac, Kilmore, Tylden, Malmsbury, Taradale, W oodend, Kyneton, Redesdale, Anakie, Darraweit, Elaine, Lethbridge, Meredith, Steiglitz, St. Arnaud, Horsham, Terang, Cres­wick, Warrnambool, Brighton, Heidel­berg, Tarraville, Castlemaine, Emerald

1088 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

Hill, Echuca, Chiltern, Belfast, Wanga­l':1tta, and Richmond. In fact, petitions IHtve come from every important centre of tho colony, and they bear the signatures of 18,626 persons. Two of those petitions l}ave been printed; find I think it will be a piece of great hfirdihood to say thfit they are not representative petitions. I SfiY that the petitions which hfive been pre­sonted to this House represent the opinions and the feelings not only of those who have signed them, but of those who hfive not signed them, and who number, as I am informed, and as I believe, nearly one­fourth of the population of the country. The first petition I will refer to is one which I presented from the Archbishop of Melbourne and 700 other persons. The petitioners say-

" 'Ve respectfully renew, for the consideration of your honorable House, the prayer of. the petition presented to the late Parliament in re­ference to our conscientious objections to the State school system of education. In that peti­tion is briefly stated what we want, and what would meet our objections to the exclusively secular system by law established."

They point out that in the archdiocese of Melbourne alone there are 112 unaided Roman Catholic schools, with fin average daily attendance of 9,732 children, which, according to the Government standard, means a maximum fittendance of 20,000; and they state further-

"Tha.t, as in 1872, when the Education Act was under discussion, we urged the adoption of a system fair to all educational interests, being that known as 'payment by results,' and' capi­tation,' so now, we do not ask for the expendi­ture of any public money upon religious training, nor for a separate grant to be expended under our own control, but that our schools be officially inspected like the State schools, and payment made upon the claim and certificate usually adopted by the Education department." That is a distinct controversion of the misrepresentation constantly indulged in by the press, that the Roman Catholic clergy wish to get the entire control of a portion of the money annually granted by the State in aid of education, for no other purpose than to teach religion in secular schools. All that the Roman Catholics ask is that, their schools may be plficed under Government fnspeotion, and that certificates that children in those schools have reached the standard required in reading, writing, arithmetic, grammar, and geography should be given exactly as they are given in State schools, and that a payment should be made accordingly. Would a,ny religious training be paid for by that transaction? N ~ne whatever.

Sir J. 0' Shanassy.

Then again, the Bishop of Ballarat (Dr. O'Connor) says, ill his petition-

"That we feel it a great grievance to be com­pelled, through the general taxes, to pay our share of the enormous educational expenses of the country, and to receive in return a system of education which, on account of its exclusion of religion, is opposed to the dictates of our con­science and the principles of our faith, and, therefore, practically unavailable for us."

This assertion is made by a man who is at the head of a large diocese; and another ecclesiastic of the same order (Dr. Crane) repeats the statement in his petition; and yet these persons and the large population they thoroughly represent are to be told, forsooth, that they really don't know what they are asking for. They are to be told that they don't understand their own be­lief-what is binding on their consciences -and that, therefore, their request cannot be acceded to. However, I do not think thfit the public mind, when it has awakened to the subject, will consent to the contin­uance of the grievous injustice which these petitioners complain of. Not only do the Roman Catholics contribute their fair pro­portion to the general taxation, but they have to put their hands in their own pockets for the maintenance of their own schools for conscientious reasons which they have declared publicly, and which cannot be gainsaid; and yet the Roman Catholics are not the most wealthy por­tion of this community. They consist chiefly of farmers, labourers, and persons in trade. There are very few wealthy persons among them. And yet this poor class are compelled, by the operation of the law, to pay taxes for the maintenance of State schools in which the children of parents who are well-to-do are educated free, and at the same time they are called upon to support their own schools ~ut of their own pockets for conscientious reasons which they cannot give up. In any fair dealing community, with regard to any arrangement between two parties, would such a system be considered equitable or just? The second and third paragraphs of the petition are as follows :-

"That our grievance is made more manifest by the compulsory clauses of the Education Act, which, in effect, though not in terms, require us eitber to sacrifice our conscience, by sending our children to the State schools, or tax our­selves a second time, by sending them to schools where we must pay for their education.

"'I.'bat this law, which virtually forces on us either of these alternatives, seems to us irrecon­cilable with the spirit of our Constitution, which guarantees us liberty of conscience j with the principles of our courts of equity, which uphold

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.] Public Instruction. 1089

the father's right to determine the character of the education his child should receive; and, finally, with the principles of justice, which en­title us to receive from the State, in return for our portion of the taxes, some advantage which we could avail ourselves of without violating conscience."

This allusion to the "spirit of our Con­stitution" is not merely based upon the tenor and provisions of the Constitution Act, which give liberty of conscience to all in matters of religion, but also upon the legislation which has arisen therefrom. I particularly refer to a measure relating to the swearing of oaths of allegiance of office, which was passed by this Legis­lature some two or three years after thq Constitution Act came into opera­tion. The preamble of that Act is as follows :-

"Whereas the civil and religious rights of all Her Majesty's subjects in Victoria are, and ought to be, absolutely equal, irrespective of their faith or form of belief: And whereas for the purpose of openly recognising and continu­ing such equality and of removing anything which may be deemed or construed to separate or distinguish any class of such subjects in this colony from any other class thereof, and in order to promote the harmony and welfare of the people, it is expedient to provide and establish two uniform oaths or affirmations of allegiance and office respectively, in lieu of the oaths and declaration now by law required in that behalf."

For the purpose here stated the measure was framed so as to place all subjects of Her Majesty within the colony upon terms, with respect to the taking of oaths and affirmations, agreeable to their several consciences; and eight or nine years afterwards-in 1866 or 1867-1 had the pleasure of witnessing the adopt.ion, by the House of Commons, of a kindred mea­sure, whereby aU differences with respect to the oaths of office taken by a certain class of officials-the governors of colo­nies, for example-were entirely removed. I take it that the Victorian Act I allude to may be regarded as laying down the principle, which the Imperial Parliament subsequently accepted, that no injustice whatever to people on account of their conscientious beliefs was contemplated by the Legislature. The next paragraph of the petition states :-

"That the latest legislation in England upon primary education recognises the right of the poorest parent whose children are educated at the public expense to select whatever school his judgment may approve."

That shows that parental control in edu­cational affairs is recognised by the law of England as a simple matter of jqstice. The next paragraph is the following:-

VOI~. XXVI.-~l K

" That we shall never cease to use all consti­tutional means to obtain from the Legisiature the recognition of our just claims with regard to the education of our children."

I think it will be admitted on all hands that the fact of Parliament being petitioned in the way and to the extent it is, after the Education Act has been five years in operation, affords undeniable proof that the Roman Catholic body are not content with the present state of the law, that it is utterly useless to expect that finally they will be reconciled to it, and that, therefore, the assertion contained in the words I have just read will be fully borne out by events. A further paragraph of the petition is as follows:-

" That it cannot be inferred from the alleged increase of Catholic children in the State schools throughout the country that Catholics are be­coming reconciled to the State system, as that increase must be attributable to the more .st.rin­gent enforcement of the compulsory clauses of the Act, and must occur only in those districts where the Catholics are either too few or too scattered to support a school of their own."

No doubt an argument of some sort will be founded on a query of this kind :-" If the present secular system is so much opposeJ. to the conscientious opinions of Homan Catholics, how is the fact that a num-

. bel' of their children go to State schools accounted for?" But it appears from the petit.ion that that quest.ion is answered on two grounds, first, that by the more stringent enforcement of the compulsory provisions of the Education Act, making it imperative that parents should send their children to some school, they are, for want of means to establish schools of their own, or to educate their children in their own houses, obliged to send them to a State school; and, secondly, that in the dis­tricts of the colony where Roman Catho­lics are thinly settled they are unable, be­cause of the limited nature of their meant-!, and the suddenness of the action which upset all their former educational plans, to organize at the present time any general system of education for themselves, espe­cially amongst the pooror classes. Thero­fore, in fairness, the argument I allnde to cannot be said to have any genuine founda­tion. The fact that some Homan CaHlOlic parents send their chiJ.dren to State schools has only this meaning: that they have really no other alternative, because they are reduced to the necessity of saying -" We object to the system of State schools, as most unjust to us; b1lt we have only the choice between two evils, namely, of either letting our children grow up in

1090 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

absolute ignorance, or of sending them to receive secular instruction at the hands of the State." Their use of State schools to that extent can never be constituted an argument to prove that they assent to the State system. An overwhelming con­tradiction to every assumption of the kind is afforded by the circumstance that wherever in the various centres of po­pulation they are in numbers sufficient for the purpose, they have built school­houses, engaged masters and mistresses of their own, and provide, under the greatest possible disadvantages and diffi­culties, for all their own educational wants. This is done not in any spirit of bravado against the law, nor any unwillingness to fall in with the views of their fellow citi­zens, but simply because their conscience forbids them to employ the educational means provided by the State under the Education Act. I assert that the argu­ment on the side of Roman Catholics, which is comprised in their self-sacrifice in this direction - in not only the rich but others among them putting their hands into their pockets in order to provide their children in divers ways with separate education, while they at the same time pay in the shape of taxation'their share of the cost of the State education they object to make use of-is amply sufficient to prove that their principles in the matter are something which they will never yield. Be it remembered, moreover, that this 'sort of thing is no novelty. Look at any country yon like - America, Germany, France, England, Ireland, or Scotland­and you will find conscientious Roman Catholics pursuing precisely the same course there. Surely then to attribute to the Roman Catholics of Victoria any spe­cial peculiarity of feeling in the matter is utterly absurd. So much are their prin­ciples on this point respected in England that, according to the latest statements on the subject that have come to hand, the school boards of London have absolutely handed over the education of Roman Ca­tholic children to Roman Catholic schools. That is done in deference to the conscien­tious feelings of the Roman Catholics in the metropolis. Instances of a similar kind are to be found in almost every country, and our own industrial and reformatory schools as well. There can be no doubt whatever that the feeling which I describe as existing among the Roman Catholics of Victoria exists among Roman Catho­lics throughout the world. As a matter

Sir J. 0' Shanassy.

of course, I find that those who take a certain part in the discussion of public affairs are, with respect to the present question, necessarily driven to attribute motives. Thus we hear of "the Catholic organization" or "the Catholic vote" as something of such tremendous power that an election candidate is often told that unless he gets it in his favour he will not be returned. I cannot say much for it myself, because once or twice I have found it exercised against me. It does not ap­pear, therefore, that the particular way in which this supposed great influence is exercised is always very clearly defined. I regret deeply that in this colony so many subjects that ought to have nothing to do with politics are thoroughly mixed up with them. For example, until this educational question is settled it is impossible to hold a general election without finding it crop up on every side. Therefore the sooner the difficulty is removed out of the way the better will it be for the social interests of the country. A great many persons seem very fond of saying-" Why cannot a Catholic do with respect to education what is done by Protestants, and people of no religion at all?" But why should such a question ever be put? Has it not always been recognised throughout the world that conscience is a paramount in­fluence, and something above all secular authority? Have not despots-whether monarchs or Parliaments-always had to yield in the end on this point, no matter how long they stood out against it? Take the earlier days of the Roman Em­pire. It did not seem much to ask a man to swear by the genius of the emperor, yet, rather than comply with the request, thousands went to martyrdom, and the whole world applauds what they did. Take the Jews. Have they ever re­nounced the law of Moses at the instance of any Legislature that ever was consti­tuted? Have they not, over and over again, sacrificed their civil rights and suffered all manner of persecution, sooner than go against their conscience on that point? Were they not for a long time, because they would not swear "on the true faith of a Christian," excluded from the British House of Commons; and has not the Imperial Parliament had, within our own day, to admit them on their own terms? In the same way, for several hundred years, Roman Catholics were excluded from the British Parliament be­cause they would not take the oath of

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.J Puhlic Insb·uction. 1091

supremacy; but in the end it was the Legislature, not the Catholic body, that had to yield, and let them in on their own terms, which are now made the law of the realm. The same thing has occurred in innumerable other instances. Legislatures must yield to conscience, which is beyond their function and control. Directly they enter its domain they commit an unjustifi­able act, and if the point is contested they are always finally worsted. The next paragraph of the petition is the follow­ing:-

"That the Catholic schools which have been kept in operation since the withdrawal from them of State aid have now a larger number on their rolls, and a higher average attendance, than heretofore."

I believe that not only is that statement perfectly correct, but also that the educa­tion afforded in Catholic schools is as good as, if it is not superior to, that which is given in State schools. At the same time I am sure the cost of the former is much less than that of the latter. The petition goes on to state-

"That they much misrepresent us who say that it is not the laity but the pastors of the church who are keeping alive the agitation upon the education question, for in all matters, not only of faith but morals, the laity must ever be united with their pastors."

Those who take the smallest trouble to acquaint themselves with the history of the Roman Catholic church are bound to admit that no layman of that body can sever himself from its authority. If he does so sever himself he ceases to be a member of the church at all. In order to belong to the church he must accept its doctrines and teachings. That is an in­dispensable ·condition; One of its doc­trines is that its children must be educated in secular and religious matters together, and no one who does not accept that view of the case, but decides for himself differ­ently, can truly describe himself as a member of the Roman Catholic body. It is impossible to deny that this doctrine has been openly expressed by the church on all necessary occasions. I now come to the concluding paragraph of the peti­tion, which is as follows :-

"That, in conClusion, we suggest, as a prac­tical remedy for our grievances, that the in­spectors appointed under the Education Act visit our schools, and examine our children in the same subjects of secular instruction as they do in the State schools; and upon their report and certificate let payment be made, directly to the teachers "--Not to the priests, as the newspapers say.

4K2

"for results, upon any equitable principle that will allow equal remuneration for equal work in our schools as in those of the State."

That is the prayer of the petitioners, and it points out the way in which they desire to settle the difficulty. They say they will give the State every guarantee that Roman Catholic scholars shall receive a secular education, and keep up a rate of attendance equal to that obtained in State schools. Why will not the State accept the proposition? What hinders the ar­rangement? If under it children do not attain the proper amount of efficiency in reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and grammar, not one penny is asked for in their behalf. It is not suggested that the State shall be put to any expenditure whatever on account of Catholic children except after a full examination with respect to their proficiency, and upon the certificate of a school inspector chosen by the State. itself. What objection on the ground of justice and equity can there be to this plan? One of the promoters of the Education Act once stated that he would take care, if he could, to hinder the growth of the Catholic church in Victoria. The meaning of that is that he would use the power of the State to prevent that church having any more schools. If the present educational system, against which the petitioners protest, was designed on politico-religious grounds, why should it be continued? Why should the individual I allude to have any authority on the subject in the country? I am happy to say he has now no such authority. He belongs to the class described in the old lines-

" He that fights and runs away May live to fight another day; For those that fly may fight again, Which he can never do that's slain."

He has retired gracefully to another and more dignified position, namely, the Su­preme Court bench, where he enjoys a comfortable provision for life. Surely he ought not to have mentioned what I allude to as his ·motive for introducing the Education Act. I would not refer to the subject now, seeing he is no longer a member of the Assembly, but for the fact that he endeavoured to cast upon my ad­ministration of the former educational law . of the country a slur for which he had not the smallest justification or ground. I have now pretty nearly finished dealing with the subject I have brought under the notice of the House. I trust I have said nothing that can be construed to mean

1092 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] P,ltblic Instruction.

that I have any personal or special interest in the question, or any desire to embarrass the present or any succeeding Government by placing it upon a political basis. My desire is rather to withdraw the subject of education from the arena of politics. I simply ask that if the primary education of all the children of the couutry is to be at the charge of the State, the thing shall not be carried on according to the exist­ing system, which may be said to have failed in two essential points. In the first place, it has suppressed parental authority, parental rights, and parental responsibility, in order that the State might assume them. It has constituted children the children of the State rather than of their parents. That is a tho­roughly false principle, and so far as it has been adopted under the Education Act so far has the Act failed. If it is, as was admitted the other night, a wrong proceeding, in connexion with our indus­trial and reformatory 8.chools, to encourage parents to get rid of the charge of their ~hil(h;IilI!, it is equaUy so, in connexion with State schools, to absolve them from their parental responsibilities with respect to the education of their children, by withdrawing from them any necessity to pay, at least according to their means, for that education. What do we see evei·y day to be the consequence of that state of things? Troops of magnificently dressed children, the offspring of parents worth £3,000, £4,000, and £5,000 a year, sent to the State schools of the country as pauper children. (" No.") They are practically pauper children, inasmuch as the act of their parents, in not paying for their edu­cation, but letting the State do so, is the act of paupers. There is no denying the conclusion-no getting away from the in­ference. They put their hands into the Treasury till, in order to get their children's schooling paid for, although part of that payment comes out of the pockets of those who are compelled, for reasons of con­science, to refrain from availing themselves of the State system of education, and to send their children to private or separate schools. What difference is there between that and the plan adopted by paupers?

Mr. MUNRO.-The State schools are like the public roads of the colony.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY. -Iu no way arc they alike. There is no parallel be­tween the public roads and the State schools. Public roads involve no conscien­tious considerations. They are something

which every ODe can use alike without any objection. There is no getting away from this with respect to State. schools, that all have to contribute to their cost while some are disabled from using them. They cannot use them, because their con­science forbids them to do so.

Mr. McINTYRE. - '''hy does their conscience so forbid them?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-They are cus­todians of their own consciences, but not -so the Education Act says in effect­of their own money. The law proposes that all shall pay for what all cannot use. That is the fundamental fault of the sys­tem, and it will last so long as the proper remedy is not applied. The Legislature is not justified in attempting to suppress conscientious objections to anything, be­cause matters of conscience are beyond its domain. Another statement put forward, particularly in the press, is that to grant the prayer of the petitioners, and estab­lish payment by results, will be simply making the State pay for religious teach­ing. That is a truly comic argument, for which there is no foundation whatever. If the Catholics build their own schools out of their own money, and merely ask the State to pay for the secular education imparted in those schools, how is the State compromised by the fact that with that secular education religious education will also be given? For that religious education the State does not and would not have to pay one farthing. No pay­ment on that account is sought for in any way. In a new country like this it appears to me there is nothing more desirable than that all divisions arising out of religious differences should be removed in order that society may be amalgamated on the only possible basis, that of social harmony. Nothing is more certain than that no social amalgamation brought about by mere force of law can last. It never has lasted, and never will last. Therefore, the only way to bring about social harmony on the pre­sent question is to concede to those who have conscientious objections to the State educational system what they ask, namely, that the State which pays in one way for the secular education of other children should pay in another way for the secular education of Catholic children. They seek for nothing more. I have seen it stated somewhere that if payment by re­sults were once granted with respect to Roman Catholic children the same conces­sion would be at once demanded by other

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.] Public Instruction. 1093

religious bodies. Let me deal with that point at once. During the time the Edu­cation Act has been in operation, has any other religious denomination asked for any privileges with regard to education beyond those they at present enjoy ? Not one of them has applied for anything of the kind.

Mr. MUNRO.-They knew that if they did apply they would not get it.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-How can the honorable member for Carlton, who has often told ns of what a minority in this Chamber once suffered from the gag of the "iron band," know that if such a request were ever made it would not be granted? If any large section of the community were to object to the State educational system in the same way as the present petitioners object to it, and were to make an appeal to the Legislature on the subject, offering strong grounds why what they asked for should be con­ceded, I have not the slightest doubt their request would receive the attention of Parliament, and that the honorable member for Carlton, as well as every other honorable member, would,' if he thought their prayer reasonable, be quite ready to yield to it. Honorable members arc obliged to conform to public opinion. But at present no such opinion has been expressed, nor do we know that any re­ligious body in the colony, save the Roman Catholics, have any conscientious objec­tions to the principle UPOll which the State schools are established. Perhaps, how­ever, such objections are entertained by several religious bodies, who have not yet spoken on the subject, and are for the present quiescent, simply because they regard the proceedings in connexion with the Education Act as a sort of storm which will pass over by-and-by, when they will get their rights without a struggle. Supposing they were to make an application to the Legislature like that now made by the Homan Catholics, and offering the same terms, namely, to build their own schools, and -receive payment for only the secular education their chil­clren received, what objection would there be to complying with their request?

Mr. McINTYHE. - Our educational system would then be a denominational one.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Not at all. If any of the other religious bodies were to simply ask for what the Roman Catho­lics now ask, namely, that while they

the~selves pay for the religious instruc­tion imparted to their children the State should pay for their secular education, what ground would there be for talking about denominationalism? N one what­ever. Besides, I am not so much alarmed at the word "denominationalism" as I might be. I don't see the bugbear. What is the offence in people holding religious beliefs according to their consciences as Roman Catholics, members of the Church of England, Presbyterians, Independents, -W· esleyans, or Baptists? Wh:;tt wrong does conscientious feeling on the subject of religion do? vVhat evil to society does it cause? 'Vhy should Parliament en­deavour to suppress it? For my part, I prefer that Roman Catholics, and members of every other religious denomination, slIould be able to practise their religion and carry it out to the fullest extent.

Mr. McINTYHE.-And so say all of us.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Then let tlIe honorable member carry out what he pro­fesses. And now with regard to the effect the continuance of the present educational system in Victoria will have upon the Australian colonies as a whole. Possibly I may be crel1ited with a strong desire to see Australia, flourish and prosper, and that throughout its borders all evil feelings on religious grounds should be entirely allayed.. How will our prospect of such a state of things be advanced by Victoria pOl'severing in her present educational sys­tem, which her neighbours have carefully examined, and thoroughly disagree with? It is regarded by Queensland and New South Wales as expensive and-to usc an expression applied to it by a member of the New South Wales Government­" gaudy," and sometlIing that will not last. A number of persons even hl this colony are of the same opinion, but they desire to let the thing go on, because they con­sider that that is the only way in which its downfall can be brought about. They advise patience, considering that the sys­tem will die out of itself, if there is no agitation against it. That was the re­commendation given to me by a large number of members of my own religious communion. But would I be taking up a respectable position if, conceiving that a great wrong was being done, I refrained from letting the light of day in npon it? Is it not more manly and honorable for a citizen of this free community to make known tbe grievances he sees in existence,

1094 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public lnst'l'uction.

rather than hide them in the hope that some day they may bring about their own remedy? Looking to the future of the Australian colonies, I want to know what possible bond amongst us there can be, if, on a subject like that of education, we are to be divided from the start-if we are not to be animated by an earnest desire to hold together, and unite, where it is pos­sible, for the common good? Is it not certain that, by dealing with subjects of general interest like education, in such a way as to create and promote divisions and disagreements, we are retarding the progress of the continent? A great autho­rity, looking at the growth o~ the early American colonies, was so struck with admiration at the circumstance of people going out to a new world there to en­joy the most perfect liberty of conscience, that he was impelled to exclaim, in lan­guage which ought to be also applicable to these colonies-

" Lo I smiling forward on rejoicing suns, Gay colonies ad vance, The calm retreat of undeserved distress, The better home of those whom fortune

chased from distant lands; Not built on rapine, servitude, or woe, But, bound by social freedom, firm they

rise I"· .

I will conclude by asking the Minister of Public Instruction if the Government in­tend to grant the prayer of the petitions to which I have called attention; and if so, when?

Major SMITH.-Sir, before entering fully upon the important question raised by the honorable member for Belfast, I will deal with one or two of his pre­liminary . remarks. He began by com,,: plaining that I did not, directly the edu­cation vote was proposed, make a short statement of the effect that was to be expected from the contemplated expendi­ture. I did not take that course for a ,very good reason. It was originally my intention to pursue it, and, having intro­duced the subject by a few plain explana­tions, to reserve a more exhaustive utter­ance on the matter until a later stage; but I refrained from so doing because, the honorable member having for months past given indications of the line he in­tended to follow, I judged it best to allow him to open the discussion. Again, the honorable member spoke of information c~nnected with the working of the educa­tIOnal system of the colony wh~ch he had asked for anu not been supplied with; but I aSSllre him that eyer;r possible

effort was made by the Education depart­ment to meet his views. The returns he applied for were not furnished simply bec~use the departmen~ was practically unable to furnish them. For instance, the production of one of them would have occupied several months. Upon the pre­paration of another some £300 or £400 had been expended, when it was found that only a very small portion of the required information had been obtained; and therefore, seeing that it was per­fectly absurd going on in that way, I caused the return to be completed by means of approximate estimates. I assure him, however, that those e:::;timates were made fairly, without any picking of schools, and that, as far as it goes, the information based upon them may be accepted as very approximately correct. Another of the honorable member's re­marks was to the effect that he preferred the old denominationally composed Board of Education to a Minister of Public In­struction responsible to Parliament. He omitted, however, to mention that a Mi­nister.of Public Instruction might be easily called to account by Parliament for his acts, and that nothing of the sort could be said of the board. He also overlooked the fact that the basis on which the board was constituted was decided by himself, as head of the then existing Government, and that it has been very frequently as­sel'ted that but for the principle on which appointments to that body had afterwards to be made it might have been so managed as to give the colony all in the shape of educational reform it could possibly desire, and in that way have rendered a new Edu­cation Act wholly unnecessary. He spoke in high terms of the working of the former Education Act; but the facts and figures which will be shortly placed before the committee will satisfy honorable members that under the present system, which I admit is not perfect, a still more marked progress has been made. I will show that the operation of that system has brought about not only a large increase in the nnmber of children attending school in the colony, but also in the educational results achieved and the average of attend­ance by scholars; and, furthermol'e, that the improvement so effected is relatively far greater than auy that took place under the former plan. I am aware that there hQ.s not, since the existing Education Act c~~e into force, been anything like a com­pre~e~s~ ye deba~e in copnexion with the

Supply. [OCTOBER 16. ] Public Instruction. 1095

education vote of each year, but there was good reason for the omission. Hon­orable members felt that while a vast change was being inaugurated in our national educational arrangements - a change so important that it affected the very foundations upon which our educa­tional affairs were based-it was necessary to show every possible consideration to those upon whom the responsibility of the work rested. Those who fought so strongly for the establishment of the new state of things were determined that its administration should have every chance; and for that reason it was not thought fit to subject it to the ordeal of a searching parliamentary discussion. But we have now arrived at a period when the people of the country have a right to expect that the best possible results should accrue from the vast educa­tional expenditure they have sanctioned; and, in recognition of that claim, I court throughout the whole of the discussion upon which we have just entered the fullest possible inquiry. In so doing I have only one object, namely, to find out to the utmost extent where the present system is defective, in order that, by applying the proper remedy, I may render it as nearly perfect as it can be made. And now to come to more solid matters. The honorable member for Belfast is no doubt perfectly satisfied with the cogency and conclusiveness of the arguments he offered, but I beg to say that I entirely differ from him. I will show him, hy means of information derived from the most reliable sources, that he has in a vast number of instances drawn most improper conclusions from very distorted facts. He referred to his own denomination as forming a very considerable portion of the general community, and so it does. Sta­tistics show that the Roman Catholics of the colony constitute nearly one-fourth of the entire population-that is, they num­ber about 200,000 out of a total popula­tion of 840,000. But what is the next fact brought under our notice? It is that there are attending the various schools of the colony-State schools and all­about 260,000 children. How many of them attend Roman Catholic schools? Only 13,500 children. Taking the total number of the Roman Catholic children in the colony to be 65,000, or one-fourth of 260,000. we find th?-t only 13,500 of them attend Roman Catholic schools. What schools do the balance of that 65,000

attend? Most of them must belong to some school or another. I think this a most important circumstance, and one that has a crushing effect upon several of the honorable member's arguments. Fur­thermore, let us look at the broad fact that at the end of the present year the State capitation allowance to Roman Catholic schools will cease, and that doubtless it is to that state of things we owe the immense number of petitions from the Roman Catholics of the colony which have lately been presented to Par­liament. The 'Roman Catholic body is a very united one, and can beat any other in the colony at petitioning. To what, in this condition of affairs, are we warranted in looking forward? To the probability that by the end of next year the number of children attending Roman Catholic schools will be very few indeed, and that we shall then also hear very little, except from a few persons of extreme opinions, of the present denominational outcry on their behalf. I think another of the honor­able member's arguments-the main por­tion . of them indeed-was answered by his own remark, towards the end of his speech, that if what the Roman Catholics asked for was given them, their success would undoubtedly be the signal for other denominations to demand a similar con­cession in their favour. One of my col­leagues, who is remarkably good at figures, has calculated that instead of one-fourth (which ought, according to mere figures, to be the ratio) of the children of the colony attending Roman Catholic schools, the proportion is only one-nineteenth. And now I will give a few figures illus­trative of the progress that has been made under the present educational system. The Education Act came into operation at the beginning of 1873, and our four years' experience of it ought to enable us to form a pretty good idea of its working. In1871 there were attending the common schools of the colony-I am referring not to the average attendance but to the num­bers on the rolls-114,323 children, while the attendance at the State schools in 1876 shows a total of 194,018 children, or an increase in five years of 79,695 children. The attendance at private schools in 1871 amounted to 27,375 children, while in 1876 it was 28,847, which shows an in­crease of 1,472. As indicating the more important results which the supporters of the Act always said would foHow the adoption of a proper system of national

1096 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

education, I will state that in 1871 there were 2,648 children in our industrial and reformatory schools, while in 1876 the number was only 1,191, which shows a decrease of 1,457. That is a very impor­tant and satisfactory result.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-It is simply owing to the boarding-out system.

Major SMITH.-No doubt a large por­tion of the decrease can be explained in that way, but not all of it. To come to something else as an even better illustra­tion of what I wish to convey. If honor­ablo members refer to the debate which took place in this Chamber when the Edu­cation Bill which constitutes the existing Act was under our consideration-a debate which reflects credit on the Legislative Assembly of Victoria-they will find that its supporters, over and over again, urged that one of its effects would assuredly be a diminution of the crime of the country, while its opponents asserted that nothing of the sort would follow its operation. 'VeIl, what is the result? I find, from a return given in Hayter, that in 1871 the number of prisoners committed for trial was 781, while in 1876 it was 680, which shows a decrease of 101; and that in l8i 1 the number of prisoners convicted and sentenced was 487, while in 1876 it was 3iB, which shows a diminution of 153, or over 30 per cent. During the !lallle period the population of the colony increased by 88,013 persons.

An HONORABLE MEl\1BER.-The "old hands" are dying out.

Major SMITH.-The point is that, under the new educational system we have inaugurated, new hands are not taking the old hands' places. The facts I state are trumpet-tongued. I notice the honorable member for Belfast carefully avoided men­tioning them.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Another part of Hayter will tell you a different story.

Major SMITH.-Another important argumeut offered during the debate I allude to was that, under the new system, economy and efficiency would be obtained by doiug away with schools competing against each other, and by making one good school in a particular district perform the work of three or four indifferent ones. That contention has been thoroughly jus­tified by the result. On the 1 st January, 1873, there were in the colony 1,043 schools in operation, whereas there were in existence last month 1,353 State schools aud 35 capitation schools, making a total

of 1,388 schools. But how are the pre­sent schools distributed? Of the total number, 521 provide for new localities, in which no school existed previously, while the balance of 867 schools are now suc­cessfullyperforming the work which, under the old system, occupied 1,043 schools. In fact, by the amalgamation of schools, 167 unnecessary ones have been dispensed with. I will give honorable members a return, which shows still further the effect of the Act in this direction. It is as follows :-

1872. 1876. -- ~~--

Schools. Scholnrs. Schools. Scholnrs. ------- --- ----- ---Brunswick ... 4 340 1 554 Chewton '" 4 346 2 436 Coburg ... 3 186 1 265 Gisborne ... 2 169 1 180 Belfast ... 3 _ 229 1 280 Beechworth ... 3 620 1 503 Benalla ... '2 107 1 160 Eltham . .. 2 89 1 78 Myrniong West 2 50 2 51

-- --- ._----Totals ... 25 2,136 11 2,507

Facts of this sort tell us that the Act is largely answering the purposes its pro­moters had in view. Another point on which the honorable member for Belfast laid a great deal of stress was that the aver­age effective attendance at State schools had fallen off; but I think I am able to show him that the effective attendance has, in reality, vastly incre~sed. And where did the increase come from if not from the vast portion of population which were receiving next to no education at all? I was very anxious to get at the facts with regard to this, and I have been furnished by Professor Pearson with a return which shows that the effective attendance jn Victoria in 1871 was 32'82 in 100, and in 1876 it was 37'41 in 100. The effective attendance in Eng­land is 32 in 100; and in Scotland, 45. I am in a position to show, from over­whelming evidence, that the honorable member for Belfast is wrong in his figures, no doubt inadvertently, and from a natural anxiety to put the best face on his case. I asked one of the oldest, and undoubtedly one of the ablest, inspectors of schools for his views on this question, and he informs me that from 1864 to 1868 names were struck off the roll for non-attendance, and in consequence the percentage of average attendance was increased. Now, however, the names of children are retained on the

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.] Public Instruction. 1097

roll even if they do not attend, and there­fore the rolls during the period to which the honorable member for Belfast has re­ferred are of no value for the purposes of comparison with the present system.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I spoke of 1870 and 1871.

Major SMITH.-A report which the inspector I refer to has furnished me shows that the average attendance for the six years ending 1872 was 49'7, while for the four years ending 1876 it was 46'9, or only from 2! to 3 per cent. less; that notwithstanding the enormous influx of children into the schools, the average attendance has increased from 60,000 to 124,000. That enormous in­flux, and the sickness which has pre­vailed among children since the Educa­tion Act came into operation, fully account for the difference. I also thought it due to the secretary to the department to see what complexion he placed on this im­portant subject; and Mr. Venables has fur­nished me with a report which gives the percentage of school attendance both in Victoria and other countries. The honor­able member for Belfast frequently re­ferred in the course of his remarks to the case of England; and no doubt he will be surprised to find that we are far and away_ ahead of England. We can show much higher results. I recollect that during the debates in this House on the Education Act in 1872, the gentleman who introduced the measure mentioned the startling fact that while in the Prussian army only 2 per cent. could not read or write, in the English army the percentage was 57 per cent. So that I don't think the honorable member goes to high educational authority when he goes to England. Now I find, from Mr. Venables, that the proportion of popula­tion attending school is, in Victoria, 13'2 per cent.; in England only 9; in Ireland, 7 ; in Ontario, ll'6; in Prussia, 15; in Norway, 14; in Denmark, 13, So that we are twice as high over England that Prussia is over us, Mr. Venables gives this explanation:- -

" The Act specifies in the compulsory clauses that all children must attend 120 days in each

-year, The actual average daily attendance was 55'1 per cent, of the number on the rolls reduced for attendance at more than one school. This gives an average attendance of 127-3 days for each child, or 7'3 more than the compulsory time, , , The proportion of average attend­ance to the total number enrolled, unreduced for attendance at more than one school, was in 1872, I 50-3; 1873, 47'5; 1874, 4S-2; IS75, 46-0; 1876,

46'1. A reduction in the regularity of attend­ance was to be expected in IS73, owing to the influx of nearly 70,000 undisciplined children; it commenced to recover in 1874, The sickness prevalent during 1875 and 1876 fully accounts for the inferior regularity duriug those years, Further than this, the rules for marking the daily attendance are now more stringent than in 1872, The wet days, and days when the attend­ance was unusually small, might be excluded in calculating the average attendance. This is not now permitted,"

In 1875 and 1876 there were scores of schools the attendance at which was ma­terially affected by the sickness among children. Thousands of children were not sent to school for that reason. Parents would not risk the chance of infection. But now that sickness is not so prevalent the attendance has enormously increased. Last year the average att~ndance was no more than 106,000; but in the month before last (August) the attendance rose to 124,865, showing clearly that, as parents acq uire confidence and schools are erected, the attendance will naturally and steadily increase, I have here a return which shows the increase from year to year. In 1872, the total number of children en­rolled was 135,962, and the average at­tendance was 68,436. In 1873, the num­ber enrolled was 207,826, or an increase of nearly 70,000, and the average attendance was 9R,746. In 1876, the number enrolled was 231,560, and the average attendance was 106,758. Thus it will be seen that in the course of four years and nine months the school attendance has nearly doubled. I think that fact alone ought to convince the honorable member for Belfast and those who think with him that it is per­fectly useless to attempt to fight against this measure. Being anxious to form an in­dependent judgment with regard to school attendance, I requested certain officers to prepare statements showing the average attendance at certain schools, town and country, and the result is thus given in a comparative 'table 7-

Pupils, A vernge Attendance. Days, --

~J~~ 1872. 1876. ------St, Peter's ... .. , ... 177'24 176'24 Dandenong ... 91 250 208'69 231'06 Gisborne ... 132 151 189'S8 263'91 Bacchus Marsh . 135 280 lS1'05 252'58 Melton ... .. , 82 130 202'89 ·242'27

Honorable members will perceive that in this matter of school attendance very satisfactory progress is being made. Not

1098 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

only are we winning our way, notwith­standing the large influx of indifferent scholars, but there is every probability that during the current year the percentage will be much larger than it has been in any year whether under the new system or the old. Now I think I have said suf­ficient to show that the present Educa­tion Act is capable of ultimately conferring a vast amount of good upon the people of this country. I may state that I have felt it my duty to ascertain exactly the posi­tion of the teachers employed by the State, because unless we have efficient and ac­complished teachers, from the highest schools to the lowest, our educational system will not succeed as it ought to do. I regret to find that we have not at present a sufficient number of what I may call perfectly qualified teachers. We have had to take over - I might say forcibly, owing to schools being closed, and in order to prevent injustice being done-a large number of utterly unquali­fied teachers, and a considerable number of unclassified teachers. On the whole I may say that the vast majority of the teachers are able, intelligent, highly edu­cated, and highly efficient, but I regret to say there is a considerable minority not so efficient. It is my intention to ask my honorable colleague, the Treasurer, when the time comes, to place me in funds, to payoff these teachers in some way, so that they may be weeded out, and their places taken by teachers whom we are gradually rearing up and who promise to be highly effective. To show that I am not making this statement without any just ground, I may mention that, pursuant to request, each school inspector has sent me a confidential report of the number of unqualified teachers in his district, and I have here an epitome of the reports with respect to over 100 teachers who are not qualified, according to the inspectors, to discharge. their duties. These men are described in this fashion :-" Knows very little about the management of a school;" "of very little nse as a teacher;" "no idea of teaching;" "old and feeble, inex­perienced, of very little use to the depart­ment;" "unsuccessful in teaching, and personally unpopular;" "ignorant of the method of teaching and school manage­ment;" "wants ability and energy;" "somewhat indolent and careless, takes little interest· in the school;" "poor teacher and bad disciplinarian," "ex­tremely poor teacher, indolent and very

Major Smith.

careless ;" "ineffective in the discharge of his duties;" "not the slightest aptitude for imparting instruction;" " thorough gross ignorance of the art of teaching ;" "a perfectly useless teacher;" "quite incompetent;" " utterly incompetent ;" "should not be employed in any State school." This is a sample of the charac­ters given by the inspectors of a certain number of the teachers.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.--Who appointed them?

Major SMITH. - If the honorable member for Belfast thinks he can b/itse any argument on these facts against the present educational system, I tell him that nearly all these teachers came from capi­tation schools. But for those capitation schools we would have had higher results last year. However, whether they came from capitation schools or not, it is my firm determination to get rid of them on the best terms we can; and I venture to say, when that is done, the immediate result will be an improvement in the whole class of education in this country. One teacher whom I discharged last week has since 'come to my ofi!ce and demanded a board, on the ground that he had been in the service 17 years. I read ~o him the Gharacter I had received about him, and I said I would not appoint a board. He said he would bring the matter before the House, and I suggested that his character should be brought before the House also. I could not think of appointing a board in such a case, when three or four inspec­tors unite in saying that such a person should not be in charge of a school. I venture to say that of the 3,500 teachers under my charge many deserve promotion, but I venture to say, also, that many of the teachers-I refer to tea.chers connected with the larger schools-are paid alto­gether too high for the services they per­form. I say this without the slightest hesitation. By grumbling, by pertinacity, by establishing a sort of ring Il.s it were, by writing to the newspapers, by bringing influence to bear upon honorable members of this House, and in other ways, they have managed to obtain ·from the State for their four hours' work per day for five days of the week remuneration which is altogether unjustifiable. A State school­teacher having charge of a large school is only supposed to have a salary of £380 per annum; but many get more than that. I have here a return of the salaries re­ceived by 50 head teachers of the highest

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.] Public Instt'uction. 1099

class, and by 50 head teachers of the lowest class. The average income of the latter 50 is £93 3s. 3d., the gross total being £4,658 4s. The average income of the former 50 is £473, the gross total being £23,682. The average income of 20 out of those 50 teachers is £566 12s. 8d., the highest receiving £7:24. Then there are what I call the nice family arrangements, under which several of the assistants are relatives of· the head teacher.· I have a return of 20 of these, from which it appears that the average payment to each of the 20 families is £677 4s. 3d. One head teacher gets £485 for his own services, but several members of his family are employed in the State schools, and the payments to the whole of them amount to . £ 1 ,093. Another, with four members of his family, gets £1,025; another, with three of his family, receives £1,011; another, with two of his family, gets £929. And this for four hours' work a day on five days of the week. As much as £13,544 is divided, under this arrangement, among 20 families. I say that a system of this kind ought to be stopped, and will be stopped. These family arrangements are objectionable, for the reason that a head teacher is not likely to be nearly so strict with a subordinate who is a member of his own family as he would be if the subordinate were an entire stranger. I believe that we get higher results where these family arrangements do not prevail. Then again, I don't see why teachers ought to be paid more than members of this House, who have to sacrifice time and business to attend to their legislative duties. Another view of the question is that while head teachers and their families have been getting their £800, £900, or £1,000 per year, the school inspectors, who have to pronounce upon what they do, and who, as a rule, are men of superior attainments, receive far lower remuneration. I consider it disgraceful that gentlemen who are responsible for the efficient carrying out of the Education Act, and who have to travel over immense districts, should be remunerated so poorly compared with some of the teachers. Why, the Inspector-General, who has to 1;>ear the greatest share of responsibility, who has charge of the most important part of the machinery, who has to advise the Minister on every appointment, and who is constantly employed, receives only £700 per year. The salaries of the in­spectors range from £5~0 to £300 per year.

Two of them receive the minimum salary;: and these men who get only £300 per­year have to pronounce npon the work of people who get £700 or £800 per year. I: say that this system has gone on too long, and I say, further, that it is not creditable to previous Ministers that it has gone on so long. The honorable member for Bel­fast dwelt strongly in his remarks on the amount of work the Minister of Publie Instruction must have to perform if he properly discharges his duty. I looked at the time across the House at two of my predecessors, and I was astonished to find that neither of them blushed. One of' those gentlemen presided over the Educa­tion department when it was without any Minister's room. In fact it was not till the honorable member for Carlton went there that a room for the Minister was provided. During the time the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Mackay) was Minister of Public Instruction, I hap­pened to be at the Mining department one day, and I saw Mr. Venables go to the Minister's room. He was there about seven or eight minutes. I said to an at­tendant-" How often does Mr. Venables come here?" and the reply was, "Twice a week." So that it took the honorable member for Sandhurst about 20 minutes per week to discharge those of his duties connected with the Education department. My immediate predecessor, it is true, had a room at the Education-office, but he is a partner in a large and flourishing legal business, and I presume he did not alto­gether neglect that, and he was also Post­master-General, and yet he found plenty of time to discharge his duties as head both of the Education and the Postal de­partments. I make every possible allow­ance for those gentlemen. For many of the abuses existing in the Education department they were not responsible. With regard to myself, I think honor­able members on all sides of the House will acknowledge that since I have been Minister of Public Instruction, though it is not for that office I am paid-it is as Minister of Mines that I am paid-they have found me at the Education department whenever business has demanded my at­tendance there, and that I have endea­voured to discharge the duties of the office. With regard to the statement which I made at 'Vangaratta, to which attention will no doubt be directed, I think I have fairly supported some of it by the statistics I have already submitted, but I desire to

llOO Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

deal fairly by the officers of the depart­ment. I make great allowances for them. It appears that they have been permitted to go on in their own sweet way, just as they pleased; they have had full control over the department, and Ministers have merely registered their edicts. No wonder, under such circumst.ances, that some of the most extraordinary rules ever heard of have been framed in that department. vVhyone rule of the department, while two of my predecessors were in office, was that if any teacher, with a grievance, dare to speak to a Member of Parliament about it, a black mark was placed against his name for twelve months.

Mr. MACKAY.-The honorable mem­ber is distinctly stating what is not the case.

Mr. MUNRO.-I saw the minute signed by the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Mackay). A similar minute was submitted to me, and I declined to sign it.

Mr. MACKAY.-Then the honorable member for Carlton did not understand what he was reading.

Major SMITH.-I was asked to follow out the same rule, and I respectfully declined. In redressing grievances, I have received the greatest possible assistance from honorable members of this Chamber; and wherever I can get information I will obtain it. I know of no just grievance which now remains unredressed. I have to thank the honorable member for St. Kilda (Mr. Dixon), my honorable colleague (Mr. Fincham), and other honorable mem­bers for consenting to act on a board to travel and take evidence with regard to teachers' grievances. I consider it wholly inconsistent with the nineteenth century for a department of the State to forbid anyone of its servants who considers he is suffering under a substantial grievance from representing the fact to a Member of Parliament with a view to inquiry. I may say at once that while perhaps I was a little hard, at Wangaratta, on the officers of the department, I was fair and above board. I did not fight behind the masked battery of a newspaper I know of, published not a thousand miles from Sandhurst. With every consideration for those gentlemen, I say unhesitatingly that the system which they adopted was not a good one for the purpose of developing good teaching. It set up a sort of favoritism. And here I desire to say that no one in this Chamber will

be better satisfied than I shall be if, after the receipt of Professor Pearson's report, a system of promotion by merit can be established, so that neither Minis­ter nor members may be concerned in the appointment or promotion of a teacher. I wish established some competitive sys­tem, under which teachers will know that if they pass a certain examination their names will go down first, second, third, and so on, in the order in which they pass. I..Jast July, I had to nppoint 20 trainee!:; from 76 whose names were submitted to me, who had pa\:lsed, and were all equally entitled to appoint­ment. Consider the unpleasn,llt task of having to appoint 20 of the number, and leavillg the other 56 out in the cold. Certainly there ought to be some system with regard to trainees which would enable them, after passing the va­rious examinations, to obtain promotion by right and not by favonr. I have now a word or two to say about the vast amount of work which the departmental staff has to perform, and this may be taken, in some sort, as a modification of what I said at 'Vangaratta. I then stated that com­plaints were loud and frequent about the difficulty of obtaining answers from the department. I mentioned the same thing ill the department, and I asked how it was? In reply I was furnished with a return, which Las been since enlarged. III fact it has been made up to to-day. I beg to submit it to the committee as showing how the Education department is growing. It is a comparative statement of the work performed in the registration branch for. the period ending the 16th October, 1877 and 1876 respectively :-

______ -=-______ ~~I~~ Despatches received 89,179 65,367 Abstracts, receipts, &c. 60,465 43,232 Applications for forms,

franks, &c. 5,690 4,792 Letters not registered 24,478 6,204 Letters, reports, &c., regis-

tered 39,740 36,395 References ... 4,456 3,400

The 89,179 despatches received between the beginning of the present year and to­day contained 182,040 separate enclosures, as against 92,323 separate enclosures re­ceived during the same period last year, showing that the increase is nearly double. Thus it will be seen that there is some excuse for the department not dealing so promptly with correspondence

Supply. [OCTOBER i6.J Public Instruction. 1101

as it is anxious to do. I hope, how­ever, that when the business of the de­partment is transferred to the new offices all ground of complaint will be removed. With regard to the statement of the hon­O1'able member for Belfast, that there ought to be a limit fixed on the expendi­ture for State education, I believe that by the end of this year a limit will probably be fixed. Last year, the expenditure on instruction was £409,994, and on buildings £96,390. I may mention that £500,000 of the last loan raised by the colony was appropriated for school buildings. But before that loan was floated there had been expended in the erection of school buildings, out of the general revenue, no less a sum than £430,053. Of the loan moneys, £255,71 1 has already been ex­pended, and a further expenditure has been authorized of £108,462. The balance avaihtble will, therefore, be only £102,877; because there has been deducted from the £500,000, as the cost of floating that por­tion of the loan-a loan which fetched so fine a price in the market-:no less than £32,949. It is estimated that an ex­penditure of £210,678 will yet be required for school buildings, to place all parts of the colony on an equal footing with regard to the facilities for education. Thus the aggregate expenditure ill providing the whole population with complete and sub­stantial school accommodation will amount to something over £1,110,000. And I say, with all due respect to the honorable member for Belfast, that no better way of spending money can possibly be de­vised. Surely, if we can spend £400,000 or £500,000 in supplying one district with waterworks, we may fairly expend £1,100,000 in giving school accommoda­tion to every district of the colony. I believe that the money dedicated to the erection of school buildings has been well expended. All the buildings, large and small, have been constructed on a design which honorable members will admit is of a highly satisfactory character. I think that the wisest thing which the inaugurator of the Act (Mr. Justice Stephen) could have done was to take an architect altogether from another department-especially the Public 'W orks department-and place him' in the Education-office, and authorize him to carry out the school buildings. I believe the gentleman who has designed the school buildings is doing his work well and satisfactorily.. I am sure that whatever other differences I may have

with my predecessors in the Education department, I have none on that subject. I think I have now fairly placed the whole matter before the committee. I purposely followed the honorable member for Belfast in order that his figures, from his point of view, and my figures, from my point of view, might go forth together to the public, who would then be in a position to judge properly between the two. I can assure the honorable member that I have done this in no spirit other than a thorongh desire to have the Education Act carried out in its integrity; and I don't think the people of this country, who agitated for years for free, secular, and compulsory education, would be induced to accept the views of the honorable member for Belfast on this subject, if he were a lord, or something more, instead of a knight. I believe that sufficient money may be saved from the high salaries not only to establish intermediate schools, but to pay the paltry sum which the U ni­versity fees amount to.' We have heard a great deal from the honorable member for Belfast about the University. Does not the honorable member know that the working classes of this country, ever since the foundation of the University, have paid seven-ninths of the annual cost of that institution, and that now they are prepared to pay the other two-ninths? Why, the University is attended by a snmller percentage of population than is the case with the Universities of Scotland and Ireland, or of almost any country in Europe. Does not this show that if the fees were remitted the people of this country, expending as they do nearly half a million of money every year on primary education, would avail themselves largely of the benefits of that institution? If the University were made free, it would be no longer confined to the wealthier class, but the sons of the poorest would be able to climb into the positions which their ability and assiduity might earn for them. Then, again, I desire that we shall have a better training institution than we possess at present; and I would like to see connected with the University a training institution worthy of the great system of education which we have estab­lished. In c.onclusion, I desire to say that if any further information is needed, I shall be glad to place it before the committee.

.Mr. RAMSAY.-Sir, at this late hour, and after the two long and exhaustive

1102 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

speeches we have heard, it is not my inten­tion to address the committee at any great length; but there are one or two matters to which I would like to allude before the de­bate terminates. I think it is to be regretted that the Minister of Public Instruction­with a great part of whose remarks I was exceedingly pleased-should have some-­what marred the effect of an otherwise very good speech by making personal and in­vidious comparisons between himself and previous Ministers. I dare say, when the honorable member reads the report of his speech, he will be the first t.o regret what he has done. I don't think such com­parisons tend to improve the tone of de­bate, or that they do justice to the Min­ister who makes them. It is not my in­tention to follow the honorable gentleman in that course, but, in justice to myself, I will state that, although I had charge of another department at the time I presided over the department of Education, I en­deavoured during the whole t.ime to do my duty; and I .think I can appeal to honorable members who had seats in the last Parliament whether, in their opinion, I did not do so. I can appeal to the Minister, who had ,occasion to, see me many times in connexion with the educa­tional wants of the district he repre­:sents, whether I did not endeavour, to the best of my ability, to do justice to that and the other districts of the colony. I must also compliment the Minister on the :act of tardy justice which he has done this night to the officers of the Education department. The first day this Parlia­ment met for the despatch of business, I felt it my unpleasant duty to offer some re­marks of a warmer character than I ever indulged in before in connexion with 'what I thought the very unfair attack which the Minister had made on the officers. of his .department.. I spoke from considerable ex­perience both of the Secretary for Educa­tion and the Inspector-General of Schools, than whom two more efficient officers are not to be found in the whole Government service. I spoke particularly of the In­spector-General, whose salary, I am glad to hear, the Minister thinks totally inade­quate. I consider Mr. Brown's salary quite inadequate for the work he per­forms. He gives the whole of his time to his duties; he works energetically and actively; and he deserves the fullest sup­port of the Minister for the time being. I hope that the Minister of Public Instruc­tion, ,when he assumes charge of another·

Mr. Ramsay. .

department, as he may do at some future period, will not at the outset make such an attack upon the officers of that depart­ment as he did upon the officers of the Education department at Wangaratta. I am very glad that he is ashamed of him­self for what he said there. No allusion has been made by the Minister to the cir­cular which he issued some time ago to the teachers, on the subject of corporal punish­ment. That circular is calculated to have a most disastrous effect on the discipline of the schools.

Major SMITH.-The.very contrary. Mr. RAMSAY.-I speak with the

utmost confidence, knowing what the effect of the circular has been already. We all know that colonial l.0uths are, to use a vulgar phrase, somewhat disposed to be "cheeky" ; in fact "cheek" is one of the characteristics of colonial youths.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-Speak for yourself.

Mr. RAMSAY.-I don't know that the charge can be truthfully levelled against me, but, if it can, my remark must be admitted to have all the greater force in it. Instead of the Minister inditing such a circular to the teachers as the one I refer to, it was his duty to strengthen the hands of the teachers and encourage them to maintain discipline in the schools. The first intimation which many of the teachers had about the circular was ob­tained by reading an announcement in reference to it in the newspapers, and some of the scholars read that announce­ment just as soon as their teachers. That of itself was not likely to have any bene­ficial effect upon the discipline of the schools. In consequence of the amalga­mation of a number of the smaller schools, by the operation of the Act, many of the assistant masters are placed under. men considerably their juniors, and yet by this circular they are prevented, even in the grossest cases of misbehaviour, from in­flicting well-deserved corporal.punishment. The Minister is a wise man, no doubt, but I don't suppose that he is wiser than Solomon was; and yet from the days of Solomon, and even long before, corporal punishment has been recognised as a very effectual means for the reformation of the young. The Minister may think that he is wiser than all those who have gone before him, but he will live to find out his mistake. I hope that, if he is in office when the education vote is submitted next year, he will admit his mistake in

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.J Public Instruction. 1103

issuing the circular in reference to corporal punishment with the same frankness that he has admitted the mistake he made in the other case. When he has been in charge of the department a little longer he will probably find that he has a great deal to learn. I am glad to see that the honorable gentleman is entering into the duties of his office with so much energy. I know that, in his endeavours to dis­charge those duties efficiently, he will receive the hearty support of almost every member of the committee. If there is any matter about which the present Par­liament is almost unanimous it is in its desire to give a hearty support to any Minister who honestly and conscientiously endeavours to carry out the Education Act in its integrity. The Minister of Public Instruction has clearly shown to­night, in a manner most creditable to himself and conclusive to the committee, how utterly insignificant the opposition to the Act is. The signatures to the petitions from the Roman Catholic body, even with all the priestly drumming brought to bear upon that body, and the fact that the peti­tions were -at every chapel door for a very considerable time, only amount to 18,000. I do not wish to say one word that can be considered offensive to the Roman Catholic body-indeed I would exceedingly regret to do so, for amongst them are many of my _personal friends-but it is the fact that, though that denomination numbers about one-fourth of the whole of the population of the colony, only 18,000 of them have signed the petitions which have been presented against the Act.

Mr. DUFFY.-Ten times the number of signatures could have been got if they would have been of any use.

Mr. RAM SA Y .-N 0 exertions were spared to get every signature that could possibly be obtained. The work of col­lecting signatures has been going on for a long time, and the organization of the Roman Catholic body is perfect. We have been told that 22 members of the Legislative Assembly have been returned by that church, and I know that when any political question arises the members of that church always go as one man. There is therefore every reason to suppose that the 18,000 signatures to the petitions against the Education Act represent almost the united vote of the church on that question. The Minister of Public Instruction has clearly shown that the large bulk of Roman Catholic children

are now attending our State schools, and I am glad to know that they are receiving excellent instruction there-very different from the instruction that they have hitherto received in the capitation schools. I can bear testimony to the fact that many of the inferior teachers-teachers who are a disgrace to the educational system and tend to lower its character-me teachers jn the capitation schools. I am glad to hear that the Minister is following up a work which I endeavoured to commence while I had charge of the department, namely, the getting rid of grossly incom­petent teachers. I am sure that in that work he will receive the hearty support of members on both sides of the House; and it will certainly give me great pleasure to assist him in it by every means in my power. A more fallacious and misleading speech than that of the honorable member for Belfast was never addressed to any deliberative body. The honorable mem­ber talked about the enormous cost of the State school system, but he muddled up the expenditure on school buildings with. the cost of instruction in a way that no other member of the committee would have tried to do.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I got the figures from the Treasury, and therefore I did not muddle up anything.

Mr. RAMSAY.-I must repeat my assertion that, in my opinion, the honor­able member succeeded in muddling up the figures in the most extraordinary man­ner. If a man built himself a residence one year, which is to last him all his life­time, at a cost of £11,000, and then added that amount to the ordinary expense of the maintenance of his establishment, say £1,000 a year, and reckoned his annual outlay at £11,000, he would act exactly as the honorable member has done in estimating the cost to the State of the present educational system. It will per­haps astonish the committee to learn that, as a matter of fact, in 1871, before the existing Act was passed, the cost of edu­cation per child was more than it is under the present vastly improved system. In 1871 the total cost per head for each child attending a State school was £3 16s., whereas last year the cost was only £3 14s. 3d. per head. Not content with overrating the expense of the present education system, the honorable member went on to condemn the quality of the instruction now given. The honorable member's remarks on this head were

1104 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

unfair both to the teachers, who, as a rule, are doing a noble educational work, and also to the inspectors. I have taken the trouble to go through the reports of the different inspectors for last year, nnd so far from their giving me the impression which the honorable member has derived from them, I think they almost unani­mously speak of the quality of the educa­tion imparted in the State schools having greatly improved since the present Act came into operation. Mr. Gilchrist, who bas charge of one of the most important districts.in the colony, and is an inspector of high standing, says-

"Extra subjects are taught, and generally satisfactorily, wherever required."

Mr. Bolam, the inspector for the Dunolly district, reports-

" Satisfactory progress has been made in most schools during the year, and higher percentages of passes have been gained than at previous examinations. My reports on individual schools bear witness to the zeal and ability with which the majority of them have been managed. A marked improvement has taken place in the teaching and general management of infant pupils. . . . . In almost all the schools the discipline is good. The children are neat and clean in their appearance."

Mr. Brodribb, inspector for the western district, says-

"Victoria may now rejoice in the fact that schools are brought within reach of almost every little cluster of families, these schools being well furnished, liberally provided with educational requisites, carefully organized, and conducted under a rigid system of inspection and control, which makes it the teacher's interest to instruct his scholars properly, and which also tends to bring the less efficient schools nearer to the level of the better ones. We further possess a system of inspection almost as well organized as that of France; and we have besides adopted the principle of compulsory education, now becoming so general in Europe, but of which Germany sowed the seed in the days of the Great Frederick, and of which she is reaping the benefit in her enlightened and weU-conducted population."

Mr. Baldwin, of the Geelong, district remarks-

" Generally speaking, the schools are in a satis­factory state as regards instruction. The papers executed by the pupils at examinations are often marvels of neatness, accuracy, and style; nor are their ordinary class exercises, as a rule, much inferior. Teachers, as if by common con­sent, are' gradually-almost unconsciously, per­haps-forming a higher ideal of school work, and are not satisfied unless excellence is attained. The advantages accruing' to .their pupils by the adoption of this higher standard are incalculable."

Mr. Craig, of the Sandhurst district, states-

"As a rule the organization of the schools visited during the year was found satisfactory."

Mr. Ramsay.

The inspectors are really most criticnJ in their reports, and allude to minute matters which often escape the attention of hon­orable members. In ffict, they indulge in what some honorable members would call hypercriticism. For instance, Mr. Craig says-

"The chief faults of pronunciation, a.gainst which a constant struggle has to be carried on, are the misplacing of the letter h," &c. Now the management of that letter is even a great difficulty with some honor­able members in high places. Mr. Hol­land, inspector for the metropolitan dis­trict No.4, reports-

"I occasionally heal' and read complaints to the effect that the quality of the instruction has deteriorated of late years. I have not found this the case. So far as I have seen, there has during the past four ye:lrs been steady progl'ess made, and in some cases really excellent work has been done. I notice this especially in Mel­bourne. Of three schools which I examined in .Hichmond and Prahran in August, 1873, none obtained as high as 60 per cent. of passes. 1n September and October, 1876, the same schools were examined, and none obtained less than 80 per cent. In 1873 the work shown was careless and slovenly. Last year the general excellence and neatness of the papers fully satisfied me that the increased percentage was not due to mere 'cramming' for results, but that the im­provement was a thorough and genuine one. With few exceptions, I find that correspondil1g progress has been made in the country schools." The fact that the work in 1873 was "careless and slovenly" is attributable to the enormous influx, when the Act first came into operation, of children who had not previously been under any instruction whatever, and consequently the percentage of passes Wfl..S much lower in that year than it has been since. It is now rapidly rising all over the colony. Mr. Philp, of the Ballarat district, says-

H A great deal of work is being done in the schools, and much of it, too, of an excellent character." I need not weary the committee by multi­plying these extracts. I have read the reports of the inspectors carefully, and they are most cheering to those who take an interest in the noble educational work which is going on throughout the colony. In connexion with the expense of the State 'school system, there is one fact to which the Minister of Public Instruction has not alluded, and therefore I will mention it. During the last three or four years a wonderful change has taken place in regard to settlement. Large districts like the Goulburn Valley, the Wimmera, and the Murray, which formerly were solitudes for sheep and cattle, have

Supply. [OCTOBER 16. ] Public Inst1"uction. 1105

been settled by a prosperous population. Therefore it has been necessary to build hundreds of schools in localities where a few years ago there was no such ne­cessity. This has caused a great deal to be added to the ordinary cost of the educational system during the last two or three years, but this is merely a tem­porary addition, and will not have to be continued for all future time. When once the schools are finished, there will be no necessity for any additional expenditure, except for repairs, for many years to corne. I have already shown what the average cost per head per annum for each child attending State schools is at pre­sent, and what it was before the Act came into operation, as far as the Go­vernment were concerned; but, as honor­able members are aware, it is perfectly impossible to say what the actual cQst of the old system was. We know exactly what the present system costs, but, under the old system, a very large amount of money was paid by the parents ill school fees. As a rule, poor men have the most children, and, consequently, under the old system, poor men had to contribute the most towards the expense of the elemen­tary instruction of their families. I think that the present is a vast improvement on the former system. As I have already said, the members of the Roman Catholic Church are not slow to take ad­vantage of it. Their children are flocking in immense numbers to the State schools, and will continue to do so in spite of all the priestly admonitions to the contrary. No doubt the honorable member for Bel­fast is thoroughly consistent in his opposi­tion to the Education Act. Fifteen years ago I was one of the honorary secretaries of the committee of a society whose object was to secure the abolition of State aid to religion. That was the first political battle in which I was engaged, and I took part in it when I was quite a youngster. After a desperate struggle State aid to religion was abolished. During the whole of the time that struggle was going on the honorable member for Belfast was on the side of those who were in favour of State-aided churches. The honorable member is there­fore thoroughly consistent in the attitude he takes on the education question. State aid to churches and State aid for religious instruction in schools are exactly in the same category, and this community has thoroughly made up its mind to have neither. I believe that religion is quite

VOL. xxvI.-4 L

able to maintain itself; if it is not, it had better be done away with. Every lover of religious freedom has reason to con­gratulate himself upon the success of the agitation for the abolition of State aid to religion in this country, in which'the Min­ister of Justice, the honorable member for Warrnambool, the honorable member for Maldon, and other members took part; and I do not think there is the slightest fear that the community will allow the present State educational system to be interfered with in the direction indicated by the hon­orable member for Belfast. I would very much like to see a division on this question. I would gladly sacrifice the remaiuder of my year's pay as a Member of Parlia­ment to see in a division list the names of those honorable members who are in favour of a separate grant for education to the Roman Catholics, or to the Presby­terians, or any other religious body what­ever. I know that there are clergymen of my own church - the Presbyterian church-whose views are quite akin to those of the honorable member for Bel­fast. They would like to see religion taught in the State schools-they would like to see priests and presbyters interfer­ing in the management of those schools. -but I hope the day will never come when anything of the kind will be al­lowed. I have not the slightest fear on the subject. All the Irish blandishments of the honorable member for Belfast and those who follow his lead will never in­duce Parliament to make separate grants to religious bodies for the purposes of education. Disguise it as he may, there is no doubt whatever that the movement supported by the honorable member is simply an attempt to again introduce State aid to religion in this colony, and in a most objectionable form. The young now attending our State schools are get­ting the benefit of a noble syHtem of instruc­tion; and we should let them form thEir own views of religion, under the direc­tion of their parents and the clergy. The State has nothing to do. with that matter. It is one which the State ought to entirely, and I may say religiously, Jet alone.

Mr. DUFFY.-I do not suppose that I can throw much new light on the sub­ject under discussion; but I desire to say a few words in reference to it, lest my silence might possibly be misunderstood, inasmuch as I belong to a party whose views on this question are very unpopular

1106 Supply. [ ASSEMBLY. ] .Public Instruction.

-in fact, to quote an expression used on a recent occasion, I am ill a "helpless and hopeless minority." Though I re­mained silent, however, I do not think that my ppinions on the education ques­tion would be any great secr~t either to this committee or to my constituents. Indeed on this question I represent the views of many of my constituents, while the ma.jority of th~m, in a generous spirit, have consented to take me for my general political principles, although they are aware that, on this important point, I differ from them. I must apologi;ze for having to treat the subject from a reli­gious point of view. It is exceedingly dIstasteful to me to discuss religious ques­tions in Parliament; in fact, I prefer to eschew religious discussions both here and elsewhere, being of opinion that a man's religion is something between him­self and his Creator, and that other people have no occasion to interfere with it. I hold with the poet that- .

" A ticklish thing is a soul to be saved, And trouble enough to look after one's own."

I believe that my co-religionists, with whose principles on this matter I sympa­thize-although I do not profess to speak for them, and they are not bound by what I utter-also look upon religious discus­sions as entirely ont of place in this Cham­ber, and desire, if possible, to live at amity with their fellow citizens of all religions, both on the educational question and all other questions. However to-night, I am sorry to say, I must speak of religious matters, as the subject of religioI;l has been prominently brought before the committee. It i!:! with this aspect of the case more than with the general question that I wish to deal. Before doing so, there are two or three slanders that I would like cleared away. One of them was incidentally mentioned by the honorable member for East Bourke. That honorable member said that there are 22 members of the As­sembly who were returned by what he calls "the Catholic vote." I detest that expression. I do not believe that there is such a thing as "the Catholic vote;" if there is, I am sorry for it. I have no objection to there being a protectionist vote or a free-trade vote, a squatter's vote or a free-selector's vote, but I hate and detest a religious vote. The honorable member also said, as I understood him, that the 22 members always vote together.

Mr. RAMSAY.-:-I said that the Ca­tholic body acted as one man, and that I

was informed 22 members had been re­turned by the Catholic vote.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The honor­able member also said that not more than 18,000 signatures conld be got to the petitions from the Roman Catholic body, which is inconsistent with his statement that the members of that body always act as one man.

Mr. DUFFY.-I do not care about the exact phrase which the honorable member for East Bourke used. At all events the honorable member implied that certain members were returned by the Catholic vote, and that they acted together as the Catholic vote dictated. As one of the members who must have been alluded to, I utterly disclaim any such idea. Never since I have been a member of the Legis­lative Assembly have I given-and I hope I never will give-a political vote at the dictation of any religious body. It is also said that the church to which I belong is unfriendly to education-that it has always done what it could against education. Any one who has read history must admit that this idea is utterly untenable. It is well known that but for that church the last sparks of ancient learning would have died out in Europe long ago; and in modern times the Catholic church has founded a community known as the Christian Brothers, who, I believe, are the most devoted and best teaching body that exists in the world. I am aware that, in attempting to criticise the Education Act, an idea will enter into the minds of honorable members that I belong to a church which decries education, and there­fore I am totally opposed to education. (" No.") I believe that is the idea enter­tained by the great majority of members. ("No.") lam glad to hear that dis­avowal, but it has frequently been stated in the press that anyone who attempts to criticise the present educational system is an enemy of all education. I am in favour not only of education,· but of free and compulsory education. I am not, how­ever, in favour of secular education. That is the total difference between my views on the question of education and the views of the majority of honorable members. Our educational system is not perfect. Even the admirers of it do not pretend that it is perfect. The Minister of Public Instruction amused the com­mittee to-night by giving particulars as to the qualifications possessed by some of the teachers; and, of course, it is plain that a

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.J Public Instruction. 1107

system which has such teachers cannot be a perfect system of education. If its secularism could be got rid of I would be prepared to swallow the rest of the sys­tem with all its imperfections. I am aware there are political economists who say that education ought not to be free­that the State has no more business to educate children gratuitously than it has to clothe or feed them gratuitously. In fact, they go further and say that it would be much more beneficial both to the chil­dren themselves and to the State, if the State saw that all the children of the com­munity were properly fed and clothed instead of properly educated. I am not prepared to deny that there 'is not a good deal in the arguments which those people

. bring forward, especially as there can be no doubt that the State, in educating children, does some harm to the children as well as to their parents, inasmuch as it loosens the bonds of parental control. It also makes both children and parents less anxious about the education which the children are receiving, because what is got for little or nothing is generally regarded as worth little or nothing. However, I would be prepared to accept the present education system thoroughly, and in the most loyal spirit, and would do my very best to perfect it, if we could only get rid of the unmitigated secularism which is one of its prominent characteristics. I have not got the leisure, and probably not the ability, to wade through a large mass of statistics, in order to attempt to show what is the effect of the present system compared with the results of the former system; but, if I had the leisure and ability, I would not inflict a heap of sta­tistics on the committee, being well aware of the truth of the proverb that figures can be made to prove anything. I have often been struck, however, with the strange contrast between what it was said the present system would do, at the time the Education Act was passed, and what it has really done. The Act was intro­duced by a Ministry who as a whole did not believe in the education policy which it embodies, and many of whom were pledged to oppose it. They brought it forward as a good political manomvre, and it was a political manreuvre which de­feated, and almost entirely annihilated, the other side. I remember the glowing colours in which the picture was painted at the time.. In fact the lion lying down with the lamb was nothing in comparison

4L2

with it. We were told that the whole community would be educated; that Ca­tholics would be educated side by side with Protestants, the Chinaman with the European, the gutter-snipe with the son of the wealthy squatter and the prosper­ous miner; that the larrikin was to be caught, tamed, and turned into a pleasant sort of domestic animal; in fact, that the whole youth of the colony were to be put through the crucible of the State schools, and were to emerge a perfectly different body, fit to be worthy citizens of a demo­cratic country. A.ll this was to be done at less expense than the then system of education cost. Not only was there to be an actual saving to the State in the cost of education by the new system, but there was also to be a considerable pros­pective saving, by the police and the gaols being no longer required to keep the larrikins and evil minded citizens in order. This is a statement of what we were to expect from the system, but what has actually happened? In the first place, the country has been put to an immense expense. The expense which has been incurred in the building of schools and carrying out the Act gene­rally is almost fabulous. Weare told that crime has decreased since the Act came into operation. I am at a loss to understand how, if there has been any decrease of crime, it is attributable to the present system of education, because the children who have been benefited by it are certainly not old enough to have be­come serious or hardened criminals. I believe it is far nearer the truth to ascribe any diminution of crime to the fact that what are popularly known as "old hands" are gradually dying out. There is, how­ever, one species of crime, or quasi-crime, which has not decreased but increased since the Education Act came in force. Larrikinism is more and more rampant every day, and as each batch of State scholars go through the schools and become citizens, they are found to be worse citizens than their predecessors. (" No.") If honorable members read the records of police courts they will find that what I say is the absolute truth. Weare told that all the youth of the community are now being educated, and a number of figures are brought forward to prove that assertion. I am not going to dispute those figures, but I believe they require to be modified in certain degrees. In the first place, it is well known that, now

1108 Suppl!/. tASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

that education is free, a great many chil­dren are sent to school, not to be taught, but simply to be kept out of the way. There are hundreds and thousands of children of about three years of age sent to the State schools with their elder brothers and sisters simply to be kept out of the way of their mothers while the domestic work is being done at home. This cannot be controverted by any statistics, and it is one of the causes of the marked increase in the number of children at the State schools. Another reason is that, the children not being bound to attend any particular school, in populous districts, where there are several schools, many children change about from one school to another, and are counted at each school as so many separate scholars. I believe that a very large percentage of the increase in the number of State scholars can be accounted for by this circumstance.

Mr. MACKAY.-That is all dealt with in the i'eport of the department.

Mr. DUFFY.-What percentage of the total are children who are counted for more than one school ?

Mr. MACKAY.-About 13 per cent. Mr. DUFFY.-The honorable member

for Sandhurst (Mr. Mackay) has had a good deal to do with the inauguration of this system. No doubt the number of schools has considerably increased, but the increase has very often been not be·· cause more schools were wanted, but be­cause proper representations were made in the interests of local contractors to have schools built in a number of places where they were not wanted. Some of the country towns, as well as Melbourne, have been ornamented by educational palaces. Sandhurst is having one o! these State school palaces built at a cost of about £10,000.

Mr. MACKAY.-I did not build that. Mr. DUFFY.-I believe the honorable

member did not, and I also believe the honorable member lost his election for not building schools in places where he was asked to erect them. We know that schools have been built in places where there are very few children-places of the Sulky Gully or Murderer's Flat descrip­tion-through the instrumentality of a few inflllential men, in the interests of local contractors. It may be said that there is no proof of the correctness of w h.lt I allege, and therefore I will take (he liberty of reading two or three extracts

from inspectors' reports. One in~pector says-

ee The attendance still continues very irregular. Children of six and seven years of age are sent with their younger brothers and sisters to school, while the elder ones are kept for domestic pur­poses at home. . . . In small schools, where there can be no separate jnfant department, the very YOllng children are a source of annoyance and distraction to the older ones, it being not unusual to find them seated with their more advanced brothers or sisters in order that they may be kept quiet. At Lyndhurst, the whole of an afternoon's work was marred by the dis­turbance caused by one of these infants."

Surely this is a very improper state of things. With regard to my statement about schools being put up in improper localities, I find that one of the inspectors gives this corroboration of it :-

"In the forest between Wbittlesea and Yea there is a half-time school attended regularly for the last two years by the children of two families only. Now the cost of maintaining the school is about £50 per annum, so that the State subsidizes each of these families to the extent of about £25 per annum for the education of their children. In another case, that of a full-time school, the average attendance for the year was about eleven children. Now these eleven children were composed of eight from one family. two from a second, and one from a third. The cost of maintaining the school for the year was about £100; so that the State actually paid between £60 or £70 for instructing one family for the past year."

This is actually worse than the imposition of a protective duty for the benefit of a cork-cutter who employs one man and a boy to cut second-hand corks. I have as much right to complain of the money wasted in connexion with such schools as free-traders have to complain of money being spent in promoting the cork in­dustry. The same inspector remarks-

" I regret to say that the attendance at school is not yet what it ought to be. It is true that most children of school age are under instruc­tion of some sort, but the attendance of far too many of them is extremely irregular; and it is no uncommon thing to find as much as 30, 40, or 50 per cent. of those on the school-roll who have not made up the attendances required by the Act." If a child attends school for one week out of the 52 weeks in the year, and is put down on the school-roll, and counted as attending the whole year round, I think that is a very deceptive state of things, and the figures which have been brought forward comprise a number of such decep­tive instances. However, I do not intend to go into this subject. I rose to discuss a much smaller question, which I may put shortly thus :-First, have the Catholics of Victoria a grievance in connexion with

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.] Public Instruction. 1109

the education system; secondly, if so, ought it to be remedied in justice to the Catholics themselves, and in the interests of the State; and, thirdly, how ought it to be met? As regards the first point, I think there can be no doubt that the Catholics of Victoria have a grievance in this matter, and their grievance is that they are compelled to pay taxes to support an educational system of which they are unable to take advantage-a system that they are actually prohibited by law from taking advantage 'of. It is no use telling me that the State schools are open to everybody-to persons of every denomina­tion or creed in the country. If a man's conscience bars him out from a State school he is more barred out than he would be by a door of brass or steel. The petitions which have been presented from the Catholic body were signed in a very short time, and without any priestly drumming; they were signed freely and voluntarily, and the signatures could have been ten times more numerous if that had been thought necessary. The Catholics have told us in their petitions that they have a grievance in connexion with the Education Act, and I will state what that grievance is. It is of no use saying that Catholics ought not to have a conscience, that in this fourth quarter of the nine­teenth century a conscience is out of place, and that the ideas of Catholics on this matter are totally against all modern ideas of progress and civilization. I will not debate that matter, though I am fully convinced that the Catholic ideas on the education question are the only right and true ones; but if those ideas were as wild and improbable as the wildest dreams of

. Mormonism or spiritualism, I contend that while there is a body representing about one-fourth of the community opposed to the present education system, the State is bound to consider their grievance in a wise and humane spirit. Through all ages men have been not machines but thinking beings, full of fanaticism, superstition, re­ligion, or whatever you like to call it. They will not go in one groove. If every human being would do just what the State wanted him to do, laws, police, judges, and Houses of Parliament would be totally unnecessary. All wise legislators have always had to make allowances for the peculiar fanaticism, superstition, or religion of the inhabitants of the country for which they legislated. As an instance of the force of fanaticism upon Stat~

matters, I may remind honorable mem­bers that at the time of the terrible Sepoy mutiny, when 50,000,000 of human beings rose against the English rule in India, and when it almost tottered to its base, one of the great grievances which the Sepoys had-a greater grievance than the oppres­sive taxes which in many cases they had to pay-was that in using the cartridges for their guns they had to grease their mouths with some hog's lard. To us, this may seem very absurd and childish, but to them it was a matter of vital faith; and the English Government, after suppressing the mutiny, did not consider the complaint childish, but allowed the Sepoys to use some other substance instead of hog's lard. If in this, as in other instances, the fanaticism, superstition, or religious views of a large section of the com­munity have been recognised, the griev­ances of the Catholics of Victoria, as set forth in their petitions in reference to the Education Act, certainly ought to be recognised. They have shown that they are terribly in earnest on this subject by the fact that they tax themselves for the support of their own schools. In ancient times when a man wished to prove his adherence to his religion he spilt his blood for it, but in modern times-in a more practical age-we put our hands into our pockets. The Catholics of Victoria have certainly put their hands into their pockets in support of their views on the education question. They not only pay their full proportion of the general taxes of the State-and very ill the majority of them can afford to do so-but they tax them­selves heavily for the maintenance of their own schools. I may mention with­out egotism, for I am not a specimen of a liberal giver, that I give more to the Catholic schools in the parish in which I live than I pay in municipal or general taxation. There are many Catholics who contribute a great deal more in proportion to their means. I am not able to speak of what Catholics throughout the entire colony have done for the education of their children, but three instances have come under my attention. I refer to what has been done by the Catholics of Emerald Hill, St. Kilda, and Kyneton, the latter town being ill my electoral district. At Emerald Hill, which is a poor parish, they held a public meeting as soon as aid was withdrawn from their school, and sub­scribed a sufficient sum to keep that school o~en, an~ it h~s Q~en kept open up to the

1110 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

present time. At St. Kilda, which is a wealthy parish, when the capitation allow­ance was withdrawn, the Catholics assembled in public meeting, and enough to support the school for a long period was subscribed in half-an-hour. I may mention a curious circumstance which came under my observation the_other day. I was waited upon by a deputation from my constituents who informed me that the Minister had determined to close a State school in the neighbourhood of Redesdale. I said it was my duty to see the Minister with them, and to urge every argument why the State school should be kept open, because, although I am conscientiously opposed to the Act, I consider myself always bound in honour to do the best I can for my constituents who are not opposed to it. I went to the Minister and asked him to keep that school open, but he refused on the ground that the depart­ment could not get any children to go there. I was surprised at that, but, on in­quiry, it turned out that the children of the locality did not attend the State school be­cause they went to a; Catholic school across the road. The consequence is that the teachers have had to be withdrawn from the State school, and all the expenditure upon it, some" hundreds of pounds, has been wasted. In the district of Kyneton there are 28 State schools, with an average attendance of 1,332 scholars. In the same district there are 19 Catholic schools, with 34 teachers, and ana verage of 1,660 children on the rolls, the average attendance being 951. These include four capitation schools. I have not the slightest doubt that when the capitation allowance is with­drawn, those schools will still be continued. The Minister of Public Instruction told us that the Catholic system of paying for their own schools would break down this year, next year, or some time; but to that I reply, in the historic words of the honor­able member for Carlton-" Never, never, never! " As long as the Education Act exists as at present, I believe that the Catholics of Victoria· will continue wil­lingly and cheerfully to put their hands in their pockets and supply their own educational needs. I trust that the pre­sent State system of education will not last for ever, and I believe it will not. I will say one word about the figures brought forward to-night by the Minister of Public Instruction - I confe~~ they rather surprise me~by which he sought to prove that some 50,OQO O~th9Hc chil-

Mr, Duffy.

dren are attending State schools. I am very bad at figures, and I am not pre­pared to answer the honorable gentleman thoroughly on the spur of the moment; but I believe that a number of these mythical 50,000 children may be ac­counted for in a variety of ways. In the first place, the capitation schools are not taken into account.

Mr. MACKAY.-A portion of them are.

Mr. DUFFY. -All the capitation schools, or the great majority of them, are counted as if they were State schools. I believe that will account to a large ex­tent for the number of Catholic children said to be attending State schools; and I think the number would be still further reduced if children who attend two or three schools in the course of a year were only entered on the rolls for one school. Statistics, however, are something like what has been said of the monkey-" If you hold him, you can make him bite me; but if I hold him, I can make him bite you." The Minister has all the original statistics of the department at his hand, but if I had them I might be able to turn the tables upon him as completely as he has apparently turned them upon us to­night. As to the question whether if the Catholics of Victoria have a grievance, it ought to be remedied, the "only answer there can be is that it undoubtedly ought to be remedied. What would we think of any foreign country in which a system was in vogue by law that one-fourth of the in­habitants thoroughly disbelieved in and opposed with all their heart? Why, we would say that the" legislators of that country were utterly wanting in all wis­dom. When honorable members speak of the whole of the people of Victoria being in favour of tile present education system, they overlook the fact that one-fourth of the population are Catholics, and that therefore only three-fourths are in favour of it. The majority of people do not sufficiently realize the idea that Catholics are essentially a part of the community, that they sit beside us here in Parliament, that they buy and sell with us, eat and drink with us, walk and talk with us, and do everything except pray with us. When I assert that the Catholics of Victoria do not believe in the Education Act, I mean that if we walk down Collins-street er ~ourke-street every fourth person we weet is utterly opposed to that Act. No sls~e~ <?a:q be H~oroughly sllccessful to

Supply. [OCTOBER 16.J Public Instruction. 1111

which such a large, important, and well­organized class of the community are thoroughly opposed. The next question is whether the remedy for the grievance under which Catholics suffer is far to seek? I believe that it can be summed up in three words - payment by results. I believe that if the State would simply permit a denominational system to be engrafted on the present national system, then a com­plete educational scheme would be pro­vided. We have been told, and will be told again, that if the Catholics obtain their object, every other denomination will ask for the same concession, and will, in equal justice, be entitled to get it. I reply at once, that is an absurdity. We are not to legislate on doctrinaire theories, but on practical facts. The only denomination, both in this and every other country, that requires separate education for its children is the Catholic denomination. It is the only one that has sent petitions here asking for a separate system of education, and the granting of their request would not, as I understand, cause the State to expend any more on education than it does at present. What Catholics say to the State is this-" You require children to be educated up to a certain standard; pay us as much as you pay your own teachers for every child we educate, and we will educate all our own children up to that standard, under the strictest State super­vision you can get; and not only so, but at our own private expense we will teach them religion and morality, which, as we contend, will tend more to make them good citizens than any teaching of a se­cular kind at a merely State school." The system of the education of a sect apart from the rest of the community is not an entirely novel one. It obtains, I believe, in England. I have here a re­port on public instruction in Canada, by M. Chauveau, formerly Minister of Public Instruction in the province of Quebec, which contains some highly in­teresting statements. It will be re­membered that the Dominion of Canada comprises among other provinces that of Quebec, where Catholics are vastly more numerous than Protestants, and that of Ontario, where Protestants form the great majority of the community. Yet, under these circumstances, there is a sys­tem of State education for the dissenting minority of the population alongside one for the majority; and in both provinces the education~l facilit~es ~~0~4e4 ~.? .~~~

minority are equal to those provided for the majority. M. Chauveau says-

"Finally, a recent law enacts that education shall be gratuitous and compulsory. Every child from seven to twelve years of age has the right of gratuitous admission to school during four months of each year, and the parents or guardians who neglect to procure this advan­tage for the children under their charge, ~nd who cannot prove that they are educated other­wise, are liable to a fine of five dollars, which is doubled incase the offence is repeated. Sick­ness, extreme poverty, or great distance from school are the only admissible excuses. No parent can be accounted obliged to send his children to a Protestant school if he is a Roman Catholic, or to a Roman Catholic school if he is a Protestant."

He goes on to say that the system of public instruction followed in Ontario has frequently been the ·subject of political difficulties and discussions, and he adds-

"In these discussions the Roman Catholics have ended by obtaining the greater part of that which they demanded, and it is to the conces­sions which have been openly made to them that the remarkable success of the whole system is in part owing."

I believe that if the same thing could be said with respect to the Catholics of Vic­toria, our educational system would be almost perfect. But I will not detain the committee longer. I have tried to point out that our educational law ought to be altered, in order that it should do justice to the Catholic inhabitants of the colony; and. I wish further to show that that alteration is still more needed in the in­terests of the entire community. Espe­cially do I feel the desirability of avoid­ing in this country the politico-religious discussions that have elsewhere caused so much evil. I would be sorry indeed to see feelings of difference on religious grounds perpetuated in Victoria, but I prophesy that if our present educa­tional system is not changed we shall inevitably find a large portion of the community bound together, not only by a common religion, but by a common sense of wrong and suffering sustained at the hands of the State, which compels them to pay, not only for the education their children receive, but also the cost of schools to which their children cannot be sent. If Roman Catholic children are to be brought up and educated entirely apart from, and to be deprived of ordinary and natural intercourse with, other children, they will, undoubtedly, grow to maturity with all the feelings of a religious caste, to which also will be added a sense of tnj~~fi~~ qone to them b, the ~tat~. The

1112 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

consequence of such a state of things is not difficult to foresee. In many minds, there will be nurtured those sentiments of political hatred that are so often found existing among the youth of Ireland. But if, instead, we gr~ft on our education Bcheme a small modicum of denomina­tionalism, sufficient to meet the case of those whose conscience forbids them to allow their children to enter a State school, we shall realize in Victoria the words with which Dr. Ryerson, the head of the Edu­cation department in Canada, ended his official report for 1873. He said-

"The constant aim and object of my life since I took the direction of the department of Edu­cati"n has been to realize these views, and, with the help of Divine Providence, to obtain and secure for the country of my birth the ines­tilllahle benefits of' an education free, complete, C.lfistian, and accessible without exception to all the children of the country."

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I desire to say a few words in reply to the honorable member for East Bourke, who called in question the accuracy of some of my statements to the House. When I made the assertion that the inspectors' reports showed that arithmetic was not well taught, that some of the teaching was too mechanical, that the attendance was' irre­gular, and that the result system was carried too far, I did not wish to trouble the House with extracts justifying what I said; but, as my veracity is impugned, I will now read a few of the passages in the reports upon which I based my re­marks. I will quote nothing concerning irregular attendance, becau se, after all, the honorable member practically ad­mitted that what I stated on the sub~ j3ct was correct. With regard to teaching in arithmetic, Mr. Bolam says :-

"In teaching arithmetic the intelligence of the chJdren is not always sufficiently cultivated, the work being too much confined to mechanical operations. It frl'q uently happens that children, who can work comparativl'ly difficult questions with smartness and accuracy, utterly break dowu before a simple problem. I think this ddt'ct would be remedied to a great extent if thl~ programme of iUl'truction were slightly moLlified, so as to include mental arithmetic in the work of the 5th and 6th classes."

With respect to mechanical teaching, Mr. Brodribb states :-

,. ()hject Lessolls.-In the better schools of the di"trh·t, ohject teaching has become a custolllary feat ure, and in the ::;tate schools of Warrnam­bool alld Hamilton t'sllt'cialIy gn·at.('are in this rc:,pl'ct is taken to cultivate the pupils'intelli­ge· ce, anti til impart to them a useful knowledgl~ of COllllllon things. Sometimes, in a large and ot,herwise well-taught school, I have found that

scarcely one of the elder scholars could give any intelligt'nt account of the clothes they wore, the foml they ate, or the tools or implements of trade used by their parents."

Again, Mr. Baldwin's report has the fol­lowing:-

" Under the present low standard, children of ordinary ability can readily obtain certificates at tf.'n or eleven years of age. I have known cases where children of nine have gained them. Thus a child's school life is, or may be, abridged thref', foul', or five years. I think that in no case should more than two or three years be struck off the school course, which the State bas fixed to extend from the age of six to fifteen."

Then as to grammar, Mr. Philp states-" To the same class I prop:>sed a few short

sentences containing gross grammatical errors, and asked t.o have them corrected. Most of t.hem were not percei ved, and by more than one pupil such a sentence as ' It was me who spoke' was returned marked' correct.' And yet theJOe children at a prt'vious result examination had passed well ill grammar."

Mr. Main's report says-"What I have called the unimportant excep­

tion is the rhymes taught in the first class, and in this the work might be much better. In teaching rhymes the infant classes might be amused, instructed, and educated; at present they are neither. In fact, the time devoted to this sUhject in most schools is just so much time wasted. . • . The important exception to the general excellence of the work done in the district is in arithmetic. In the higher classes, where such are to he found, little objection can be taken to the work, but in the lower classes it is merely mechanical. What I mean is that in the lower classes the children are taught only to add, subtract, multiply, and divide; they are not taught to solve even the simplest problems of arithmetic." Mr. Gilchrist, in his report, is very em~ phatic in pointing out that the pupil teachers are not instructed at all by the masters. Again, Mr. Sircom states-

"Parents have complained to me that their ehildren made no progress, and that they were kept too lotlg in the same class; yet on refelTing to the daily roll 1 ha\'e found them in a class above that in which they were stated to be­enrolled appare·,tly in oue class and in~tru(ted in an .. ther. The change in the mode of payment has ten·led to produce I his. When the teacher's income was made up in a great measure by fees, he could afford to, and did to some extent, dis­regard the money paid for results, being anxious to secure the favour of the parent by advancing the child; but now that his income is derived wholly fr .. m the ::;tate his efforts are directed, not unnaturally, to secure the greatest possible amount by way of results."

So much for the working of the result system. But I will not go on multiplying proofs of what the honorable member denied. Another statement the honorable member made was very offensive. He asserted that Roman Catholics voted in all matters as one body, and yet, in the

Inebriates Act [OCTOBER 16. ] Amendment Bill. 1113

next breath he said-perfectly uncon­scious of the way he was contradicting him­self-that although the Roman Catholics of Victoria were altogether 200,000 in number, the petitions against the Educa­tion .Act were signed by only 18,000 persons. He added that, to his own know­ledge, signatures to those petitions were obtained by means of pressure brought to bear by Roman Catholic clergymen upon their congregations, who grumbled at being so troubled. N ow that remark is wholly unjustifiable. I was present when the petitions signed by the congregation to which I belong were brought forward, and the case was quite the reverse of what the honorable member described. For my part I carefully avoided, in the course of my remarks, drawing politics into the dis­cussion, but the honorable member by no means followed the example. It appears, indeed, to have been his invariable rule when, as Minister of Public Instruction, he opened a new State school, or per­formed some other public official duty, to attack the Roman Catholic body. Several times he alluded to it as an organization for election purposes and so forth. But I think it would have been quite as well for himself as well as his political friends, if he had not been so eager to take a violent political view of educational matters. The probability is that had he adopted a dif­ferent and better plan, he and his party would be occupying a somewhat better position in the political world than they do, and that they would not be now like-

"The last rose of summer Left blooming alone;

All its lovely companions Are faded and gone."

Mr. R.AMS.AY.-The honorable mem­ber has simply proved what I said.

On the motion of Mr. M.ACK.A Y, the debate was adjourned.

Progress was then reported. The House adjourned at eleven minutes

to eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, October 17, 1877.

Brighton Land Vesting Bill- Railway Construction Bill­Parliamentary Costs Bill-Waterworks Act Amendment Bill- Inebriates Act Amendment Bill-National Insur­ance Company of Australasia's Extension of Powers Bill.

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

BRIGHTON L.AND VESTING BILL. The PRESIDENT said - I have to

acquaint the House that this Bill has in­advertently been received here as a public Bill, whereas it is a private one, and was treated as such by the .Assembly. The honorable member in charge of the mea­sure has therefore to move that the reso­lution of the House to read the Bill a first time be rescinded, and then to proceed with it in the usual way as a private Bill. , The Hon. J. B.ALFOUR moved­

"That the resolution of the Council on the 16th instant-that this Bill be now read a first time-be rescinded." '

The motion was agreed to. Mr. B.ALFOUR moved-"That the fees on the Bill be remitted, and

that it be treated in all respects as a public Bill."

He said that to all intents and purposes the Bill was a public one. The land which it was proposed to vest in the Brighton Council had been bought with public money and would be' devoted to 'public purposes.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a first time.

R.AILW.AY CONSTRUCTION BILL. On the suggestion of the Hon. R. S.

.ANDERSON, the order of the day for considering the message from the Legis­lative .Assembly with reference to the Council's amendments in this Bill was postponed until Tuesday, October 23.

P .ARLI.AMENT.ARY COSTS BILL. On the motion of the Hon. H. C UTH­

BERT, this Bill was read a third time and passed.

WATERWORKS.ACT.AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion of the Hon. H. CUTH­BERT, this Bill was read a third time and passed.

INEBRI.ATES .ACT .AMENDMENT BILL.

The Hon. J. B.ALFOUR moved the second reading of this Bill. He said the object of the Bill was to provide forms of procedure under the principal .Act. .At present no such provision was made, and, in consequence, an order of commitment under the .Act signed by Judge Cope was the other day discovered to be insufficient. It was not desirable that that state of things should continue. T~e motio~ was agreed to:

1114 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillies.

The Bill was then read a second time, and committed.

Formal amendments having been made in one of the clauses,

The Bill was reported with amendments.

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AUSTRALASIA'S

EXTENSION OF POWERS BILL. This Bill was passed through committee

without amendment. The House adjourned at three minutes

past five o'clock, until Tuesday, October 23.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, October 17, 1877.

The Rodney Election Petition: Mr. Gillies' Election declared Null and Void: Writ for New Election-National Agri­cultural Show: Adjournment of the House.

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

RODNEY ELEC1;.'ION PETITION. Mr. LALOR brought up the report of

the Elections and Qualifications Com­mittee on the petition of James Shack ell against the return of Mr. Gillies for Rodney.

The report was read. It consisted of the following resolutions :-

" 1. That the petitioner has failed to establish that the Hon. Duncan Gillies was guilty of bribery or undue influence, either by himself or his agents, during the late election for Rodney; but that undue influence was used by other persons on his behalf; and this committee there­fore declare the election for Rodney to be wholly void.

"2. That the attention of the Government be called to the fact that, at the last general election, the ballot papers at certain polling places in the Rodney electorate were not num­bered or signed in accordance with law."

The SPEAKER.-I desire to ask the assistance of the House with respect to a difficulty that appears on the face of the report. The committee, following strictly the language of the Electoral Act, declare the election for Rodney "to be wholly void." Now two members have been elected for Rodney, and the question arises (upon which I ask the House to aid me in coming to a conclusion) whether, if the election be wholly void, both members have forfeited their seats; or whether, as the committee are only au­thorized to inquire into questions referred to them on petition, the report may be

taken to refer" to the election which has been the subject of petition, and to no other.

Mr. LALOR.-The intention of the committee was simply to declare the election of Mr. Gillies void. They dealt only with the petition referred to them.

Mr. GAUNSON.-As the resolution reads, it certainly does invalidate the whole election for Rodney, but, no doubt, it is only meant to apply to the election of Mr. Gillies, and it must be interpreted consistently with the petition referred to the committee. I may state that it. is my intention to take the opinion of the House, as a matter of privilege, upon this question. I will submit a motion on the subject now, or, if it will be more advan­tageous that the House should first have the opportunity of being seised of the whole facts of the case, I will simply give notice, so that the motion maybe discussed to-morrow or on Tuesday. The proposition which I intend to submit is as follows :-

"That, in the opinion of this House, Mr. Shackell ought to have been declared by the Elections and Qualifications Committee a mem­ber of this House for the electoral district of Rodney, on the ground that such committee should have disallowed all votes given at Gray­town and at Kyabram East for Mr. Gillies and for Mr. Shackell, inasmuch as the ballot papers there used were not initialed or numbered as required by the l09th section of the Electoral Act 1865, and that after disallowing such votes Mr. Shackell had the majority of votes given at such election for Rodney; and on the further ground that, as the election of Mr. Gillies was the result of undue influence exercised in his favour, and as such committee has declared his election null and void, Mr. Shackell, as the next highest candidate on the poll, is entitled to the seat, and this House accordingly adjudges it to him."

The SPEAKER.-It will be my duty to issue a writ for the election of a mem­ber for Rodney forthwith, unless the House otherwise directs. There is nothing to prevent the House dealing with the sub­ject now, if it thinks fit, as it is a question of privilege.

Mr. GAUNSON.-I am prepared to argue not only that the decision of the committee is not final, but that the case is one of such a peculiar character that the House is distinctly called upon to confirm or rescind that decision. Mr. Shackell prayed that certain votes should be disallowed on the ground that the voting papers were not numbered. Upon a scrutiny it. turned out that not only were the ballot papers in question not

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER 17.J Mr. Gillies. 1115

numbered, but that other ballot papers were not initialed. Counsel for the peti­tiOller showed that the Electoral Act, in the most unequivocal terms, in language which cannot be anything else thari. mau­datory--

Mr. BERRY.-I think it will be more convenient for honorable members to h"ave notice of a proposition of this kind, and therefore I will suggest that the motion be postponed until Tuesday. Perhaps the Speaker will consider the adoption of that course as a request to him that the issue of a writ for the election of a new member for Rodney shall remain in abeyance until after the discussion of the motion.

Mr. KERFERD.-It is the duty of the House to deal with the report at once, as a matter of privilege. I propose to deal with the question raised by it altogether apart from the merits of the Rodney elec­tion, but as a matter of privilege affecting every individual member of the House, and I will do so solely upon the grounds contained in the report itself.

Mr. GAUNSON.-I rise to order. I submit that I am in possession of the chair."

The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­ber for Ararat was certainly in possession when the Chief Secretary interposed. If it be the wish of the House that debate on the question, which is one affecting its rights and interests, should be postponed until to-morrow or Tnesday for better consideration, I will, with the assent of the Honse, withhold the issue of the writ in the meantime. "

Mr. KERFERD.-I wish to take ex­ception to the report 'on the ground of privilege. My objections to it are alto­gether different from those of the honor­able member for Ararat. The report de­clares a new offence for which a seat in this House shall be vacated, and therefore it involves a question of privilege affecting every individual member of the House.

Mr. G A UNSON.·-The motion which I desire to propose equally concerns a matter of privilege.

The SPEAKER.-No doubt one is a question of privilege as much as the other. Perhaps the better course will be to post­pone the consideration of both propositions.

Mr. MACPHERSON.-I, for one, ob­ject to any postponement of this question. It is a matter on which the Government should make up their minds, and take action at once, yea or nay, on the report. They ought to be- prepared either to agree

to confirm the decision of the committee or to upset it. I will be no party to any evasion of the law by saying that the Speaker shall not do his duty until the House has had an opportunity of consi­dering whether it will come to the con­clusion that he ought to do it or not. The Speaker luts a certain duty to perform, unless the House intervenes; and for the House to intervene for the sake of a few days' delay would be a most injudicious proceeding.

The SPEAKER.-I have asked the House to assist me in determining whether the report of the committee declares the election of both members for Rodney to be void or only the election of Mr. Gillies.

Mr. MACPHERSON.-If the honor­able member for Ararat had not inter­jected his motion it would have been made plain that the unanimous opinion of the House is that the finding of the committee only refers to the election of Mr. Gillies.

Mr. GRANT.-A far more important question than whether the report refers only to Mr. Gillies' election has been raised by the honorable and learned member for the Ovens, namely, whether the report should be received at alL Until the report is received the Speaker dare not issue a writ. I do not desire at present to ex­press any opinion on the point raised by the honorable member for the Ovens; but I would suggest that, for the convenience of the House, it would be better to post­pone the discussion of the subject until Tuesday, instead of rushing into it at once, without any notice having been given.

The SPEAKER.-I will first put the formal motion that the report lie on the table and be printed.

Mr. GAUNSON.-I desire to mention that when the report in Rutledge's case was presented to the Assembly, a dis­tinct notice of motion was given for the consideration of the report on a subse­quent day. That is a precedent for our guidance on this occasion. I am perfectly certain that not more than half the mem­bers of the House have looked into the report of the evidence given in support of Mr. Shackell's petition, which occupies 120 closely-printed pages. The most con­venient course, as well as the most regular one, having regard to the precedent in Rutledge's case, will be to postpone the consideration of the report until to-morrow or Tuesday.

1116 Rodney Elec,tion. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillies.

Mr. KERFERD. - The question is whether the report should be received at all. It states that certain allegations con­tained in the petition have been disproved, that Mr. Gillies has not been proved to be guilty of bribery or undue influence, either by himself or his agents, and then it goes on to say-

"But that undue influence was used by other persons on his behalf, and this committee there­fore declare the election for Rodney to be wholly void."

My contention is that this is not an offence which will vacate the seat of any member of the House. It is not an offence within our Constitution Act, within the Electoral Act, or within the province of the Elections and Qualifications Committee. Upon this ground I submit that I have a right to take precedence over any question as to the merits of Mr. Shackell's petition or the evidence adduced in support of it. The first question for us to consider is whether the Elections Committee have not committed an act which is ultra vires in declaring that a member of the House has forfeited his seat for doing something which is not an offence.

The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­ber can move an amendment on the formal motion for laying the report on the table, but perhaps the better course will be to postpone the whole question until Tuesday, on the understanding that, in the mean­time, with the assent of the House, I will suspend the issue of the writ for the election of a new member.

Mr. KERFERD.-Mr. Speaker, acting on your suggestion, I will move that the following words be added to the motion for laying the report on the table :-

"And, inasmuch as the Committee of Elec­tions and Qualifications have reported, in the mat.ter of the petition against the return of the Hon. D. Gillies for Rodney, that the peti­tioner had failed to prove that Mr. Gillies was guilty of bribery or undue influence, either by himself or his agents, during the late election for Rodney, but, nevertheless, ou a ground wholly irrelevant, declared the election to be 'wholly void, this House resolves that such report be referred back to the committee for reconsi­deration."

I am quite willing that this shall be debated on Tuesday if the House desires to postpone the discussion of the ques­tion.

Mr. RAMSAY seconded the amend­ment.

Mr. DWYER. -I desire to take the earliest opportunity of giving my reasons for the conclusion I came to in this case,

as a member of the Elections and Quali­fications Committee. I carefully con­sidered the point raised by the honorable and learned member for the Ovens before I arrived at the conclusion that a candi­date may not have been guilty of bribery or undue influence by himself or his agents, and yet his seat may be declared void because undue influence was used on his bebalf. (Laughter.) I am not at all astonished that many members are not aware of the la,w on this subject. Perhaps they have confined their inves­tigations to what the statute law on the subject is, and have not considered what the common law is in reference to it. If the honorable member for the Ovens will look iuto the common law, as explained in the 2nd volume of Clerk's Law and Practice of Elections and Election Com­mittees, he will find that a seat may be voided through undue influence being exerted on behalf of a candidate, al­though the candidate never authorized any undue influence to be exercised on his behalf, nor was aware of it. The com­mittee were therefore justified in declar­ing the election of Mr. Gillies void. Mr. Gillies admitted himself, if not in so many words at any rate inferentially, that un­due influence was used on his behalf. He said that a mistake had been made, and that if he had been aware of the proceed­ings going on, he would have put a stop to them, but that, not being aware of them, he could not and therefore did not put a stop to them. There were three beliefs which any member of the com­mittee might have. He might come to the conclusion that Mr. Gillies or his agents were guilty of undue influence; or that neither he 1101' his agents were guilty of undue influence; or that some persons not agents of Mr. Gillies, nor Mr. Gillies himself, did some acts which amounted to undue influence in his favour and on his behalf. The common law of England is law in tbis country except where it is expressly repealed by the statute law, and there is no Statute here which repeals the common law on the subject of elections. The committee were therefore bound to give a decision consistent with the com­mon law. Having come to the conclusion, from the evidence, that undue influence was used on behalf of Mr. Gillies, it was their duty to declare his seat void. To show that an election may be declared void because undue influence was exercised on behalf of the sitting member, though

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER i 7.J )tIro Gillies. 1117

not by himself or his agents, I will quote the following passage from Clerk's Law and Practice of Elections and Election Committees :-

"General Corruption.-An election might be avoided in consequence of corrupt practices in whiCh neither the candidate nor his agent'3 took any part if it could be established that the corruption was of so universal a character as to have influ(,nced the result of the election (Rogers on Elections, 263). It. is not probable, however, that such corrupt practices could take place at an election without the candidate or his agents becoming cognisant of them, and being more or less implicated in them. Such might be the case when the corrupt practices used were those of undue influence only. An election might be secured by the exertion of undue influence by a mob, or some particular body of persons, who might be altogether unconnected with the can­didate j under these circumstances, there can be no doubt that the election would be void at common law. The candidate who had been returned by the use of such undue influence, exereised by persons strangers to him, would probably not undergo the statutable disqualifi­cation of being incapable to represent that place during the Parliament. Whether he would, under such circumstances, be eligible to fill the vacancy created by his election being declared void seems very doubtful j probably he would not, because, the second election being looked upon as a continuation of the first, the undue influence which secured his first election might be held to operate in his favour on the second."

In order that Mr. Gillies might not be incapable of being a candidate at the next election, I supported a motion that he was not guilty by himself or his agents of bribery or undue influence; but, on the evidence, I could not help coming to the conclusion that undue influence had been . used in his favour.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-By whom? Mr. DWYER.-The report does not

state by whom, and neither is it necessary that it should do. Honorable members can gather the facts from the evidence if they take the trouble to peruse it. There was no option for me but to come to the conclusion which I have already indi­cated. I would have been glad if there had been. Only a short time before the decision was given, I found that the com­mon law left me no option but to come to the conclusion that Mr. Gillies' election should be declared void. In this, as in every other case, it may be said that cer­tain reasons influenced the members of the committee other than a desire to arrive at what they honestly believed to be a righteous conclusion. The reason why I have given my decision in this case in the way I have done is because I believe it to be right and in accordance with law.

I believe that undue influence was used, not on the part of Mr. Gillies, but by other persons on his behalf; and, having come to that conclusion, the common law left me no option but to vote that his seat shonld be declared void.

Mr. GAUNSON.-As the honorable and learned member for the. Ovens is de­sirous of pushing this matter to a decision at once, as soon as his amendment is dis­posed of, I will also push my motion to a conclusion to-night.

Mr. G. PATON SMITH.-Sir, there is an old proverb, which I need not more particularly mention, that seems to apply to the honorable and learned member for Villiers and Heytesbury, who has given his reasons for the decision at which he arrived in this case. Who suggested but the honorable member himself that any influences could possibly arise within the last few days of the sittings of the com­mittee which did not exist before? The honorable member has thought proper to get up here to vindicate his honesty, to say that no influences have been at work in regard to him-to ask the House to believe that no appointments were being made, that nothing was being done within the last few days which could possibly have influenced his vote on this question in the committee. Who said there had been? Is the honorable member drawing from the depths of his own consciousness?

Mr. DWYER.-I saw it in a news­paper to-day.

Mr. G. PATON SMITH.-The hon­orable member has been in extreme haste to vindicate himself in the House. It would have been most desirable if the honorable member, as a lawyer, had ac­quainted himself with what is the com­mon law of the land before he went out­side the committee to tell, as I am in a position to prove he did, that there was not a shadow of a case against Mr. Gillies, and that he intended to vote in his favour.

Mr. DWYER.-I did say that at one time.

Mr. G. PATON SMITH.-The hon­orable member said that after all the evidence in the case had been closed.

Mr. DWYER.-No. Mr. G. PATON SMITH.-The hon­

Ol'able member said that unsolicited. Without any request being made to him by anybody, the honorable member thought proper to tell members of this House, and, I believe, the gentleman whose absence most of us regret, that there was not a

1118 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillies.

shadow of 11 case against him; nay, more, having to go to Warrna.mbool, he desired that the case should be spun out until he could come back and record his vote on behalf of the sitting member.

Mr. LALOR.-And so he did. Mr. G. PATON SMITH.-I will not

accept any vindication of the honorable member for Villiers and Heytesbury from the chairman of the Elections Committee, because I think we have seen enough in the reported evidence to show in what manner the Minister of Customs thought fit to dis­charge his duties in that capacity. I do not say that the honorable gentleman did not discharge them in the most proper manner, but the manner in which he discharged them certainly did not seem to meet with the approval of other members of the com­mittee. The honorable member for Villiers and Heytesbury has adopted the most un­usual course I have ever known taken in this House. Here is a motion before the House for the further consideration of this matter on a subsequent evening. The other members of the committee are willing to sit silent and hear what is said before they feel called upon in any way to vindicate the decision they arrived at; but it appears the honorable member for Villiers is so conscious of his own ter­giversation, so conscious of the impro­priety of his conduct in the matter, that a sudden impulse has moved him-the common law of the land. The honorable member is not likely to be moved by the common law. A much more potent in­fluence than the common law is required to move him into action. Apart from that, however, the honorable member committed a gross impropriety in revealing outside the committee what he intended to do, by as­suring the sitting member that there was no case against him, and that he intended to vote in his favour. He expressed that intention, as I am informed, not only before all the evidence was taken, but after the evidence was taken, and after Mr. Gillies made the statement upon which the hon­orable member now so much relies.

Mr. DWYER.-I stated that I did not believe there was a shadow of a case against him as far as Hugh McKenzie's case was concerned; but I told Mr. Gillies that, on the general case, I would have to hear his evidence before coming to a decision.

Mr. G. PATON SMITH.-According to the information supplied to me, the honorable member, after the McKenzie:

case had closed, and after Mr. Gillies had. given his evidence, expressed his unquali­fied dissent from the opinion that there was any case against Mr. Gillies in any shape or form. I challenge him to say that, in the expressions which he used, not only to Mr. Gillies but to other mem­bers and gentlemen whose names I am quite prepared to give, he limited his exculpation of Mr. Gillies to the case of McKenzie. The honorable member did nothing of the kind, and he knows he did nothing of the kind.

The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­ber is not in order in applying such a con­tradiction to another honorable member.

Mr. G. P A TON SMITH.-Then I will not contradict the honorable member, but I will ask him whether he will venture to say that, in the expressions he made use of, he limited his exculpation of Mr. Gillies to the case of Hugh McKenzie?

Mr. BERRY.-Sir, I rise to a point of order. It seems to me that it is disorderly for an honorable member to challenge the vote, action, or language of one individual member of the committee, although he may challenge the report 'of the committee.

Mr. LALOR.-I may inform the House that the honorable and learned member for Boroondara is mistaken as to one material fact. He said that the honorable and learned member for Villiers and Heytesbury made certain statements to Mr. Gillies, after that gentleman gave his evidence. As a matter of fact, after Mr. Gillies gave his evidence the committee came to their decision without leaving the room.

Mr. G. PATON SMITH.-It was after the close of the McKenzie case, as I am informed, that the honorable member expressed the opinion that there was no case against Mr. Gillies; and it will be within the knowledge of the House that the special case of McKenzie and the general case went on together. I do :p.ot wish to refer further to the honorable member at present, because, if this matter be adjourned, I shall deal with the com­mon law and the statute law as well when the proper time comes. What I wish to point out now is that the honorable mem­ber has raised a hornet's nest about him­self by his action in seeking to justify a certain decision which he arrived at in the discharge of judicial functions imposed upon him by this House. No one chal­lenged his judgment or integrity, or his

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER 17.J Mr. Gillies. 1119

right to give any decision he pleased, but he has thought proper to give his motives for his decision, and to insinuate that he is liable to an accusation of having acted from improper motives. Apart from this, I think it would be well if the sugges­tion were accepted that, either by a tacit understanding or by an actual in­struction from the House, the writ for a new election should not issue until the whole question has been discussed, be­cause this is a matter not affecting Mr. Gillies alone, but the rights and privileges of every member of the House. I ven­ture to hope, indeed I feel perfectly sure, I am justified in saying that there is suf­ficient esprit de corps and regard for the rights of every honorable member, existing in this House to enable us to consider the finding of the committee, and the legality of that finding, apart from any improper motives or political partisanship. I think honorable members will act wisely by agreeing to postpone the consideration of the question, in order that we may have time to examine the evidence and ascertain the state of the law, and be prepared to debate the matter fully. I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until Tuesday.

Mr. GAUNSON.-After the abusive speech just delivered by the honorable and learned member for Boroondara, I do not think that there is the slightest occa­sion for honorable members on this (the Ministerial) side of the House to show any particular feeling of commiseration for the trouble into which the heat and zeal of the friends of the late honorable member for Rodney (Mr. Gillies) have brought him. When I first suggested the postponement of this question, the very learned late Attorney - General insisted upon it, as a matter of privilege, being instantaneously debated.

Mr.KERFERD.-I did not do anything of the kind.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Nosooner is it brought under the notice of the House as a matter of privilege, to be now and at once determined, than we are treated to a tirade of most abusive language from the honorable member for Boroondara, affect­ing the action of the honorable and learned member for Villiers and Heytesbury. Who is this honorable member who cham­pions the cause of the ex-member for Rodney? On one occasion he was a member of a select committee that sat upon an attempted reservation of certain

land on the Eastern Hill by Mr. Gillies, and a resolution was tabled in the com­mittee declaring that a most important document had been suppressed by Mr. Gillies. The question was put to the vote whether the word "suppressed"­should be struck out with the view of substituting the word" withheld," and the honorable member for Boroondara voted for the retention of the word "suppressed," and yet we now find him comjng forward to champion Mr. Gillies, who, I venture to say, has been treated most leniently by the Elections Committee. Now what are the facts as regards the honorable member for Villiers, even upon the showing of the most learned and ahle advocate for the ex~member for Rodney? That before the close of Hugh McKenzie's case, and before Mr. Gillies had made his speech on the evidence in that case, the honorable member for Villiers spoke to Mr. Gillies. If there was any impropriety in the hon­orable member doing so, I would like to know whether an older and more experienced politician, as Mr. Gillies is, and also an ex­Minister of the Crown, did not know that it was equally an impropriety on his part to speak to any individual member of the committee about the case? . Well, before Mr. Gillies had made his speech in defence of himself in Hugh McKenzie's case, the honorable member for Villiers told him that there was not a shadow of anything against him as far as that case was con­cerned. He told him, also, that he was going to Warrnambool, that if necessary he was to telegraph to him, and to spin out his speech in order that he (Mr. Dwyer) might be able to return in time and vote according -to his conscience. The honor­able member did vote according to his con­science, and gave Mr. Gillies the benefit of the doubt in that case, which, I say, after having carefully considered the evi­dence, is more than I would have done. The committee ventured to acquit Mr. Gillies in Hugh McKenzie's case, whereas they ought to have convjcted him. With respect to the postponement of this de­bate, I think that, as the House has been driven -into the discussion by the zeal of the honorable and learned member for the Ovens, it should now be gone on with. Mr. Shackell's rights will be en­dangered by .delay, and the electors of Rodney will also be suffering partial dis­franchisement in the meantime. The hon­orable'member for Boroondara tells us that he will look into the common law as

1120 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gilli~s.

bearing on the committee's report; but did he attempt to deal with the subject in the light of common sense? Supposing an election to have been influenced by im­proper proceedings, but that you cannot trace the influence to the sitting member or his u,uthorized agents, though you can distinctly trace influence of an impropor character which cfmsed that member to be elected, I submit that under such cir­cumstances an Elections Committee would be bound to declare that election unlawful, and to say, at all events, that it must be upset. I think the committee have dealt very leniently with Mr. Gillies. Having regard to the rights of the electors of Rodney, and also to the rights of Mr. Shackell, who has been put to enormous expense, and who has proved his case by the verdict of the committee, given upon oath, he ought not to be kept out of the seat for a single moment. Though in the first instance, for the convenience of hon­orable members, I proposed that the ques­tion should be debated to-morrow or on Tuesday, as the honorable member for the Ovens has interposed, and proposed an amendment on the formal motion for the reception of the report, I think the House would act exceedingly unwisely if it ad­journed the debate.

Mr. BERRY.-When this question was first mentioned by the honorable member for Ararat it did appea.r to me that, with­out any discussion for the present, the House might give a unanimous assent for the withholding of the writ for the elec­tion of a new member for Rodney until it determined what course to adopt in regard to the committee's report, and that the Spea.ker might act upon that understand­ing and postpone the issue of the writ in the meantime. But the motion tabled by the honorable and learned member for the Ovens places the matter in a very dif­ferent position. I understood that the finding of the Elections and Qualifications Committee was final, and that the writ would issue as a matter of course on that report unless the House interposed. But if the proposition of the honorable member for the Ovens is agreed to, what becomes of the finding of the committee? The amendment, in fact, amounts to a motion that the report be not received. N ow I will call the attention of h(;morable mem­bersto the fact that the Government,during the present session, when they were under very strong temptation to interfere with the finding of the committee, absolutely refused

to do so, and allowed it to take its course in due deference to the law, because that committee was the sworn body called upon to try the validity of that particular elec­tion. Although the Government differed from the reasons which the committee gave for the course it took on that occasion, and although the member of the HOllse who was disqualified by the verdict of the com­mittee sat behind the Ministry, the Go­vernment did not interpose between the report of the committee and its adoption and the issue of the writ. There could be no stronger case than that for the Government to interfere, because it was well known that the Government had a large majority at their back who were of opinion that that member was disqualified on most insufficient grounds. We had to ask the House to set one question at rest for the future; but we did not interpose with a motion such as that now proposed by the honorable member for the Ovens. I cannot consent to an adjournment of the debate on a motion of this kind. I could have understood agreeing to an adjourn­ment if no such motion as this had been brought forward, and if it had been silently understood that the issue of the writ would be withheld until the question was discussed. I do not think anyone would have objected to that cour'le, and I cannot see that any evil results would have flowed from it; but the case is now completely changed by the tabling of a motion which virtually asks the House to reject the report of the tribunal appointed by law to decide the validity of the elec­tion, and whose decision is understood to be final. I do uot intend to challenge the decision of the committee, nor do I think that the House should, by an adjournment of the debate, even inferentially challenge it. Whatever sympathies honorable mem­bers may have either with regard to the one candidate or the other, I would remind them that there is a much larger question at stake, namely, the rights of the electors of Rodney, who are disfranchised by the verdict of the committee, in consequence of undue influence having been exercised on behalf of one candidate as against the other. For these reasons I think the House should, at all events, proceed to deal with this matter now. I do not know that anythiIig is to be gained by delay, and certainly not by delay on such a motion as is now proposed.

Mr. SERVlCE.-Sir, I listened with much pleasure to the remarks of the Chief

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER 17.J Mr. Gillies .. 1121

Secretary. I was delighted to hear him impress upon the House so strongly the undesirability of dealing in any manner whatever with the report of the Elections Committee. No one could have been more surprised than I was to find the honorable nnd learned member for the Ovens making the proposition he did; and I t.rust that not only that motion, but all the others which have been submitted to the House, will be withdrawn forthwith, and that the report of t.he committee will be received as final. I, as a member of the commit­tee, differ from the report as far as day can differ from night. l believe the con­clusion of the committee to be utterly

. wrong, an outrage on our Constitution in every sense and form, an outrage on com­mon sense, and a violation of the principle of action which should influence members under circumsta.nces of a judicial charac­ter-namely, to test the person who is being tried by the standard which they themselves would ~ike to be t.ried by. Nevertheless, though I differ entirely from the finding of the committee, I think the interposition of this House in the matter a greater danger. Even if the debate be adjourned, I am sure not one-fourth of the members will read the evidence taken in the case, and it is no shame to them to say that. I ass!3rt that it is a dangerous doctrine to lay down that although the Elections Committee may make mistakes, as they may have done in this ·and other cases, there is a chance of arriving at a more correct result by appealing from such a committee to a tribunal like this. I think the remarks I have offered, and the remarks which the Chief Secretary has offered, apply quite as strongly to the pro­posal made by the honorable member for Ararat as they apply to the proposal made by the honorable member for the Ovens. Why should the ordinary course which the Statute prescribes the Speaker should pursue be interfered with by this House unless this Hous!3 is prepared, as has been suggested, to take the report itself into con­sideration. If the remarks of the Chief Secretary have any weight or effect at all, they go to show that this House should not, on any motion, interfere with the finding of the Elections Committee. That being the case, I think it would be very much more satisfactory to the House and also to the country - which will regard any action taken by the House, in reviewing, under present circumstances, the decision of the Elect.ions Committee wit.h very great

YOJ .. XXYI,-4 :\I

suspicion indeed-to accept the decision of the committee without further hesitation. Honorable members on the Ministerial siJe of the House must be aware that their action will be challenged by a large sec­tion of the country if they should find in any way that would appear to favour their own side. That being the case, discussion even upon the motion of the honorable member for Ararat can have no possible satisfactory effect. The matter should now be remitted to the constituency of Rodney, and I think the House might fairly say_H Let it go." That being the case, I would strongly urge the honorable member for the Ovens and the honorable member for Ararat to withdraw their mo­tions.

Mr. MACKAY.-Sir, I 1hink there is some misunderstanding as to the reasons which have induced the honor­able and learned member for the Ovens to bring forward his motion. I quite agree with the honorable member for Maldon as to the .desirability of not pushing forward any resolution to an issue; but to say that we should allow any perversion of common sense or any outrage on ordinary propriety to appear before us in the shape of the decision of a committee, and that we should say nothing, is simply monstrous. If the decision of that committee appears to any members of this House to be within itself a compendium of nonsense and absurdity, why should they be denied an opportunity of expressing their opinions? Are we to be compelled to bow down and worship some such fetich as is set up here in the shape of an irresponsible and omniscient committee which can do no wrong and yet is always doing wrong. Sir, I, and a number of other members on both sides of the House, have read with amazement that contradiction of nonsense which is called the decision of the Elections Com­mittee, and I ask-Are we to allow a decision which deprives an honorable member of the seat in this House which he has filled for so many years with honour and credit to himself and advan­tage to the country to pass sub silC1llio, because of some superstitious reverence for a body capable of bringing in such a finding as has been spoken of by the honorable member for Maldon? The Elections Committee, it appears, have declared a new offence. They exonerate Mr. Gillies from all the charges made against him, and yet they visit him with

11"22 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillies.

all the penalties of guilt. Surely there is something in that which ought to chal­lenge the attention of a deliberative body. Surely this occasion ought not to be allowed to pass by without some expres­sion of opinion as to· the monstrous per­version of justice and common sense ex­hibited in the finding of the committee. Let every honorable member bear in mind that what is Mr. Gillies' case to-day may be his to-morrow. Let honoraole mem­bers do to others as they would have others do to them. I quite admit that the present discussion may come to nothing, but to say that we shall not ex­press our opinion on the matter-that we shall not do something to pave the way for the creation of a proper tribunal for dealing with such cases-I hold to be utterly monstrous. I believe the discus­sion will do one piece of good: it will pave the way to the establishment of a body to which cases of disputed election shall be sent, and in whose wisdom and freedom from party feeling the public will have some trust. If that were done, we would have no spectacle like that which has been afforded this evening, of one member of a judicial tribunal standing up to vindicate his action before he was attacked, and admitting that he had been in communication with the man who was virtually being tried during· the time the trial was going on. I think that after such an exposure the days, of election committees are numbered. Under all the circumstances, I think we ought to ad­journ the discussion.

Mr. LALOR.-I desire to speak on this question of adjournment with great calmness, although it is difficult to speak with calmness after the motions which have been submitted on the finding of the committee of which I am chairman. It appears to me that the honorable member for Maldon is somewhat in the position of the juror who complained that his fellow jurors did not agree with him. I admit that the report is not the report which I would have brought up had I been the sole judge in the case. I don't think any member of the Elections Committee quite concurs with the whole of it. But a report from a joint body must always par­take, to some extent, of the opinions of certain members of that body. It has been said that the finding of the Elections Committee is contrary to law and common sense; but the honorable and learned member for Villiers and Heytesbury has

quoted, in support of that decision, a case from a work which is recognised as an authority by every lawyer in this country. No one has ventured to contradict it. The honorable member for Maldon made an assertion as to the want of common sense on the part of members of the Elec­tions Committee, but he did not allude to the fact that it was proved before the committee that a Minister of the Crown, the head of the Lands department, having become a candidate for the representation in Parliament of an electoral district where there were a large number of selec-

. tors without leases which had been for a long time applied for, the officers of the Lands department exercised an authority and a power which they had no right to exercise to have leases issued to those selectors, in precedence of all other selec­tors in the country.

Mr. SERVICE.-That is not the case. It was distinctly stated in evidence" not merely by Mr. Gillies but by other witnesses, that the instructions to spend money in expediting the issue of the leases were given two months before Mr. Gillies had any idea of becoming a can­didate for Rodney.

Mr. LALOR. -This is not the first time the honorable member for Maldon has attempted to get out of a difficulty in this way. .

Mr. KERFERD.-Tryand speak with calmness. ..

Mr. LALOR.-It was proved in evi­dence that the' officers r of the Lands department pursued a course which they never pursued before in giving precedence to the issue of leases for the electoral district of Rodney after the gentleman who was then the head of that department became a candidate for that district. Will the honorable member for Maldon contra ... diet that flatly .and straightly? If not, what is the good of quibbling about the period when it· was decided that the money should be spent? ' This is the first time in the history of politics in this country that the officers of a public de~ partment have dared to use such a power for the purpose of securing the election of their Ministerial head to Parliament. It is quite true that Mr. Byron Moore stated in evidence before the committee that he issued those instructions without any authority whatever from the Minister. It is equally true that Mr. Gillies corrobo­rated that statement. Therefore the com­mittee were bound to find that there was

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER 17.J Mr. Gillies. ,-' 11~3

hO evidence to support the charge' of undue influence by the sitting member­that the issue of leases was ordered by him. - But it has be-en stated that as a matter of law, and authorities have been quoted in support of' the statement, that if a man be in a position where he ought to know what is being done and he does not know it, he is ~qually responsible as if he did know it.

Dr. MADDEN.-That applies to a case where a particular duty is cast upon an individual. In such a case the indi­vidual cannot shelter himself by saying somebody else ought to have performed the duty and did not. That is not this case. In fact it is as different from it as possible.

Mr. LALOR.-But an authority was quoted by the learned gentleman who conducted the case for the petitioner, which went to show that if a man were in a position where he ought to know what was being done and did not know, he was equally responsible as if he had. If Mr. Gillies knew that this work was being done in the Lands-office to secure his election, no one would attempt to say that it was not his duty to stop it. He had no right to exercise his authority as a Minister, or to use the public officers of his department, to secure his election. But supposing these authorities are got over, there is then the contention of the honorable member for Villiers and Hey­tesbury, that an election may be declared void on the ground of undue influence having" been used, although the sitting member was no party to the use of it.

Mr. SERVICE.-Used by his agents. Mr. LALOR.-What is at the bottom

of this contention? Why, the right of the public to he properly represented-the right of the public to vote without being subjected to undue influence by the candi­date or anyone else. The case cited by the' honorable member for Villiers and Heytesbury is one of a class of cases where it is clearly laid down that an election may be declared void where the undue influence is used neither by the sitting member nor by his agents. That is lai'd down in Clerk on Elections-a standard work recognised by every lawyer in this country and in England. I may in­fortn the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Mackay) that if the committee had found Mr. Gillies guilty of undue influence he- would have been excluded from this lIduse for three years. The committee

4M2

were careful not to do that; and~ by their decision, Mr. Gillies will be sent to his constituents, who will have the opportunity of saying which candidate they prefer. I don't think any honorable 'member is justified in 'denouncing the findiiig of the committee in the language used by the honorable member for Maldon. The hon­orable member must not suppose that he possesses all the common sense, intelli­gence, and wisdom of the committee.

Mr. SERVICE.-I was riot allowed even to give my opinion.

Mr. LALOR.-I have endeavoured to deal with the matter in 'a thoroughly im­partial manner, but I never performed an act more painful to me than that of bring'­ing up the report of the Elections Com­mittee to-day. I say this without the least hesitation. Certainly it will cause me to avoid, if possible, sitting on an elec­tion committee again; and I think all the members of this committee may fairly be excused from sitting on another election committee. I hope, if this debate is not to be adjourned, that the finding of the committee will go as it went in the case of Dr. Macartney. Let the people of Rodney be left to decide whether Mr. Gillies, Mr. Shack ell, or any other person, shall repre­sent them.

Mr. ZOX.--'Mr. Speaker, I hope there will not be another Elections and Qualifi­cations Committee. I hope some steps will be taken for the reference to an im­partial tribunal like the Supreme Court of all cases of election dispute. I hold that it is an absolute necessity that this finding of the Elections Committee should go back to them for reconsideration. Why you yourself, sir, have appealed to the House for advice as to what you should do. The Elections Committee bring up a report in which they declare the election for Rodney to be invalid, and, consequently, you, sir, are left in a difficulty as to which seat you should issue a new writ for-the seat hitherto held by Mr. Gillies, or the seat hitherto held by Mr. Fraser. I presume that if the report had contained an ex­plicit declaration that Mr. Gillies' election for Rodney was void, you would have known your duty in the matter. I cannot understand the position taken up by the Minister of Customs. If Mr. Gillies was guilty of the conduct imputed to him by the Minister of Customs, why have any sympathy with him at all. If the com­mittee were of opinion that Mr. Gillies used his influence with the clerks in the

1124 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillie8.

Lands department to get out leases with unusnal expedition so as to secure his election, why, in the name of good­neSR, did they not bring up a report to that effect? But the report states that Mr. Gillies is not guilty, and that his friends are not guilty, of any undue in­fluence; and yet, forsooth, the committee declare the election for Rodney to be wholly void. Why, the finding is against common sense. The committee declare that Mr. Gillies has done nothing wrong, and that his friends have done nothing wrong, and yet they say he is disentitled to hold a seat in this House. I ask hon­orable members, after reading the evidence submitted before the Elections Committee, and taking into consideration the oppor- . tunities which that committee had of in­vestigating the whole matter, whether any of them, if the particulars of his candi­dature were made as public as those of Mr. Gillies has been, would pass through the ordeal equally as well as that gentle­man? If my question can be answered in the affirmative, I say we have nothing but honorable men in this House. For my part, I am inclined to think that, at election times, candidates are apt to resort to measures which they would not care to have made public. (Laughter;) Honor­able members may laugh; but if every action of theirs, during an election cam­paign, were brought up against them, they might not laugh-they might be placed in a far worse position than Mr. Gillies. I think it a most extraordinary thing that ~ man sworn to discharge the high and importaut duty of a member of the Elec­tions Committee should go to a member petitioned against and say-" I am so satisfied with your conduct, that there is nothing wrong against you, that, although I am going to ""Varrnambool, if you want me back to give a vote in your favour, I

, will be back to give it." What would be said of a juryman if he were to meet a party in the case which he was engaged in trying, and intimate that he was going to pronounce in a particular way, and then go and decide in a diametrically opposite way? I ask whether this does not fur­nish a reason why we should have no election committees? I look upon them as a mere farce. Unfortunately, honorable members who sit on sueh committees can­not divest themselves of political feelings; and I believe it is from that very circum­stance that Mr. Gillies is not a member of this House now. Certainly I think the

Mr. Zor.

report should' be referred back to the Elections Committee.

Mr. LANGRIDGE.~As a member of the Elections Committee, I consider it right to say a few words. I am inclined to think that if the decision of the com­mittee had been the other way, a similar discussion, only from a different point of view, would have arisen in this House. One thing I am satisfied about, and that is that I never committed a more un­fortunate mistake than when I allowed myself to be appointed a member of the committee. Reference has been made to questions of law, and honorable members, perceiving the differences which prevail among lawyers upon points of law, may realize the position in which I found my­self as a layman when sitting in the com­mittee-room during the last two or three months. We had two or three barristers before us, and one would read a section of an Act of Parliament and contend that that section supported his view, while the barrister on the other side would contend that that very same section supported his view. I think the mere mention of that fact will give honorable members an idea of what members of the Elections Com­mittee have had to go through. I fully concur in the belief that the time is coming when election committees will be no more. How is it to be expected that a committee of laymen can come to a satis­factory decision ~pon a question which the ablest lawyers cannot agree upon? Under these circumstances I hope the law will be altered, so that the duty of trying election petitions may no longer be imposed on members of this House. In this case two gentlemen contested an election. One of them was a Minister of the Crown, ,and the other was a local resident. Now we all know that a Minister of the Crown, in contesting an election, no matter what Ministry may be in power at the time, has an advantage, by virtue of his office, over the other side. Mr. Shackell, the petitioner in this case, knew very well, when contesting Rodney, that he would have to fight the Minister of Lands. He was content to do so, and take the consequences; but he had not the knowledge that he had to fight not only the Minister of Lands, but, also, as the evidence taken by the Elections Com­mittee disclosed, the whole of the Lands department. That I consider is a common­sense view, and also a just and equitable view" to take of the case, and I think

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER 17.] Mr. Gillies. 1125.

honorable members will see that, under the circumstances, the committee were justified in coming to the decision they did. I quite endorse the remarks made by the Minister of Customs. Never since I have been a member of the House have .I experienced such an unpleasant feeling as I had yesterday; and if anyone catches me on an Elections Committee again I will forgive him. My sympathies, to a certain extent, are with Mr. Gillies because he was an old member, and his ability made him an acquisition to this Chamber. But, as far as I am competent to judge of the evidence, there can hardly be two opinions as to the propriety of the course adopted by the committee. Under the circumstances, I thought I was only doing just and right in concurring in a decision which would send back both Mr. Gillies and Mr. Shackell to Rodney to fight the election over again.

Mr. KERFERD.-I wish, in two or three words, to put myself right before the House. The Chief Secretary seems to misunderstand the course which I pro­pose to pursue. When I moved my amendment, it was upon a suggestion from the chair that that course should be taken. I had no desire to move an amendment; I had no intention of doing so when I rose. My wish was to deal with this question altogether apart from the Rodney election-to deal with it as an abstract question affecting the privi­leges of honorable members of this House. The Elections Committee have declared a seat void because an alleged offence has been committed; but, as far as my view of the case goeR, the committee might just as well have declared Mr. Gillies' seat vacant because he has red hair. All that I want is that I should not stand quietly by nnd allow a report to be adopted stating that a seat is vacated because of something which is not within the four corners of our Statute.

Mr. GAUNSON.-But it is within the four corners of the law of Parliament.

Mr. KERFERD.-No. I will show that as soon as I have the opportunity; but at present we are dealing only with the question of adjournment. Of course, if the Government are determined that the matter shall be dealt with as a party question, there is no doubt about the result; they can carry what they please. But they cannot prevent me placing on record in Flansard, they cannot prevent me communicating to the public of this

country, that the Elections Committee have found Mr. Gillies' seat vacated for something which is not an offence known to the law or practice and usage of Parlia­ment. I have no desire now for an adjourn­ment till Tuesday, and, when the question of adjournment is disposed of, I will be able to show, from the construction of the Statute, and from authorities, that the report of the Elections Committee is not one which ought to be received, but that it should be referred back to the committee.

Mr. MUNRO.-As far as I am per­sonally concerned I can scarcely trust my­self to say one word about the action of the Elections Committee. They seem always to arrive at a conclusion which all the rest of the community could not arrive at; and that being so I think it is time these committees were done away with, and that some other tribunal was substituted for the trial of election peti­tions. The honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) has said that mem­bers on this (the Ministerial) side of the House did curious things during the election. I have seen curious things done, but for my own part I am not conscions of having done anything which the law could find fault with, either by myself or by anyone on my behalf. Yet for all that undue influence might have been used. That being so, I think that really the best thing to do will be to dissolve the com­mittee, and to ask the Government to introdnce a Bill for submitting all these questions to a legal tribunal. My own feeling with regard to the decision of the Elections Committee in this case· is pre­cisely my feeling with regard to their decision in Dr. Macartney's case, that they did what no other seven men in the community would do.

Mr. COOPER.-It seems to me that it is absolutely impossible for the Elec­tions Committee to come to any finding upon any given case submitted to them that will be satisfactory to both sides of this House. In Dr. Macartney's case I believe there was a general feeling both inside and outside that a wrong finding was arrived at; and yet I am quite pre­pared to believe that if the Government or any member on the Government side of the House had proposed that the finding should not be adhered to, and that the report be referred back to the committee, honorable members on the opposition side of the House would have resented the proceeding~ and said the Government.

1126 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillies.

were using their majority for an improper purpose. Now we have a very old mem­ber of the House unseated by the same committee, and many honorable members are dissatisfied with that decision. I hope one direct result of these unfavor­able and unfortunate findings will be that the Government will act on the sugges­tion offered from various sides of the House, and bring in a Bill providing that all election petitions shall be remitted to the Supreme Court. I hope that this will be the last Parliament in which any petition against an honorable member will be referred to a committee of the House. The course now adopted in the old coun­try is to refer all election petitions to the judges, and that course has found very general favour. I hope therefore that one direct outcome of the present pro­ceedings will be that, before the next Parliament is called into existence, we shall have a tribunal constituted which will deal with these questions altogether apart from political considerations. One important matter which has been men­tioned in the course of this discussion, and which I think honorable members cannot shut their eyes too, is that certain servants of the State, during a certain period of election excitement, used their influence as public officers to promote the return of a Minister of the Crown. Under these circumstances the local candidate for the representation of Rodney, as one honorable member has already stated, found that he had to fight not only a Minister of the Crown but a whole Government department. I hope the Ministry will take note of that statement, and have a searching inquiry into the matter, so that we may have no more of public departments standing behilid a Minister and giving him an advantage over other candidates at the time of an election. If that is done, and if future election petitions are referred to a proper tribunal, we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that the extraordinary findings of the Elections Committee have brought forth some practical result, which may be of advantage to future Parliaments. Taking all the circumstances into con­sideration, I think the course suggested by the honorable member for Maldon is the one that should be pursued on this occasion-that honorable members who have submitted amendments should with­draw them, that the finding of the Elec" tions Committee should be the finding of

Mr. Cooper.

the House, and that the electors of nodney should be left to decide whether Mr. Gillies or Mr. Shackell is their choice.

Mr. CARTER.-Sir, were it not for the very serious nature of the case, I would regard this as one of the most entertaining evening's proceedings that I have witnessed since I have been a mem­ber of this House. We all seem to be at cross-purposes. The Minister of Customs said he was going to be calm, and imme­diately he got into a tearing passion. The honorable member for Carlton stated that the question was one which he could not trust himself to speak upon, and yet it is about the only occasion on which I have heard him speak with remarkable tem­perance, fitness, and discretion. Then we were told by the honorable member for Maldon that this is a question, the decision of the Elections Committee being final, which should not be dealt with by this House. Now I can quite understand that it would be improper for this House to consider the evidence and judge of the facts heard by the committee ; but just as the decision of any inferior court which is in direct opposition to the statute law of the land can be reversed by a superior court, so I presume, if the Elections Com­mittee give a decision which is directly opposed to the law which they are ap­pointed to administer, this House can, as a superior court, refer the matter back to them, or absolutely reverse their decision. Section 142 of the Electoral Act distinctly provides that-

"If any candidate at any election for any province or district (whether held under this or any former Act) shall be declared by any elec­tion committee of the Council or Assembly re­spectively guilty of bribery, treating, or un­due influence at any election, such candidate shall be incapable of being elected or sitting as a member f01: any province during the period of :five years from the day of declaration of the election at which he shall have committed such offence, or of being elected or sitting as a mem­ber for any district until the following general election."

Now the Elections Committee distinctly acquit Mr. Gillies of any of the offences specified in this section; and if they had simply brought up their finding without giving any reasons I could have under­stood it. . But this they do not do. They first say to Mr. Gillies-" You are not guilty," and then they proceed to sentence him. In order to carry this farce a little further, in the next case which the Elec­tion~ Committee have to deal with, they should say to the member petitioned

Rodney Election. [OOTOBER 17.J Mr. Gillies. 1127

against-" You have been guilty of un­due influence, but you shall retain your seat." If we are to have one side, let us also have the converse. The Elections . Committee distinctly state in their report that, in their opinion, Mr. Gillies was not guilty of undue influence. Then, in the name of common sense, on what ground do they say the election is void? The precise language of the report is that "the election for Rodney" is "wholly void," and that warrants the presumption that both Mr. Fraser and Mr. Gillies are unseated. If that be so, this report is a double-barrelled gun which has got rid of two members at one operation. I don't know whether that was the intention of the committee. (" No.") With regard to the honorable and learned member for Villiers and Heytesbury, I need not say one word. A.fter the remarks he has made, I think his own feelings must be a sufficient punishment for him. The Minister of Customs has contended, on the authority of a text-book, that any person whose duty it is to know what is done by his subordinates, and does not know, is responsible; conse­quently I presu1:l1e that if any officer of the Customs department misappropriates moneys' paid as customs duties, the Min­ister, although he may know nothing about it, is liable to a charge of embezzlement; because, if the logic is worth anything, it should be carried out to its legitimate conclusion. Then with regard to undue influence, if I understand the meaning of the words referred to by·the Minister of Customs, the term " undue influence" does not apply to anything of the sort alluded to in the committee's report, but it relates to undue influence in preventing people .from voting. Of course, if any one prevented a number of electors from exercising their franchise, it would be quite proper that the person in whose interest that was done should be unseated. But, as a previous speaker has put it, if the exercise of undue influence by any person unknown to the candidate is to make that candidate liable to lose his seat, I would like to know whose seat would be safe, because one side need only resort to that course to secure the unseating of a man who might be elected on the other side. I really think that, in discussing a matter of this kind, we should lay aside party feeling and bring to bear a little of the common sense which we are in the habit of exercising when attendin~ to O'tlr

own plivate business. I am anxious that the same justice should be meted out to Mr. Gillies that I desire to receive my­self; and I am glad to find that a large number of members on both sides of the House share the profound regret which I feel that anything should have arisen to exclude from this House one of the few men capable of speaking in it-one of the few men to whom it has always been a pleasure to listen, and from whom young members like myself felt they had some­thing to learn.

Mr. DOW.-No member of this House has a greater respect for Mr. Gillies than I have; no one regrets his absence from this Chamber more than I do; but we have other matters to consider besides our particular personal appreciation of that gentleman. There is another person to be considered. I refer to Mr. Shackell, to whom the country is highly indebted for the knowledge acquired as the result of this investigation. That gentleman's interests are as much entitled to consi­deration as are those of Mr. Gillies; and the electors of Rodney should not be for­gotten. I consider that reflections should not be cast upon the gentlemen who con­stitute the Elections Committee, or mo­tives imputed to them, as has been done by many speakers; but that the finding of the committee should be sustained, because all that the present dispute is about is as to the wording of the decision. I believe the committee have done wrong in putting their finding into such a form of words. It would have been much better if they had given their decision without any explanation. I say that, putting aside the question whether Mr. Gillies did or did not know what took place in the Lands department-and also putting aside the legal aspect on which the Minister of Customs has dwelt, that Mr. Gillies, as Minister of Lands, was supposed to know what took place in the Lands department, and therefore, if he did not know, he was responsible-I ask the House if any gentleman has read the evidence taken by the Elections Committee as I have read it, carefully throughout, would he not come to the conclusion that, if the election for Rodney. had been con­ducted on its merits, in a fair and straight­forward manner as between man and man, Mr. Gillies would not have been elected, and that it was the exercise of undue influence which brought him in by a b~re majority? If that is the view of

1128 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillies.

the House we cannot but sustain the finding of the Elections Committee. All the speeches which have been made as to the necessity for abolishing election committees are very good in their way. I hope that election committees will be abolished. In the meanwhile let us sus­tain the finding of the body we have appointed ourselves. If that be done, these gentlemen will find their way back to the country, and we shall see whether Mr. Gillies, whom I personally respect, will regain his seat apart from influences like those used at the last election.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was negatived without a division.

Mr. KERFERD.-Mr. Speaker, the Tarious offences under our Electoral Act for which an honorable member may be unseated are set out in sections 135-9 of that ·enactment. Section 135 commences as follows :-

" Every pt'rson who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any persuu in bis behalf." Aud the same form of expression is used in all the other sections. Let us next look at the allegations set forth in Mr. Shackell's petition. They are in the fol­lowing form :-

"That the said the Hon. DunCAn Gillies was. by llimf'elf, by his agents or agent" and by other persons on his behalf, guilty of brib"ry bE-fort·, e1uring, anll after the said electioll, when·by he was and is illcapa('itated to serve in 1 he present ParliallJent for the said or any other eke ora} district; and the said election and ret IIrn of the said the HOll. Duncan Gillies was aild is wholly nllll and void

,. That tl,e said the Hon. Duncan Gil1i('s was, hy h;mself, by his agents or ngenr, and by 01 her persolls on hi ~ behalf, guilty of undue influence before, during, and after the s'Lid elec­tion, whereby he WitS and is ineapacirared to serve in the presl'nt l'arliame!lt for the said or any lither elec: oral district; and thl· said elrction and return of the said the Hon. Duncan GiLies was alld is wholly null and void." Thns the only allegations against Mr. Gillies are that he was guilty, first, of bribery; and, secondly, of using undue influence; and with respect to both. of them the Elections Committee found him not guilty. Their report sets forth-

" That the petitioner has failed to establish that the £-Jon. Duncan Gillies was guilty of bribery or unliue influence, either by him~eif or his agents, during the late elec.tion for Rodney." Nevertheless, after this absolute acquittal of Mr. Gillies, the report goes on to state-

"But that undue influenee was used by other persolls on his behalf; and this committl'e thl'refore declare the ejection for Hodney to be wholly void,"

Now it is a remarkable circumstance that our Electoral Act does not, in a single section, declare that it is an offence to use "undue influence" on behalf of a candi­date. Section 142, which is the only sec­tion that uses the words "undue influence" at all, states as follows :-

" If any candidate at any election for any dis­trict (whether held under this or under any former Act) shall be declared by any election committee of the Assembly guilty of bribery, treating, or undue influence at any election," &c.

But of the offence here set out the Elec­tions Committee have acquitted Mr. Gillies.

Mr. LALOR.-He is not punished for it.

Mr. KERFERD.-They have declared his seat vacant because unuue influence was used on his behalf, and yet the Elec­toral Act does not make the use of undue influence an offence unless it is used by the caudidate himself. It is also a curious fact that while section 139 of our Elec­toral Act is an exact copy, with a very slight verbal variation, of section 5 of the English Electoral Act, the marginal note to the English section is' "undue influence defined," while that to the Victorian sec­tion is "intimidation." At the same time neither section mentions' the words "un­due influence." I fiud that it was recently decided in England-I quote from the report (1 0' Malley and Hardcastle., p. 64) of what is known as the Cheltenham case-that it is necessary for an election petition to contain a distinct allegation of the offence or offences which it is sought to prove against the sitting member; yet Mr. Shackell's petition contains no alle­gation whatever that undue influence was used by "other persons," although not by Mr. Gillies or his agent. Even if it did, I have shown that such an offence is not an offence under our Statute. Furthermore there is no allegation in the petit-ion, in order to bring it under the 139th section of the Act, that" inti­midation " was used. Supposing we were to affirm, on the finding of the committee, that undue influence was not used by Mr. Gillies or any agent of his, but by " other persons on his behalf," what would follow? Not a single member of the House would hold his seat safe, if he were petitioned against. All sorts of influences are used

. at an election by " other persons" without the candidate concerned knowing anything about it. For instance, a otorekeeper who had an account in his books against an elector might tell him that if he did not

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER 17.J Mr. Gillies. 1129

vote for a particular candidate he would summon him, and that circumstance, of which the candidate might know nothing, would probably, if he was successful, be made the ground of a petition against him. Indeed it would be possible for one candi­date to get undue iufluence used on behalf of his opponent in order that, if he were successful, his election might be upset. My own impression is that the committee have laboured under a mistake with re­spect to the. meaning of the words "or on his behalf," which are contained in the petition. Now there are several English decisions as to the meaning of the words " or on his behalf." For instance, I find it stated in Rogers on Elections that Lord Lyndhurst decided as follows :-

" The words' on his behalf' must be taken to include acts done by the desire or with the pri­vityof the candidate-acts which he procures to be done by other means than his own."

Indeed, according to all authorities, proof of agency must be given before evidence can be taken of things done on behalf of a candidate. But in the present case we have the distinct finding of the committee that neither the candidate nor any of his agents were guilty of using undne influ­ence on his behalf. In short, the offence set out in the report of the committee is no offence at all under our law. Further­more, I venture to assert that no honor­able member can go through a contested election, and then, in the face of an inquiry such as that which has been made into the election of Mr. Gillies for Rodney, say that no influence of the kind now in view had been brought to bear for the purpose of securing his return. The language of our Electoral Act with respect to agency goes distinctly to show not only that, in order to touch a candidate for an act not his own, there must be an agent, but also that a candidate may rebut the presumption that any act was done on his behalf, by proving, in order to show that he ought not to be held respon­sible for it, that he never authorized it. Yet it is not pretended, either in Mr. Shackell's petition or by the Elections Committee, that undue influence was used either by MI'. Gillies or his agents. What the committee say is that undue influence was used by "other persons" in his behalf, and for that they unseat him. Does not that decision, which discloses no offence under our electoral law, strike at the privi­leges of every honorable member of this House, -for is it not one of our privilE;lges

under the Electoral Act that we are not to be unseated by the Elections Committee except upon evidence sheeting home an offence which the law declares to be suf­ficient ground upon which an honorable member may be unseated? Let honor­able members bear in mind, before they make the present question a party one, that what is Mr. Gillies' case to-day may be theirs at a future time. Perhaps the best test we can apply to the decision of the committee is for us to ask ourselves whether, if we were passing a new elec­toral law, we would make it contain a clause declaring that the use of undue influence on behalf of a candidate by "other persons" should be sufficient to upset his election. If we would not do that, does not the fact show that the pre­cedent which the committee seek to create ought not to be created? In desiring now to place on record my dissent from the find· ing of the committee, my object is that I shall not be, at any future time, bound by a precedent to what I conceive the law never intended, and which, if we were passing a new electoral law, we would not enact. I don't think I can press on honorable members' minds too strongly the necessity there is for them to give the present matter full consideration be­fore they come to a decision upon it. For the Elections Committee to unseat a member for an offen ce which is, according to the law, as I have shown, no offence at all, respecting which no allegation whatever is made in the petition against him, and which it is not pretended either he or any of his agents committed, appears to me monstrous. I entreat honorable members not to take a party view of the question, or, for party reasons, to assist in establishing a precedent, from the operation of which they cannot expect themselves to be in the future free. Perhaps it is considered by the dominant party in the House that they ought to lose no opportunity of ousting an oppo­nent, but I am convinced that what they may on the present occasion regard as good fortune is a misfortune for the country. Furthermore, I can hardly con­ceive the unseating of a man like Mr. Gillies being a real advantage to those now in power. I know, when I was on the Treasury benches, I was always glad to have my measures criticised and dis­cussed in the manner Mr. Gillies, were he in his place, would discuss the measures of the present Government; and I regard that sort of criticism and discussion as an

1130 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillies.

advantage to the country. Certainly no political opponent ought, for the sake of a mere party triumph, to be displaced in the fashion that will be· established if the decision of the Elections Committee is upheld. Whh.t may not parliame11tary government under such circumstances become? As for my amendme~t, I moved it merely to give myself and honorable members generally ail opportunity of ex­pressing what they feel with respect to the present question, which, upon the whole, I am perfectly willing to leave in the hands of the head of the Government, who is charged by virtue of his office with conserving the privileges of the House. I would be glad if the honorable gentle­man would overlook the party triumph it is open to him' to gain, and' rather deal with the matter before us in a broad ,and comprehensive spirit. I venture to say, that if honorable members were to vote this evening according to their honest con­victions, and regardless of party feelings, there is not one of them, who has given the decision of the Elections Committee any close attention, who would not be guided by the opinion that it is not for the interests of' the House or of the country that a seat should be declared vacant on the grounds the committee have adopted. Can any honorable member who has gone through the ordeal of a contested election consider, after hehas been returned, that his seat is safe, if he is still liable to be unseated on the ground that undue influence, of which he had no knowledge, and which was not exercised by his desire, or with his privity, was used on his behalf? I declare that to lay down the principle that an honorable member may be ousted on a finding by the Elections Committee like that they have arrived at in Mr. Gillies' case will be not only unwise and dangerous, but fatal to our independence.

Mr. BERRY.-l regret that the House is dragged' into a discussion with respect to the finding of a committee appointed by law, who are charged by the law with special duties, and whose decision the law declares to be final. No doubt a majority is always tempted to override a verdict by the Elections Committee which conflicts with their immediate interests, but it is therefore all the more necessary that the great powers we delegate to this particular tribunal, the appointment of which is after all in our own hands, should be strictly maintained. Under these circumstances, I feel precluded from discussing generally the

conclusion at which the committee have arrived. I believe that if I differed from it ever so largely-honorable members know I did differ largely from a recent decision of the same body-l would not attempt to use the authority of the House in order to set it aside; and I now simply ask honorable members to do what on the former occasion I asked them to do, namely, respect the decision of the tribunal appointed by law to give it, and whose ap­pointment they themselves ratified. But it would be hardly right to allow the state­ments of the honorable and learned member for the Ovens to go without an answer. I notice that he and other honorable members have discussed this matter purely from the stand-point of the individual rights of the member concerned. They look at the question as though the personal interests of the honorable member petitioned against were to be regarded as of the nature of vested rights, and ought to override every other consideration. But the decision of the committee must be looked at in another aspect. The committee must be taken to have put aside the question of the personal rights of the sitting member and recognised rather those of his constituency; to have reckoned the interests of the public with regard to purity of election and the selec­tion by themselves of their own represen­tatives, as ranking far above those of any individual. If the offence of using undue influence were only to be taken into con­sideration when it could be sheeted home to the sitting member-when it could be traced to him personally or through his agents-then the rights and privileges of the constituency concerned would be grossly disregarded. For instance, it would then be only necessary to conceal the fact of agency with sufficient care to make it impossible to bring any charge of undue influence or bribery home to the sitting member and his seat would be safe, although the constituency would be im­properly represented. I know that in the Elections Committee coming to a decision of the kind I am now upholding there is a certain danger, but I do not think it nearly so great as some honorable mem­bers are inclined to believe it to be. The honorable and learned member for the Ovens contends that under -the principle laid down by the committee no honorable member would' be safe, because a con­spiracy might be entered into to unseat him by means of acts which not only he did not know of, but of which, had he been

Ro.dney Election. [OCTOBER 17.] Mr. Gillies. 1131

aware of them, he would have disapproved. I submit, however, that that is a very un­likely state of things. The risk and ex­pense of carrying out such a plan, and the manifest danger of it not succeeding, will always oppose such obstacles to it as will make its adoption under any circumstances only a remote probability. We cannot deny that the danger exists, but we are bound to regard it as one so distant that we never need expect to encounter it. If I understand the verdict of the committee at all, it is that they felt that a depart­ment of the State had been used in the interests of a Minister of the Crown, and that they arrived at that conclusion from the evidence of the officers of that depart­ment themselves. I do not think the truth of that inference is denied. Let me then put the case in this way: if a Minister of the Crown managed to conceal what undoubt­edly It would be to his interest to conceal, namely, his cognizance of the circum­stance that his department was being used in his behalf in a manner which, to say the least, ought to be within his know­ledge; and if at the same time it was well known that that Minister was a far-see­ing, careful, astute administrator of his department-one who in all probability must have known what was going on­would any honorable member contend that, in the interests of Parliament and of purity of election, the f~ct that the de­partment was so used ought to be disre­garded? For myself, I do not think that a Minister of the Crown who, however pure he may be, allows his department to be. used as a virtual committee to further his election, is worthy of a seat in this House; and I would like the law which I wish to see applied to other Ministers of the Crown applied also to myself. I find that with respect to this particular phase of the question we are not left without guidance-without a knowledge of how the same sort of thing is regarded in the mother country. I find in Rogers on Elections, that on the 10th December, 1779, the House of Commons resolved as follows :-

"That it is highly criminal in any Minister or Ministers, or other servants under the. Crown of Great Britain, directly or indirectly, to use the powers of office in the election of represen­tatiyes to serve in Parliament, and an attempt at such influence will at all times be resented by this House, as aimed at its own honour, dignity, and independency, as an infringement of the dearest rights of every subject through­out the empire, and tending to sap the basis of this free and happy Constitution."

Language more applicable to the present case can hardly be conceived. We haye no power in the State equal to that which is exercised by the department of Lands,. which ought to be watched by this House more jealously than any other. The: legitimate acts of that department are sufficient to influence to a fearful extent the success of any candidate for election; but what are we to think when we find, upon the evidence of officials high up in the Lands-office, that shortly before the Rodney election a certain class of papers there were headed "Electorate of Rod­ney;" and that instructions w.ere given in order that the attention of the Lands officials might be specially directed towards getting out the leases and grants, and completing the work of other kinds which the Rodney selectors, who are very numerous, required? I do not wish to in any way connect the honorable member petitioned against with that sort of thing at ail, because the report of the Elections Committee does not connect him with it, but I may say, in passing, that there is an obvious reason why the friends of the unseated member should be induced to criticise the action of the committee with less severity than they appear willing to display. Had the committee gone so far as ·to connect him with the, proceedings I allude to, he would not be eligible for re­election for three years to come. Surely if the committee, in doing their duty, shrank from imposing such a penalty, they ought, rather than be treated to ad­verse criticism from that quarter, to be considered entitled to consideration on all sides for having endeavoured to exercise their functions in a conscientious manner, with as little harshness as possible. We cannot lose sight of the facts with which the committee had to deal. For instance, while the honorable and learned member for. the Ovens was speaking, I glanced at the committee's report, and saw there that, according to a return furnished to them by one of the principal officers of the Lands department, there occurred, shortly before the Rodney election, a sud­den change in the rate at which leases were granted to Rodney selectors.

Mr. SERVICE. - Would it not be better for the Chief Secretary to postpone his remarks with reference to the main question, upon which he is now touching, until it arises in connexion with the pro­position of the honorable member for Ararat? . Moreover, it is a fact that tho

1132 Rodney Election. [ A~SEMBIJY.J Mr. Gillies.

evidence succeeding the table the Chief I perceptions, ahd, on the other, to the idea. Secretary is referring to shows that the which was probably in his mind at the leases alluded to were not issued at an time that he was hound to say something undue rate. for an old friend and colleague. The Act

Mr. BERRY.-I simply want to show, under which the Elections and Qualifica. in reply to the arguments of the honorable tions Committee are appointed is most and learned member for the ~)yens, that plain and distinct in its terms, and every· if the Elections Committee had good hody who reads it can understand them. grounds for supposing that the Lands It appears to me indisputable tbat after department had been turned into a virtual . the ti:ibunal has declared an election to be committee to further the re-election of null and void there is, under the Statute, the then Minister of Lands, they were no alternative but for the Speaker to issue justified in coming to the conclusion they his writ. Whether the committee's deci­arrived at. The effect of the return I sion is a right one or a wrong one makes allude to is .that, during the five weeks no difference. The only answer that ending in the last week of March last, the can be given to the objections offered number of leases issued in the Rodney to the committee's decision is that if, electoral district amounted to one.eighth in the opinion of honorable members, of the leases issued for the entire colony, the law is defective there is but one and that during the five weeks following legitimate conclusion they can come to, the last week in March - the general namely, that it ought to be amended. election took place early in May-the Such an amendment can, however, only proportion was one-third. Were I the be justified by arguments showing that Elections Committee I would not want in the estimation of Parliament itself the any further evidence to justify me in tribunal has failed, and that sometbing declaring the election of the late Minister else ought to be substituted for it. But of Lands null and void. I feel, therefore, whilst the Elections Committee is the that in asking honorable members to only tribunal of the kind constituted by endorse the decision of the committee of Statute, what use is there in trying to their own body to which the matter of intercept tbe operation of the law? I the Rodney ·petition was remitted, and heard something to-night about common wbich is endowed by law with the right law in relation to the decision the com· to give a final opinion on the subject, I mittee has given; but it appears to me am also asking them to do that which is tbey are not bound by common law or by essentially right. I have no difficulty anything else than the Statute under which whatever, on both grounds, in calling they are appointed, the clear interpretation upon the House to take the ordinary of which binds them to do justice accord­course. By following it we shall not ing to equity and good conscience. They only uphold the tribunal which practi. may look for precedents in any direction cally we ourselves have constituted, but they please, but that is what binds them. also our own honour; and, at the same They may be wrong a thous~nd times, time, do more tban any previous Parlia· but it is not, in my opinion, in the power ment has done to check the influence of this House to intercept their decision which the most powerful department in that a certain election is null and void. the State can exercise, and which there is· For example, we may object in the pre­ample evidence to show has been exer· sent case to the reasons the cOIr!mittee cised. give for their decision; but that does not

SirJ.O'SHANASSY.-Iamsomewhat touch the oparation of the words of their astonished that the honorable and learned report-" this committee therefore declare member for the Ovens did not, being a the election for Rodney to be wholly lawyer, and acquainted with the practice void." That declaration once made, it of Parliament, offer the House some rea· seems to me the Speaker has no altern a­sons in support of his proposal that the tive but to issue his writ. Had the words House should review the decision of the run" his election," instead of "the elec­Elections Committee. Moreover, his con- tion," not the smallest doubt need have eluding request to the Chief Secretary arisen in the matter. The House declar­was most singular and indeed most irre- ing that the report shall lie on the table gular. I cannot account for the position is a mere formal matter. There is no he took up except by attributing it, on need whatever for the report to be ac­the one hand, to a certain density in his cepted. We have no power to intercept

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER i 1.J Mr. Gillies. 1133

its effect, and therefore to argue the point is a mere waste of time. I agree with the opinion that the present discussion ought to have been stopped early.in the evening by the Speaker stating that his writ should issue at once. I think it is becoming an almost universal feeling-I join in it myself-that the sooner these election petitions are referred to either one Supreme Court judge or the Supreme Court bench as a whole, the better will it be for honorable members generally. As to the appeal-." What is Mr. Gillies' case to-day may be yours to-morrow," it is one ad 'misericordiam, and ought not to have any weight. For a number of years I have wondered whether things were ripe in this country for sending election peti­tions to the judges. The question is quite open to argument. It may be' said that, our community being a small one, there is great danger in involving the judges in political affairs; and also that, inasmuch as they might be attacked­just as the Elections Committee has been attacked-on the ground that they ac~ed partially, the effect of the whole proceed­ing would be injurious to their high posi­tion as holding the scales of justice be­tween all parties. We all know that in a country like England, which affords a wide theatre for action, and where public opinion is keenly alive to the conduct of the judges, their position would be frightfully endangered by the smallest appearance of parthdity in their conduct; and we know equally well that that is not the case here. N everthEiless, upon the whole, looking at the delays and expense to which both petitioners and sitting members petitioned against are now put, arid also at the way our political institutions are being de­veloped, the balance of my mind is that we ought to get rid of the Elections Committee alt<?gether, and substitute for it a more impartial tribunal; and I cannot think of any tribunal so likely to attain the object we all have in view as the Supreme Court.

Mr. GAUNSON.-With respect to the arguments submitted by the late Attor­ney-General, the House will do well to remember that far above statute law or even common law there is the law of freedom of election; and there can be no doubt that the freedom and purity of the election we have now immediately under our consideration were tremendously inter­fered with by the action of certain indi­viduals. What we are able to gather

from the single case of Hugh McKenzie is amply sufficient to prove that. Let us look at a few of the facts connected with that affair, which no one has ventured to contradict. Mr. Shackell stated on oath that Hugh McKenzie told him he was his supporter, and would give him a vote. What do we find took place afterwards? At a later stage of the period immediately preceding the Rodney election McKenzie again told Mr. Shackell that he was his~ supporter, but that it was most important to him that he should get his lease. Well,. how do matters stand about that lease?' In December, 1876, McKenzie applied for his lease, which was refused on the ground of non-residen~e. Let not honorable mem­bers be led away by the untruthful state­ment that Mr. Gillies was not a candidate for the Rodney district until long after this: period. He was a candidate for that elec­torate in last December, immediately:aftel" the passing of the Electoral Bill that was~ to turn so many of us out of our seats~ Directly that measure became law, Mr .. Gillies was, in an unofficial way, announced' as a candidate for Rodney. Well, after' his refusal in December, McKenzie ap­plied for his lease a second time in J an­uary, and was again refused. In February he made a third application, which was' also not granted. Eventually, however,. his desire was gratified, for Mr. Gilliesr

having already put himself above the law by demanding from selectors a continuous; residence of two years and a half, granted! Hugh McKenzie his lease after only twO) ye~rs' residence. But there were othe]j grounds why McKenzie ought not to have. got his lease. He had not sufficiently­cultivated his land, and there is no evi­dence to show that his land is nnt. fit f01r cultivation. Again, he had not put the. requisite amount of improvement upon his; selection. All these objections are, how­ever, swallowed up by the great one that: he had not resided on his allotment sufficiently long.

An HONORABLE MEl\IBER.-He residedl only five miles away.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Whatever illegal! rule may be laid down with respect to· allowing a selector to reside within a cer­tain distance of his selection, it appears: that McKenzie did not continuously reside: even within five miles of his allotment~ There was not even a regulation, but it was done by the mere ipse dixit of the Minister of Lands. The third refusal or McKenzie's lease was in February, andn

1134 Rodney Electz'on~ [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillies.

bearing in mind that McKenzie told Shackell he was a supporter of his, what do we find to be the state of things? On the 20th of February McKenzie' sends in an application for his lease for the fourth time, and, after the lapse of 'a convenient and respectable interval, on the 7th of March, the Hon. Duncan Gillies specially issued his fiat that McKenzie was to get his lease. Now it is in evidence that on a Sunday in February-the precise Sun­day is not proved-McKenzie was at the U ndera public-house with the Hon. Duncan Gillies, to get votes for him. Whether that was on the 18th or 25th of February makes very little' difference as far as the point of my argument is con­cerned; at all events; between the 20th, the date on which McKenzie made his fourth application, and the day upon which Mr. Gillies authorized the issue of the lease in the teeth of, his officers' l'e­ports, we find Mr. Gillies canvassing at the U ndera public-house with this applicant, and what is the result? That on the 7th of March Mr. Gillies, despite the report of the' Crown lands bailiff that McKenzie was 'not a bona fide settler, and without remitting the case to be dealt with by a local land board-although that was the usual'course-gave the man his lease. I have very little doubt that a more careful investigation of, the facts of the case would have incontestably proved that Mr. Gillies was at this public-house <on the 18th of February, and that' he told McKenzie to send in: his fourth ap­plication, which McKenzie did two days afterwards. I have no hesitation ·in say­ing, knowing that the honorable' and learned member for Boroondara, now the quasi colleague of Mr. Gillies, found him guilty of suppressing a public docu­ment-

Mr. G. PATON SMITH.-That is false.

Mr. GAUNSON.-My memory is not treacherous. The honorable member f6r Boroondara .. absolutely voted '. against a distinct resolution for striking' out the word" suppressed" as applied to the con­duct of Mr. Gillies in reference to a certain document, as I will show by the prbceed­ings of a select committee which sat in 1868. Recollecting what occurred in McArthur's' case, ,knowing' :'that Mr. Gillies was quite capable of overriding the law, and according to the verdict of the honorable member for Boroqndara, sup­pressing a public document, I have very

little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that he was canvassing with Hugh McKenzie on the 18th of February, at this miserable little public-house, where it was stated-this was sworn, though it was contradicted-"-that if Mr. Gillies would put the leases about he would get 50 votes. And yet it is said that this honest Minister of Lands-this innocent, "childlike and bland" Honorable Duncan Gillies-was not aware of what was going on in his own department. I think I can show that he must have known it. He ought to have known that the daily newspapers were charging him with corrupt conduct, every newspaper in the district and others stigmatized his conduct as corrupt, and yet it is said he did not know of it. There is not one' member of the House, with a single exception, who believes that state­ment, and I have my own doubts whether even that member believes it in his heart of hearts. It is very well to get up a sympathy for a gentleman who is admitted on all sides to be a clever and an able man, but, on the other hand, if we find a man clever, because bold, daring, and unscrupulous, when we have the oppor­tunity of detecting him, let us not fail to do so. The law laid down by the honor .. able and learned member for the Ovens­who, with great respect, cannot be accepted as an authority after the Stevenson fiasco­is so utterly absurd, having regard to what is the very first and highest of all laws on the subject, that it is' not worth 'while discussing it. The first great considera­tion in connexion with elections in every country is that they ought to be free. That this election was not free is quite clear, although it is impossible to expect that men will . be such mean creatures as to come forward and confess that they were influenced to vote as they did for the purpose of securing, in defiance of the law, a lease or licence of certain land,! or having it put up to 'sale by auction with a valuation for improvements. We cannot hope to actually prove -bribery in this case, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Lands department put forth a'll its powers to influence the election, and that it succeeded. With what 'a'bitter result is too patent to be denied.

Mr. DWYER.-I once heard' ofa gentleman who applied for an appoint­ment as an inspector of schools, and stated that he had graduated at the Mel­bourne University· and, had obtained the degrees of B.A. and M.A., being gravely

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER 17.J Mr. Gillies. 1135

nsked by the then Minister of Public Instruction if he had matriculated. I was astonished when I heard that, but I was not so much astonished as when I heard it stated in this House to-night, by n gentleman who has been twice Attorney­General, that the common law was changed when a Statute was enacted, which Sta­tute does not touch the common law at all.

Mr. KERFERD.-I never made any such statement.

Mr. DWYER.-That, at all events, is the inference I drew from what the honor­able'and learned member said. The h9nor­able-member did not produce a single book or a single extract which' in any way touches the question as to whether the common law of England or this country is not that when an election has been un­duly influenced, although it may not have been unduly influenced by the sitting member, that election is therefore void. The merest tyro in common law must know that the most stringent part of it is that which relates to the purity of elections, and it insists that whenever there has been any undue influence exer­cised which has had the effect of procuring the election of a candidate who, but for that undue influence, would not have been elected, there must be a fresh election'. I understood the honorable and learned member for Boroondara to state that, when the proper time arrived, he would be pre­pared to show what the common law is, and to produce authorities to prove that the finding of the Elections Committee in this particular case is not in accordance with the law of the land. Up to the present time, however, the honorable mem­ber has not done so, but I shall be very glad to~hear any arguments he can adduce in support of his view. I may say at the outset that I struggled with myself before coming to the conclusion to unseat any sitting member, and I only came to such a decision when, I was absolutely forced to do so by the'law and the facts of the case. So far as M1r. Gillies is concerned, I do not think that there is any case against him individually, that'is to say, I do not think there is any case which will bring him within the operation of the 142nd section of the Electoral Act. If there was a case against him under that section' ,he would not only be incapable of taking.his seat in this House,but, in my opinion, h-e, would be liable to be punished under otller 'sec­tions of' the Act, or, at any rate, - -under

the common law of the land. I notice that the principal objection taken to the report of the committee is in respect to its wording, but I think the wording of that report is a model which should be fol­lowed by all other committees, if Elections Committees are to exist in the future. Instead of shirking the question at issue, the report states it boldly. It states, in the first place, that the sitting member was not personally guilty of using undue in­fluence, and, in the second place, that, though he was not, other persons were­that undue influence was exercised on his behalf-and the committee have come to the only conclusion at which they could arrive from these premises, namely, that the election must be declared void. Al­though the sitting member is not personally culpable, yet, as undue influence was exer­cised on his behalf, it must follow, unless we change the law, that his election must be declared void. If any other conclusion were adopted, what might be the result? Why the majority of a constituency might be unduly influenced on behalf of a par­ticular candidate, in the most open manner, but, because there was no means of tracing his connexion with that undue influence, it would be impossible to unseat him if he were elected. If a candidate is elected by improper influences being used on his behalf, I venture to say that no one who has either Tead any constitutional authority on the subject or is -guided by common sense can come to -any other conclusion than' that there must be a fresh election. r ,think the House and the country are under a lasting obli­gation to the committee for the report they have brought up in this case, not­withstanding their personal proclivities. My own personal proclivities were in favour of Mr. Gillies, but still I had to arrive at the conclusion to·which the law compelled me. We had to consider not only the interests of the sitting member and the petitioner, but also the' interests of a third party-the constituency. A constituency unduly influenced is in th~ position of a person unduly influenced; and a person who is unduly influenced to do a;; ,certain thing-who does it under duress-is in the same position as if he had not done it at all. Therefore a con .. stituency having exercised its functions, namely, the franchise, under undue influ­ence-under duress-is in the same posi­tion as if it had not exercised them at all, and it should, on', the first opportunity; be

1136 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillies.

enabled, by a fresh election, to exercise them without duress. As to the argument of the honorable and learned member for t4e Ovens, that our Victorian Act is not on all fours with the English Act, I do not think that anybody said it was; but what the honorable member bas to show, and what he has not shown, is that the common law of England is not in force here-that our Statute is at variance with the common law, and repeals or alters it. The honorable member also argued that because the petition did not contain cer­tuin allegations, therefore the committee were not justified in coming to the con­clusions they have arrived at-that, in fact, the petitioner did not ask for the particular relief given to him, and there­fore he was not entitled to it. In other words, to speak legally, the honorable member contends that unless the decree is actually in accordance with the prayer of the petition there ought to be no decree at all. Any person who advances that position knows nothipg about practice, proceedings, pleadings, or law. If a case is established bv the evidence, if the evi­dence shows th~t the petitioner is entitled to some relief, the judicial body which bas jurisdiction over the case may give him that relief, although it is not the relief which the petition asked for. This was decided by the Privy Council in the recent case of the London Chartered Bank v. Lempriere. Again, our Act provides that the Elections Committee shall-

"Inquire into and determine upon all election petitions, and upon questions which may be re­ferred to it respecting the validity of any elec­tion . . . . and, on the trial of any such question, the committee shall be guided by the real justice of the case without regard to legal forms and solemnities, and shall direct itself by the best evidence it can procure, or that is laid before it."

One of the legal forms is the framing of the petition, so that it is quite clear, ac­cording to our own Act, altogether irre­spective of the common or non-statute law, that if the evidence showed the petitioner was entitled to relief, he ought to get that relief although he did not ask for it in his petition. The honorable member further stated that the acquittal of Mr. Gillies was quite sufficient-that the committee should either have stopped at his acquittal or not have acquitted him at all. Certainly not. If the committee had evaded expressing any opinion as to whether Mr. Gillies was himself guilty of having used undue iufluence, and had

Mr. Dwyer.

simply declared that he was duly elected or not duly elected, aU kinds of opinions might have been formed. The committee not only came to a certain conclusion Imt they stated the real grounds upon which tbey arrived at it, and that I think was the most straightforward course to adopt. The honorable member for the Ovens also stated that the undue influence found by the committee to have been exercised was no offence' under the Victorian Statute. I never said that it was, but it is an offence at common law, and that which is an offence at common law does not require that there should be ~ Statute to state that it is an offence. As to the honorable member's assertion that, 'if the report be adopted, any candidate will be at the mercy of an opponent-that 50 or 100 electors may vote for one candi­date in order to after~ards get his election set aside in the iuterests of another candi­date-I could understand that argument coming from a layman, but I cannot under­stand it coming from a lawyer. Such a proceeding as the honorable member con­templates-which, as the Chief Secretary says, is very unlikely to happen-would be fraudulent, and that at once takes away the ground of the honorable member's argu­ment. If it were proved that the bribery or undue influence had been brought to bear in pursuance of a conspiracy, the parties to the conspiracy would be liable to punish­ment. A number of persons may conspire together against anybody. If two persons conspired together to accuse the honorable member of perjury, and made out a prima facie case, he would be perfectly helpless; he would be committed for trial, and then it would be for the jury to say whether they believed the witnesses or not. If two or more persons conspired together to procure 'undue influence against or in favour of any candidate at an election, for the purpose of. voiding his election, they would be in the same position as the sup­posed conspirators against, the honorable member for the Ovens. It has been said by some old writer that every man in the community is indebted to every other man that he is not killed; and every candidate at an election is at the mercy of other per­sons for :not bringing undue influence to bear either for or against him, but persons are deterred from conspiring together for that purpose by fear of punishment, just as persons are deterred from committing other offences. The honorable member for the Ovens quoted from Rogers on Elections,

llodney Election. [OCTORER 17.J Mr. Gillies. 1137

but he did not attempt to deal with the dictum laid down in p. 188 of Cle1·k on Elections, where Rogers is cited, show­ing that if a constituency is unduly in­fluenced the election is void by the common law. That. is as' notoriously the law as it is that a man who kills another of malice aforethought is punish­able with death. As to the honorable member's remark that no candidate would be safe if his election was rendered void by other persons exercising undue in­fluence on his behalf without his autho­rity-that any candidate might be placed in that position-that is quite true, but it is no argument against the fact that such is the law of the land. If a man were on his trial for arson, he might say -" Gentlemen of the jury, I am charged with arson; what is my case to-day, may be your own case any day." Would that be any reason why he should be allowed to escape? The argument of the honor­able member is a most fallacious one. I would be sorry to see the day when it would be impossible to oust a member who had been elected by undue influence. The honorable member for Belfast said that the committee were not tied down to 1he law of the land, because the Act authorized them to decide in accordance with equity and good conscience. As a matter of fact the, Act does not say so; it simply says that the committee "shall be guided by the real justice of the case without regard to legal forms and solemnities;" but even if it did say that they were to decide in accordance with equity and good conscience, they could not so decide if they decided contrary to law. Equity is a portion of the law, and it is impossible to decide in accordance with equity and good conscience unless the decision be also in accordance with the law. I believe that the decision of the committee in this case will effect more good to the members of this House and to the constituencies than any decision of an Elections Committee which has ever been given before. It will tend to prevent candidates being run into great expenses, not only unconsciously but perhaps against their will. It will make them more careful for the future to exercise 'some authority over their supporters, and see that there are none of those wholesale extravagances which render it almost im­possible for a man of" moderate means to find a seat in this House. Instances have occurred of candidates of limited means,

VOL. XXVI.-4 N

but of superior ability, being prevented from getting a ~eat in this House in con­sequence of the undue influence of the extravagant expenditure brought to bear by their opponents. I believe that the decision of the committee in this case will be a caution to persons with' influence at their back, whether that influence hap­pens to exist in the form of wealth or of Government patronage, not to exercise that influence unduly either to procure the election of themselves or tbe defeat of their opponents. It has been said that I had no right to express any opinion on this case while it was in progress. Well it might have been more judicious if I had said nothing about it, but the action was not unnatural. I had no desire to unseat the sitting member; indeed, I struggled as much as I possibly could against it. I did say that, in my opinion, the nOll­numbering of the ballot papers ought not to vitiate the election, although I have some doubts about that now. I also said that, in the case of Hugh McKenzie, I did not think that there was a shadow of proof against Mr. Gillies; and, as to the whole charge, I thought there was no case against him. But, I pointed out twice to Mr. Gillies, from my place in the commit­tee, that if a prima jacie case were made out against him, and he called no evi-' dence to rebut it, it would be the duty of the committee to come to the conclusion to unseat him. I grounded that opinion on a recent decision of Mr. Justice Moles­wortb in the case of Let·y v. Prerull'rgat~t, in which it was held that if a motive for an improper act were shown, at d the im­proper act were done, a prima facie case was established calling for rebutting evi­dence. Noone can deny tha,t both these elements existed in the, Rodney election­that improper influence was exercised on behalf of Mr. Gillies, and that a motive existed for it. Looking at the motive an<J at the deed together, and as 1\1:1'. Gillies did not go into the box after the evidence was closed, I told him pnb1i~ly from my seat in the committee, as well as privately, that I was considering whether there was a prima facie case against him, and I came to the conclusion, in com­mittee, that there was, but, in order to relieve him flOm a technical difficulty ill which he was placsd, I moved that 11J 1,0 called by the committee to gi VO cdlcll(,O, so that he 'might at any rate lia ve the benefit of any evidence he might give. In fact I struigled-and I feel now that

1138 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillies.

I unduly struggled-against coming to the conclusion that the election' mnst be declared void. It will be a lesson to me for the future. , In any other cases I may have to deal with I shall not take into account my individual tendencies,nor trouble my­self so much about any sitting member as I did in this case. It .was~· with regret· and with the utmostreluctance:"-and only after carefully considering what the law on the subject was-that 1 came to the con­clusion I did, which' I defy any person to show is erroneous in law. I was convinced that undue influence had been exercised over the constituencyof Rodney-'that the constituency had 'been in the same state as an individual who did somethirig under duress....-and that therefore it should have the opportunity of doing or not doing the same act when not under duress. I hope that this debate, whatever other result it produces, will at· any rate have one bene..; ficial effect, namely, that it will show that some provision ought' to be made for re­lieving members of this House from the invidious position of having to deal with election petitions. 'I trust it will have the effect of showing that some provision

, ought to be made for having these peti­tions tried outside the House; and fur­ther that, if some such provision is not speedily made, every member who is asked to serve on an Elections Committee in future will decline to do so. I cer­tainly shall decline to act on ·another Elections Committee if I am asked to do so, and I hope that other honorable members will take the same stand, so that Parliament will be compelled to es­tablish some tribunal outside the House -either one' like that in operation in England or some other-to try election petitions.

Mr. GAUNSON.-I rise f6r the pur­pose of making a personal explanation. In the course of my remarks, t~e honor­able and learned member for Boroondara denied that he had voted to prevent the word "suppressed" being used in a report presented to this House in relation to the action of Mr. Gillies in reference to a certain document. ' No doubt the honor· able member honestly believed that he was correct in contradicting me, but to prove the accuracy of my statement,I beg to read . the following extract from the proceedings of a select committee appointed in 1868 to inquire into the facts connected with the reservation of certain land on the Eastern Hill :-,

"Mr. l\:!ACPHERSON moved-That the word 'suppressed,' in the last line but one of the second paragraph be omitted, with the view of inserting in lieu thereof tpe word' withheld.' Question-'­That the word proposed to be omitted stand part of the question-put, Ayes, 4-Mr. Jones, Mri King, Mr .. Richardsori, Mr. G. P. Smith. No, 1 -Mr. MacPherson."

I trust th~t ,in future, the honorable mem· ber, if he wishes to retahl a character for anything like veracity, will be more care~ ful in his denials ..

Mr. NIMMO.-I would not have said anything on this question but for some remarks made by the honorable and learned member for Villiers and Heyteso: bury. I have always considered the decision of an Elections Committee as sacred, and that it should not be interfered with by this House after the report of the committee is presented. The Elections Committee is different from every other committee. The members of it undertake certain responsibilities upon oath, they are constituted judges, and ·the Act is specific in stating that their decision shall be final. It 'is, I think, not only in bad taste, but in contradiction to the very spirit of the Act, for this House to review the decision of the Elections Committee after it is brought up ; but some of the observations made by the honorable mem;. ber for Villfers and Heytesbury have com­pletely staggered me. The honorable mem­ber said that he struggled unduly in the case of the Rodney election petition. Conceive of a judge, in giving his decision in any case, stating that he had struggled unduly iu order to come to the decision at which he had arrived! Conceive of a juryman standing up and telling the public that he had actually conversed with the prisoner during the time the trial was going on, and had told him that there was no case against him! Were such a course pursued, civil government and the laws -of the country would. fall into disrepute-things would be reduced to chaos.' While con­tending that no decision of the Elections Committee ought to be canvassed in this House, I do not admit that their'decision in the present case is r~ght; indeed~ I have no hesitation in saying that. in all pro. bability it is wrong, and that it ought t9. have been more specific. The honorable member for Villiers, in his illustration of a case of conspiracy to bring undueinflu .. ence to bear on an election, for the I?ur~ pose of afterwards getting it declared voi~ . did not carry out the argument to the end~ for he ought to have shown that the

Rodney Election. ,[OCTOBER 17.] .. Mr,' Gill~es. 1139

honorable and learned member for the Ovens was acquitted on the supposed charge of perjury, alid yet he was made to. suffer the penalties which would have been inflicted if he had been found guilty. I have, however, a horror of traversing the decisions of the Elections Committee. What has occurred in this case must make honorable members very unwilling to take such a grave responsibility' upon them­selves as serving on the Elections Com­mittee, and the result will probably be that, in future, election petitions will. be remitted to the Supreme Court to'be dealt with.

Mr .. ,MACPHERSON.-I£ the re$l1lt of this debate is to remove the trial of election ·petitions from the arena of poli­tics-from this HOllse-to the Supreme Court, I shall consider that the grave mis­t~ke which the Elections Committee have, in my opinion, made in this case, has not been without a good effect. It is very Jnuch to be regretted that the members of the committee' have, on the floor 'of the House, indulged in personal explanations .a.nd recriminations, and that charges and counter-cl1arges have been made as to the manner in which they have discharged their duties. I say frankly that I believe .the committee have made a grievous ws­take in thls case, and th~t their decision is wholly without a!ly 'warrant in law. I am certainly su,rprised at a legal member moving an ad<ii:tion which brought the re­solutions adopted by the committee into their present form. But it is no use discuss­ing the grounds upon which the committee arrived at that conclusion; and, at all events, it may be said' on behalf of the committee, that they were more fully in possession of all the facts of the case than the House can be. Honorable members consider the decision of the committee wholly inexplicable from two different points of view. Some consider. that the decision does not go far enough, and others think. that it goes very much too far. I agree with every word uttered by the honorable member for Maldon. Though I believe the committee have fallen into a great error, in my opinion it would be a graver error for this House to step out~ side its functions and review the decision of the committee, which, by law, is final. It will be better to allow the decision of the committee to go with all its faults. I concur with the honorable and learned member for the Ovens. that the commit­tee arrived at their decisio~ on a gro-qnq

wholly irrelevant, and I wilL ~llpport the amendment to that extent; but. I will move that the amendment be amended by omitting therefrom the words "this House resolves. tbat snch .reportbe. referred back to the committee for reconsideration."

Mr. BAYLES .seconded the :proposi-tion. ,

The SPEAKER.-The ptoposition of the h01;l.0rable member, which is to omit a portion of the amendment of the honor­able and learned member for the Ovens, is one tb~t it is competent for the House to. en,tertain,but.;l play point. out t1;lat, if it be carri~d, the .remainder'of: $e illotion :will'not have any m~alning, and will n()t be intelligible English. ;

Sir .C. MAC MAHON.-I submit that .the decision of the Election!;! and Qualifica­tions Committee cannot be deb~ted in this House. By the :report of that committee an honorable member (Mr, Gillies)-and I will still call him honorable in spite of the majority-bas been put out of this House; but, according to our Constitu­tion, the report is final. Then, what is the use of discussing it? We cannot refer the report back to the committee. In fact we . cannot do anything. Therefore, I regard this as a nonsensical debate. The Elections Committee have given reasons for coming to the conclusion they have; .and, I ask, was there ever a more gross violation of decency and justice than the attempt of the committee to blind this House .by stating the reasons for their decision? No matter what opinions may be entertained with regard to this question, I venture to sa.y of Mr. Gillies that, what­ever his faults may have been, not one of those who now denounce him so loudly can point out one act in his parliamentary career which is not honorable to him as a man. The Elec.tions Committee is sup­posed to consist of memhers who are entirely devoid of .. all partisan feeling, and who act as judges ,with regard to all the matters that come before them. They have given their decision in this case, and we are bound ,to bow to it, and to obey it; and why should it be necessary now for everyone of those gentlemen to explain the reasons for his course of procedure, or the effect which certain evidence had upon his· ,mind ? I strongly object to this system of painting a political opponent as dark as possible, and of making use of the press to circulate statements to the injury of a gen­tleman who; notwithstanding what some l1o~o:r~b~e ~e~bers may say, is looked upon,

1140 Rodney Election. [ASSEMBLY.] Mr. Gillie8.

by every side of the House, with respect. Mr. Gillies ha.s never been a personal friend or associate of mine, but I venture to say that there is not a member of this House who has not admired his capacity and ability, and who, on the whole, does not believe in his integrity. We have had some most extraordinary decisions from the Elec­tions Committee. In the first place, they decided that one gentleman in this House was not a minister of religion, although he was administering the offices of his creed a week or two before and possibly a week or two after his election; and then they decided that another gentleman was a minister of religion, although it could be proved that he had not been so for many years. The latter was put out of this House on the ground that he was a minister of religion, and what did he do ? He went back to his constituents, and, being supported by the Administration, he was re-elected. In other words, he defied the Elections Committee. I would like to know what is to be the outcome of the present discussion? Is. it intended that for the future we shall have some new tribunal to deal with election pe­titions? If it is, well and good. As I understand,· the ground why Mv Gillies is ejected from this House is not that he himself did anything wrong, but: that some person or persons exercised undue influence without his knowledge or oon­sent.. Now I ask, quite irrespective of party, can any honorable member stand up in this House and say that undue influence has not been exercised in his election? Is there one man who can tell me that some influence has not been exercised on his behalf ? No, not one. And yet Mr. Gillies is to be put out of this House because some influence, of which he was ignorant, was exercised on his behalf at the last election. I know for myself, we all know, that influence was exercised on our behalf. Every man who hears me knows it. If I were to tell what. I know about sums of money paid by different members for their seats--

Mr. FERGUSSON.-Hear, hear. Sir C. MAC MAHON.-The honorable

member would come in, for one. In conclu­sion, I ask-Is it common decency to treat a man, who for the last fifteen years has been a colleague of us all, who has been honor­able and high minded in every respect., in thil:; manner? Although I say we must bow to the decision of the Elections Committee, if I could do anythi~g to assist Mr. Gillies

in coming back to his place in this House, I would do it with great pleasure. I COll­

sider that the way in which his adminis­tration of the Lands department has been made use of against him in order to secure the voidance of his seat is something un­heard of in the annals of political war­fare.

Mr.G.PATON SMITH.-Mr. Speaker, I would not have troubled the House again had I not been to some extent challenged to do so by the honorable and learned member for Villiers and Heytesbury, and the position which he takes up with re­gard to the law of elections. I quite concur with the amendment which has been moved by the honorable and learned member for Dundas. It is much better for the vindication of the honorable mem- . ber who has been unseated that he should go to his constituents. I have not the slight~st doubt that the time is not far distant when he will be again returned by those constituents to his place in this House. The sense of justice, which I think is never lost in this community, even during the intensest excitement of political warfare, will rebel against the proceedings of a committee of this House which have resulted in Mr. Gillies' ex­pulsion. It is better that all the contra­dictions of this Elections Committee should remain undisturbed by any action of this House. The Government are responsible for its proceedings. They have directed those proceedings; they have acquiesced in the committee's decisions when it suited them to do so; and they have refused to allow matters to be submitted to it, al­though by so doing they have acted in direct contravention of the law. Under these circumstances, I think it is better that this tribunal should become so ob­noxi~us to public opinion that a change will become an absolute necessity. I believe we are indebted to the honorable and learned member for Villiers and Heytesbury for the latter part of the com­mit.tee's report. The committee found-

"That the petitioner has failed to establish that the Hon. DUll(~an Gillies was guilty of bribery or undue influence, either by himself or his agents, during the late election for Rod­ney." And then, if I am correctly informed, the honorable member for Villiers and Heytes­bury induced the committee to add-

"But that undue influence was used by other persons on his behalf; and this committee therefore declare the election for Rodney to be wholly void."

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER 17.J Mr. Gillies. 1141

Now in that short paragraph there are clearly three mistakes. In the first place, the election for Rodney should not be de­clared void; it is the election of Mr. Duncan Gillies for Rodney which should be declared void-not the whole election. Why, if the strict letter of the report were acted upon, my honorable friend who sits beside me (Mr. Fraser) would be disquali­fied from occupying his seat. In the second place, the honorable member for Villiers and Heytesbury has mistaken the meaning of the words "persons on his behalf" contained in our statutory provi­sions. And in the third place, he has altogether mistaken the meaning of the term "undue influence." If Mr. Gillies was guilty of anything, it would come under the denomination of bribery, not of undue influence. Mr .. Gillies was guilty of bribery, or of no offence. Now in my argument, I shall confine myself to what I conceive to be the law of elections as laid down by the practice of the Imperial Parliament, and as contained in the statu­tory provisions of this country and of the United Kingdom. I certainly will not attempt to follow the honora.ble member into ~hose mysteries of the common law about which he.speaks so·much, and about which, at the same time, he seems to be. informed so little. N ow the offences against the electoral law resolve them­selves into three classes :-1, bribery; 2, treating; 3, undue influence. The section of the Electoral Act relating to undue in­fluence is as follows :-

"Every person who shall, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, make use of or threaten to make use of any force. violence, or restraint, or inflict, or threaten the infliction, by himself 'or by or through any other person, of any injury, damage, harm, or loss, or in any other manner practise intimi­dation upon or against any person in order to induce or compel such person to voLe or refrain from voting. or on account of such person having voted or refrained from voting at any election, or who shall by abduction, duress, or any fraudulent device or contrivance impede, prevent, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of the franchise by any elector, or shall thereby compel or induce or prevail upon any elector either to give or re~rain from giving his vote at any election, snaIl be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprison­ment."

In fact undue influence is simply intimi­dation. When the honorable member for Villiers and Heytesbury finds that the late member for Rodney has been guilty of undue influence, he mistakes the mean­ing of ~he term as applied to elections.

In Rogers'Law and Practice 0] Elections, it is laid down that undue influence is a comparatively modern offence, and that it is regulated by Statute. Rogers says that "by the 5th section of the 17th and 18th Vict., c. 102, undue influence is defined as follows :-" and then follows a provision containing the exact words which I have read from our Statute. Rogers then goes on to describe the thrE;le aspects in which undue influence presents itself. The first is the use of open force or violence, or the threat thereof; the second is the in­fliction of any injury, damage, harm, or loss, or by the threat thereof; and the third is the practice, in any other manner, of intimidation. Now the Elections Com­mittee have made a very gross blunder in finding Mr. Gillies guilty of a charge which was not preferred against him. There was no allegation. that he intimi­dated anyone, or that any force or violence was used. With regard to the meaning of the words "on his behalf," Rogers says-

" Though a candidate would doubtless he held liable before a committee for all acts of treating committed by himself or his agents, so far as regards the loss of his seat, it appears to be equally well settled, by analogy to the decisions in bribery cases, that he would not be liable to the pecuniary penalties of the Act for treating without some sanction, or at least privity shown between himself and his agents. There is a wide difference between the principles of com­mon law and parliamentary agency."

Here the distinction is drawn between the lex Parliamenti and the law of the land. Rogers says further-

" Any agent employed by a candidate for the purposes of the election makes the candidate liable for the parliamentary consequences of all his acts, although some of those acts may not only be unauthorized by, but are expressly con­trary to, the wishes of the candidate; whereas no liability is incurred at common law without direct proof of authority, express or implied, on the part of the candidate."

What, then, becomes of the common law of the honorable member for Villiers and Heytesbury? His common law is a bug­bear which the honorable member carries about with him without being able to manage. The common law narrows the question of agency to a considerable extent. The candidate, by the law of Parliament, is answerable for the acts of his agent,. whether he authorizes the particular acts or n~t, and even if he disapproves of them; but by the common law he is responsible only for such acts as he authorizes. That is the distinction

1142 Rodney Election. [ASSEMB.LY.] Mr. Gillies.

between the' common law and the law 'of candidate should be responsible in such a calile. How could he ever be safe, if he were to be held

Parliament. Now Rogers also says-. responsible for acts of which he was wholly "In Hughes v. Marshall; where friends of the ignotant, committed at a period during which

candidate had given orders at a public-house for the relation of . principal and agent did not in refreshments to be supplied to voters 0n their any s~nse exist between himself and the person credit, on the argument for a new trial, Lord commi~ting such acts ?":L Lyndhurst (Chief Baron) said-' The words "on C· h f d th t his behalf" must be taken to include acts done by The Elections ommlt'tee. ave oun a the desire or with the privity of the candidate- the persons in the Lands-office were not acts which he procures to be done by other means the agents of Mr. Gillies; that they were than his own." . And subsequently, in delivering not allthorized by him; that what they the judgment 'of the court, the same learned d d h judge said-' It is quite clear, from the words of did they did of their own accor ,ap. t at the section,·1hat. the act. must be done by tl,1e Mr. Gillies was in no way privy to it; a~d candidate!himi;lelf or by some person or.persons y~t ;M;r. Gillies is to be.held responsible for acting for him 9r. on his b~h~lf.';" . I. the acts'Q£ those indiYiduals. The honor.:. Thus it is perfectly clear that the ~ffe~ce able ~ me~ber-for' Villiers and HeytQsb\lty must be the act of the candidate, or of has quo;ted a passage from Clerk on Eke­persons acting on his behalf; he is not re- tions, to. show that an election may be sponsible-. f9~ the. ~)Utside aCts of persons ·v;oided by the use of undue influences, in who have no authority from him, and wb.o w4ich neither the candidate nor his agents may go about seeking.to imperil his efec- took ,part ; but the undue influences there tion. In my humble judgment, the hon- referred tQ consist of something .wholly orable member' for Villiers and Heytes- differe:Q.t from the getting of leases or cer­bUTy is altogether mistaken in supposing tain other things from the Lands-office. that the words "on his behalf" apply to The p~ssage .means that where there has things done by' unauthorized persons to 'been intimidation by a mob so universal which the candidate is not privy. and so obstructive as actually to impede

Mr. DWYER.-Doctors differ. an election, and to. prevent the election :Mr.' G. PATON SMITH.~:tet us be taking place, then the election is void.

sure that there are two doctors in the But there· is no: allegation of that kind case-that one of them is not a doctor here. It iSllot . attempted to 1:>e shown but a quack. It is not £rpm me that t1;te that. the ni~jority would have been dif­,honQrable. member 4iffers.,. bu.t . .from tp,e .£erent.if. the lea;ses had .:hot. been is~ued·. learned writers of this text-book, and the Yet Mr. Gillies 'is' found guilty of an learned judge who tried the case. The . .offence which was .never alleged against honorable member may be great in his him, and which is disproved on the face own estimation ;no doubt he may yet of the report by the statement that he had make a great figure as a lawyer; probably no cognizance of it. The.report amounts he may before long obtain a seat on the to this-that in tbe opinion of certain gen­front Treasury bench, and thence be tlemen it was desirable to weed out Mr. transferred to a higher and more enduring Gillies' from this (the opposition) side of sphere of action; but until he achieves the House. After all what was the undue that eminence, I think the honorable influence alleged;,as6uming for a moment member must bow to such a very great that "undue influeJ;lCe" is the correQt term authority as Lord Lyndhurst. On this for what took place? Why, simply the question of responsibility, let me also issue .. from ~ pubnc department of le~ses refer to a judgment given 'by Lord Chief to w4ich tlfe persons_claiJ?li\lg. them .:W:~!.e Justice Coleridge, in January, 1875, on a fully entitled. The petition against the case arising out of the Boston 'election return alleged that persons were induced to petition, ·stated for the opinion of the vote for Mr. Gillies by ·the issue of leases Court of Common Pleas. Lord Coleridge under improper circumstances. That point said- the Elections Committee decide in favour

"Suppose a person wholly unconnected with of the sitting. member; they say the either candidate, but with strong political charge is wholly unfounded. ,·Then what feelings, chooses, unknown to either party, long . 1 f? WI tl f t th t t' before the election, to bribe so extensively as to IS e t. lY, Ie ac a cer am per-make the election safe, and that he is appointed sons obtained what they were absolutely by one of the candidates, in perfect innocence, entitled to, which they had no right to be his agent, and during the course of the election kept out of, which they could claim' at his conduct is perfectly pure; so that when he any moment, and which the department was bribing he was not agent, and when he was 'd an agent he was not bribing. I confess it seems had no right to refuse. Is it to be sal to me that it would be very unreasonable that a that, because those leases were granted,

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER 17.] Mr • .Gillies. 1143

the constituency ought not to be repre­sented by a Minister?

Mr. KERFERD.-Supposing he had kept them back?

Mr. ,G. PATON SMITH.-Is it to be said that a Minister, go.ing to' an electio.n, is to' keep back leases so. that he may have cQnstituents under his thumb? Had that been dQne, WQuid it nQt then have been said that he was exercising undue in­fluence ?-that the withhQlding of the leases was in terrorem; as much as to say-" If yQU don't elect me, there will be a further delay in the issue of yQur leases, and yQU may not get them at all." That would have been undue influence. But to' say that because certain persQns have had granted to them what they are entitled to have, it nQt being shown that the proceeding influenced their votes in any way, and no. scrutiny being held to ascertain who. did vote in any particular direction, the election for Rodney was unduly influenced, and the return of Mr. Gillies was not the free return of the majQrity that elected him, is a violent presumptiQn, 'a cQnclusion which is nQt· warranted by the evidence taken before the Elections Committee, and which I am perfectly sure honorable members, when they come to consider the matter diS'­passionately, will not concur in. At the same time I will repeat what I said before, that I consider it desirable this matter should' go as it stands to the cOIistituency of RQdney; that Mr. Gillies should a§k for his vindicatiQn nQt from this House, nor from 'a majority of it, but from those who better, know the circumstances under· which he 'Went before them originally-' from men who, I think, will be prepared to ' resent undue influence, and also. to resent' the actio.n of a committee of this. House in 'depriving them of the representative whom they had deliberately chosen.

Mr. McINTYRE,'- There is not· a, member of this House who. has felt the' power of the influence of a Minister . of, the CrQwn ~t the time of an election' more than 1'. have. I had to con.test' three elections befQre I was returned-it was', only at the fourth ·that I was success­ful-and at each of those three elections I had . a Minister of the Crown against me; I felt the linfluence of this, Minis­terial power, though I don't know that it was exercised unduly; in, fact, I don't think ·it ,was;· I would, be sorry to feel, that this HOlise~ould not be justi~ed' in reviewing the decision . of 'any c'oJ1iniittee

whatever that deCision might be. I main­tain that no report ever submitted by a committee to. this House created such a sensation as the repQrt which has been presented this evening'. In fact, it seems to' be almost the unanimQus opinion of the House that the decision o.f the co.mmittee is quite the oppo.site of what t~ley should have arrived at. It was said by the honorable and learned member .for Villiers and Heytesbury, in the peculiar ,speech which he made in defending this extra­ordinary decisiQn,. that the House and the country ought to be extremely obliged to the 'committee fo.r the decision-that in fact the decision is a model one. And yet the Speaker, whQse 'ability and know­ledge of law no one disputes, has had to ask the assistance of the HQuse in inter­preting a certain PQrtiQn of' the commit­tee's repQrt. The Speaker wants to know

,what the committee mean by declaring : the election for Rodney "to be wholly void." If the repQrt is· wrong in that particular, why should it not gQ'back to', the committee for reconsideration?, The decisions of judges' Who are sworn, like the committee, ,to 'do, their dilty a'ccording to their skill and ability, without fear, favour, or affection, are.'subj'ectto appeal and review;· and why should no.t the decision of these seven wis'e men of Gotham be' 'open to revision by this House, and particularly' as it invol-ves the expulsion from the Cham bet of- a gentle­man who has' sat in it ·for a;:.'lotig, series of years;' whose equal for knowledge of the forms of the House; for' debating power, ahtl for general'!Jonhomie to aU' ahd" sun.dry, itwillb~ difficult to find:' I sayi the House would 'be per­fectly ~ justifiijdhi reViewing, the deci­sion. 1 co.nsider that' the'. repbrt of the Elections Committee furnishes an' illustra­tion of the truth of the 'old adage that cirCunl.stan'ces alter cases. Had Mr. Gil­lies still' beeu' a Minister-, of· the ·Crown with:' a 'majoritY' hehind,' him like that supporting! the 'pr~'sent Ministry,' I feel perfectlY'slire there wo~ld, have':been no necessity for discussing the report 'of the Elections Oommittee. ·here ,this evening. Ac~rdi~g to the argu~ent of I the honor­able member for Ararat,', the decision of the ·committee is totally wrong. The hon­orab1e member asserts distinctly that, from his 'p'oint of view, Mr. Gillies was. guilty direc~ly of corruption and ,uIi.due influenee, and: yet he s'tands ,up' 'and defends the repo'tV:,of 'the, 'c6mmitte'e lwhicb· states

1144 .. Rodney Election. [ASSRMBLY.] M'I'. Gillies.

distinctly that Mr. Gillies was guilty of nothing of the kind either by himself or by his agents. "But," say the committee, "some person was guilty of undue influ­ence, and therefore we will punish him for an act which he knows nothing about."

Mr. GAUNSON.-He is not punished. He is allowed to be a candidate at a new election.

Mr. McINTYRE.-If Mr. Gillies is not subjected to punishment, I don't know what punishment is. Mr. Gillies has been kept in daily suspense for the last' three months, the inquiry has cost him a large amount of money, and now he is turned out of the House. I don't know what greater punishment could be imposed ex­cept that of putting him out for three years. The 142nd 'section of the Elec­toral Act distinctly states that if an elec­tion be declared null and void in conse­quence of the exercise of undue influence the member who becomes unseated cannot be elected again for a period of three years. Weare told that, from the peculiar way in which the Elections Committee have given their decision this provison will not apply to the case of Mr. Gillies. But I am inclined to doubt that. Why, if returned again-as he is bound to be, be­cause the sympathies of the constituency will go with him-he may be unseated on that very ground. It has been said that undue influence cannot be exercised without the candidate on whose behalf it is exercised knowing something about it. But I am not at all disposed to acquiesce in that statement. I have not the shadow of a doubt that enthusiastic friends of' mine went about among the tradesmen of Sandhurst, during the gen­eral election, saying-"If you don't vote for Mr. McIntyre we won't deal with you any more." But am I to be held re­sponsible for an act of that kind, of which I knew nothing? . And yet the decision of the Elections Committee, if we allow it to pass, will become a precedent amounting to absolute law for the unseating of a member on whose behalf undue influence may be used without his knowledge or authority. However, I am glad to hear from so many honorable members the ex­pression of the opinion that the time has now arrived when such an important power should not be possessed by any committee of this House. We can all see how injudiciously it has been exercised. The decisions of the committee have been remarkable to say the least, so remarkable

indeed that even the honorable member for Belfast has been converted to the idea that it is necessary that the trial of elec­tion petitions should be vested in some other tribunal. The judges of the land are, above all men in the colony, the men fit to discharge this important and onerous duty.

Mr. GAUNSON.-With reference to this question of undue influence and the effect of the decision of the Elections Committee, I think the wall against which the honor~ble member for Boroon­dara has been knocking his legal head is the difference between the undue in­fluence which the committee says is proved, and the undue influence exercised by a candidate or by a candidate's autho­rized agents. A candidate to whom the latter is brought home is precluded from sitting in this House until after a general election takes place. But whenever undue influence is used, whether as the direct or the indirect effect of anything done by the candidate is perfectly immaterial, the principle underlying the whole thing is that the election shall be void.

Mr. MUNRO.-Mr. Speaker, I rise to order. The honorable member for Ararat has already spoken four times to the main question. I ask you, sir, whether the honorable member is entitled to speak to the main question every time he rises to speak to an amendment?

The SPEAKER.-The honorable mem­ber ought to confine himself to the amend­ment at present before the chair.

Mr. GA UNSON.-Because the honor­able member for Carlton cannot or will not see the gravity of this question, and appears to think it a trifling matter which ought to be slummed over, I am not to be deterred. from pursuing my argument, especially when I recollect that the honor­able member for Boroondara fully dis­cussed the whole legal aspect of the question on the amendment of the honor­able member for Dundas. I wish to call attention to the existence of this patent distinction: where the exercise of undue influence is brought home to an election candidate he is excluded from sitting in the Legislature until after the next gene­ral election; whereas where it is simply proved that undue influence was used on his behalf by persons for whose acts he is not responsible, the wrong done is not visited upon him, but the election is de­clared null and void. Of course, if the undue influence was exercisecl by an agent,

Rodney Election. [OCTOBER 17.J Mr. Gillies. 1145

his principal would be answerable for his acts. In England they have a system of election agency which is known to the law, but that cannot be said to be the case here. What does Mr. Justice Blackburn, of the English bench, say respecting the conduct of elections? I think he is at least an authority equal to the honorable member for Boroondara. He states-

"The member who is returned for any consti­tuency ought to be the member who is elected by a majority of pure and unimpeached voters who vote at that election. If anyone failed to obtain such a majority, or (what comes to the same thing), if it cannot be proved that he has obtained such a majority, there must be a new election; that constituency must have a fresh choice, and return such member as they choose for the purpose."

That is the great principle that ought to underlie all elections. On this point War­ren' in his Law and Practice of Election Committees, says, with respect to the House of Commons, as follows :-

" Any blow aimed at the freedom of electing its members is aimed at the very foundation of popular liberty. Six centuries ago, our English Justinian, Edward I., at the commencement of his glorious reign, enacted, with his Parliament, and with impressive and special solemnity and imperativeness, that-' because elections ought to be free, the King commandeth, upon great forfeiture, that no man, great or small, by force of arms, nor by malice, nor menacing, shall dis­turb any to make free election :' which words, 'great forfeiture,' signify, says Lord Coke, , pun­ishment by grievous fines and imprisonment.' "

Again, in another passage, Vf arren states-

" The measures taken beforehand may be in full operation throughout the election, which may, moreover, be conducted with every show of peace and order within and around the place where the election is being held: yet really u~der the pressure of enormous unseen duress."

Can it be contended that the Rodney selectors were not under duress? Mr. Gillies could not tell a selector that he would give him his lease, but he could say -" Send me a letter marked 'Private;'" and we have ample evidence that sheaves of such letters passed through the local post-office. Mr. Justice Blackburn's judg­ment continues as follows :-

"The distinction, therefore, is obvious there; it is not any longer a matter merel.y between the two candidates, but it involves the interests of the constituency. The constituency are, as one may say, parties to the question, and their inte­rests must be considered as well as those of the sitting member and the candidate who claims the seat; it is necessary in that case to see whether or no there is a majority of pure voters, and accordingly every voter who is shown to have been corrupted must be struck off, for whomsoever he' voted."

YOLo XXVI.-4 0

What light does the evidence taken by the committee throw upon the interference of the Lands department with the purity of the Rodney election? One witness-a Lands official-made the following state­ment :-

" Can you give any reason-was it the general chit-chat of the office-why Mr. Moore took this step ?-Why, of course, we all concluded he was acting under orders."

Mr. Moore told the committee that if any newspaper paragraph affecting the Minis­ter came under his notice, he took it to him; how, therefore, could the Minister be unaware that the Rodney selectors' leases were having precedence given to them? Mr. Justice Blackburn's judgment con­tinues as follows :-

" It matters not whether he was corrupted by the sitting member, or whether he was corrupted by the sitting member's agents or by a stranger."

That is the whole thing. For myself, I disagree with the finding of the com­mittee, for I think Mr. Gillies ought to be made to pay the whole costs. From the day I, knowing the political corrup­tion exercised by the honorable member for Dundas when he was Minister of Lands, entered upon a crusade against the political influence wielded by the Lands department, my mind has been made up that whenever an opportunity offered for exposing the practices carried on in it, I would seize it. Accordingly, I took good care in the present case that the matter should be brought before the proper tri­bunal, and I am thoroughly satisfied with the result. If a constituency chooses to be corrupted we cannot help it, but let Parliament assert its dignity -let us relieve ourselves of any share of blame. What I contend is that the petitioner, who has been put to enormous expense in order to perform an almost superhuman duty, and who has proved what he under­took to prove, ought to receive some con­sideration at our hands. I also hope that we shall before long be able to consider how the Elections Committee practically repealed the Ballot Act by deciding that there should be no scrutiny, and that the votes improperly given should not be struck off. Let Parliament do its duty, and encourage men like the petitioner to come forward in order to put an end to rotten­ness in high. places, such as we know existed in every department of the State under the McCulloch regime.

Mr. DWXER.-I rise only to point out that, according to some of the arguments

1146 Rodney Election. [COUNCIL.] ffh. Gillies.

addressed to the 1-1ouse, honorable mmn­bel's are asked to express an opinion, with respect to tho matter before them, on the strength of English legal decisions that are really inapplicable to it. I cannot help wondering at the faculty some honor­able and learned meD?-bers have of picking out a few lines from a case ill the law books, in order to support their views, regardless of the general effect of what they quote. For instance, the honorable and learned member for Boroondara treated us to a passage from Lord Coleridge's de­cision in Malcolm v. Parry to this effect:-

" Suppose a person wholly unconnected with either candidate, but with strong political feel­ings, chooses, unknown to either party, long before the election, to bribe so extensively as to make the election safe, and that he is 'appointed by one of the candidates, in perfect innocence, his agent, and during the course of the election his conduct is perfectly pure; so that when he was bribing he was not agent, and when he was an agent he was not briOing. I confess it seems to me that it would be very unreasonable that a candidate should be responsi.ble in such a case." But how does that apply to the matter before us ? How does it affect the ques­tion we have most to deal with, namely, the rights of the constituency concerned? What I want to point out is that the whole effect of the decision is directed to a totally different state of affairs. It is as follows :-

"Where a candidate for election to Parlia­ment had been guilty of bribery through his agent, hy reason of acts c1)mmitted by such agellt to pl'oeul'e yotes for him at the election, and fmbsequently to such aets of bribery another candi,late eoalesccd with him, ill ignoranee of allY pl'cdolls corruption, Hnd havillg no reason to sll'pect, t..: cxi.,tencc-

"Held, that sueh last-mentioned cantlidate was nol liable by reason of the joint c::tnllidature to be unseated in respect of such acts of bribery,"

But the Rodney petition is in no way directed against Mr. Fraser. That is a sample of the other cases cited. It is truly remarkable how, when law officer.s of the Crown retire into private life as it were, they manage to leave all their law at the Crown~ law offices.

Mr. Kerferd's amendment, having been amended as proposed by Mr. MacPherson, was negatived without a division.

The original proposition-" That the report do lie on the table and be printed," was then agreed to.

The SPEAKER.-The House having so far disposed of the question, I think it right to inform the honorable member for Ararat that it will be my duty to-morrow to take the preliminary steps for the issue

of a writ for t.he election of a, member for Rodney.

Mr. GAUNSON moved-"That, in the opinion of this House, Mr.

Shackell ought to have been declared by the Elections and Qualifications Committee a mem­ber of this House for the electoral district of Rodney, on the ground that such committee should have disallowed all votes given at Gray­town and at I{yabram East for Mr. Gillie's and for Mr. Shackell, inasmuch as the ballot papers there used were not initialed or numbered, as required by the 109th section of the Electoral Act 1865, and that after disallowing such votes Mr. Shackell had the majority of votes given at such election for Rodney; and on the further ground that, as the election of Mr. Gillies was the result of undue influence exercised in his favour, and as such committee has declared his election null and void, Mr. Shack ell, as the next highest candidate on the poll, is entitled to the seat, and this House accordingly adjudges it to him," .

He said he proposed this resolution in order to place on record the opinions he entertained on the whole case.

Mr. FINCHAM seconded the motion, which was put and negatived.

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL SHOW.

Mr. MUNRO called attention to the fact that a large number of honorable members proposed attending the national agricultural show at Stawell the following day, and asked the Chief Secretary if, under the circumstances, he would move the adjournment of the House until the following Tuesday?

Mr. BERRY stated that he had no objection to do so if the general wish of the House were in that direction. He had received an invitation to at.tend the agricultural show, and he would be glad to be present if public business would allow him.

The House adjourned at six minutes to eleven o'clock, until Tuesday, October 23.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, October 23, 1877.

Insolvency Law Amendment Bill- Railway Construction Bill-Mining on Private Property Bill: Second Reading.

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

PETITIONS. Petitions praying that the interests of

the petitioners might be protected under the Mining on Private Property Bill were

Insolvency Law [OCTOBEH 23.J Amendment Bill. 1147

presented by the Hon. R. S. ANDERSON, from the representatives of the proprietors of the Port Phillip mine, Clunes, and by the Hon. A. FRASER, from the Seven Hills Estate Freehold Company, Kings­ton. A petition was also presented by the Hon. R: S. ANDERSON, from Roman Catholics residing in the Ovens district, calling attention to the position of the Roman Catholic body with regard to the State educational system, and praying for relief.

INSOLVENCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

The Ron. F. T. SARGOOD moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Insolvency Act of 1870. He said that when that Act was before the Legislature it was strongly pointed out, on behalf of the commercial community, that the,mea­sure ought to contain certain provisions, in order to guard against a particular class of frauds; but the Government refused to be guided in the matter, and, conse­quently, the law was enacted in an imper­fect form. During the last seven years practical experience had shown, over and over again, that the views formerly pressed on the Government were sound, and that, because they were not adopted, the Act was, to a certain extent, a failure. Re­cently several glaring cases' of fraud in connexion with insolvency had come before the courts, and it was found that the la,,,, as it stood, was unable to cope with them. Under these circumstances, and inasmuch as he had taken no little interest on the subject during the last 15 years, he had been requested to introduce the present Bill, which he would fully explain when the time for its second reading arrived.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then brought in, and read

a first time.

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION BILL.

The message from the Legislative Assembly, acquainting the Legislative Council that they had disagreed with the Council's amendments in this Bill; and further, that they had disagreed with the amendments in clause 3, "because the:;e amendments are infractions of the privi­leges of the Legislative Assembly, inas­much as they would, in their consequences, lay a charge upon the people," was taken into consideration .

. The Hon. H. CUTHBERT.-Mr. Pre­sident, I beg to move that the Council's

402

amendments be not insisted upon. I do this the more readily, inasmuch as when the Bill was under our consideration every one of the amendments met with my most strenuous opposition. Furthermore, seeing that the Council have adopted seven out of the nine lines proposed in the Bill, I am not without hope that they will not too strongly adhere to their views with respect to the minor points in connexion with the other two lines on which they disagree with the Assembly. I also hope that before I sit down I shall have proved to honorable members that they can, without giving up one iota of their privileges, gracefully yield in the matter, if not by withdrawing their amendments, at least by consenting to a conference with the Assembly, in. order that, by means of mutual concessions, the works comprised in the Bill, which are calculated to be of extreme use in promoting the general pros­perity of the country, may be permitted to be proceeded with. The principal diffi­culty in the way of the Government arises from the action of the Council with ro· gard to the Melbourne and Oakleigh Railway. That is no political line. In proposing it the Government did not wish or expect to gain the support of any one. They simply thought it incumbent on them to endeavour to effect the com­pletion of a great national undertaking -I aUude to the Gippsland Railway­upon which upwards· of £1)000,000 has been expended, and, accordingly, they projected wha.t is known as the direct line from Oakleigh to Molbourne, which they are in a position to show, by means of estimates now before the HOllS8, can be const.ructod for £125,000. The Council, however, took objection to the proposition on the ground of economy~ and came to the conclusion that a vast saving would be effected, and a great public advantage gained, if the scheme they originated were carried into effect. But let me point out that while under the Government plan railway connexion between Oakleigh and Melbourne would be thoroughly accom­plished, it is not at all clear that the same end would be gained by carrying out the ideas on the subject expressed by the Council. What are those ideas? In order, it is stated, to save money, a ma­jority of the Council have decided, in a most emphatic way, that the railway from Oaldeigh should be carried to Hawthorn, and insisted that, for the distance between that point and Melbourne, running powers

1148 llailways Bill. [COUNC1L.J Railways Bill.

should be taken over the Hobson's Bay Railway.

Mr. ]'ITZGERALD.-No; the amend­ment is distinctly-H With a view to the exercise of running powers."

Mr. CUTHBERT.-I don't see any material difference. This House, by amending the Bill, insisted on its project, and that project includes taking running powers, and, further, that a line shall be constructed from the Hobson's Bay Rail­way station, in Flinders-street, to Spencer­street, the whole affair costing about £80,000. In fact the Government and the Assembly propose one line, and the Coun­cil another altogether different. The former involves complete connexion be­tween Oakleigh and Melbourne, whereas the Council's line will, to all intents and purposes, stop half-way. Does not the proposition of this House mean, practi­cally, the substitution of an imperfect scheme fot a perfect one? Then the Council suggest the taking of running powers, but at what cost? Is there an honorable member in this Chamber who can tell me what those running powers wi1l cost? I defy any honorable member to give us even an approximate estimate of their expense. Moreover, under the Council's plan, in order to make a paltry saving of some £45,000, the entire control and management of a great national un­dertaking, namely, the Gippsland Railway, will be taken out of the hands of the State. What do running' powers mean? Are they not practically an appropriation of a part of the general revenue? In my humble opinion they are. They cannot be paid for out of the rail way loan. That loan was incurred in order to construct railways, and not for the purpose of en­tering into an agreement to take running powers from a private railway company. I assert that if honorable members come substantially to, the conclusion that run­ning powers ought to be taken, they, to that extent, interfere with and encroach upon the privileges of the Assembly by practically appropriating a portion of the general revenue of the country. It is not necessary for me to dwell on the point whether this Bill is or is not a Money Bill, because precedent has established the powers of this House to alter and amend Railway Bills, and I am not going to say that what was done in the past is wrong. This House has the power of altering and amending a Railway Bill, ,but it behoves us to be most careful not to

shape any amendment of the sort so as to infringe on the privileges of another place. It may be said that on the present occasion we have skilfully avoided this Charybdis, and that, inasmuch as our amendment of the Melbourne and Oak­leigh Railway does not actually include the taking of running powers, therefore we have not infringed the Assembly's pri­vileges. But is not that an evasion of the point at issue? When we insist that the railway from Oakleigh shall be brought only as far as Hawthorn, and afterwards commenced again at the Hobson's Bay Company's terminus in Melbourne and carried on to Spencer-street, do we not substantially insist upon running powers being taken? Then honorable members must see that their amendment of the Melbourne and Oakleigh line is not com­plete. What is wanted is connexion be­tween Melbourne and Oakleigh; does the CounciFs proposition supply that? From whom will running powers be taken? Where are they to be got from? Does the plan include taking running powers or establishing the Gippsland Railway ter­minus at Hawthorn? All these are ques­tions that require answering. While the Government, the Assembly, and the coun­try at large are desirous of having con­nexion between Melbourne and Oakleigh completed, are we to say-" No; we have a better scheme than the one the Govern­ment propose, only we have not power to carry it out, because we cannot amend the Railway Bill so as to bring a line from Oakleigh further than Hawthorn, or to bridge the' distance between Hawthorn and Melbourne?" Moreover, we ought to see how our amendments have been ac­cepted in another place. I think the Assembly would clearly stultify itself if it gave way to us, while, as I have shown, the Council can yield the point of the direct line without surrendering one iota of its privileges. As for the Council's objection to the Government proposition, because it would interfere with the Hob­son's Bay Company's property, let me remind honorable members that when the Bill was before us an amendment was moved by an honorable member to the effect that that property should be avoided by making the line to Oakleigh begin 1,000 feet from Swanston-street, and that if that proposition were carried the direct line would start from Crown lands, and still be wholly complete in itself.

Railways Bill. [OCTOBER 23.] Railways Bill. 1149

Mr. ANDERSON.-You could not do that.

Mr. CUTHBERT.-I think there is an easy way of carrying out that arrange­ment, if only honorable members would adopt the views I am now propounding. I ask them to remember that there is sllch a thing as concession. Have not the Council on former occasions gracefully made proper concessions? Are there not honorable members now amongst us who took part in what was done in 1865, in connexion with the Waterworks Bill, and do they not remember· how the amend­ments the Council made in that measure were disagreed with by the Assembly on the ground of privilege, how the Council insisted on their amendments and sent a message to the Assembly informing them of the fact, and, further, that they had appointed a certain number of honorable members as a committee to confer with a similar number of honorable members of the Assembly, and how eventually a con­ference was held with the result that concessions were made on both sides, and that the Bill became law to the great benefit of the country? Why should not a similar .course be adopted on the pre­sent occasion? Was the position of the Council injured in the slightest degree by the course they then took, on the advice of statesmen like Sir Charles Sladen and Mi'. Fellows? If what was done then was not derogatory to the dignity and privileges of the Council, why cannot a similar attempt to overcome the differ­ences between the Houses, and at the same time conserve the interests of the country at large, be made now? I have said so much with respect to the first amendment of the Council in the Bill because it seems to me by far the most important of the lot, inasmuch as it in­volves the question of privilege. After all, may there not be some misconception on the part of the Assembly, with respect to their assumption that the Council's amendment relating to running powers is a breach of their privileges? May not their conclusion on the point be based on a misinterpretation of the words with which the amendment begins, namely, H with a view to the exercise of running powers"? Is it not probable that the As­sembly thought wrongly that the Council were directing or ordering that running powers should be taken; and, under those circumstances, would it be out of place, or inconsistent with· our former usage,

for us to ask for a conference in order that that point may be made clear, and no longer liable to be misunderstood? And now as to the second amendment of the Council, the effect of which is to carry the Goulburn Valley Railway along the western instead of the eastern side of the river. After all, the question seems to be not a very important one. The distance between the lines is not very great, and the evidence concerning them by skilled witnesses is very conflicting. We have the testimony of the Engineer-in-Chief and Mr. Hardie on one side, and that of Mr. Nixon and Mr. Brown, both engineers, I believe, on the other . We have also before us the fact that the eastern line can be constructed for £36,000 less than the western line.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-No such evidence was given by a Government en­gineer, or any responsible person.

Mr. CUTHBERT.-It was given by a railway contractor at the bar of the House.

An HONORABLE MEl\IBER.-A railway contractor! It was simply a statement by Mr. Patrick Hanna.

Mr. CUTHBERT.-Yes; that gentle­man took the responsibility of saying that he would construct the eastern line for £36,000 less than the cost of the western line. In addition, it has been shown that the western line will go for six miles through the private property of one indi­vidual, from which but little traffic can be expected; and also that while all the· land to the west of the river is already taken up, and no further population there can be expected, the country to the east­ward, which is of a most extensive cha­racter, is still largely open to selection, and applications for it are, jn expecta­tion of the railway, pouring in to the dis­trict land-office. Furthermore, it has been shown. us that while it is impossible to make roads on the eastern side of the river, they can easily be constructed on the western side, which can be readily brought into communication, by means of bridges over the Goulburn, with a railway following the eastern route. I think that, upon the whole, we need not insist on our amendment to the Goulburn Valley line, especially as it is not refused on the ground of privilege. I call honorable members' attention particularly to that point.

Mr. T. T. A'BECKETT.-The Post­master-General is mistaken. The amend­ment to the Goulburn Valley line is one of the amendments to clause 3 which the

1150 Railways Bill. [COUNCIL.] Railways Bill.

Assembly declare constitute an infraction of their privileges.

lVir. CUTHBERT.-I think some dif­ference is made between the amendments to the Goulburn Valley line and those to the Oakleigh and Melbourne line.

Mr. ANDERSON.-There is none. Both lines are amended by means of alterations in different sub-sections of clause 3.

Mr. CUTHBERT.-Well, I confess I read the thing in a somewhat different light. I still think the great objection of the Assembly is to the amendment of the Oakleigh and Melbourne line. At all events, honorable members will admit that if the Assembly assumed the meaning of the words "with a view to the exercise of running powers "-possibly they are open to two interpretations-to be to direct and order that running powers should be taken, they were justified in regarding the amendment as an inter­ference with their privileges. Also, I observe that although this House is by no means without friends in the Assembly, yet when that amendment was under con­sideration there not a single honorable member got up to say that we were justified in passing it, although when the amendment to .the Goulburn Valley line was under consideration several honorable members stood up to argue in favour of the course taken in the matter by the Council. That is a distinction which it is important we should consider. For all these reasons I think the House will do well not to insist upon their amendments.

The Hon. R. S. ANDERSON. - I came here to-night to hear reasons in support of the message from the Assem­bly, not arguments in favour of this or that line of railway. The message states that our amendments are disagreed with because they are "infractions of the pri­vileges of the Legislative Assembly, inas­much as they would in their consequences lay a charge upon the people." How is that justified? I want to hear in what way these amendments are infractions of the Assembly's privileges. As for enter­ing again into the question of the amend­ments, the time for anything of the kind is past. After much patient consideration and examination of witnesses, we have dealt with the subjects with which the amendments are connected, and so far dis­posed of them. I am not at all prepared to accept the Postmaster..,General's 'pro­position, accompanied by his statement

that probably the Assembly wete under some misapprehension as to the effect of our amendments, and that after all we had a right to make them.

Mr. FITZGERALD.-He says, also, that the Bill is not a Money Bill.

Mr. ANDERSON.-Yes; he told us that the Bill was not a Money Bill, and that we were entitled to amend it.

Mr. CUTHBERT.-I did not say the Council had power to make the amend­ments it has adopted with respect to the Oakleigh line.

Mr. ANDERSON.-If the Bill is not a Money Bill, that we have power to make amendments in it follows as a matter of course. If the Postmaster-General were in a position here to bind the Assem bly, I would not be inclined to trouble the House with any further observations, but would simply say to him-",Sir, you have proved our case, and we will send back the Bill as it is, in order that our amendments may be accepted." But un­fortunately the honorable member is in no such position, neither can he explain any more than any other honorable member what were the intentions of the Assembly in sending their message, nor whether it is based on a real misconception of the scope of any of our amendments. Conse­quently we can only understand the views of the Assembly from the plain English of the message they have sent us, that our amendments are infractions of their privi­leges, "inasmuch as they would, in their consequences, lay a charge upon the people." That means that we have not power to make the amendments in the' Bill which we have made. But I am not aware that in any part of our Constitution Act-the sole source from whence the pri vileges of either House are derived­there is to be found such a phrase at:; "lay a charge upon the people." Where· is there in the Constitution Act any refer­ence to anything of the sort? Fortunately the rights of the Council are not theoret­ical but statutory; and, therefore, utterly ignoring the Postmaster-General's argu­ments on the subject of these amendments, I will proceed to show that the Council have full power to make them. When I have done that I think it ought to be a necessary consequence that the amend­ments should be properly taken into con­sideration· elsewhere. At present it is notorious that no consideration whatever has been given to them by the Assembly. Although I think there can be no question

Railways Bill. [OCTOBElt 23.J Railways Bill. 1151

of their importance or value, honorable members elsewhere have in no way touched on the subject. However, without making any further reference in that direction, I will proceed to show that the amendments do not at all constitute an infraction of the privileges of another Chamber. To begin: all the separate and joint rights of the Council and Assembly are contained in the Constitution Act, and neither House has any rights and powers beyond what are there conferred upon it. Both Houses were created by virtue of the Imperial Act in which our Constitution is con­tained, section 1 of which provides as follows :-

"There shall be established in Victoria, in­stead of the Legislative Council now subsisting, one Legislative Council and one Legislative Assembly, to be severally constituted in the manner hereinafter provided; and Her Majesty shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the said Council and Assembly to make laws in and for Victoria in all cases what­soever." A great deal has been said at different times, and at various conferences between the Houses, as to the two Legislative Chambers in this country having the rela­tive powers of the House of Lords and House of Commons. This idea has arisen altogether from the language of section 34 of the Act, which states-

"The Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly, in the first session of each respec­tively and from time to time afterwards as there shall be occasion, shall prepare and adopt stand­ing rules and orders, for providing for the man­ner in which such Council and Assembly shall be presided over in case of the absence of the President or Speaker respectively: and for the mode in which such Council and Assembly shall communicate, and for the proper passing, in­tituling, and numbering of the Bills to be intro­duced into and passed by the said Council and Assembly, and for the proper presentation of the same to the Governor for Her Majesty's assent, and for the consideration of all amend­ments proposed to be made by the Governor as herein mentioned, and for the due publication of all proposed proceedings in such Counci.l and Assembly, and generally for the conduct of all business and proceedings in the said Council and Assembly severally and collectively j all which rules and orders shall by such Council and As­sembly respectively be laid before the Governor, and being by him approved shall become binding and of force j and until such standing rules and orders shall be adopted, resort shall be had to the rules, forms, and usages of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, which shall be followed so far as the same may be applicable to the proceedings of the said Council and Assembly respectively."

That is the only reference made by the Constitution Act to the House of Lords in any shape. The object and scope 0.£

that reference are very clear. U ntH the Houses possessed rules and orders, separate and joint, of their own, it was necessary to provide them with machinery for carrying on their business, and for that purpose only-there can be no mistaking the lan­guage of the section-they were instructed to use the machinery of the Imperial Par­liament. Beyond all doubt or question, their employment of that machinery was only to last until they provided themselves with machinery of their own. The stand­ing orders which section 34 provides for were adopted by both Houses in 1858, and from then until now-a period of 19 years-neither House has had anything to do with any other standing rules and orders. No joint standing orders have been made since. The expedient comprised in section 34 was completely temporary, and may be likened to the arrangement upon which persons who are ordered to give security for keeping the peace are com­mitted to prison until they find proper bail. Nevertheless, upon this ground, attempts have been constantly made to force the Council into the relative position with respect to the Assembly that the House of Lords occupies with respect to the House of Commons. At the same time, what is the fact? With respect to the privileges, immunities, and powers of each House, the 35th section of the Con~ stitution Act provides :-

"It shall be lawful for the Legislature of Vic­toria by any Act or Acts to define the privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Council and Assembly, and by the members thereof respectively. Provided that no such privileges, immunities, or powers shall exceed those now held, enjoyed, and exer­cised by the Commons House of Parliament or the members thereof."

Thus from the beginning the privileges, immunities, and powers of the Council were made, equally with those of the Assembly, the same as those of the House of Commons, excepting only so far as they are governed by section 56 of the Consti­tution Act, which is as follows :-

"All Bills for appropriating any part of the revenue of Victoria, and for imposing any duty, rate, tax, rent, return, or impost, shall originate in the Assembly, and may be rejected, but not altered, by the Council."

Subject to that sfngle condition our privi­leges, immnnities, and powers are declared by the Constitution Act to be, equally with those of the Assembly, the same as those of the House of Commons. N 0-

where else in the Act can there be found any evidence of an intention to put the

1152 Railways Bill. [COUNCIL.] Railways Bill.

Council in a position different from that of the Assembly. Indeed, throughout the entire of that Act this House is treated as having, except so far as relates to sec­tion 56, powers equal in every way to those of the Legislative Assembly. For instance, section 42 of the Act states-

"It shall not be lawful for the Legislature of Victoria to levy any duty on articles imported bona .fide for the supply of Her Majesty's land or sea forces," &c. Again, section 43 says-

"Subject to the provisions of this Act, and notwithstanding any Act of Parliament now in force to the contrary, it shall be lawful for the Legislature to impose and levy such duties of customs as to them may seem fit," &c.

Section 44 is as follows :-" All taxes, imposts, rates, and duties, and all

territorial, casual, and other revenues of the Crown (including royalties), from whatever source arising, wIthin the colony of Victoria, or over which the present or any future Legisla­ture has or ruay have power," &c.

And section 45 says that the costs, charges, and expenses of collecting and managing t~e revenue. shall be subject to review and audit "in such manner as shall be directed by any Act of the Legislature." Throughout the Act the word "Legisla­ture," which includes both Houses of Par­liament, is adopted. In fact, it was not until 1865. that the slightest attempt was made to place one House upon a footing different from that of the other, and then there ensued a chronic dispute between the two Houses that lasted for fully fifteen months. The Council insisted on their privileges then, and I trust they will do the same now. Moreover, they then offered to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for its decision as to what were respectively the rights of the Upper House and Lower House in Vic­toria, but the other side-I think wisely for themselves-declined to adopt the sug­gestion. However, since that time we have obtained indirectly a Privy Council decision on the subject, and I will place it before honorable members. In the case of Tile Speaker v. Hugh Glass-I quote from 3 Law Reports, Privy Council, 1869-71, i). 570-the unanimous judgment, which was delivered by Lord Cairns, was as follows :- .

"By the Imperial Statute 18 and 19 Victoria, c. 55, sect. 35, power was given to Her Majesty to assent to a Bill of the Legislature of Victoria to establish a Constitution in and for the colony of Victoria, and the assent of the Crown was accordingly given to such Bill.

e'The Bill is contained in the schedule to the Imperial Act, and the 35th section in the Bill,

Hon. R. S. A.nderson.

which has the force of an Act of Parliament, runs thus:-

'" It shall be lawful for the Legislature of Victoria, by any Act or Acts, to define the pri­vileges, immunities, and powers to be held, en· joyed, and exercised by the Council and As­sembly,and by the members thereof respectively, provided that no such privileges, immunities, or powers shall exceed those now held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament, or the members thereof.'

" Their lordships pause at this section for the purpose of saying that they do not entertain any doubt that the word' respectively' is to be read distributively with reference to all that goes before, and is to apply to the Council and the Assembly, and the members of the Council and Assembly."

It had been argued before the Judicial Committee that although power was given to the Legislature of Victoria to assume the privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons, it had not suc­ceeded in availing itself thoroughly of its opportunities-in fact that the powers of the House of Commons had not been thoroughly or efficiently assumed. The judgment proceeded thus :-

,e Acting on the execution of the power thereby given, the Legislature of Victoria passed the Act 20 Vict., No. I, on the 25th February, 1857, which, after reciting the Imperial Act, proceeded by the 1st section to enact in these words-

" 'The Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of Victoria respectively, and the com­mittees and members thereof respectively, shall hold, enjoy, and exercise such and the like privileges, immunities, and powers as, and the privileges, immunities, and powers of the said Council and Assembly respectively, and of the committees and members thereof respectively, are hereby defined to be the same as, at the time of the passing of the said recited Act; were held, enjoyed. and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of Great "Britain and Ireland, and by the committees and members thereof, so far as the same are not inconsistent with the said recited Act, whether such privileges, immu­nities, or powers were so held, possessed, or enjoyed by custom, Statute, or otherwise.'

"In Dill v. Murphy, by the order of Her Majesty in Council, following the advice of the committee, it has already been determined that the exercise in the colony of such a power as is gi \'en by the Imperial Statute has been a good exercise of that power, and has sufficiently car­ried over to the Council and Legislative As­sembly of the colonies the powers which are compendiously described in the section that I have read, as the like privileges, immunities, and powers as were held, enjoyed, and exer­cised by the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the com­mittees and members thereof, and it was not necessary to specify in detail those powers, and that it was sufficient to refer to them as the powers of the House of Commons." I think that, in the face of that decision, emanating from the law lords of England

Railways Bill. [OCTOBER 23.1 Railways Bill. 1153

presided over by the present Lord Chan­cellor, he will be a hardy man who will say that this House does not, equally with the Assembly, hold the acknowledged powers which the House of Commons possessed at the time the Constitution Act passed. What, under these circum­stances, has been the practice of this House? For a very long period-in fact ever since this House came into existence under the Constitution Act-the Council have been in the habit of amending all Bills not distinctly Money Bills, and, furthermore, they have, in respect to even Money Bills, amended clauses which did not appropriate money or impose a tax. That has been our practice from the com­mencement down to the present time. Some reference has been made to a return laid before this House in 1867, showing what we had up to that time done in the way of amending Money Bills, and I will mention a few of the measures of the kind which we dealt with in that way. So far back as August, 1857, we amended the Gunpowder Bill, which imposed a rate. In November, 1857, we amended the Rail­way Loan Bill. In June, 1858, we amended a Bill to regulate our sewerage and water supply; and in December of the same year we dealt in the same way with the Spirits -Duty Bill, our amendment then being to insert the words "colonial or imported" before the word" grain," an alteration which actually limited the amount of duty to be levied. The whole of these amendments were agreed to by the Assembly, except in the case of the Sewerage and Water Rates Bill, with re­spect to which the Assembly refused some of our amendments and adopted others. In 1859, we actually amended the sche­dule of the Gunpowder Act Amendment Bill, containing the rates chargeable under the measure, and the alteration was accepted. In 1860, the Speaker of the As­sembly called attention to certain amend­ments made by the Council in the Customs Act Amendment Bill, and objection was taken to an amendment made by us in the 4th clause on the ground that it amounted to a prohibition on oW part against the Assembly fixing and collecting duties for bonded warehouses in other than ware­house ports; but, after the matter had been debated, the Council's amendments were agreed to on !?' division by 19 against 15 votes. That practice appears to have been maintained down to the period when the conference in connexion with the

Waterworks Bill of 1865, to which the Postmaster-General alluded, took place, and never has there been so much har­mony between the Houses as existed at that early period, when both Chambers were graced by the presence of members who had assisted in framing the Consti­tution Act itself, and, knowing what its intentions were, endeavoured to get it honestly carried out without any in­fringement by either side of the rights of the other. I ought to say that neither of the returns of Money Bills amended by the Council which have been placed before us include any Land Bill or Bill relating to gold licences or gold export duty, which it seems are considered as affecting territorial revenue and distinct from Aid or Supply. Also, in no instance do they include a Railway Construction Bill. In fact, the experienced officers of this House who drew up the returns were . fully aware that a Railway Construction Bill is in no way a Money Bill, and there­fore could properly have no place in them. Indeed, it would be a dangerous thing for those who put forth the idea that a Rail­way Construction Bill is a Money Bill to refer to the way in which, during the first year of our constitutional parliamentary existence, the Council dealt with the first measure of the kind ever known in the colony. That Railway Construction Bi~l was referred to a select committee, which took the measure into consideration, and reported on it under the heads "policy," "construction," and "finance." The re­port was adopted, and, upon its recommen­dation, several amendments were made in the Bill, and the Assembly agreed to them. The Railway Loan Bill of that year, under which £8,000,000 was subsequently borrowed, we also amended, and with respect to it I find the following entry in the Assembly's Votes and Proceedings:-

"On the motion of Mr. Ebden, the Assembly agreed to the amendment made by the Legis­lative Council in this Bill, and ordered a message to be transmitted to the Legislative Council_ acquainting them thereof."

The Postmaster-General was particularly erpphatic on the point that we infringed upon the privileges of the Assembly by inserting in the present Bill a provision with the view of taking running powers over the Hobson's Bay line. But I don't see how it is possible for anybody to interpret the clause as compelling the Government to take running powers. This House simply put forth its views to

1154 Railways Bill. [COUNCIL.] Railways Bill.

the Assembly, naturally expecting that they would be fairly received, considered, and debated, and had they been so dealt with such a misapprehension of the inten­tions of the Countlil as the Postmaster­General has expressed could not pdssibly have arisen. The Council's amendment simply says-

"With a view to the exercise of running powers by the Victorian Railways over the rail­way lines of the Melbourne and Hobson's Bay United Railway Company."

That does not compel running powers to be taken, but simply expresses the opinion of this House that that course ought to be adopted. Speaking for myself, I may say that my individual opinion is that, in order to carry out the Council's view, a short Bill would have to be passed. I do not see how the taking of running powers can be legalized unless that is done. We have simply amended the Bill, so as to give expression to the view that, instead of a direct line passing through a com­paratively uninhabited district, the railway from Oakleigh to Melboui'ne ought to run 'Via the populous districts of Cam berwell and Hawthorn. 'Ve state in effect that a large sum o~ money would be saved by the Government merely taking the trouble to pass through Parliament a short Bill enabling them to obtain running powers. That was the intention and wish of this House, and it was well worth considera­tion elsewhere;· but it did not receive consideration elsewhere, and we are un­aware whether, if it had received con­sideration, it might not have been assented to. This Railway Construction Bill is not a Money Bill in any shape. In proof of this assertion I would ask-Supposing this Bill had been introduced before the Bill appropriating money for railway purposes, would any honorable member of the Government or of the other House have been prepared to say it was a Money Bill? Supposing the Government had brought in their Bill to construct rail­ways, with the view of providing after­wards the 1110ney for carrying ·them out, would it then have been called a Money Bill? The second Bill might never have been proceeded with-it might never have been introduced. Even if we pass this Bill, it does not follow that the railways provided for in it will be proceeded with. There is nothing in the measure which makes it obligatory on the Government to carry out any single one of the lines. Acts have already been passed by this

Hon. R. SAnderson.

Parliament which have remained dead letters from the time they were passed until now. I would call the attention of the Postmaster-General to the Act to encourage immigration to this country. That Act was introduced in the other Chamber by myself, and it was passed into law. It was partially brought into operation. A board was established in London, and it was intended by the Act that another board should be established in Melbourne to receive immigrants. At the present time there are thousands of forms lying at the Custom-house, which were printed for the purpose of being sent up country, with the view of obtaining returns from the various shire secretaries, clerks of courts, and other public officials, as to the state of the labour market in various parts of the colony, so that immi­grants, when received by the board in Melbourne, could be sent to those places where they were most needed. The whole machinery of the Act would have been in active operation if the second O'Shan­assy Administration had remained another month in power. They went out of office, and, in consequence, nothing has been done under the Act from that day to this; the Act has remained a dead letter. And if this Bill pass into law, the whole or any part of it may remain a dead letter. Then is not this a proof that in no respect is the measure a Money Bill ? Now the money needed for the railways provided for by this Bill is appropriated by the Act No. 531. The 2nd section of that Act states-

" It shall be lawful for the Governor in Coun­cil from time to time, or at any time, to cause to be made out and issued debentures, secured upon the consolidated revenue of Victoria and the growing produce thereof, for such sum or sums of money, not exceeding £2,500,000 in the whole, as may lUl required for such railway works and other purposes as are set forth in the 2nd schedule hereto." And section 9 provides that-

" All moneys raised under the authority herein contained shall be paid into the public account, and shall be placed to the credit of an accoullt to be kept in the Treasury for such purpose, to be called' The Railway Loan Account 1876,' and shall and may, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, be applied to the purposes mentioned in the 2nd schedule and no other, and in sums not exceeding the amount therein speci­fied respectively."

And if honorable members will turn to the 2nd schedule they will find that of the total amount of the loan £1,300,000 is set apart "for the construction of such State railways and works connected therewith

Railways Bill. [OCTOBER 23.J Railways Bill. 1155

as Parliament may by any Act direct." There is the appropriation. No further Act is required to raise the money, or to deal with it. In the same schedule £500,000 is appropriated for the erection of State school buildings. That money needs no further appropriation; it is now in course of expenditure under the provi­sions of that Act. Then again, that Act appropriates ceFtain money for water­works, which nloney has since been handed over to the local bodies interested under the authority of the measure, and it also provides for the repayment to the consoli­dated revenue of £203,307 previously ex­pended on public works and State schools, and this has since been done. So there is no necessity for any further Act to appropriate money. I repeat that this Bill does not appropriate one shilling of money. ·It cannot appropriate a shilling of money. If it could, it must have been introduced by message, which we know was not the case. I think I have said enough to prove that the Bill is not one which comes within the provisions of the 56th section of the Constitution Act, which is the only section that limits our powers with regard to Bills. And here I think, as a matter of interest, I may call attention to the opinions of two eminent men with regard to a Railway Construc­tion Bill being a Money Bill or not. When

. the Rail way Construction Bill of 1871, amended by the Legislative Council, was returned to the Legislative Assembly, the present Chief Secretary, who was then Treasurer in the Duffy Administration, said-

"If the Bill in its present form is not actually an Appropriation Bill, it would take very little ingenuity to make it an Appropriation Bill, which the Council would not dare to alter. In spirit if not in letter, it is an Appropriation Bill ; and the matter should be dealt with more in the spirit of the Bill than the mere letter."

Sir, each House holds its rights, privileges, and immunities by law. Those rights are legal rights. Does the Chief Secretary think it proper or wise that the Assembly should give up the legal rights possessed by that Chamber? If he does not, why should he expect us to give up the legal rights possessed by this Chamber? We have never attempted to infringe the rights of the other Chamber, and why should ~he other Chamber continually insist upon in­fringing our rights? ""Vith regard to this contention that we should deal with a Bill according to its spirit, and not according to its letter, I say there must be a hard and

fast line drawn as to our rights and privi­leges, and that, as we do not attempt to invade the rights and privileges of the other Chamber, we are entitled to the same consideration from that body. The other gentleman to whom I refer as having expressed an opinion whether a Railway Construction Bill is a Money Bill or not occupies, at present, the position of Speaker of the Legislative Assembly-a position which imposes upon him the dut.y of stating the law on the question if he is consulted on the point. During the debato I have already alluded to, Sir James McCulloch had stated-

" The honorable member knows full well that any imerference with a Bill of this kind, if a Money Bills"--

when he was interrupted by Sir Gavan (then Mr.) Dllffy with the statement-"It is not a Money Bill." But if a Railway Construction Bill is not a Money Bill how are we infringing the rights and privileges of the Legislative Assembly by the amend­ments which we have made? I will not further take up the time of the House, but I will now move, as an amendment on the question before the chair-

"That this House has taken into consideration the message from the Legislative Assembly re­turning the Bill intituled 'an Act to authorize the construdion of certain lines of railway by the State,' and disagreeing with the amendments made therein by the Legislative Council because they are infractions of the privileges of the Le­gislative Assembly, inasmuch as they would in their consequences lay a charge upon the people.

"That the Legislative Council is always de­sirous of joining the Legislative Assembly in passing measures for advancing the best in­terests of the colony, including the opening up of the country by railways.

"That the Legislative Council is prepared at all times to treat with the respect due to the other branch of the Legislature any objections which may be urged by the latter to amend­ments made in Bills by the Legislative Council ; and it would have been an assistance in consi­dering this question if the grounds had been more specifically set forth for alleging that amending any part of a Railway Construction Bill was an infraction of the privileges conferred by the ConstitQ.tion Act upon the Legislative Assembly.

" That the Legislative Council return to the Legislative Assembly the Bill to authorize the construction of certain lines of railway hy the State, and insists upon its amendments therein."

The Hon. F. S. DOBSON.-Sir, after the able speech we have jnst heard in defence of the privileges of this House, but little remains to be said from a legal point of view, and yet it is principally with that object that I rise to offer a few observations. Although some persons

1156 Railways Bill. [COUNCIL.} Railways Bill.

seem to imagine that the Constitution Act ought to be read in a somewhat different light and on somewhat different principles from any other Act, yet after all we are reduced to a dry legal question of con­struction. The difficulty has arisen chief! y from this House having unfortunately, in its early days, adopted to a certain extent the procedure of the House of Lords. We vote by "Contents" and" Not-contents," instead of "Ayes" and "Noes;" and in one or two similar matters analogy may be drawn between the proceedings and practice of this House and the pro­ceedings and practice of the House of Lords. But when we come to look into the legal basis on which we stand, we find that, unlike the House of Lords, whose privileges are the remnant of struggles with the Commons of England, we have privileges defined-legal rights one iota of which we cannot be deprived of without legislation in this colony, which must be approved of by Her Majesty. There are only four sections of the Constitution Act which seem to bear on the question now before the House. Section 44, which provides for the formation of the consoli­dated revenue, it is not necessary to trouble the House with further than the mention of the fact that it contains the word "Legislature" instead of "Assembly." Section 55 provides that the consolidated revenue shall be applied" to such specific purposes as by any Act of the said Legis­lature shall be provided in that behalf." Then we come to the single restrictive clause in the Act (section 56) which limits our powers, and, in so far as it goes, places us in a:q inferior position to the Assembly with regard to two classes of Bills. The one class of Bills are those "for appro­priating any part of the revenue," re­ferred to in sections 44 and 55; the other class are those "for imposing any duty, rate, tax, rent, return, or impost." Lastly, we have the 57th section, which says that all Bills which are included in the 56th section must be originated by a message from the Governor. N ow we have to consider whether this Bill was originated by a message from the Go­vernor, though that is not sufficient to preclude us from amending it, because a Ministry might be able to induce the Governor to originate by message a Bill which does not fall within the terms of the 56th section. We may fairly conclude that when a Bill is introduced without a message from the Governor, it clearly

Hon. F. S. Dobson.

does not fall within the limits of section 56; and that if it is originated by mes­sage it may fall within the limits of section 56, but not necessarily. Now there can be no pretence for saying that this Bill imposes" any duty, rate, tax, rent, return, or impost." Therefore the only question which remains is-Does it appropriate revenue? Mr. Anderson has pointed out so clearly whence the money is derived which will be expended on these railways that it is unnecessary for me to go into that matter. It cannot be argued by any one who has the slightest knowledge of the English language, apart from technical legal knowledge, that this Bill is an Appro­priation Bill. The money for the proposed railways was provided by the Railway Loan Act of 1876. The maximum amount which can be expended on those railways is there fixed; and the measure also pro­vides that-

"Before any expenditure shall be made 01' contract entered into for the construction of such rail ways and other works or the purchase of land, an estimate of the expenditure which the Board of Land and vVorks proposes to incur for the said purposes during -the ensuing twelve months, and also a statement showing the works or purposes for or in respect of which the moneys during the preceding year may have been ap­plied, shall be laid before both Houses of Par­liament, and the aforesaid estimate shall be submitted for the sanction of the Legislative Assembly in the same manner as the annual Estimates of Expenditure for the public ser-vice." -

Here then we have a sum of money raised under the authority of the Railway Loan Act of 1876, which Act imposes a charge upon the country, because, from the mo­ment the money is raised, the Assembly has to provide the funds for paying the interest on the loan, and meeting the debentures as they fall due. But this Bill is simply a sort of detailed arrangement of the mode in which the money already borrowed and appropriated is to be ex­pended. I submit that it does not appro­priate one farthing. Can it be said that this Bill provides for a sort of second or minor appropriation-that -money having been once appropriated, a further Act is re­quired to appropriate that which is already appropriated?

Mr. CUTHBERT.-Yes. Dr. DOBSON.-I can see no reason

for such a course; nor does the Bill in its terms express that that is its object. It simply decides that certain railways shall be constructed between certain points for the money already raised; and, if any

'Railways Bill.

further money is needed and has to be borrowed, the sanction of Parliament will have to be obtained before one single shil­ling of that money is raised or expended for making railways. As was pointed out by the Chief Secretary, during the debate in another place, it is in the power of the Government not to make a single line of railway provided for in the Bill. It is not a compulsory Bill; it is simply an enabling Bill. It is a Bill "to authorize the con­struction of certain lines of railway by the State." There is nothing cOlllpulsory in the measure. The Chief Secretary states that it is within the power of any Government which lllay be in office during the next 50 years to decline making any of the lines. . Where then is the appro­priation? I fail to see it. With regard to the powers of this House correspond­ing with the powers of the House of Lords, I regret to observe that an honor­able gentleman in another place, who speaks with all the authority of one who has held a prominent position as a 1YIinis­ter of the Crown in this colony, is re­ported to have said--

The PRESIDENT.-I mllEt ask the honorable member not to quote fiom de­bates in another place.

Dr. DOBSON. - I understood Mr. Anderson to quote the opinion of Sir Gavan Duffy.

The PRESIDENT.-The honorable member is at liberty to refer to something as having occurred in another place, but he is not at liberty to read speeches.

Dr. DOBSON.-I understand that, in a recent debate in another place, it was mentioned that a conference held some years since resulted in the adoption by this House of a resolution that our powers with regard to Bills generally were those of the House of Lords~that we consented to restrict the powers conferred upon us by the Constitution Act, and to insist only upon those exercised and enjoyed by the House of Lords with regard to the House of Commo~s. N ow in looking pretty carefully through the proceedings of this House, the only ground I can find for such a remark is the following state­ment contained in a . minute addressed by Sir James. McCulloch to Governor Vis­count Canterbury on the 22nd August, 1867 :-

" On the 9th day of April, in the present year, the Legislative Council invited the Legislative Assembly to a conference on the subject in dis­pute. The invitation was accepted. The result

Railways Bill. 1157

was the following resolution, arrived at unani­mously by the committees of both Houses-

"'That inasmuch as doubts have arisen re­specting the form or contents of and 'practice relating to Bills required by the 56th section of the Constitution Act to originate in the Legis­lative Assembly, this House is of opinion .that the practice of the Lords and Commons respec­tively be observed as to such Bills, and as to all subjects of Aid and Supply, and that each House be guided in all matters and forms relating thereto by the precedents established by the House of Lords and by the Bouse of Commons respectively.' "

Mr. ANDERSON. - The resolution was never passed by this House.

Dr. DOBSON.-It appears that the committees appointed by the two Houses came to that resolution among themselves, but the resolution never received the sanc­tion of this House. The committee made their report, but the resolution at which they arrived did not receive the approval of this House. Consequently, it is in no way binding upon the House. Under these circumstances, we have only to fall back upon the 56th section of the Con­stitution Act, the construction of which 'seems to be beyond a doubt. N ow it is very strange that the mef3sage which the Assembly have thought fit to send to this House does not contain a single word em­braced in the 56th section. All that it says is that the Council's amendments in the Bill will "in their consequences lay a charge upon the people." N ow the gentlemen who framed the resolution on which the message is based must have had in their minds the section of the Consti­tution' Act which draws such a distinction between the privileges of this House and those of the Assembly, and yet the words which they have used are not in that sec­tion at all. It seems preposterous that this House should tolerate for a moment such a barefaced infraction of its privi­leges. The Assembly put a gloss on the 56th section, they contend that we have infringed the Constitution Act, and then they go outside that Act and object to our amendments on the ground that they will "in their consequences lay a charge upon the people." Why, .the next time they may object to amendments which we may think fit to make 011 the ground of "in­convenience." Where are we to stop? I say let us stick by our charter. We can read it as well as honorable members of another place. Probably it has been thought desirable by some persons to in­cite a con:Bict between the two Houses, put it is for those who commence such

1158 Railways Bill. [COUNCIL.] Railways Bill.

proceedings to get out of them as they can. The Postmaster·Genem1 suggests that we should propose a conference; but I regard the suggestion as monstrous, seeing that we have been wantonly at­tacked. Are we to bow down and put our neck under the feet of these kings ? I pity the Postmaster-General for the humiliating position he has taken up this afternoon, asking this House to surren­uer its well-known privileges-·privileges which, as a lawyer, he must be pretty cer­tain we possess. My desire is that I shall be able to resign my seat to my successor with the privileges of this House not dimi­nished one iota. This is not the first time we have had these squabbles. They ought to have been settled long ago, and parti­ClIlarly as, by precedent after precedent, our privileges have been admitted. In several instances, in addition to those men­tioned by Mr. Anderson, have our privi­leges been asserted. Who was it insisted that a double line of rails should be laid down on the Sandhurst Railway instead of a single line? Why this House. Was there not an increased expenditure in­volved in that? Why the expenditure must have been increased by 25 per cent., if not more. It stands to reason that the expenditure must have been seriously in­creased. Then as to the broad gauge, a great point has been made in another plac3 that the Council's amendment with respect to that matter was not assented to by the Assembly in 1871 ; but in the very next session the Assembly adopted it. Then, agnia, the Creswick deviation of 1871 involved an additional expenditure. That was accepteJ by the Assembly as being an alternative line, not a new line. It seems to me the Council's amendment with regard to the Goulburn Valley Rail­way may be regarded in the same light­as an alternative line. Moreover, it is the original proposal of the Government. It was contained in the Bill as originally introduced to and read a second time in another place, and was abandoned for a line on the eastern side of the Goulburn after a hurried inspection by the Minister of Railways. We made that amendment on the strength of the evidence taken at the bar of this Chamber, and yet another place will not pay us the compliment to consider it. They say-" We will not allow you to touch it." The Minister of Justice coolly says this, as a lawyer, in the teeth of the de­cision of his own Speaker, for which there is warrant in precedent after precedent.

Hon. F. S. Dobson.

I think the difficulty has arisen in con­sequence of the use of the term "Money Bill." The term should be "Revenue Bill," which would correspond with the language of section 57 of the Constitution Act. The term" Money Bill," according to the par­liamentary law of England, has a signifi­cant meaning; and, when a Money Bill is . in question, the power of the House of Lords is extremely limited. But section 57 of the Constitution Act says nothing about Money Bills. However, what are really Revenue Bills have uniformly been talked of as Money Bills, and we must take them as such. In conclusion, I desire to say that I came here to-night to hear the question of privilege fairly debated; and I find the Postmaster· General pre­pared to give up the whole question, in order that the Government railway policy may not be disturbed. But I care not for the question of railway policy; I say we cannot stultify ourselves. There has been no attempt.on the part of another place to show where our amendments are defec­tive. If such an attempt had been made, I would have been willing to listen to any argument. I am not prepared to say that Hawthorn is the best junction that can be made for the purpose of connecting Oak leigh with Melbourne; but. it seems to me the best that can be made accord­ing to the evidence. I am perfectly will­ing to listen to any suggestion on that head, or indeed to any other suggestion, that may come from another place. But I will not consent to go down on my knees and humbly ask the other House graciously to permit us to consider the question, after they have made the attack they have upon us.

The Hon. W. WILSON.-I regret very much that the question of privilege should have been started at all in connexion with this Bill; and I can only account for the measure being returned with such a mes­sage as the one that has been sent to us on the supposition that there has been some mistake-that the Assembly did not mean it. I think that they meant to in­form us that they consider the amendment relative to taking running powers over the Hobson's Bay Railway is an infraction of the privileges of the Assembly,' but not that any of the other amendments made by the Council are an infringement of the Assembly's privileges. I gather from the tone of the Postmaster-General's remarks that such is also his impression, and I am Rorry the Assembly have not clearly

Mining on Private [OCTOBER 23.J Property Bill. 1159

stated so, inasmuch as the opportunity would then have been presented to this Chamber of asking for a conference with the other House. Under the circum­stances, however, it is altogether out of our power to ask for a conference to discuss the rights and privileges of the Council in connexion with this Bill. I sincerely trust that the Bill will not be altogether lost for the session under the flimsy plea of privilege. If the Assembly insist upon that course they will present a spectacle which will remind one of a story about the etiquette of the court of Spain. The Queen of that country accidentally fell into the fire, and she was allowed to remain there until she was almost burnt to death, because the particular person whose duty it was to attend upon her Majesty happened not to be persent to remove her. I hope that the districts which require railway accommodation will not be de­prived of that accommodation from any desire on the part of the Assembly to pick a quarrel with this House on the ground of privilege. In making this remark I can­not be accused of offering any factious oppo­sition to the railway proposals submitted by the Government, because I supported them as far as I possibly could. I hope that, when the Bill is returned to the Assembly, they will send up a message intimating that they desire to have a con­ference, and that they will not persist in their cry of privilege. I was glad to hear the concise and intelligent reasons given by Mr. Anderson in support of the pro­posal which he has submitted, and I think it is a pity that Dr. Dobson did not adopt the same line of argument. There is nothing to be gained by stirring up strife. The proper way for the Council to act is to manifest a courteous and conciliatory disposition, while adhering firmly to its rights and privileges. The difficulties which have arisen in connexion with this Bill will act as a warning to the Council not in future to pass any measure autho­rizing the Ministry of the day to borrow a large sum of money for railway extension unless there is a schedule attached to the measure showing how the money is to be expended. We will certainly have to guard our privileges in that way, if it is contended that a Railway Construction Bill is a Money Bill, and that the Council have, therefore, no power to alter it, but must either pass or reject it. I trust that

. the House will unanimously adopt the proposal submitted by Mr. Anderson, and

I feel quite satisfied that it must meet with the approval of the Postmaster-General.

The proposal for insisting upon the Council's amendments was carried with­out a division.

On the motion of Mr. ANDERSON, the following members were appointed a select committee to prepare reasons for insisting on the amendments :-The Hon­orables the President, F. S. Dobson, W. Highett, F. T. Sargood, J. Graham, N. Fitzgerald, J. Balfour, and R. S. Anderson.

MINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BILL.

The Hon. H. CUTHBERT.-Mr. President, I beg to move the second read­ing of the Bill "to provide 'for mining for gold and silver on private property." Measures having the same object in view have been sent up to the Council year after year,. and have been treated in a very summary manner. Up to the present, at all events, no Bill to provide for mining on private property has re­ceived the sanction of this House. With­out going back to an earlier period, I may state that during the time I have been a member of this House a Mining on Pri­vate Property Bill has been sent to us in three successive sessions, and on each occasion it failed to become law. On the last occasion, immediately on the House going into committee, after reading the Bill a second time, a motion was carried for the Chairman to leave the chair, and thus the measure was shelved. Circum­stances have altered very much since then. At that time many honorable mem­mel'S opposed the measure because they believed that it interfered with the rights of the owners of property. They were up.der the impression that when the land was sold by the Crown the gold went with the soil; but that delusion has, I hope, been completely dispelled. I trust that honorable members have now come to the conclusion that the gold in private lands belongs to the Crown. The Privy Council have so determined, and I sup­pose that we are not going to set up our opinion as superior to the judgment of that tribunal. Dr. Dobson, who was one of the strongest opponents of the last Mining on Private Property Bill, declared that if the Privy Council decided that the gold did not belong to the owner of the soil he would change the view that he had hitherto entertained in regard to a measure of this character, and that he

1160 Mining on Private [COUNCIL.] Property Bilt.

would assist in passing a fair and proper measure for mining on private land.

Dr. DOBSON.-Hear, hear. Mr. CUTI-IBERT.-I therefore claim

the honorable member's vote in favour of this Bill.

Dr. DOBSON.-No. Mr. CUTHBERT.-The present Bill

is a very short one, and remarkable for its simplicity. At the same time it is a useful and practical measnre, and deals with the subject in a comprehensive way. It applies to mining on private property all the laws now in existence relating to' mining on Crown lands. I will briefly explain the provisions of the measure. The 2nd clause enacts that-

"It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council, in the name and on behalf of Her Ma­jesty, from time to time, and for all persons by him authorized, to enter into and upon the pri­vate land of any person whomsoever, for the purpose of mining for gold thereon or therein."

There is an important proviso to the clause which declares that no mining shall take place on any private land until the compensation provided for by a sub­sequent part of the measure is paid to the owner. Clause 3 provides that notice shall be given to the owner and occupier of any lands entered upon, or to be entered upon, for mining purposes; and the next clause empowers the Minister adminis­tering the Act to treat with the owner and occupier as to the amount of compen­sation to be paid to them for the right to mine upon the land. . Compensation is to be given not only for surface damage, but for all damage inciden tally arising from mining operations being carried on. Should the parties not come to terms with the Minister, within one month, as to the amount of compensation to be paid, the owner may proceed before a warden of the gold-fields, or in the Court of Mines, in order to get the question determined.

, There is therefore an easy mode provided, by resort to a tribunal already in existence, for the purpose of settling the question of compensation in cases where a mutual agree­ment cannot be come to. If the compensa­tion claimed be under £J 00, the owner of the land will probably take the case before the warden, but if it be over £100 he will no doubt go before the Court of Mines, where the question can be settled either by the judge alone, or by the judge and assessors. With respect to costs, it is provided that if the compensation awarded be not less than one-fourth of the amount

claimed the owner shall be entitled to costs as against the Minister, but if it be less than one-fourth of the amount claimed the Minister shall be entitled to his costs. If the owner fails to proceed with his claim for three months the Minister is to appoint a board, consisting of a warden and two other persons, to fix the amount of compensation to be paid by the person who desires to obtain a lease to mine upon the land, and such amount is to be paid to the Minister, to be held by him in trust for the owner or occupier, and if not claimed within six years it is then to be paid into the consolidated revenue. A very important condition is contained in clause 6. It is made a sine qua non that the compensation must be paid down before any lease is granted. Clause 7 describes how the notices required by the measure are to be served, and clause 8 gives the Governor in Council power to grant leases for mining on private land, but by clause 9 it is not obligatory to grant any appli­cation. If, however, any application for a lease is refused the applicant is en­titled to be informed of the reasons for. such refusal. It would be inco~sistent with the spirit of the measure, which is based on the principle that the g'old in private lands belongs to the Crown, that existing contracts for mining on private property, which have been entered into without the sanction of the Crown, should be legalized by the Bill; but, in order to prevent any hardship arising in such cases, an effective mode is provided whereby existing rights as between landholders and their lessees may be amicably settled. Where bona fide mining operations are being carried on on any land at the time that the mea­sure come~ into operation, the lessor and the lessee, or, in other words, the owner of the land and the party mining upon it, may make a joint application for a lease, and that application is to have priority over all others. The opponents of the Bill may say that this will not have the de­sired effect-that in the event of either the landowner or the miner considering the terms of their present arrangement disadvantageous they will not be likely to agree together to make an application for a joint lease. I may here observe, paren­thetically, that in most of the existing agreements for mining on private property there is a provision to the effect that as soon as any Bill for regulating mining on private property becomes law, the agree­ment from that time shall be null and

Mining on rrivate [OCTOBER 23.J Prope'J'ty Bill. 1161

void. In cases in which either of the parties are not satisfied with their present arrangement they will have a common interest in endeavouring to reconcile their differences and apply for a joint lease-a common apprehension of danger will in­duce them to do so-because, if they do not do so, a third party may step in and obtain a lease to mine upon the land, as the Bill provides that priority shall be given to the application for a joint lease only if it is made within three months of the passing of the measure. As there is nothing to prevent the landowner applying for a lease at the outset, on his own ac­count, and nothing to prevent the tenant applying for a lease also, it may pe asked how, if they cannot agree to make a joint application, are their differences to be reconciled? "VeIl, it will be in the power of the Minister, as I read the Bill, to say to the parties-" I will adjourn the case for a month; in the meantime you had better settle your differences, and apply for a joint lease, for, if you do not, I shall probably refuse a lease to either of you." The rights of persons who may have bought land with the view to mine upon it are fully secured by the Bill, for the latter portion of the 9th clause states that where bona fide mining operations are being carried on the owner of the land alone may' make application for a lease, and that such application shall have priority.

Mr. FITZGERALD.-And it may be refused.

Mr. W. WILSON.-Why not distinctly legalize all existing contracts for mining on private property?

Mr. CUTHBERT.-Because to do so would be inconsistent with the spirit of the Bill.· Clause 10 provides that no lease shall be granted until the expiration of one month after notice of the intention to grant the same shall have been published in the Governm.ent Gazette, and in some newspaper published in the district within which the land sought to be leased is situ­ated; and the 11 th clause provides that the term of a lease shall not exceed fifteen years, and that the rent charged shall not be more than 1 s. per acre per annum. This shows that the object of the Go­vernment is not to put any impediment in the way of mining. Clause 12 provides that any lease shall be liable to be for­feited for breach of covenant; and the next clause gives power to the Governor in Gouncil to frame regulations for carrying

VOL. XXVI.-4 P

the measure into effect. Clause 14 re­quires the regulations to be published in the Government Gazette, and provides that they shall not have any force until the ex­piration of twenty-one days after such pub­lication. By clause 15 all the provisions of

. the Mining Statute, 1865, relating to mining for gold on Crown lands, and the jurisdiction of the wardens and Courts of Mines are extended and made applicable to the case of mining on private lands. Clause 16 exempts certain lands, such as gardens, orchards, and lands upon which houses are erected, from mining operations, ex­cept with the consent of the owner. The next clause provides that where mining operations commenced under any lease issued under the measure shall have wholly ceased for a period of two years, it shall be lawful for the Governor in Council to authorize the owner of the land to re­enter and take possession of the surface; and the 18th clause, which is the last clause in the Bill, provides that, on the expiration of six months after the mea­sure comes into operation, any person who takes gold from private land not held under a lease shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. As I have already stated, the Bill renders all the machinery of the Mining Statute 1865, which experience has proved to work well, applicable to mining on private lands. In order to determine the amount of compensation to be paid to the owner of an.y private land for permis­sion to mine thereon, instead of having to resort to the vexatious and expensive provisions or the Lands Compensation Statute, an old and inexpensive tribunal, with which the mining community are perfectly familiar, is substituted, namely, the wardens and Courts of Mines. I need not point out to honorable mem­bers that there is great necessity for a Bill of this character. It is very desirable that it should be passed into law as speedily as possible. The mining indus­try of Victoria is flagging, and many of our miners have been compelled to seek employment in other colonies. It is esti­mated that the area of auriferous land in this colony is something like 24,000,000 acres, of which it is supposed that not less than 4,000,000 acres belong to pri­vate owners. In many instances the terms demanded by landowners for per­mission to mine on their property are very excessive, and hence the necessity for a law to regulate mining on private property. Moreover, it has now been

1162 Mining on Private [COUNCIL.] P1'operty Rill.

clearly estahlished, beyond all doubt, that the gold in private lands belongs to the Crown, and therefore there is no excuse for delaying legislation on the subject any longer. This measure protects the rights of all parties interested in the question. The owner of the soil will get ample com­pensation for all injury done to his pro­perty-to the surface of the land-by mining operations taking place upon it, and what more can he expect? He can­not expect to derive any advantage from the gold beneath the surface, because it does 'not belong to him. The subject has been almost worn threadbare in previous debates, and therefore I will not weary the House by discussing it at greater length. In conclusion I will say that of all the measures for legalizing mining on private property that have come before Parliament, the one which I now ask the House to read a second time is the safest

'and most comprehensive. The Hon. N. FITZGERALD.-I rise

to support the motion for the second reading of this Bill; at the same time, I wish to guard myself against being sup­posed to approve of many of its provisions. I agree with the Postmaster-General, that it is extremely desirable that a law regu­lating mining on private property should be passed, but I do nO.t share the opinion that there is any vast area of auriferous land in this colony unexplored, or that the mining population have suffered through any grasping tendency on the part of the owners of supposed auriferous private lands. I am only aware of one case in my experience in which a landowner has refused to allow mining operations to take place on his land upon fair terms. This House cannot justly be accused of not wishing to pass a measure for regulating mining on private property, although it has no doubt rejected a Mining on Private Property Bill session after session, because the measure which it refused to pass last session was identically the same as the ones that it rejected in previous years. It is playing with legislation, if not in­tentionally insulting the Council, for the Government of the day to send up ses­sion after session the same Bill which this House previously rejected for what seemed to it to be good and sufficient reasons. The present measure possesses two advantages over any of the Mining on Private Property Bills that have preceded it,' namely, that it establishes the incon­trov,ertible fact that the gold in private

land belongs to the Crown, and that be­fore any person can search for gold on private land he must pay ample compen­sation to the owner of the land not only for surface damage but for consequential damages. I am sorry to say, however, there are very grave objections to the Bill. I ask the Postmaster-General why he has not laid on the table the regulations to be framed by the Governor in Council for carrying out the provisions of the measure. On former occasions this House has ob­jected to deal with a Bill on this subject unless the regulations were incorporated with the measure. The regulations, which may be of the most sweeping character, are to be published in the Gazette after the Bill is passed, and this House is to have no voice whatever in regard to them. Is this just or fair? Is this the spirit in which the Council ought to be approached when it is asked to legislate on this im­portant subject? I think honorable mem­bers will agree with me that when a Bill empowers the Ministry of the day to frame important regulations-regulations which may virtually amount to fresh legislation -we ought to insist that they shall be part ;tnd parcel of the measure. I give the Postmaster-General warning that, as far as I am concerned, I will not deal with this Bill in committee until the re­gulations which are to be framed under it are laid on the table, so that we can see how far the Government intend, by the regulations, to alter or twist the mean­ing and intention of the Act. The Min­ister of Mines promised that before the Bill left the Assembly the regulations would be submitted to that House. I don't know whether the promise was fulfilled or not; but, if it was, there is certainly no reason why the regulations should not also have been laid before the Council. The power given to the Min­ister to interfere between parties to exist­ing contracts, in cases where they do not mutually agree, are neither fair nor rea­sonable. Moreover is not such a power opposed to the real principle upon which this House is founded, namely, to con­serve existing rights, unless it can be shown that some injustice will be perpe­trated by doing so? If I understand the Bill, the Minister may refuse to grant a lease to the landowner and the persons at present mining upon the land, even when both parties to the contract agree to make a joint application.

Mr. CUTHBERT.-No.

Mining on PJ:ivate [OCTOBER 23. ] Property' Bill. 1163

Mr. FITZGERALD.-That certainly appears to be the case, for the marginal note of the 9th clause is-" Not obli­gatory to grant a lease." Even when the parties agree and go before the Minister he may still refuse them a lease.

Mr. CUTHBERT.-That is not the intention.

Mr. FITZGERALD.-I presume the Postmaster-General would not wish the Minister to refuse a lease under such cir­cumstances, but nevertheless that might be done. Have not the parties to existing contracts for mining on private property entered into them with their eyes open, and does not fair dealing between man and man· demand that they should be give~ effect to? To show the necessity for dealing fairly with existing contracts, I may mention that at Sandhurst alone there are over 30 freehold properties .on which mining is carried on, and at Clunes there are over 1,000 miners working on tribute, the majority of them being employed on private lands. The enormity of the inter­ests concerned in mining on private lands cannot be ascertained without relegating this Bill to a select committee. At pre­sent the honorable member in charge of the measure is in great darkness on the subject. .1 really do not think he can imagine that this House will sanction the Minister of Mines having a power to upset the enormous vested interests in connexion with existing contracts for mining on pri­vate property. For the House to do so would be to act contrary to all its traditions and to all equity and justice. It is more than probable that the Bill will be referred to a select committee, and, no doubt after the evidence which will be taken by the committee, the House will be prepared to deal with the subject in a fair and just spirit, and pass a measure which will settle the question for some time to come. I believe there are few members of the House who still- think that the gold in private lands belongs to the owner of the soil. That question must be regarded as definitely settled, and therefore the House can ap­proach the consideration of a Mining on Private Property Bill with greater free­dom than it has hitherto done. :,: hope, however, that this measure will be amended so as to take care that the regulations framed under it are not inconsistent with the scope and intention of the Bill, that improper power is not placed in the hands of the Minister of Mines, and that existing rights are conserv~d by the legalization of

41'2

contracts for mining on private property entered into before a certain time. I hold that the parties who entered into contracts for mining upon private property under the circumstances I have described have a right to' our consideration, and to their bargains being recognised; but, in order to prevent the legalization of any collusive agreements, I would not consent to the validation of any contract that was not entered into prior to the time the decision of the Privy Council that the gold in private lands belongs to the Crown was made known in this country. To give to the Minister of Mines the sweeping powers'

. in the matter with which the Bill would endow him is more than the country ex-­pects at our hands. I would rather see the Bill waste paper than sacrifice the, existing rights of a large class in the' country, and, under the pretence of right­ing the poor man, do a vast amount of wrong and injustice. I know, moreover; that in many existing contracts for mining on private property the miners have a dis,;" tinct advantage over the landowner; and I would never be a party to allowing the latter to take advantage of the change in the law in order to get better terms, or to let his ground to a third party. I have no faith that if we open the door to transactions o( that sort there will be no effort on the part of the owners of the property concerned. to enter in at it. Besides, who would be the sufferer under. such an arrangement? The poor man, of. course. I assert that if the Bill does not become law it will not be the fault of this House. At the same time we have no right, in order to get a Mining on Private Property Bill passed, to do a great wrong by letting the thing become law in its present shape. Why should existing con­tracts, which were entered into fairly and openly, and under which all the parties concerned are working together in perfect harmony, be disturbed? Why should the cupidity of anyone of them be excited by the idea-" Now we have a chance of up­setting the arrangement we have entered into and of getting improved terms"? Supposing the Bill as it stands were law, and the landlord of a mine were to say to those working it under a contract to which both parties formerly agreed-" I won't' join you in going to the Minister for a lease unless you pay me £5,000." Is not that precisely the kind of proceeding that might be expected from any landlord whose property, being held upon a short

1164 Mining on Private, CCOUNCIL.J Property Bill.

lease, suddenly improved in value to the holder? Again, what further object would be gained by giving the Minister of Mines the enormous powers the Bill proposes to endow him with? Is he to be put to all the trouble of making arrange­ments in every case of mining upon pri­vate property simply in order that his self-importance may be aggrandized? Wha,t knowledge of any such matter will he have beyond that supplied him by his officers ? Let him be the most honest man in the world, he cannot be expected to always do justice. Supposing his strong tendency to be in favour of assisting the poor man, that would not help precisely to lead him to conclusions based on a Bense of fairness and impartiality. When formerly a contract for mining on private property was entered into, was not the thing, done with the tacit consent of the Crown? Has not the Attorney-General, in order that the claims of persons inte­rested in mining on private property should receive justice at the hands of the law, over and over again waived the right of the Crown to the gold? Will this House be a party to depriving men of the advantages derivable by them from con­tracts entered into under the sanction of law? The Council is asked to concede altogether too much. I tell the Post­master-General that he will not be a bit more fortunate than his predecessors with respect to carrying a Mining on Private Property Bill, unless he is prepared to submit to a considerable restriction of the powers the Government propose to place in the hands of the Minister of Mines, and to deal justly with the parties to existing mining on private property con­tracts.

The Hon. R. S. ANDERSON.-I would not 'rise to speak on the present question but for the statement that has been made in this Chamber to the effect that the former Mining on Private Pro­Perty Bills, introduced here of late years, did not contain provisions for granting compensation to the owners of land mined upon equal to those comprised in this Bill. I beg to remind honorable members that those Bills-or rather that Bill, for they were all alike-went even further in that direction than the present measure. They actually provided that £50 should be deposited by those applying for permission to mine before the ground they proposed to work could be ent.ered upon at all; and that if it turned out that the application

was oue that ought not to have been made the expenses to which the owner of the property had been put to in the matter must be recouped. to him out of that deposit. Furthermore, they directed that in case the report of the warden on an application were such as to justify the issue of a lease, the amount of compensation to be paid to the owner was to be determined, if the sum claimed was under £200, before a police magistrate, or, if the amount went beyond that sum, before arbitrators appointed under the existing law to determine the value of land compulsorily taken up for railway or other kindred purposes. All that had to be arranged and settled before a spade could be put into the ground. Now the' measure before us does not go nearly as far as that. At the same time I don't hesitate to say that I think the present Bill may be made better and more suitable for the purpose in view than any of its predecessors; and inasmuch as I have always supported the principle that the gold in the soil belongs to the Crown, and that mining on private property ought to be legalized, I shall support its second reading. Many of its provisions must, however, be amended before it can become law. First of all, something must be done about the regulations under the measure. This House formerly refused to stir an inch with respect to a Mining on Private Property Bill until the regulations under it were on the table, and I do not suppose that that demand, which former Govern­ments had to concede, will be abated on the present occasion. Clause 8 proposes to give enormous powers to the' Minister of Mines, and I think we ought to know exactly their scope and extent before we consent to his having them. I am also of ' opinion that the Minister occupies a need­lessly prominent position in the measure. For instance, why should the compensa­tion to be paid to the landlord pass through the Minister's hands? What useful pur­pose will that arrangement serve? I think it decidedly objectionable. Again, under the Bill the amount of compensation to be paid will be awarded by persons whose feelings will probably be engaged on one side or the other instead of perfectly indifferent parties. In fact so many amendments have to be made in the Bill that I think it will be best, when we have read it a second time, to send it to a select committee. I am satisfied that if we take that course the committee will use expe­dition sufficient to enable it to become law

Mining on PrivattJ [OCTOBER 23.] Property Bill. . 1165

this session. I hope to see the question settled this session.

The'Hon. J. A. WALLACE.-I sup­port the second reading of the Bill, but I will not take up honorable members' time by discussing its merits, because it is my intention to move that it be referred to a select committee. I am sure the House will not pass the Bill as it stands.

The Hon. R. SIMSON.-When the Postmaster-General moved the second reading of this Bill, he praised it as a Mining on Private Property Bill that was far superior to any of its predecessors; but when I compare it with any of the similar Bills we have had before us of, late years, I find that they were compre­hensive measures, which contained within themselves all that was necessary for their working, while this is only a skeleton Bill, the main object of which is to leave every possible thing to the discretion of the Minister of Mines. It is a Bill for the Minister and him alone, and not for either the property owner or the working miner. When the last Bill on the same subject was before us I said that if the Privy Council decided that the gold in private lands belonged to the Crown, I would vote for it, and if the same mea­sure were before us now I would keep my promise; but for me to vote for the pre­sent Bill is quite another affair. I object to everything being left to any Minister. Let honorable members recollect that taking up private land for a railway is to devote it to a public purpose, ,but to take land from one private person in order that another private person may rent it for mining purposes for 1 s. per acre per an­num is something quite different.

An HONORABLE MEl\IBER.-What is the difference, if the owner gets compen­sation?

Mr. SIMSON.-No amount of money can compensate a man for the loss of land in which his feelings are interested. Nevertheless, I am willing to give up my views, if mining on private property can be arranged for in a just and statesman­like manner. Can this Bill be said to be just and statesmanlike? Former Mining on Private Property Bills declared that certain lands could not be mined upon, but in this Bill there is no limitation on that point whatever. Under it a miner may go right up to the walls of a wool­shed or the margin of . a sheep-wash, and so on, and commence his work. There is I no protection to propertl in th~ Pl!3asure.

It is simply a clap-trap affair, got up to please the public taste at the present mo­ment. Are those who bought their land in a public auction-room, at the direct invitation of the Crown, to receive no consideration? If the Bill passes we shall have to esta­blish an English dictionary exclusively for Victoria, in order that the word" free­hold" may mean here what it means in no other country on the face of the earth. Everywhere else the word "freehold" means an absoh~te right in land, but it seems that in Victoria it is to mean a con­ditional right ill land which is enjoyed by one man until some one else wants it. I believe there is still a great deal to be said in favonr of the gold in land belong­ing to the owner of the surface, and that bad the question been differently argued before the Privy Council that tribunal would have given a different decision. However, it is too late to go into that now. I find that the Bill as it stands provides that the regulations under it have only, in order to become law, to be published in the Government Gazette, because, after that is done, neither House can have of itself anything to say to them. Now I am here to state that never again will I consent to an arrangement of that sort. If the Bill is a crying necessity, let it contain all the legislation on the subject of mining on private property that is wanted; What portion of the community asks for a Mining on Private Property Bill which contains no regula­tions for its working? Why should wo pass the measure without the regulations, which, by-and-by, the Postmaster-Genera.l will probably tell us he has had all the time ill his portfolio?

Mr. CUTHBERT.-Here are regula­tions. Perhaps honorable members will incorporate them in the Bill when it is in committee.

Mr. SIMSON.-I shall be happy to assist in putting proper regnlations in the Bill. In fact, I will do everything I can to get rid of the measure. It has come before us over and over again, like a cold round of beef that has been served up too often, and I am thoroughly tired of it. But how can we legalize provisions like those contained in clause 18, under which any man who finds a nugget on his own land, and treats it as his own, is made liable to twelve months' imprisonment? My in­tention is to vote for the second reading of the Bill, but only with a view to it being sent to a select committee.

1166 Mining on Private [COUNCIL.] Prope'J'ty Bill .

. The Hon. T. T. A'BECKETT.-I think we have had a Mining on Private Property Bill sent up to us some eight or nine times already, and on almost every occasion it has passed its second reading; but what has become of it afterwards? Never have we put it in a shape expressive of our views on the subject. I see clearly that this Bill will also be read a second time, but I have hopes that at length we shall be enabled through its means to lay before another place the kind of Mining on Private Property Bill we agree with. I don't think it creditable to us that we have never done so before. For myself, I have voted for the second reading of, I think, every measure of. the kind placed before us, for I have always held that until the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, that the gold in the soil be­longed to the Crown, was ovel:ruled we ought to abide by it. That view was disputed by other honorable members, par­ticularly by .Dr; Dobson, but never by me. My contention has ever been that the gold did not pass to the freeholder, but I hold at the same time that he has a right to prevent any person going on his land to get the gold in it. That is the law in England, and it is perfectly con­sistent with the judgment of the Privy Council. We have, in fact, a decision by Lord Lyndhurst to the effect that while certain land belonged to one person the minerals in it belonged to another person, who could not enter upon the property of the former, in order to search for them without his permission. His lordship laid down the wholesome principle that mutual interests might be left to settle the question. On that ground I have always maintained that the owner of land is entitled to receive compensation for giving up his right to say-" The gold in my land may not be my property, but I will allow no one to come on my soil to search for it." It is the English principle of way-leave-the right of way over land -that we have to settle here. I sincerely trust that before we finish with this Bill we shall put it into a shape that will thoroughly represent our views on the subject.

The Hon. F. S. DOBSON.-I would not speak now but for the reference made to me by Mr. a'Beckett and the Post­master-General, as having contended here­tofore that the gold in private lands in this country did not belong to the Crown. I wish to say that, although the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have

decided differently, I am of opiuion, after reading the report of the whole case, that, had the rights of the holders in fee been properly stated and argued, the judgment would have gone the other way. The more I think of the matter the more am I surprised at the miserable way iu which the case against the Crown was main­tained, and how nearly all the strongest arguments in favour of the views I and others hold were either waived or conceded. However, the Privy Council judgment having been given, we have to bow to it. Under these circumstances we have to direct our attention to what Mr. a'Beckett has pointed out, namely, that in the Bill before us the Government propose to take upon themselves much larger powers than are assumed by the Imperial Government, as representing the Crown, with respect to gold in the soil in the United Kingdom. The question has never assumed any par­ticular importance at home, because gold and silver are found there only in very small quantities. In fact, the law on the subject has been so little brought into play that it rests almost wholly upon the decision, concerning the right of tlie Crown to gold, which was given during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Now, however, we have to broaden the basis of legislation on the point, and decide how the rights of the Crown to gold ought to be exer­cised on behalf of the persons who wish to search for it. It seems to me that that is not very difficult to do. In the first place, I think all the mining on private property contracts, which have been en­tered into bona fide in this country, ought to be validated. If the Crown wishes to reserve its rag of a title to the gold, it can readily do so by charging gold miners on private land a rent of say Is. per acre, which, although it will hardly pay· for collection, and cannot be regarded as based on much more than mere sentiment, will nevertheless serve to keep intact the con­stitutional principle involved in the matter. It will make little or no difference to any one. Having established that arrange­ment on behalf of the miner, and also provided for his paying compensation for the damage uone by him in searching for gold on private lands, the rights of the landowner ought to be preserved as far as is reasonable and just, by means of provisions protecting him from unreason­able intrusion, from bubble companies levying black-mail upon him, and so on. I think there is little occasioll for

jJ;lining on Private [OCTOBER 23.J Prope'l'ly Bill. 1167

anything else to be done, Certainly legis­lation to the extent I have described is amply sufficient to meet the very small cry for mining on private property legis­lation that has been raised. I would prefer that, instead of sending this Bill to a select committee, it should be simply assimilated to the Mining on Private Pro­perty Bill of last session, which was a far more comprehensive measure, and, more­over, included all the regulations necessary for carrying it into effect. However, as the opinion of the honorable member~ with whom I have usually acted in con­nexion with this question is in favour of sending the Bill to a select committee, I will not oppose that course being followed.

The Hon. vV. WILSON.-I think it is to be regretted that the Government have not thought proper to send us this Bill in the shape it assumed last session, because they must have known, when they de­cided upon proposing legislation on the subject, that were that measure before us again, we would-the Privy Council having decided in favour of the right of the Crown to gold in the soil-feel our­selves in a way pledged to carry it. Fur­thermore, there was no need for them to adopt a new Mining on Private Property Bill, seeing that there was no public outcry in its behalf, as there was for the Land Tax Bill. Again, while there is no doubt we ought to take the greatest care to prevent too much power being placed in the hands of the Minister of Mines, what do we find in clause 4 of the Bill ? That after the Bill is passed the Govern­ment may proclaim regulations under it which, let us disagree with them as we may, we cannot of ourselves disallow or alter. This is something we ought to be very careful about. It was the great powers given to the Minister of Lands that in reality originated the evils that have arisen under our various Land Acts. I contend that if we are to consider this Bill we ought at the same time to have the regulations under it before us. As to the Bill itself, I think, from all I can gather on the subject, that it is, in its present shape, further from passing into law than any of its predecessors. If we want to enable miners to take up private land for mining purposes, why cal1not we do so in the way we allow private lands to be taken up for railway purposes; and, inasmuch as we have arrangements for the latter plan all complete, why cannot we adopt them with respect to mining

also? I consider that the Minister of Mines has already amply sufficient autho­rity, and I don't see any necessity for giving him any more. I deny that J;te can act as political head of his department, and at the same time administer in an im­partial spirit the enormous powers which the Bill, as it stands, would 'endow him with. I agree with remitting the Bill to a select committee, to be licked into shape,

. and I hope when that is accomplished we , sha)J be able to send to another place a

Mining· on,· Private Property Bill ex .. pressing the views we entertain with re­spect to the legislation such a measure ought to embody.

The Hon. C. J. JENNER.-I have always voted in favour of a Mining on Private Property Bill, and therefore I will support the second reading of this Bill. If we look at the subject from a national point of view, we must admit that the interests of the country would be greatly advanced if the gold now lying in the bowels of the earth were brought into circulation and made use of. We ought to assist our mining interests as much as possible, but while legislating for mining on private property we ought to provide ample compensation to the owners of land taken up for mining purposes, and also to legalize all existing contracts on the sub­ject. One point we ought most carefully to consider. It is-What necessity is there for everything to be done under a mining on private property law being referred to a Minister? If a landowner and a num­ber of miners agree together to mine on a certain portion of his property, and all parties are satisfied, why should the State interfere? Why cannot they settle almost everything among themselves? Such in­terference can only cause delay, trouble, and inconvenience, which mean extra ex­pense, and I, on behalf of the mining community, object to everything of the sort. For these reasons I am in favour of referring the Bill to a select committee, and if that committee can get the assist­ance of the gentleman who drew the mea­sure I think they will be enabled to do good work. Sending a Bill to a select committee generally means shelving it, but I hope t.hat in this instance the committee will report in ten days or a fortnight, and that a Mining on Private Property Bill will become law this session.

The Hon. W. CAMPBELL.-I am somewhat confused by finding honorable members generally condemning the Bill

1168 Mining on Private [COUNCIL.] Property Bill.

and yet appearing to hold the 0pullon that it must become law. I quite agree with sending it to a select committee. We adopted that course on a former occasion, and the committee brought up a report - I think Mr. a'Beckett had something to do with it-containing a strong recommendation that mining on private property should be regulated by the consent of the owner. I hope some of Mr. a'Beckett's ideas will be engrafted on the report which the select committee on this Bill will probably bring ·up. For my part, I see no necessity for a Mining on Private Property Bill containing more than a clause or two legalizing contracts on the subject of mining between land­owners and miners. I don't see why the Legislature of Victoria should take liber­ties with property that are taken in no other country on the face of the earth. I object to mining on private property being carried on without the consent of the owner. Mining is not carried on for a public purpose as the construction of railways is. Furthermore, there are no petitions in favour of the Bill. Indeed all that we have received in connexion with the matter for a long time past seem to go the other way. As far as I can judge the people generally are utterly indifferent on the subject. For my part, I have no interest whatever in mining, and am speaking merely from my ideas as to what is likely to promote the public good. If, under the Constitution, the right of the Crown to the gold in the soil was conferred upon the State in Vic­toria, I think that, at all events, the land in Victoria. that was sold prior to that enactment coming into force ought to be treated differently from lands sold afterwards. I shall not object to the second reading of the Bill, although I regard it as something there is no demand for, and as only a sort of clap-trap thing got up for election purposes, which by­and-by will have more people against it than in its favour; but I hope the select committee, to which it will be referred, will bring up a proper report on the subject.

The motion for the second reading of the Bill was carried without a division.

The Bill was then read a second time. Mr. CUTHBERT proposed that the

Bill be considered in committee of the whole House.

Mr. WALLACE moved, as an amend­ment, that the Bill be referred to a select committee.

Mr. CUTHBERT stated that, with the experience of the past before his mind, he could not help being apprehensive of the fate of the Rill if it were referred to a select committee. But if the House had come to the conclusion that the measure would be better dealt with by a select committee, to that determination he must bow. He would like to know from the mover of the amendment whether he in­tended to ask that the committee should have power to sit from day to day, so that the measure might be promptly dealt with, and that there should be time, after the presentation of the committee's report, to fully discuss the recommendations which might be made. Probably the session would not last more than five or six weeks longer; and therefore it was important that the committee's report should be brought up as quickly as possible-say within a fortnight.

Mr. WALLACE observed 1hat, in moving that the Bill be referred to a select committee, he had not the slightest idea of shelving the measure. He would be the last man to propose such a thing. He believed the gentlemen whom he in­tended to nominate on the committee would deal with the matter with such expedition as would allow of the bringing up of a report within three weeks.

The amendment was carried without a division.

Mr. WALLACE moved-" That the committee consist of ten members,

and that the following be the members of the committee, viz. :-The Honorables Dr. Dobson, N. Fitzgerald, F. T. Sargood, J. Balfour, T. T. a'Beckett, R. Simson, Sir S. Wilson, R. D. Reid, J. P. Bear, and the mover; and that such com­mittee have power to call for persons and papers, and have power to sit on days on which the Council does not sit."

The motion was agreed to. The House adjourned at ten minutes

past ten o'clock. .

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Tuesday, Octoher 23, 1877.

Mining Leases-Letter Carriers-Gippsland Railway-Water. works Act Amendment Bill - The Paris Exhibition: Improvements in Manufactures-Road Tolls-Mr. Ogier, P.M.-Education Department: Training School-Con­struction of Tramways by Local Bodies-Land Selections, :M:eering-l\lines Drainage Law Amendment Bill-Supply: Public Instruction: Operation of the Education Act: Second Night's Debate.

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

Gippsland Railway. [OCTOBER 23.J Public instruction. 1169

MINING LEASES. Mr. WILLIAMS asked the Minister of

Mines whether he intended to enforce the covenants of the mining leases in the Sandhurst district, and, if they were not carried out, to cause the leases to be for­feited?

Major SMITH stated that he had given instructions for the preparation of a re­port on the mining leases held not merely in the S,andhurst district but elsewhere. He believed there were many leases the labour covenants of which had not been properly carried out. Probably he would deal with a number of them in the direc­tion suggested by the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Williams); but it was his desire, before giving a decision, to visit some of the mining localities.

LETTER CARRIERS. Mr. MUNRO asked the Chief Secre­

tary if the Government would concede a half-holiday on Saturdays to letter car­riers in cities, towns, and boroughs? He observed that, with the exception of a few hours in the day, the duties of the letter carriers occupied from half-past five o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock at night; and, therefore, a holiday on Saturday afternoon would be a great boon to them, while it would be attended by no inconvenience to the public, because the Saturday afternoon delivery was practi­cally of little value, and letters could be obtained at the local post-office by any one who chose to call for them.

Mr. BERRY stated that he had not had the opportunity of consulting the Postmaster-General on the subject; but if the concession asked for could be made without subjecting the public to incon­venience-if there was no practical diffi­culty in the way-the Government would be glad to grant it.

GIPPSLAND RAILWAY. Mr. F. L. SMYTH inquired of the

Postmaster-General whether tenders had been invited for the construction of the goods-shed at Sale, and if there was any probability of any portion of the middle section of the railway-the portion ex­tending from Morwell to Moe- being opened within a reasonable time? At pre­sent, great inconvenience was experienced through the irregularity with which the journey between the places named was accomplished by the coach. Frequently,

passengers and mails were too late for the train. Recently, because of the lateness of the coach, passengers had to remain at a station the entire night.

Mr. WOODS stated that tenders for good statious at Sale and other places along the Gippsland Railway would be called for as soon as the plans were ready, which would be in a short time. With regard to the Moe and Morwell section of the line, he desired to say that there had been a persistent attempt-he did not know where it originated-to get the Railway department into paying a lot of money to the contractors for running trains over a portion of that section before it was open. Messrs. Noonan originally took the contract for the whole section; but after they had picked the eyes out of the contract-after they were allowed to select the best part of the section as the part which they should construct-the balance of the contract was re-let at a loss to the country of over £10,000. And yet Messrs. Noonan were demanding £300 for permission to run trains over some 12 or 13 miles of the section. All sorts of influences had been brought to bear to induce him to comply with this demand, but he did not intend to submit to it.

WATERWORKS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was returned from the Legis­lative Council, with a message intimating that they had agreed to the same with amendments.

The message was ordered to be con· sidered on the following day.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. Major SMITH laid on the table a

return to an order of the House (dated July 3) showing the average school at tendance during the five years before, and the five years after, t.he passing of the Education Act.

Mr. RAMSAY asked the Minister of Public Instruction what steps, if any, had been taken to establish an efficient train­ing school in connexion with tlJe Educa­tion department?

Major SMITH observed that a com­missioner having been appointed to inquire into the whole system of public instruc­tion, he was not in a position to state what would be done in the direction men­tioned by the honorable member for East Bourke until the commissioner had made

1170 Road Tolls. [ASSEMBLY.] Land Selections.

his report. However, he might say that he believed the gentleman recently ap­pointed to the office of training super­intendent was performing his duties satis­factorily.

PARIS EXHIBITION. !l\IPROVEl\1ENTS IN MANUFACTURES.

Mr. LANGRIDGE asked the Chief Secretary if he would cause a sum of money to be placed at the disposal of the commissioners to the Paris Exhibition to enable them to procure specim~ns of the latest inventions and improvements in machinery and manufactures which might be exhibited there? At the time of the Philadelphia Exhibition there was a general impression that funds for a similar purpose hUll been placed at the disposal of the Victorian commissioners, but it turned out that those commissioners, in­stead of having funds at their command, had to borrow money. He had no ap­prehension of any such unpleasant blunder arising in connexion with the Paris Exhibition. He considered that what­ever specimens might be furnished should be placed in the Industrial Museum or other public building for inspection, as a means of developing the inventive facul­ties of Victorian mechanics, and keeping the colony generally informed of the pro­gress of other nations.

Mr. BERRY stated that it was the desire of the Government to utilize the money which the House had voted on account of the Paris Exhibition as far as possible in directions similar to that indi­cated by the honorable member for Colling­wood (Mr. Langridge). He trusted the executive commissioner and the secretary would keep the Government informed­by telegram if necessary-of any ways in which the interests of the colony might be advanced by a judicious expenditure, and, if it were found necessary to supple­ment the funds already voted, provision would be made accordingly. .

ROAD TOLLS. Mr. CARTER asked the Chief Secre­

tary when he would introduce a measure dealing with the question of tolls?

Mr. BERRY said he was aware that the extended time for collecting tolls would terminate with the end of the year 1877, and that therefore the matter would have to be dealt with before the close of the present session. The question was one of no ordinary difficulty; but he did

not think it necessary, on the present occa­sion, to indicate the nature of the Govern­ment proposal.

MR. OGIER, P.M. Mr. DOW asked the Minister of Justice

what steps he intended to take relative to Mr. Ogier's conduct in the warden's court at St. Arnaud, as reported in the St. Arnaud Mercury of the 10th October?

Mr. GRANT stated that the conduct referred to had been made the subject of a formal complaint against Mr. Ogier. Mr. Ogier denied the facts as stated in the newspaper report. He (Mr. Grant) in­tended to remit the whole matter to a board of inquiry.

PETITION. A petition was presented by Mr. BILL­

SON, from Roman ,Catholics residing in the Ovens district, calling attention to the position of the Roman Catholic body with regard to the State educational system, and praying for relief.

TRAMWAYS. Mr. BENT inquired of the Minister of

Public Works whether the Government intended to introduce, this session, any measure to allow local bodies to borrow money for the purpose of constructing tramways? He stated that in conse­quence of the Gippsland Railway coming within a mile of the Brighton boundary, the local council were anxious that a tramway should be constructed from the railway to Brighton; and he believed there were many cases of a similar kind.

Mr. PATTERSON remarked that up to the present time there had been no generally expressed desire on the part of municipal bodies to obtain the powers which the honorable member for Brighton referred to. The Government were of opinion that it might not be improper to include such a provision in a·future Bill to amend the Local Government Act, but the matter was one which required greater deliberation and thought than could be given to it this session.

LAND SELECTIONS. Mr. D. M. DAVIES moved-

" That there be laid before this House copies of all papers in relation to the decisions of the local land board held at Kerang, on 28th Sep­tember, 1877, in connexion with section 2, allot­ments 3, 4, 5, and 6, parish of Meering."

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

Suppl!J. [OCTOBER 23.J Public Instruction. 1171

MINES DRAINAGE LAY¥" AMENDMENT BILL.

Major SMITH moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law rela,ting to the drainage of mines. "

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

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

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. The House having resolved itself into

Committee of Supply, The debate on the education vote (ad­

journed from October ) 6) was resumed. Mr. MACKAY.-Sir, I think the com­

mittee are under some obligations to the honorable member for Belfast for the man­ner in which he has brought the subject of public instruction under our considera­tion, because, although his opinions are antagonistic to those of most of us, he takes up the subject in a broad and com­prehensive spirit, and deals with it in a thoroughly exhaustive manner. Indeed I might commend the example of the honorable member to many who are present, as showing how a debate should be carried on-as showing that a subject of such importance should be discussed not in the heat of the moment, nor in a superficial manner, but after careful ex-=.. amination and study of all the information obtainable. For my part I am very much obliged to the honorable member for the style in which he opened this debate, but I hope, before I sit down, to be able, if not to shake his views, at all events to show him that there. is a great deal to be said on the other side of the question. At the outset I desire to say that the honor­able member is mistaken in supposing that the present system of education was established under any feeling of hostility to his belief. It was established with the desire to secure a sound education for the whole of the children in the colony, without doing wrong to any man or any religious denomination. The honorable member also makes a mistake in sup­posing that on previous occasions the estimates of the Education department have been passed almost sub silentio. The honorable member, if he consults" Hansard, will find that it is by no means the case. On the contrary, no subject has elicited so much discussion in this Honse since the passing of the Education Act, as the administration of that Act. On frequent occasions, in and out of

season, hn,ve honorable members on both sides of the House addressed themselves to the subject. Indeed previous Ministers of Public Instruction have had to submit not only to the criticism of opponents, but oftentimes to the criticism of members on their own side of the House, which now is conspicuous by its absence. Why, Mr. Higinbotham repeatedly made the education question the subject of debate in this House, and, in doing so, raised most important questions connected with the administration of the Act. I simply allude to this to show the honorable mem­ber who is now at the head of the Education department that he is not the only Minister of Public Instruction whose administration has been subjected to pretty keen criticism. The honorable member, immediately after he was ap­pointed Minister of Public Instruction, on a public occasion at Wangaratta, chose to make a speech unexampled in the history of this or any country, coming as it did from a gentleman who had held just about three or four days the portfolio of the department. The honorable member­for whom I beg to say, with all our differ­ences, I have a very great respect, as a good-hearted and" genial man, whose im­pulsiveness is ont of all proportion to his judgment-chose, at Wangaratta, not only to find fault with the administration of the Education department, but he drew a most lamentable picture of the utter dis­organization and chaotic confusion of that department, and the disgracef"ul manner in which its officers discharged their duty as servants of the State. Now if the honor­able member, the other night, had frankly stated that he made a mistake on that occasion--

Major SMITH.-N ot altogether. Mr. MACKAY.-The honorable mem­

ber admitted that he made a mistake to some extent. He stated that "perhaps at Wangaratta he was a little hard on the officers of the department, but he was of opinion that the system they had adopted was not a good one to develop good teachers, because it set up a sort of favor­itism."

Major SMITH.-Hear, hear. Mr. MACKAY.-But that was not

the only point upon which the honorable member attacked the officers of his de­partment. He attacked the department root and branch, from the Secretary at the head down to the clerks in the office. There was nothing but confusion and

1172 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

anarchy; he had not a good word to say for anybody. I think the honorable member ought to have taken the opportunity which was afforded him last week of admitting that some few errors or cases of neglect which he had noticed were magnified by him, at Wangaratta, into a great deal more than they deserved. I think the honorable member has since come to find that the officers whom he I won't say maligned but very much misrepresented are thoroughly conversant with the business of the de­partment, and are painstaking, honest, and diligent; that in fact in no department of the public service are there better officers. The honorable member should recollect that the Education department was or­ganized suddenly-that it had to be built up, as it were, into the importance which it now occupies. Work of a most astound­ing character was forced upon the officers of that department. At the time that they had to discharge ordinary routine duties which were sufficiently onerous, they had to lay down the principles of a new system and to carry out a new orga­nization. Therefore I say every allowance ought to be made for any short-comings. But seeing the power which a Minister has in his department, would it not have been much better, if the honorable mem­ber found abuses in the Education de­partment, to proceed to rectify them than to wash his dirty linen out-of-doors, and invite all the world to see the grand dis­play of wretchedness which he, forsooth, was going to put an end to? There was about the matter too much of the self­glorification which the honorable member ought to eschew as much as possible. The honorable member, not only at Wan­garatta but also the other night, not con­tent with pointing out the manner in which the business of his own department was carried on, must reflect upon acts of his predecessors. I think the honorable member ought not to have suggested any­thing like comparisons as to the relative efficiency and cababilityof gentlemen who have held the position of Minister of Public Instruction. I thought the honor­able member would have explained to the House the reasons for the appointment of Professor Pearson-that he would have justified the action taken ·by the Govern­ment, which, as the honorable member knows, elicited at the time expressions of surprise throughout the whole colony.

Mr. LONGMORE.-No. Nothing of the sort.

Mr. MACKAY.-Well, I don't know any district in which the local organ of public opinion did not express surprise­and in some cases perhaps pleasure also­at that particular appointment, and want to Know the reason for it. I certainly am at a loss to know the reason for the ap­pointment. It was not because the depart­ment wanted a training master, because a training master had already been obtained from England-a gentleman who came to us witIi such recommendations as entitled his opinions on all matters of scholastic training to the utmost consideration. I am not aware that Professor Pearson had previously displayed such abilities for organization as to make him, for that pur­pose, a valuable acquisition to the depart­rp.ent. Then why on earth was he ap­pointed? And what is he doing? There has not been a single word on the part of the Minister of Public Instruction to justify the appointment, or explain the reasons why it was made. I admit that in a country like this, where there is no knowing what manner of man may become Minister of Public Instrnction-where, by the chance of fortune, the most objec­tionable men may be pitchforked into that position-perhaps it is a wise and judi­cious thing to have a gentleman of culture and of experience·in education practically at the head of the Education department, so that any short-comings on the part of the Minister may to some extent be atoned for. But I think the country has the right to expect some information as to what duties this gentleman performs. I can­not imagine what they are, unless they are to write a sort of essay upon public instruction in Victoria. There is in the department a Secretary who thoroughly understands the whole routine of the department, and whose only fault is that he is not quite so plausible as some gentlemen can make themselves. There is also the Inspector-General, a gentle­man of uncommon ability, thoroughly trained and thoroughly conversant with the whole working of the department, and who has, as it were, the whole of the inspectors in his hands, and knows every one of them. What, then, has a man like Professor Pearson got to do? Is he to perform the part of quasi-Minister? I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of Pro­fessor Pearson, but still I am not aware of any.thing in that gentleman's previous history or training which justifies the appointment he has been given. If it

Supply. [OCTOBER 23.J Public instruction. 1113

were desirable that somebody should be appointed to the head of the Education department, gentlemen might have been found with far superior qualifications for, and far more claims to, the appointment than Professor Pearson can have. It may be stated-and I admit there is some truth in this-that when a Government of which I was a member were organizing the Education department we proposed to appoint another gentleman, who was eminent in the scholastic world, as Secre­tary of the department, in order that we might have a guarantee of great ex­perience and culture in the administration of that department, and the superin­tendence of the various educational insti­tutions of the country. Therefore, I dare say that a fair case may be made out for such an appointment, and I would like to hear the Minister address himself to the task of making out a case for the appoint­ment of Professor Pearson, and tell us what he is doing for his money, because at present there is a very disagreeable impression in the minds of many people that this gentleman is simply being paid for the services he rendered to a particular political party, by ventilating some extra­ordinary opinions about the land policy of the country, and fighting a battle against the honorable and lear!led member for Boroondara. ( " No," from the Minis­terial benches.) That, at all events, is the impression on men's minds. Now the Minister, the other night, said there were a number of unqualified, unclassified, in­competent, and unfaithful teachers em­ployed. Surely in making such a state­ment the Minister ought to have been in a position to tell the committee that those teachers were employed no longer. When a teacher is found unfaithful and utterly incompetent, there is only one plain line of duty for the Minister to follow, and that is to dismiss him. If these teaGhers are teachers in the capitation schools, with whom the Minister cannot interfere, I make the honorable member for Belfast a present of that fact.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The Minister said they were taken over from the capi­tation schools.

Mr. MACKAY.-No teachers who have been proved to be unfaithful and incompetent ought, under any circum­etances, to be allowed to remain in the service of the department. I heard with surprise the Minister descant upon the salaries of the teachers, and take

exception to some teachers getting what he considers the very large salary of £700 per annum. The honorable gentleman will recollect that a change was made in .the system of remunerating teachers, a change which was intended to prevent some teachers without merit, ability, or even long service, getting large salaries from teaching extra subjects simply be­cause they happened to be placed in rich localities. I venture to say that the prac­tical effect of the new regulations has been to give teachers of acknowledged ability, who hold high honours, and dis­charge their duties well, high salaries; and where tea.chers do not earn good salaries now the fact is due, I believe, in nine cases out of ten, to personal deficien­cies on their part. If the 'salaries of teachers are too high in comparison with the incomes of other people in this country, let there be a fair attempt made to reduce them to a proper standard; but I very much doubt whether such an attempt can be made by a gentleman who tells us he is astounded, if he is not disgusted, to find that there are family arrangements by which the members of a fa.mily toge­ther earn as much as £1,100 a year by teaching in a State school. Where the teacher's wife is also earning her living by teaching, and other members of the family are doing so likewise, there can be no objection whatever to their earning their income under the same roof. If there is any defect in the arrangements, or anything wrong in the management of such schools, why does not the honorable member correct it? But when the Minis­ter objects to the principle of family arrangements, surely every man of com­mon sense must feel that he. is speaking not only against common sense but against ordinary propriety. Why would the honor­able member scatter these families abroad, and insist that the wife of a teacher shall teach elsewhere than under the same roof as her husband, or that their daughters and sons should necessarily go elsewhere in order to earn their living? It cannot be said that these families are allowed to neglect their business, because how can they possi­bly do so when upon the results they obtain depends to a great extent the amount of their incomes? Moreover, the system of inspectorships is so complete that any thing like a radical defect· in the schools in which these family arrangements ob­tain would be found out at once. The honorable member does not assert that

1174 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

there is any peculiar defect attaching to schools in which the family system pre­vails, but his righteous soul is stirred to indignation because, forsooth, members of one family, consisting, perhaps, of four, five, or six persons jointly earn a large salary. The Minister's limit of a teacher's salary is that of a Member of Parliament -£300 a year. In all the attempts to equalize salaries was anything half so absurd ever heard of? There is no com­parison whatever between the duties per­formed by teachers-who toil at the most laborious work, not merely four hours a day, as the Minist~r thinks, but five or six hours a day, and who are under the strict supervision of inspectors-and. the duties discharged by members of the Assembly, who do not attend this House more than six months in the year, and during that time only three days a week. Moreover, they need not come unless they like, and very often some of them don't appear within the precincts of the House for weeks together. How can they be placed in the same category as teachers of youth by any man who understands what teach­ing is; who knows what dreary and weary work it is to drive instruction into chil­dren's heads; who knows what disappoint­ments and want of success often attend the very best efforts? Again, Members of Parliament may be merchants, store­keepers, barristers, or follow any other occupation, but a teacher dare not enter into any other occupation; while to qualify himself for his position he must have gone through a very difficult curriculum and an arduous course of training. Instructing the minds of the rising generation, and building up their intellects is, indeed, the noblest work which any man can follow; and yet men who are devoting themselv~s to this work, after undergoing the costly preparation necessary to qualify them­selves for it, are,.under the regime of the present Minister of ,Public Instruction, grudged more than a 'paltry 'salary. of £300 per annum. It shows a great want of appreciation on the part of the Minister of the high and noble position which teachers occupy when he coolly proposes to drag down their salary to that paid to Members of Parliament., . I think the honorable gentleman must be aware by this time that he made a grand mistake in his flippant remarks about the incomes of the teachers. The' honorable member ought to know that a teacher's work is not confined to the nUlnber of hours'

Mr. Mackay.

labour which he performs in school. He has many duties to discharge at other times. He has to look over the exercises of his pupils, to keep the school roll, and to instruct the pupil teachers. Even the preparation of the returns which he has to furnish to the Education depart­ment entail a vast amount of clerical work. The returns which had to he com­piled when I was a teacher are not to be compared with the voluminous returns now required. I am astonished at any one talking about the teacher's labour being light. If a teacher thoroughly per­forms his duty no man in the community works harder, or better deserves the reward he gets for his labour. I may remind the Minister of Public Instruction that he was one of those who supported Mr. Higin-· botham's efforts to obtain an excessive amount of compensation for teachers who suffered loss of salary in consequence of the operation of the Education Act of 1872. The result of the undefined and unlimited demands made by Mr. Higin­botham was that eventually the teachers got a sum given to them for compensation which I believe was far less than they were justly entitled to. I was then Minister. of Public Instruction, and I wanted the compensation to be based upon some defi­nite principle; but nothing would satisfy Mr. Higinbotham except that it should he some unknown quantity-that, in fact, as long as any of the then teachers were em­ployed by the State they should at least receive as good a salary as they did before the Act was passed. The present Minis­ter ought on that occasion to have assisted me in fighting the battle of common sense in order to get the compensation placed on a proper foundation, but, like too many members of this House, he bowed down: and worshipped every word uttered by Mr. Higinbotham. Nothing enunciated by that gentleman. was too absurd of; extravagant for some· honorable membera to say" amen" to. ,Though I had 'the right and logic of the case on my side~ and practical results have justified the view I took, the present Minister, instead of supporting me, assisted Mr. Higin-­botham in setting up a preposterous claim for compensation, yet he now seeks to cut, and carve and fritter away the salaries of teachers below what is a fair remuneration for the services they render to the State. This is, at all events, not very consistent on his part. The honorable member has referred to the salaries of the inspectors in

Supply. [OCTOBER 23.J Public Instruction. 1175

comparison with those of the teachers; bnt if the inspectors' sah-tries are too small, the honorable member has it in .his power to increase them. I have no doubt that his colleagues will appreciate the force of his remarks on that subject, and will raise the inspect.ors' salaries to what they ought to be; and I hope, seeing he appreciates the services of the inspectors, that he will carry out the principle of mak­ing inspectorships the reward to teachers for good service. Let inspectorships be given to teachers who display special ability and capacity for educational work and not to mere proteges-not to gentlemen who have merely passed a certain examination, but who know nothing practically about the duties of inspectors. There have been inspectors appointed who did not know the ordinary course of procedure to adopt when they went to inspect a school, but had to ask for information as to how they were to set about to examine the children. I am very glad to believe that the Minister appreciates the necessity not only for pay­ing the inspectors properly, but of select­ing them from the ranks of thoroughly experienced and practical men-in fact making the inspectorships the prizes of the scholastic profession. The honorable gentleman chose to allude to his own ser­vices in the Education department as compared with those of his predecessors, and my honorable friend, the member for East Bourke, administered a well-merited rebuke to him for doing so. It is not often that a Minister disparages his pre­decessors in office for the purpose of be­lauding himself. No doubt, by this time, the honorable gentleman has perceived the bad taste he displayed in adopting that course, and therefore I will say no more on the matter. It is the fact that when I was Minister of Public Instruction there was no Minister's room in the department. The business of the department is carried on in wretched closets and garrets, which are a disgrace to any public office. When I was Minister I had to conduct the busi­ness of the department as best I could. I did what I possibly could in the Secre­tary's room, but of course that interfered with the Secretary. It is, however, pre.:. posterous to say that any Minister only devoted ten minutes a day to the work of the department. No Minister of Public Instruction could answer the questions put to him in Parliament, or take his proper part in the discussion of ma~ters relating to .the operation. of the. ·Education

Act, unless he attended the department at least ovory other day, if not every day; and he must often spend hours looking throuO'h papers, even after he got home at night. The present Minister does what neither I nor the honorable member for East Bourke ever did when occupying the position he now fills. When there is a knotty case to be decided, he appoints a board to deal with it, and so escapes the trouble and responsibility of investigating it himself.

Major SMITH.-I have sent matters to a board which the honorable member refused to deal with.

Mr. MACKAY.-I undertake to say that· I dealt with every case brought before me, though of course the same cases often crop up again after the Minis­ter who first dealt with them has ceased to hold office. The Minister referred to a minute or memo. in the department which he refused to sign, and which he says strikes at the liberty of every teacher. Perhaps the committee will be surprised to learn that the memo. in question was heartily approved of by the honorable member for Carlton, when Minister of Public Instruction. So far, however, from interfering with the liberty' of the teachers, that memo. is a modification in their favour of one of the civil service regulations. When I was in office, the pre­sent Chairman of Committees questioned me about the memorandum, and I gave an explanation that I think satisfied every member of the House who heard me, and which I may now repeat~ One of the civil service regulations is as follows :-

"The application of any officer for promotion, leave of absence, cbange of quarters, increase of salary, or upon any other matter affecting his position in the service, shall be made by the applicant himself, or by or through the head of his branch or department; and if it be made by or through any other person, it will be treated as irregular.'~

Thinking this regulation rather too strin~ gent, I made a modification of it in favour of the teachers to the. following effect :-

" In the event of your communicating through any other person, unless you have previously failed to obtain satisfaction in the regular manner, the Minister will treat your action as irregular."

The memorandum in question consisted of the civil service regulation I have read modified to this extent. The Minister ought to have known better than to have condemned the minute as unjust to the teachers, when it absolutely gives them a

1176 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

privilege which they would not possess under the ordinary civil service regula­tions. What caused me to issue the minute was the fact that I found myself compelled to deal with a large number of cases which came before the department for the first time through the action of a Member of Parliament. I am sure no one will deny that it is proper to require that teachers shall in the first instance bring any complaint they have to make before the head of the department per­sonally, and that they ought not to be allowed to solicit the interference of a Member of Parliament, unless they fail to obtain redress in the ordinary way. In making this memo. I went, in favour of the teacher, beyond one of the civil ser­vice regulations, and against the opinion of the permanent heads of the depart­ment ; and yet, forsooth, I am taunted by the present Minister with having done an injustice to the teachers and cast a stigma upon them; in fact, the honorable gentle­man said that the memo. amounted to an in­struction that a black mark should be affixed to the name of any teacher who was known to speak to a Member of Parliament. In reference to the question of compensation to teachers, I believe that the compensa­tion which has been given has not been satisfactory, and it has not been just. The honorable member for East Bourke, in carrying out the system of compensation, has, at all events, not come up to my standard of what is right, and I believe this opinion would be endorsed by any impartial board. The principle of com­pensation determined upon before I left office was that the amount of compen­sation should mainly depend on the length of the service of the teachers. The honorable member for East Bourke adopted that principle, but he also adopted another, which I consider exceedingly vicious, copied from the Civil Service Act, that the claims of all- teachers who had sustained a loss of not more than 10 per cent. should be entirely ignored. The result of that is that a large num­ber of assistant teachers have received no compensation at all for their losses. I cannot understand upon what prin­ciple of honesty or common sense such an arrangement was adopted. I trust that the present Minister will add a codicil to the regulations, to the effect that all claims for compensation shall be honestly and fairly dealt with. One or two in­stances have come under my notice,

Mr. Macka!!.

showing the unfairness of the operation of some of the present regulations. There are cases in which teachers gave their schools to the service of the State, free of all charge, for a number of years; but when the Education Act came into force, all such arrangements were terminated, and an allowance for rent was made by the department. Honorable members will doubtless be astonished to hear that when the claims for compensation were assessed, the amount which any teacher received for the rent of his own building was, in order to reduce his claim for compensation, reckoned as part of his present income, in comparing the remuneration he obtained after the Education Act passed with the amount he received before the Act passed. The very liberality which he had shown, before the Education Act came into force, in giving the use of his school for nothing, was employed as an argument against him to reduce his claim for compensation. This is a very sharp trick, which some low class practitioners might indulge in, but is utterly unworthy of a Minister of the Crown. In some instances, by adopting this system, the loss has been reduced to less than 10 per cent. of the teacher's former income, and thus the unfortunate teacher has got no compensation whatever. I believe that the present Minister has within the last few weeks referred one teacher's claim for compensation to a board, of which the honorable member for Carlton is a member, and that the decision of the board is adverse to the teacher. I would have been much better satisfied, and so no doubt would the House, if the honorable gentleman had dealt with that case himself. The rent now paid to that teacher for the use of his school building ought not to be reckoned as part of the remuneration he receives from the State simply because before the Act came into operation he had the generosity to allow the building to be used for nothing.

Major SMITH.-The teacher to whom the honorable member refers and hi's family are getting an income of over £1,000 a year.

Mr. MACKA Y.-He is teaching a very large school, and if there is one teacher more than any other to whom the cause of education in this country is indebted it is the gentleman in question. He set himself to work to establish a good school at Bendigo in the old times, when there were no good schools there, and after­wards, in order to have the imprimatur of

Supply. [OCTOBER 23. J Public Inst,·uction. 1177

the Board of Education, he offered the board the use of his school building free of charge, and agreed to subject himself to any examination they thought fit to apply to him as to his qualifications as a teacher. The rent now paid to him for the use of the building is made the miser­able pretext for depriving him of the compensation to which he is entitled for loss of income by the passing of the present Education Act; and this is his reward! 'If some teachers do feel sore, mortified, and indignant at the treatment they have got from the Education depart­ment, we need not wonder at it when instances like this have occurred.

Mr. MUNRO.-By your act. Mr. MACKAY.-The honorable mem­

ber is mistaken, because the regulations for determining the compensation to be paid to teachers were drawn up by the honorable member for East Bourke.

Mr. MUNRO.-By you, and left in print by you.

Mr. lVIACKAY.-The honorable mem­ber is wrong. Regulations were drawn up while I was in office, but they were never considered and approved of by the Cabinet of which I was a member.

Mr. MUNRO.-I say that the honor­able member for Sandhurst (Mr. Mackay) either drafted the present regulations, or they were drafted under his instruc­tions, because he left them in print when the Government of which he was a member resigned office. I challenge the honorable member to prove the con­trary.

Mr. MACKAY.-Perhaps the honor­able member for East Bourke will reply to the statement.

Mr. RAMSA Y.-When I took office, as Minister of Public Instruction, regula­tions fo'r the compensation of teachers who had sustained loss by the passing of the Education Act were shown to me in print. The regulations afterwards adopted by the Government of which I was a member differed somewhat from those shown to me in print, but in the main they were the same. "

Mr. MACKAY.-The regulations at present in existence are not my regula­tions. The one adopted from the Civil Service Act, providing that no compensa­tion should be allowed where the loss was less than 10 per cent., was not in my re­gulations at all.

Mr. RAMSAY.-That is correct. VOL. XXVI.-4 Q

Mr. MACKAY.-Thatis just the point to which I was referring when the honor­able member for Carlton interjected his remark. I tell the honorable member again that the regulations were not passed into law-that there were no regulations in operation-at the time I left the de­partment. There was only a draft, which was not finally determined u pon~ and the regulations now in force are not mine. I will, however, leave this point alid refer to another matter. The Minister talked about makiug the system, of public in­struction of so comprehensive a character as to lead up to the University. There is no doubt that the honorable gentleman will signalize his tenure of office by some extraordinary action; but I hope that he will consider what is the mean­ing of this particular' reform before he attempts to carry it into effect. Before any attempt is made to lead up the State school system to the University, let the honorable gentleman address himself to the work of perfecting the system he has got in hand. Even in regard to " extra subjects" there is an immense deal to be done before we talk of making the U ni­versity free. What is the meaning of making the University free to everybody? Will not the effect of it be that the poor man will have to pay for the University training of rich men's sons?

1\1r. BERRY.-That is done now by the endowment.

1\11'. MACKAY.-When the plan of making the University free comes into force, every farthing of the cost of the education of rich men's sons will have to be paid by the public. Poor men cannot avail themselves of the advantages of the University, even if it be free, because they cannot afford to keep their sons in idleness during the time necessary for them to obtain a University education. The idea of throwing the University open free to every body is a crude notion of the Minister, which he will find that public opinion will by no means endorse. The public are not such fools. They will soon see that this apparent free gift to poor people is no gift to them at all, but simply an empty delusion. It ,is all very well to say to working men-" We will enable you to send up your sons to the University and make them members of the learned professions," but what reply will bricklayers, masons, carpenters, black­smiths, and labourers give to that state­ment? Why they will say_H Thank

1178 Supply. [ASSEMBL Y.] Public Instruction.

you for nothing; when you enable us to maintain our children, and do without their assistance in earning a livelihood for'the common household, then will be the time to talk about making the University free." In fact this new-fangled scheme of making the University free is a utopian idea, utterly absurd, and only meant to tickle the ears of the masses. The Min­ister has recently issued a circular in which he has laid down the principle that corporal punishment shall not be inflicted in State schools except by the head teachers, and that a record shall be made of every case of such chastisement. I admit that the intentions of the honorable gentleman in issuing that circular may have been very good, and I also think it is necessary to check the undue severity that has been shown by many teachers; but I beg to tell the honorable member that the effect of his circular upon school discipline has been of a most disastrous cha,racter. There is not a town in the colony where such has not been the case. It has caused an amount of bad conduct amongst many of the children attending State schools which every true friend of the education system must regret. If we ask the teachers what has been the effect of the circular, they will tell us that it has tended to loosen the bonds of their authority, to preyent them having the same power as heretofore to control the worst pupils under their care. Truancy is more frequent than ever, rude and improper language and conduct of boys towards girls is quite common, and the conduct of the boys out of school hours is freqnently utterly disgraceful, of which what occnrred the other day at Ballarat is an example. These are the results, in a great measure, of the Minister's unfor­tunate interference with the discipline of the schools. If the Minister thought there was anything like undue severity indulged in by teachers in the punishment they inflicted, he ought to have issued a circular to them privately; but, the circu­lar being made public, the boys themselves are perfectly well acquainted with it, and instances have occurred of boys" cheek­ing" assistant-teachers, and saying that they dare not flog them. A significant illustration of one of the effec'ts of the circular has come within my knowledge. A boy was sent up by an assistant teacher to be punished by the head teacher for playing truant, but before the punishment was inflicted his mother

Mr. Mac"av.

went and complained about the matter, and the head teacher turned round to his assistant, saying-" You are about the only assistant who sends up any children to be chastised; I am sorry you cannot manage the children under your care without having them chastised." The consequence is, that the assistant-teachers in that school me afraid or unwilling to put out children for corporal punishment, and no doubt that will be the case in other schools. The masters are required to place on record every instance in which they administer corporal punishment, and yet the. honorable gentleman states that he will judge of their efficiency by the small number' of chastisements they in­flict.

Major SMITH.-Hear, hear. Mr. MACKA Y.-Surely that is a di­

rect inducement to them to allow children to go without corporal punishment when they deserve it. Unless the assistant teachers are allowed to inflict corporal punishment there is no means of keeping bold children under proper control. A boy cannot be expelled from a State school unless his conduct is so bad as to warrant his committal to an industrial school. A deputation of school teachers waited on the Minister to express their views in regard to this circular, and the honorable gentleman, although he had consented to receive the deputation, lec­tured them upon their mutinous spirit and their disloyalty to the department. The public must be greatly surprised at the manner in which the Minister treated the deputation. Many of them were men who are far more able to administer the department than he is himself, and yet he lectured them as to the manner in which they should carryon their schools and punish children who misbehav~ them­selves. The Minister defended the issue of the circular which has tied the hands of the teachers and crippled their authority by a dissertation on the evils of indis­criminate severity and flogging in schools. The honorable gentleman said that he was determined to have a new system, but he ought not to have taken the course he has taken in order to put down over severity. The consequence is that the teachers do not possess a proper salutary authority. In a school of 1,000 or 1,200 children there must be some of the most -rowdy children to be found on the face of the world.

Major SMITH.~No.

Suppl.Y· COCTOBEn 23.J Public Instruction. 1179

Mr. MACKAY.-The honorablemem­ber knows that perfectly well.

Major SMIl'H.-No. Mr. MACKAY.-Does not the honor­

able member know that in our State schools there are some as disreputable and badly-conducted children as are to be found in any schools? The honorable gentleman has thrown upon the head teacher of each school the ignominious duty of being a public flagellator. The way in which the Minister raises the status of the head teacher - the man whom he complains is receiving the high salary of £700 or £800 a year-is by making him a common flagellator. Has the honorable gentleman computed the amount of time that will be spent in a large school by the head teacher in the mere physical work of chastisement? Has he thought of the mental disturb­ance, irritation, and annoyance, which any man of a well-constituted mind will be subjected to by having to administer corporal punishment to all the children who require it in a large school? Why will he persist in requiring that the head tea;chershall do mere common hangman's work-the work of carrying out the last sentence of the law. No doubt the Minister of Public Instruction, if he had the framing of the constitution of a country, would make the King or the Governor the person to carry out the last sentence of the law on the scaffold. The honorable gentleman must be perfectly aware that amongst the assistant-teachers are a large number of men who are quite as capable as the head teachers of chas­tising pupils with discretion and judg­ment. Moreover, when the fault is com­mittedis the proper time for the punish­ment to be inflicted. There may be some­thing in the argument that the solemnity of marching up a lot of children some hours afterwards to receive punishment at the hands of the head master is calcu­lated to strike awe into the minds of the children, but I believe it is best that the punishment should be inflicted by the teachers at the time the offence is com­mitted. Corporal punishment in schools cannot be altogether dispensed with, but it is a waste of the best material for the Minister to r~quire that all such punish­ment shall be administered by the head teachers. The effect of such a regulation will certainly be that a considerable portion of the time of head teachers will be taken up in the physical work of chastising to

4Q2

the neglect of their other duties, or that boys will be allowed to escape punish­ment when they deserve it. At present I live at Sandhurst, within a stone's throw of a very large State school, and for the last three months I have sent some of my children there, to learn something of the manner in which State schools are carried on. I must say that the behaviour of some of the scholars since this circular has been issued is such that I don't see how respectable parents can send re­spectable children to these schools, unless a firmer hand is used in repressing wrong behaviour on the part of the boys. The Minister must think that the head teachers are men of very great moral power if he fancies that schools can be kept in order without the use of the rod. There may be some very superior men, such as Arnold, of Rugby, who can properly con­duct large schools· without resorting to corporal punishment except on very rare occasions; but there can be very few such men. In fact it is utterly absurd to sup­pose that discipline can be properly main­tained in large schools in Victoria unless the· teachers are allowed to chastise boys for improper behaviour. As an honorable member said the other night, the Minister is not wiser than Solomon, and SolomO"n has told us-" He that spareth the rod spoileth the child." Honorable members know that the teachers who were the most severe to them in their youth were their best friends, and that the most severe teachers turn out the best scholars, and those who become the best men in after life. But the Minister of Public Instruc­tion has threatened to carry out his ideas on this subject a little further, and to issue a circular directing that not even the head teachers shall chastise.

Major SMITH.-That is the case in New York, where there are some millions of people. . Mr. MACKA Y.-I think I could show that the honorable member only cited part· of the truth in the quotations which he gave about America. Althongh corporal chastisement is properly regulated in the schools of America, the teachers there are armed with full power and authority over the children, and are expected to use it.

Major SMITH.-N o. Mr. MACKA Y.-I will only offer one

further remark on this subject, namely, that I hope the Minister will make him­self more personally and practically ac­quainted with the management ~f schools;

1180 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

and that he will see the desirability of to some extent relaxing the order he has issued in reference to corporal punishment. I will refer now to some of the observa­tions of the honorable member for Belfast. That honorable member compared the cost of the State system of education in Vic­toria and in England; but there is really no ground of comparison between the cost in the mother country and in this country. In England there are a large number of schools supported by endowments, many of them of a very wealthy character, and there is also in existence a system by which education can be carried on by some of the municipal corporations, by private persons, and by parishes. It is not to be supposed, therefore, that in Great Britain the State, in the matter of education, will go to the same proportionate expense as in Victoria, which has to build up a national system of public instruction. It is to be expected that the cost of pub­lic instruction by the State in this colony will be far greater than in the mother country. In some of the American states,

. however, the cost of public instruction is quite as great as it is here. In Massa­chusetts it is considerably more, for while in Victoria it is £3 14s. per annum for each child, it is £5 per head in Massa­chusetts. In Iowa, in the year I R48, only 14,885 dollars was spent on public instruction, but in the year 1870 the amount had increased to nearly 4,500,000 dollars. In all countries where the State carries out a system of national education the cost must necessarily be great. It is said by some persons that compulsory education was first adopted in Prussia, but that is not so. The credit of introducing that system must be given to Massachusetts and Connecticut. The cost of the schools in Switzerland is £417,814 per annum. The cost of the Swiss army is only £390,811 per annum, and the gross re­venue of the country is only £1,659,496. The honorable member for Belfast com­plained that in Victoria the cost of the State educational system is about one­third of the ordinary taxation paid by the people, but I think the honorable member will find that the expenditure on educa­tion is quite as great in proportion as it is here. The system of education in Switzerland is one of the most complete and perfect in the world, and one of the most satisfactory in its results. The honorable member also referred to the average attendance in our State schools.

Mr. Macka!!.

I admit that during the past year the average attendance ought to have been greater than it was, and the Minister has not given any satisfactory explanation why it was not higher, because the pre-' valence of sickness is not a sufficient ex­planation. The honorable member for Belfast, however, in complaining that the average attendance is not so good now as it was before the Act came into opera­tion, does not fully appreciate the circum­stances under which the Act was brought into force. The honorable member said that the Act has been a failure as regards neglected children-that it has not car­ried out the intention of its framers to bring those children to school. My reply is that, in the opinion of every fair and. impartial observer, since the passing of the Act there has not been such a large number of children seen idling about the streets-that many chil­dren of the class who never went to school before now go to school. The honorable member likewise complained that the re­ports issued under the authority of the Minister of Public Instruction are not so full as the reports of the Board of Edu­cation were. I think there is some ground for that objection. One reason why the reports are not so voluminous as they used to be is that statistics about results, which were practically of no use, but caused great expense, are now left out. I, how­ever, agree with the honorable member for Belfast, that the reports are not what they ought to be. They ought to deal with education in the neighbouring colo­nies, and, if possible, in other countries, and show, side by side, the progress made in education in those countries compared with the progress made here. I hope that the Minister of Public Instruction will bear this in mind. The honorable member f6r Belfast also took exception to the change from a board to a Minister. Now I was a member of the Board of Educa­tion for some years, and I was also for some time Minister of Public Instruction, and I can, therefore, speak of the ad­ministration of the department in both respects. . Beyond all question, the ad­ministration of the department under a Minister ought to be far more complete and efficient than under a board. I quite admit that it might be desirable to have a board consisting of men honest, earnest, and zealous-men willing to devote their time and attention to the administration of the Education Act with the greatest

~uppl!l' [OCTOBER 23.J Public Instruction. 1181

fidelity-but in the nature of things that cannot be. Private gentlemen cannot give that time and attention from their .private affairs which a Minister is compelled to give. Moreover, a board is not responsi­ble, but a Minister is responsible to Par­liament for any short-comings, and all his Acts are subject to the keenest criticism in this House. At the same time, I believe, from my own experience, that the members of the Board of Education did very good work. Some of them, such as Mr. Harker, the late Mr. O'Grady, and the late Dr. Corrigan (whose death is a loss to the cause of education in this country) devoted a great deal of their time to the performance of the duties committed to the board.

Mr. Onn.-They only worked for their own denominations.

Mr. MACKAY.-That is a mistake, for the members of the board, though ori­ginally appointed as the representatives of different denominations, never acted on the iuea that they were merely the repre­sentatives of denominations. I believe, howev'er, that the public interests have been served by changing the administra­tion of the department from a board to a responsible Minister. The honorable member for Belfast referred to the. fact that the other colonies, mentioning espe­cially New South Wales and Queensland, have not yet adopted our Education Act. Now on tbis point I will venture to be a prophet. I predict that it will not be very long before New South Wales will accept our educational system, and that Queensland will very soon follow suit. I was in New South Wales two years ago and a year ago, and met some of the gen­tlemen who are foremost in the good work of agitating for the establishment of a free, secular, and compulsory system of education in that colony, and I can tell the honorable member for Belfast that if either of the two leaders of public opinion there-Sir John Robertson and Sir Henry Parkes­find themselves pushed on one side and forced to give way to younger and more energetic men, it will be because of their want of fidelity to the true principles of our Education Act. If either of those gentlemen honestly and fairly threw him­self into the agitation for the establish­ment of the same educational system that we have here he would still be a leader of public opinion in New South Wales. It is because both of them have been playing fast and loose on this question--:-have been

trying to conciliate a particular vote-that they are in the position in which they now find themselves. I was sorry to hear a remark which the honorable member made about the gentleman whom he terms the author of the Education Act. As I have stated before, Mr. Stephen was not the author of the Education Act. The authors of that Act were the Cabinet of which he was a member and Mr. Francis was the head. Mr. Stephen was simply one of those who took part in the framing of the measure, and introduced it to Parliament. The honorable member for ·Belfast said that Mr. Stephen stated it was brought forward as a blow at the Roman Catholics. I never before heard that Mr. Stephen stated anything of the kind. If he did, he had no warrant or authority for making such an assertion. I am speaking within the hearing of gen­tlemen who know as well as I do myself, that the Cabinet who framed the Educa­tion Act had no notion of striking at the Roman Catholics or any other denomi­nation by that measure. Anybody who knows Mr. Stephen ought to know that he would be above giving as a reason for bringing forward a measure of great public importance that it was intended to injure any denomination whatever. I deny utterly that when the Education Act was inaugurated there was any desire or intent.ion on the part of those to whom its administration was intrusted to give offence to any denomination whatever. On the contrary, all denominations were studiously treated under it perfectly alike, .and, speaking for my predecessor, myself, and my successors, I can safely say there has been no interference whatever with them. Perhaps at one time some little partiality was shown to the Catholic body, because there seemed to be such a strong idea on their part that they ,yere not re­ceiving fair play. For example, it may have happened that once or twice a Ca­tholic teacher received promotion all the sooner because the department desired to especially prove its desire to treat the Catholic denomination as fairly as any other denomination. We are now asked to give special assistance to one denomi­nation by establishing the result system in their regard; and tho request is set up on the ground of conscience. Just let us look at the result system. What does it mean? It is said it can do no harm, because under it the State will pay for only the results in the shape of secular education,

1182 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Ins(ruction.

which it is the aim of the Education Act to achieve. But what guarantee have we that by the adoption of that plan we shall get the results we ought to get? Supposing the teachers employed in schools under the result system to be what we have been told the teachers in capitation schools are, namely, of a very low class, how can we repair the wrong they will do, or bring affairs back into their proper position? What guarantee have we that denominational schools of this sort will not do in the future what they have always done in the past? The Minister of Public Instruction favoured us the other night with some information as to the low ability of a number of the teachers taken from the denominational schools, and whom the Education depart­ment was compelled to keep in its employ­ment until it became possible to get rid of them. He spoke of men of poor attain­ments, small experience, ill temper, un­faithful in the discharge of their duty, destitute of the slightest faculty for im­parting instruction, and so on, and he said that nearly all the teachers of that stamp in the department came from capitation schools. What assurance have we that the teachers that would be em­ployed in denominational schools under the result system would not be men of precisely the same character? Then as to the question of conscience. When a claim is set up on the ground of conscience, let us not be led away by any appeal to our sympathies. Let us understand thoroughly what the ground is. We know that in all coumries the question of conscience is never allowed to countervail against the public welfare. The honorable member for Belfast referred to past times when Catholics suffered from disabilities, and to the fact that in the progress of civiliza­tion those disabilities were removed. He pointed to faithful subjects of the Ci'OWll being kept by the law in the position of aliens, to the public welfare suffering from the exclusion of Catholics from office, and finally to the satisfactory results which followed the legislation which changed that state of things. But one word about the Catholic disabilities. The people at the head of affairs in those days, although perhaps not quite so well informed upon a variety of subjects as we are, wore men of sense, who knew perfectly well how to con­duct their business; and if they established and perpetuated thoee disabilities it was because at that time the rope ({laimcd

MI', Mackay>

temporal power in England, and it was felt to be requisite that men who dealt with affairs of legislation ought to be able to take an oath of loyalty to the British sovereign which superseded allegiance to any other foreign power whatever. Those disabilities are now happily removed, but we cannot say there was never any excuse for them. When we are asked to build up again in this country a denominational system of education, we ought to inquire -I am not now alluding to any particu­lar denomination-what is the history of all countries where the education of the people has been carried on under the direction of the denominations? Do we not know that in every country where such a system has prevailed it has proved unsatisfactory, the education given under such circumstances being of an inferior class?

Mr. McINTYRE.-Look at Sweden. Mr. MACKAY.-The arrangement

established in Sweden is an experiment, and we don't know how it will turn out. Weare all cognizant that whenever education has been in the hands of the clergy the position of the people has sunk. The education given under such conditions is always of an inferior, if not abject character. What is our own ex­perience-I don't wish to be in the least in vidious-on the subject? Let Hayter tell us by means of statistics what was the ignorance and the crime we had once in our midst. I hope the State will keep education in its own hands-that no other educational policy whatever will be per­mitted amongst us. The clergy have their own duty-that of imparting reli­gious in,struction-to perform, let them perform it. The State places no obstacle whatever in their way. I cannot under­stand why teachers, who have quite enough to do in instructing the young in the various branches of secular know·' ledge, should have more put upon them­why they should be required to go beyond the proper circle of their duties, and in­struct their scholars in religious tenets. The two branches of education are quite distinct in their character; there is no necessary alliance 'between them; and when we find that their alliance invariably sows the seeds of sectarian bitterness, hinders rather than helps the attainment of a good wholesome education, and causes the population of the country where it exists to be characterized by ignorance and want of infol'Ulatlon,havewe not everyreasoll for

Supply. [OCTOBER 23.J Public Instruction. 1183

preventing any union of the kind? Now that we have had five years experience of our present system, and found that upon the whole it works and has worked well, and sown no dissensions among the re­ligious sects, but treated them all alike, shall we not strongly unite to resist every insidious attempt to change the face of affairs by means of the introduction of a system of payment by results? I believe that the Roman Catholic laity and the laity of all the othe~' denominations are quite willing, if they are let alone, to allow the Act to work its way. They see plainly that it is not a sectarian Act; that it favours neither Protestant, nor Catholic, nor any other denomination, but treats all religions alike-and that its re­sult mnst be that future generations in the country will grow up educated and en­lightened, and far more able to practise the principles of any religion than they would have been had they remained ig­norant and uninformed. I would not willingly be a party to inflicting injustice on any body of my fellow citizens, but I cannot see that the working of the Act inflicts any injustice. The children of all denominations in the State schools are treated exactly alike-on a perfect level; there is no interference whatever with their religious instruction, to impart which every proper opportunity is offered to the pastors of the various churches;· and, above all, we have about us every sign that the progress of modern enlightenment is in the direction of freeing education from every trammel, denominational or otherwise, and of imparting to every member of the rising generation, under compulsion if necessary, that sound secular education, which ex­perience proves is calculated to raise the standard of social life among us, and to prevent any child growing up wanting in the knowledge necessary to enable him to become a good and a respectable citizen. For these rea,sons I am thoroughly opposed to the change in our educational system which the honorable member for Belfast wishes to bring about. I think if the honorable member looks at what education in this country has been in the past, he will admit that even in his own denomi­nation it was not wpat it ought to be ; and I venture to ask him what guarantee have we that if the old system is revived, there will be any improvement in it? I desire at all events to see the experiment -if I may so call it-which the present system represents, carried out honestly and

fairly for at least five years longer before we take any radical change in it into our consideration.

Mr. MACGREGOR.-I do not on the present occasion intend to reply to the statements made from a particular quarter of the House except upon one or two points, and I desire, before I touch upon them, to allude for a moment or two to the com­mencement, or, rather, origination of the Education Act. Looking back upon the past five years I find that it was while the Francis lVIinistry were in office that that measure was passed, avowedly for the purpose of merging all the little schools of the country into one great system; and I remember that, talking to :Mr. Francis at that time, I told him that were his Government, after establishing State schools of a primary character throughout the country, to go a step further in the direction of intermediate schools leading up to the University, they would make themselves the most popular Ministry, at least so far as education is concerned, Victoria had ever seen. It is, however, reserved for the people's lVIin­istry now in power to take that step; and in whatever they do to complete the educational system of the country, about which I trust no time will be lost, they shall have all the assistance I can render them. At the same time, while sitting behind them and giving them a cordial and intelligent support, I may be allowed, as an independent member, to state what I imagine to be the defects of our existing educational arrangements. I cannot too strongly insist on the fact that, to be a complete success, the free education pro­vided by the State in this country 'must be carried from the primary schools to intermediate schools, and from intermediate schools to the Uuiversity. To achieve that end I do not think expense need be any deterring consideration, because I am satisfied the country would not begrudge another £100,000 in order to gain so great a boon. What is the history and condition of our Melbourne University? I have watched its career from the beginning, when it made its little start with two or three students per annum; but, although it has greatly advanced since then, how can it compare with what I have seen in Edinburgh, where I have known 1,500 students in one institution? 'Vhat, in comparison, do we get for the £9,000 a year our University derives from the State? The universitl student~ of the colony are

118 .. !" Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

only a straggling few as compared with the total population, and our University itself is far behind the age. I hope to see the day when its staff will include a couple of professors of the art of teach­ing, and others to impart the science of agriculture, the science of sericulture, and also science generally as applied to the industrial arts of the colony. Then we will have a University worthy such a great nation as that of Victoria. If the Minister of Public Instruction will only take a bold step in that direction, I am sure he will not want support. As for the payment by results system, it ought to be utterly swept away, in order that our scheme of State education may become what it ought to be, namely, one leading up to a Univer­sity worthy the name, and open not only to the children of the richer classes but to those of the poor-to State scholars generally. Let me take a short review of our educational condition, and the working of the existing system, of which, consid­ering I have been immediately connected with it from the first, I claim to speak with some authority. 'Vhen I look back upon the old denominational schools, I hope strongly that they will never again be seen here. I think that when State money was withdrawn from them, and the State established schools of its own, a glorious day dawned upon the country. From the first the latter were crowded, and their success has ever since gone on increasing. Shall we now give up all that we have done for them-the State school buildings which we have erected at a vast expense, and the efficient staff of teachers (I am in a position to declare that the Victorian teachers, whether in our State schools, our colleges, or om' gram­mar schools, will compare as a class with tho teachers of any country in the world), we have got together-simply because one religious den9mination is dissatisfied? Shall we, now that we have gone so far, turn round and adopt the result system, in connexion with which there are so many serious defects, and surrender for it all the vastly improved teaching power and classification our State school pIau has obtained for us? On one point, however, our Education Act may be said so far to have failed. It has not fully provided for the gutter children of the country; and what to do in order to remedy that fault is a problem which the Minister of Public Instruction of the day has to solve. I cannot say what he will do in the

Mr. Macgreflor,

matter, but I suggest that, if he finds the operation of the compulsory clauses in­sufficient for the purpose, he should pro­pose legislation that will make them properly effective. I think the enforce­ment of the compulsory clauses we got at the hands of the late Minister of Public Instruction was altogether of too mild a character. In my opinion the grand ob­ject of the Act was from the beginning, and is now, to bring" the gutter children of the country into the State schools, and until they are so brought the Act cannot be said to be a success. There seems to be some doubt as to the number of chil­dren of school age there are in the colony -I fancy that children leaving one school and going to another have been counted twice over-but there is none that, how­ever splendid the results achieved by our Education department may be, and how­ever well they compare with those of a corresponding kind gained in Germany and other highly educated countries, there are in Victoria many thousands of children who ought to be at school and are not. Facts are stubborn things, and they place what I allude to plainly before us. To that extent the Act has undoubtedly failed. The first Victorian Minister of Public Instruction erred in that direction, so did the second, and so did the third; but I hope the Major will follow the advice I have given him, and, by putting the compulsory conditions of the law fully in force, bring about a state of things in which there will not be in our streets a single child unable to pass a State school examination. What are the best means of bringing more children into our State schools? I am fully con­vinced that the result system now admin­istered by the Education department helps to drive them away. I know that teachers are frequently anxious to get boys of a low educational class to stop away from school, because, although they increase the attendance, they keep down the percentage of results. I consider that Mr. Venables, as the permanent head of the Education de­partment, and the officer chiefly responsible for its organization under the new state of things, is to blame for a very great part of what I complain of in this quarter. He ought to have checked this evil long ago, and not to have allowed it to last for five long years in order that the people's Ministry might remedy it. My idea is that the result system I allude to ought to be abolisht;ld in favour of an arrangement

Supply. [OCTOBER 23.] Public Inst1·uction. llS5

of tests to be applied, :first, .to infant scholars, secondly, to State scholars of say twelve years of age, and, finally, to scholars of a more advanced order-whose educa­tion, comprising something above the range of our primary schools, might be fairly tested by their ability to pass the U ni­versity matriculation examination. And next as to boards of advice, concerning which I can speak with some confidence. We have one in FItzroy, and I am glad to say they have been of some service. They resolved to give special prizes in all the Fitzroy schools, and what was the conse­quence? They collected over £100 for the purpose, the carrying out of which tho­roughly engaged the interest of both the pupils and their parents. It is one of the finest features of that school district that the people in it work together. If every school district did the same we would have a far better state of things. But, before going further, I will return to what I would do in order to bring more children to the State schools. I would closely describe every school district, and then draw as it were a cordon round it, making it imperative that no child within it should cross it in order to attend a State school beyond its boundary. Fol­lowing out that principle in a less strict way I would allow a parent to select the State school he wishes his child to go to, in order that the connexion of the child with that particular school might be clearly established and afterwards ac­counted for. Furthermore, I would require every scholar to have a card setting forth his name, the school he belongs to, and the class he is in, so that when he changes his school the fact might be duly recorded, and the child placed at once in his right place in his new school. That arrange­ment would, I think, help to secure not only regularity of attendance but, what is of even more value, continuity of educa­tion. Again, I would have every absentee from school inquired after by the police. When the policeman, charged with that particular line of duty, discovered an nb­sentee I would have him go at once to the parent's house to find out the cause of the non-attendance. In watching the progress of State education in this country I have always taken a deep in­terest in night schools; I must confess that hitherto they have to a great extent been failures. I went some time since to one attended by boys and' girls, and what did I find? The boys were running after

the girls and pulling off their hats. More­over, I heard language from them that shocked me. I contend that girls should never go to the same night school as boys. If there are to be night schools, the boys and girls taught in them should be taught sepamtely.

Mr. G. PATON SMITH.-Howabout boys and girls in Sunday schools?

Mr. MACGREGOR.-I will speak about that by-and-by. At another night school I saw boys outside the building breaking the window panes in order to annoy the teacher inside. A policeman mn after some of them, but he failed to catch any. Night schools as they exist now are a sham. Nevertheless, I went a short while ago to a night school in Fitz­roy of quite a different character. I found 300 boys and girls receiving instruction there; and they had a capital teacher at their head, and the attendance was regular. If a combined effort were made to bring night schools generally into a better condition, they would be, no doubt, of great service to . the country. Another plan I would ndopt is this: I would have every policeman who meets a child under twelve years of age in the streets at night, insist on knowing where it is going; and if it is not on its way to or from a night school, it should be the constable's business to inquire into the matter. I guarantee that if the Min­ister of Public Instruction took care to have every street arab drilled and disci­plined at a State school, there would not be half the prisoners at Pentridge that are there at present. I was asked just now about Sunday schools. I reply that they are taking great part in the work of re­ligious instruction. They have a task to perform-let thorn perform it. I have some share in the direction of a Sunday school containing 1,000 boys and girls, and I assert that it is helping in no small way to solve the problem how to give children religious instruction without introducing it into our State schools. I now come to the training system in operation in the colony. I find that while the Melbourne University costs the State £9,000 a year, our training is carried on at the yearly expen~e of £8,647, in addition to which there is an item, "allowance for board of students, £5,085," with which I do not at all agree. I think the latter amount a great deal too much. But when I compare the cost of the training institute with that of the Melbourne University, I am struck with the overwhelming expensiveness of

1186 Su.pply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

theformer. Assuredly we don't get a proper return for our money. Why, the amount each student at the institute costs the State per annum is sufficient to keep any student at the Melbourne University for three years, and feed and clothe him as well. Then what is the training institute doing for what we spend on it? According to a return which has been furnished me the total expense in connexion with the Central Training School was in 1873, £3,115; in 1874, £2,845; in 1875, £1,983; in 1876, £2,623; while this year it will be £2,808. Our training system includes in addition what are known as associated schools, the cost of which was in 1875, £1,926; and in 1876, £2,983; while this year it will be £3,092. What has this expenditure given us? Certifi­cates as trained teachers were obtained in 1873 by 15 persons, in 1874 by 9 per­sons, in 1875 by 10 persons, and in 1876 by J 5 persons. Every trainee has in fact cost the State upon an average £271 7s.,

,and, as I have already pointed out, the same amount would keep him for three years at the Melbourne University, where the instruction given him would be im­measurably superior. I say this expendi­ture is far too large, and ought to be cut down until the Minister of Public In­struction has associated the Melbourne University with our State school system, and made it a trnining school worthy the colony. There is no need whatever for the institute for a year or two, because there are at the present moment a great many teachers who cannot find situations. Moreover, I find that 1,000 teachers go up yearly to be examined in order that they may obtain employment, and we are also able to draw for teachers upon the 500 or so young persons who yearly pass the University matriculation examination, and the 965 pupil-teachers of the colony, some hundred or so of whom are yearly advanced to the 1 st class. With this great superfluity of teaching power what need is there to 'go on for the present with our everwhelmingly expensive train­ing system? Again, what is the use of sending a matriculated student to the train­ing institute to pass an examination lower than the one he has already passed? That is a division of labour with a vengeance. After a student has successfully passed through the hands of such teachers as Dr. Bromby, Dr. Morrison, Professor Andrew, or Professor Strong, what have they to learn at the training institute?

Mr. ftlacgregor.

Mr. G. PATON SMITH.-The art of teaching.

Mr. MACGREGOR.-Well, I contend that the money laid out on that in­stitute is wasted. Say that persons go there to learn the art of teaching, what are they taught ? Not one system, but a mingling of systems. One teacher im­parts one system; another another. The thing is a piece of patchwork, like an old garment. Then, again, I understand that the teaching staff at the Central Training Institute is inferior, and incapable of train­ing persons to be good teachers. I wonder whether there is any truth in the charge. Possibly the fact is that persons who have successfully passed the hands of such men as Dr. Bromby or Dr. Morrison have done so well that there is nothing left for them to learn that the training teachers can impart. I am sure that it is an injustice to trainees to make them go through a similar course of instruction twice over. Besides the double expense is a waste. The most extraordinary thing of all-an act of folly I call it-is the late Minister of Public Instruction sending to England for Mr. Gladman (of whose abilities I have a high opinion), in order to make him superintendent of the Central Training Institute, without trying to find a man equal to the situation in the colony. Why did he not at least put an advertisement in the A1'gUS, Age, or Telegraph, in­quiring if there was anybody capable of taking the vacant place? I am satisfied that there are in the colony, outside the Melbourne University, at least ten or twenty men fully equal to the post. What chance is there for native talent if, whenever there is a good opening in the Education department, we send to England to get it filled? I suppose the late Minister of Public Instruction looked at the subject from a free-trade stand­point, while I am a protectionist. The remedy I would apply to the faults of our training system is its complete association with the Melbourne University, where I would establish a chair for the theory and art of teaching. The Edinburgh Training Institute is one of the finest in the world, and the practice in connexion with it is that the teachers go to the University for their general instruction and come to the training school to practise the art of teaching. I would like to see, in COll­

nexion with our educational system, three clnsses of schools-infant, middle, and high-the pupils as they became proficient

Supply. [OCTOBER 23.J Public Instruction. 1187

in one class being transferred to the other; and I would also like to see the introduc­tion of the Prussian system, under which every master in the high schools would be limited iu his teaching to one branch of knowledge, whether mathematics, lan­guages, science, geography, or book-keep­ing. Were such a pIau adopted, boys and girls, by tho time they bad completed their school course, would be fully qualified to take part in the business of life. I have a word or two to say about school inspec­tion. It costs at pres en t £ 1 0,920 per year. I consider this out of all propor­tion to the work done, and to the popu· latioll of the colony. In Scotland, with a population of nearly 4,000,000, there are ] 7 school inspectors; in the colony of Victoria, with a population of 800,000, there are also I 7 inspectors, and, accc;mling to the Education report, more are needed. But if inspectors are to increase in number in the same ratio as the population, by the time the population of this colony is equal to that of Scotland, we shall have 85 in~ spectors-far too large an army altogether.

Mr. LEVIEN.-How many schools are there in Scotland?

Mr. MACGREGOR.-The elementary schools in Scotland number 2,924; the average attendance is 344,434. In Vic­toria the average school attendance is 106,758, or scarcely one-third, and yet we have as many school inspectors as there are in Scotland. I would cut the number down by one half. I will endeavour to ehow how one half the present number of inspectors would be sufficient. Let every large school in Victoria be a model school, let the head teacher and his sub­ordinates be efficient, let the management be thorough, and very little inspection at all will be needed, for the reason that such a system would create and foster a spirit of emulation among the schools of the colony, and the passes would be a suffi­cient indication as to results. I don't want to do away with inspectors altogether, but I would like to see them appointed on some different principle from that in force at present. The appointments are given to young men, from the University who know nothing of the art of teaching, who perhaps never taught a class in their lives. I have been preseilt in a school when an inspector has come in apparently without knowing what to do and afraid to bogin, and then walked out again, having done nothing. I consilier that the in­spcctol:ships should be held out as rewards

to efficient teachers. It was a saying of Napoleon, that every French soldier car­ried a marshal's baton in his knapsack, meaning thereby that the highest rank in the French army was open to the meri­tOl'ious, however humble; and why should not the same principle be applied to our Education department? Why should not the plums in that department be attain­able by those who have done their work well as teachers, and who, by thoir success as teachers, have qualified themselves to become inspectors? I now desire to say a word with regard to the item of £1,488 for exhibitions. I don't object to ex­hibitions, but I consider the money voted for this, purpose is misapplied. The re­port of the Education department says:-

"There have been six examinations for exhi­bitions; two under the late Board of Education, and four under the present department. Eight exbibitions bave been awarded each year, making a total of 48 since the commencement; 10 of the holders have resigned or forfeited their exhibi­tions; of the remaining 38 there are-attending lectures at the University, 18; pupils attending Geelong Grammar School, i; Wesley College, 5; High School, Sandhurst, 4; Scotch College, Melbourne, 2; C. E. Grammar School, Mel­bourne, 1; Ballarat College, 1 ; total, 38."

Now what I object to in cOllnexion with this matter is the giving of money outside State schools. I consider that the money expended on exhibitions should, from the first, have been distributed among State school teachers, who should have the training of these youths. I am informed that some of the youths who had exhibi­tions at the Geelong school, after passing the matriculation examination at the Uni­versity, went back to the 'school, and then got a second bonus to do the work over again. But that is not a right thing. When they matriculated, they should have entered upon and gone on with their U ni­versity career. In connexion with tho system of inspection, I would suggest to the Mini::;ter of Public Instruction the desirability of appointing an inspectress to pronounce upon the sewing, crotchet­work, &c., executed by the girls attending State schools. vVhat do inspectors know of such things? I now come to the ques­tion of teachers' salaries. I am one who has watched with deep interest the opera­tion of the Education Act from its com­mencement, and I must confess that, as' far as teachers' salaries are concerned, there is something very wrong. At the time of the passing of the Education Act it was clearly understood that any loss which teachers might sustain through the change

1188 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

in the educational system would be made I lady who does honest work should be up to them; and this understanding could paid at, a lower rate, because her husband have been carried out without any tronble is the head of the school, than she would. by the head of the department ascerta,ining be paid nnder other circumstances. I the difference between what each teacher may mention that the family arrangement received during the last year of the old was recognised to a large extent under system and what he received during the the old Board of Education, the practice first year of the new system. But such being for the husband to take charge simplicity would not do for red-tapism. of the boys and the wife to tn,ke charge ~ow I have a seat in this House, I will of the girls, the sexes being kept endeavour to see that the grievances of separate, which I would like to see the teachers do not go unredressed-that dOlle no,,> But snpposing £1,000 is everyone of them shaH have the com pen- earned by a family of five persons, that saHon to which he is fairly entitled. I averages only £200 for each. I under­am not going in for exorbitant salaries; I stand that the son of one of the inspectors only ask for what is fair. The Minister holds an office in the Education depa-rt­of Public Instruction seems disposed to ment, but I presume he does not receive make a reduction in the salaries of the lower salary because he happens to be the teachers; but I say that, after the way in son of an inspector. The Minister of which the teachers have worked during Public Instruction stated that he had a the last five years, anything like :1 sudden return which showed that the incomes of sweeping reduction would be a grievous the 50 head teachers who are lowest paid injustice. I consider that the pupil-teachers average only £93 per annum, while the are inadequately paid, and yet they will incomes of the 50 head teachers who are bear comparison with pupil-teachers in highest paid average £473 per annum. I any part of the world. I think that their do not dispute these figures, but I desire training should be extended so as to in- to mention that not very long since a clude the passing of the civil service or return was sent out from the Education matriculation examinations. Were that department showing what a teacher might done, we would have a noble army of receive from results and other sources. It nearly 1,000 young men and women- was a retul'll showing what a teacher well-trained teachers whose acquirements might, but did not receive. For my part, would be a sufficient guarantee that the I think the best course would be to abolish education of the country would be properly the result system, and pay every teacher, conducted. But I repeat that the pupil- from the highest to the lowest., a fixed teachers are inadequately paid. Imagine salary according to classification. With a young lady of nineteen or twenty re- regard to retrenchment, I venture to point ceiving only the miserable allowance of out how the Minister may accomplish a £16 or £20 per annum for teaching a saving of £15,595 on the present vote. class of 60 or 80 boys and girls, for four It is by reducing the staff of inspectors by hours in the heat of a summer's day, one half, which alone means a saving of without sitting down, after which she has £5,:160, and by expunging from the to submit to one hour's training instruction, Estimates the following items:-Training and then to prepare for the following institute, salaries, £2,682; allowance for day? I speak with honest indignation on board of students, £5,085; bonus for the subject, because I know that many of trainees promoted, £750; allowance to these pupil-teachers are orphans. I hope superintendent of training institute for that, with the beginning of the new year, house rent, £130; and exhibitions, £1,488; ail addition will be made to their salaries. I consider that if the State school system Then, again, the plan adopted of paying is connected with the University, the pre­the assistant-teachers is quite a wrong sent training institute, which I regard as one. With regard to what the Minister a failure, may be dispensed with, because calls the family arrangements-the system the University would then be the place under which assistant-teachers may be for the training of teachers. I would like members of the head teacher's family, lectures adapted to the capacity of the and by which over £1,000 may go to one pupils given in the State schools-the family-I am told on good authority that lectures in the high schools being of a the wife of a head teacher, under that higher class than those given in the system, gets less than she would had she lower schools-and I would also like to another school. Now I don't see why a see engrafted on the Universi.ty course

Mr. Macgregor.

Supply. [OCTOBER 23.J Public Instruction. 1189

instnlction in agricultural pursuits, includ­ing sericulture and the growth of the vine. I hold that the organization of our Educa­tion department should be as complete as that of the German army under Von Moltke, who always knew where to put his hand on every regiment and on every officer; and I say that if the Secretary, or the inspectors, or other educational officials are not equal to the duties required from them, let them be pensioned off and let better men be put in their places. With regard to the compulsory clause, I would like to see it enforced until every arab is reclaimed from the streets.

Mr. DWYER.-Sir, I could not help thinking, when listening to the last speaker and his reference to Von Moltke, that if in this discussion there is an attack on the Education Act and a defence of that Act, neither the one nor the other appears to be considered a serious matter by either party in the House. Why, I notice that only about one-third of the members of the House are present, and that there is not a single member on the opposition benches. Under these circumstances I can hardly help coming to the conclusion that this discussion is viewed with apathy by two-thirds of the members of the House. There has been constant refer­ence by successive speakers to a national system of education. Well, I am in favour of a truly national system of education­a system which will be satisfactory not only to some of the people of the country but to all. I am not an opponent of the Education Act. On the contrary, I am a supporter of it, so strong a supporter indeed that I desire to see it made as perfect as possible. But inasmuch as it is said to give satisfaction, at p~esent, to only three-fourths of the population, I consider it will not be perfect until some endeavour is used to make it give satisfaction to the other one-fourth. I think that can be done without denation­alizing or emasculating the Act. To hear people talk, one would imagine that there is something about the Act which does not exist in connexion with any other Act, namely, finality. But the Education Act is no exception to the rule. It has been once amended, and I don't think anyone will pretend to say that even now it is perfect. Indeed those who pro­fess to be the greatest supporters of the measure contend that it wants further amendment.· With reference to the peti­tions which have been referred by the

House to this committee, I regard them as representing the wishes of one-fourth of the population of this country, and I say that therefore they are entitled to more consideration and attention than they have yet received from honorable members. It appears to me that one answer only has been given to the prayer of those petitions. It is said that the prayer cannot be granted because, if it were, other religious sects would ask that the same consideration should be shown to them. But how does that harmonize with the statement that the Education Act is so dear to the heart~ of the people that it has the full support of the whole of the non-Catholic portion of the community-of three-fourths of the total population? Why the two proposi­tions are inconsistent. If the Act does please all the population except the Roman Catholics, they will not seek to interfere with its provisions because certain relief may be afforded to the Roman Catholics. If, on the contrary, the so-called supporters of the Act are so dissatisfied with it that they will take the first opportunity to sap its foundations, how can it be said to be a national Act? I don't think any person who considers this aspect of the case can come to any other conclusion than that if the Act which now gives satisfaction to three-fourths of the population is amended so as to give satisfaction also to the other one-fourth, the measure will be more per­fect than it is. I think it is possible so to amend the Act as to accomplish this result. We have heard a great deal of the beneficial effects of the competitive system in the civil service; and I ask why should not the competitive system be applied to the Education department? The granting of the prayer of the petitions from the Roman Catholic body would bring the competitive principle into opera­tion, and we would then have emulation between two sets of schools, and also the further advantage of a lessening of the expenditure under· the Education Act. Some of the supporters of the Act com­plain that it is more expensive than it need be. But if the principle of paying by results for children edu~ated in schools other than State schools were intro­duced, there would be at once a lessening of cost on the item of school buildings, which is at present a very serious item of educational expendi­ture. It is an item which will- not de­crease suddenly, as the late Minister of Public Instruction seems to think, but

1190 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

will go on increasing. It is such a serious item that I think the Government and the committee ought to give attention to the suggestion which I make, if for no other reason than that it will lessen the expen­diture. I have already referred to the argument that each sect of the non­Catholic portion of the community will go in for a separate educational. graIlt if the concession asked for by the Roman Catholics is made; but, as I have said, if they were to do so they could not be con­sidered as very great supporters of the Education Act. Then again, all the Pro­testant sects have a tendency to amalga­mate-to fuse themselves into each other. We frequently hear of the Rev. Mr. So­and-so preaching for a brother clergyman on one Sunday, and the brother clergy­man returning the compliment on the fol­lowing Sunday. Practically they take turn and turn about. There is scarcely any difference between those sects, com­pared with the difference which exists between them and the Roman Catholic body. I assume that this tendency among the Protestant sects to amalgamate will continue to operate, and I don't think that, if it were proposed to' grant some relief to the Roman Catholics, the other three-fourths' would interpose merely for the purpose of spiting them. On the contrary, I think that if the relief asked for were granted to the Roman Catho­lics, we would have the spectacle of the whole community - the four-fourths­working harmoniously together, each per­son endeavouring to s"npport as strenuously as possible a.n Act which would then be­come a really national one. It should be recollected that while the Protestant de­nominations have given up their schools, the Roman Catholics have not given up theirs, nor have they let one. This shows, to my mind, that the Protestant denomi­nations are in favour of the Act, and we are not justified in assuming, until they make some complaint to this House, that they are dissatisfied. Some statistics were adduced the other evening, by the Minis­ter of Public Instruction, with a view to show' that there was practically no such thing as any dissatisfaction on the part of the Roman Catholic body, inasmuch as out of that prolific portion of the community there are only some 15,000 children that go to schools other than State schools. Well, that proves nothing whatever. It might just as well be. said that be­cause there are a number of prisoners in

Mr. Dwyer.

Pentridge, therefore those prisoners are satisfied with their quarters there. If they had any option in the matter they would go out, but they have none; and that is the case with regard to the Roman Catho­lics and the State schools. If they had the option, they would take their children away from the State schools, and send them to their own schools. I don't dis­sent from the Minister's proposition that the Catholics are not the least prolific portion of the community, but I believe that they are the least rich portion of the community-they have the least means of providing for the education of their children. A large number of Catholics are practically compelled, on the score of expense, to send their children to the State schools, where education is given free, because they cannot afford to pay for the education of their children after contributing, through the Custom-house, to the cost of the maintenance of the State educational system. It has been stated that the figures quoted by the Minister of Public Instruction as to the attendance of Catholic children at State schools are erroneous. I am not in a position to say whether that is the-case' or not; but, at all events, the figures given by the honor­able gentleman prove nothing. The de­duction which the Minister draws from them is not justified. I do not know that I would have taken any part in this dis­cussion but for some remarks made by the honorable member for East Bourke. That honorable member said-

"The signatures to the petitions from the Roman Catholic body, even with all the priestly drumming brought to bear upon that body, and the fact that the petitions were at every chapel door for a very considerable time, only amoun~ to 18,000."

The honorable member not only spoke of the signatures to these petitions being the result of a drumming by the priesthood, but he went on to say that he would like to see a division, to find out who we~e in favour of the Education Act and who were opposed to it-in fact, who dare make any remark against the Act.

Mr. RAMSAY.-I did not say that. Mr. DWYER.-That is the inference

which I draw from the honorablemem­ber's speech. The honorable member wanted a division in order that any mem­bers who voted for any alteration of the Act might afterwards be excluded fro~ this House. For my own part, as a Roman Catholic, I feel that if I have to listen to such insults from a member of

Supply. [OCTOBER 23.] Public Instruction. 1191

the House, I would rather have a division which would exclude me from the Assem­bly for ever. If discussions upon such a serious question as that at present before the chair are to be interlarded with such exhibitions of bigotry and intolerance as the honorable member for East Bourke displayed, I would certainly prefer to be excluded from the Chamber. The honor­able member spoke of the perfect organ­ization of the Catholic body, and yet he described the results of their agitation for an amendment of the Education Act as insignificant. The two statements are contradictory of each other. I deny that there is any such organization as the hon­orable member alleged; but the dissatis­faction of one-fourth of the community with the present Education Act cannot be regarded as insignificant. I do not know of any organization whatever; and I can­not allow such remarks as those indulged in by the honorable member to pass with­out protesting against their bigotry and intolerant tone. The honorable member spoke about ecclesiastical influence. I am as free from any such influence as the honorable member himself, and, perhaps, far more so. The honorable member talked about the abolition of State aid to religion, and trumpeted forth the fact that he was one of a committee who agitated for that abolition. I was always opposed to State aid to religion, and I believe that the majority of Roman Catholics have always been opposed to it. I believe that a far greater percentage of that body than of any other section of the community were always opposed to State aid to religion.

Mr. RAMSAY. - Their members al-ways voted against the abolition.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Not all. Mr. RAMSAY .-Every one. Mr. DWYER.-It is within my know­

ledge that one of them did not. The Roman Catholics have always supported their ecclesiastical system without any assistance from any other body, and often in spite of strenuous opposition to it. It has been said that what the Roman Catholic body ask for in their petitions is another form of State aid to religion; but there is no argument in support of that view, because all that is asked for is that the State shall pay for secular instruction to be given in other than State schools. One of the Melbourne journals contends that if Roman Catholic children were taught in other than State schools, priests and Catholic emblems would be found there.

This is the first time I have heard such an intolerant objection to the granting of the Catholic petitions. Why should not the Catholics be as free to use their em­blems as any other section of the com­munity? If it were sought to introduce the emblems of Roman Catholics into the State schools, I could understand that ob­jection; but inasmuch as, if used at all, they would only be used in schools at­tended by none but Cath(llic children, I do not see why there should be any objec­tion to that. I believe, however, that such emblems are not used at present in Catholic schools, and that they would not be used if the State made a payment for the secular instruction given in those schools. The Minister of Public Instruc­tion argued that, in calculating what the education of each child costs the State under the present system, the amount paid for the State schools ought to be deducted from the total expenditure. That might be correct if all the State schools were already built, but such is not the case; and as long as the erection of schools is still being proceeded with, it is only proper that the expenditure upon them should be taken into account to ascertain how much per child the educational system costs. The honorable member for East Bourke characterized the arguments of the honor­able member for Belfast as utterly fal­lacious, and said that he muddled the subject. If the honorable member had imitated the tone of the honorable member for Belfast's speech, even if he was not able to follow its arguments, he would have done more credit to himself than by presenting to the House the spec­tacle of a former Minister of Public Instruction using abuse instead of argu­ment in reply to those who advocate what is admitted to be an unpopular cause. There is no disguising the fact" that the claim of the Roman Catholic body is unpopular in this House. It re­quires a great deal of courage on the part of any honorable member to address him­self to it, for, if he supports it, he is charged with making an attack upon the Education Act. I will not dwell at greater length upon the fairness of grant­ing the prayer of these petitions. The result of the debate will be that their prayer will not be granted. I believe there is a foregone conclusion not to grant it nor anything analogous to it, nor to give any relief whatever to the Roman Catholic body; and therefore it is

1192 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

useless for me to occupy further time ill arguing the qnestion. I desire, however, to say a word about the administration of the Education Act. IVlany honorable members, while professing to be great 8upportersof the Act, find fault with its administration; but I certainly think that the Education department is the best administered of all the Government de­partments. In order to render the Act a truly national one, it must be made so that it will satisfy the whole of the community instead of only three-fourths. Although I do not think that this debate will result in anything practical at present, I believe that until some concession is made to the other fourth of the community-nntil something is done in the diIection which the prayer of the petitions of the Roman Catholic body indicates-there will be no peace from that portion of the community, for they will continue to be dissatisfied. Looking at the matter not in a religious or theological aspect, but solely from a political point of view, I say that it is undesirable to have a law with which a large portion of the people are not satis­fied. When one-fourth of the community express their dissatisfaction with an ex­isting law, we ought, acting purely as politicians, to give attention to their claims, whether they be practical or merely senti­mental, and endeavour, if possible, to re­move the cause of their dissatisfaction. The dissatisfaction of the Roman Catholic body with the Education Act can be re­moved by an alteration which will pro­mote a healthy growth of schools, intro­duce the principle of competition, and lessen the expense to the State. When Bome such relief as the Catholics ask for is granted we will have a truly national Education Act, but not until then.

Mr. R. CLARK (Sandhurst).-J udg­ing from the state of the House, it is quite evident that the sooner this discus­sion is brought to a termination the better, and therefore I will not occupy much time. I must take exception to some of the remarks made the other evening by the honorable member for Belfast. The honorable member said-

"I am not so much alarmed at the word 'de-:­nominationalism' as I might be. I don't see the bugbear."

. I do not undervalue religious teaching­indeed I consider religion a most important element in education-but I object to religion being taught in the State schools, and that is why I am opposed to the views

entertained on the education question by the honorable member for Belfast. I am always prepared to pay a proper amount of respect to the opinions expressed by that honorable member, considering the position which he has held in this country for many years; but I differ entirely from his. statement that the principle of free, secular, and compulsory education is still on its trial. It has been on its trial for five years, and the people have given their verdict upon it. The fact of the remarks made by the Minister of Public Instruc­tion complimentary to the present system of education being heartily cheered by members on both sides of the House shows that that system is thoroughly popular with the country. Even the hon­O1'able and learned member for Villiers and Heytesbury has admitted that such is the case. Although a considerable section of the community are opposed to this system of education, there is no denying the fact that the great majority of the people have decided in favour of it. I regret the spirit of hostility to it mani­fested by the honorable member for Bel­fast, although this is not the first time he has shown such hostility. When the honorable member was in another place he stigmatized a system of purely secular instruction as an infidel kind of education. But what has been the practical effect of the present system? It has been in force five years, and during that time it has borne great fruit-it has done a large amount of good. It cannot be denied, I believe, that it has had a tendency to diminish crime, and a system which will do that is a religion of the right kind. The same hostility shown towards our educational system by a section of the community has been manifested against similar systems of education in other countries. When the present system of education in Prussia was introduced in that country there was an outcry against it by one section of the people, but the effect of the operation of the system is that crime in Prussia has decreased about 45 per cent. The result of a similar sys­tem in Switzerland is that it has nearly emptied the gaols; while in America, instead of a secular system of education promoting infidelity, the very reverse is the case.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-They teach the Bible in the State schools in America.

Mr. R. CLARK.-They will very soon have to abolish that portion of the State

Supply. [OCTOBER 23.J Public Instruction. 1193

system. I believe t.hat before many years elapse the same system of purely secular education that we have in force in this country will be adopted throughout the whole of America. The example set by Victoria on great questions has been already followed in some instances by other countries. I regret that the honor­able member for Fitzroy (Mr. Macgregor) severely criticised the officers of the Edu­cation department, who have no oppor­tunity of defending themselves. Let the administration of the department be criti­cised as much as any honorable member likes, but to condemn the action of the officers of the department is altogether nncalled for and exceedingly injudicious. I desire to make a few remarks in refer­ence to the regulations as to the competi­tion for the exhibitions open to the pupils attending State schools. I find that the subjects in which a youth has to pass before he can secure one of these exhibi­tions include Euclid, Algebra, Latin, and French-in fact, three or four of the sub­jects are altogether outside the ordinary school course, and a large number of boys attending the State schools are practically prevented by the regulations from com­peting for the exhibitions. I have received a letter from a head teacher in one of tl1e schools, a gentleman well qualified to ex­press an opinion on the subject, in which he says-

" The original idea was that, by means of these aids to a higher education, talent, whether found in the poorest or highest, should be encouraged, and the really clever child pushed forward. The object is entirely defeated, because the examina­tions have gone outside the subjects of the free course. The remedy is either to examine only in those subjects which all children are taught free, and let the higher subjects come after, or else to examine in the same subjects as at present, and teach those subjects free to all." I quite agree with the opinion that the examination for the exhibitions should either be confined to the subjects included in the ordinary school course, or else that instruction in the extra subjects should be free. I hope the Minister will not lose sight of the necessity for applying such a remedy to what is admitted to be a defect in the arrangements as to exhibitions. Reference has been made to the training schools. I do not think that those schools are costing one shilling too much, but their functions are not as properly carried out as they ought to be. There are train­ing schools in all the large centres of population, and one head training institu­tion in Melbourne. An inducement is

VOL. XXVI.-4 R

held out to the masters of the various training schools to endeavour to qualify as many persons as possible to pass a cer­tain examination, and. after those persons, who may have had little or no previous experience in teaching, have passed that examination they are transferred to the training institution in Me~bourne, and on passing a further examination in a little Latin, French, and some other subjects, they are considered fit to be head teachers. This is not a right system. Due respect is not paid to the pupil-teachers in the State schools. If we expect to obtain a num­ber of thorough first-class head teachers, we must get them from the ranks of the pupil-teachers. The services of the pupil~ teachers are not sufficiently appreciated. Pupil-teachers ought to be more liberally dealt with. They serve an apprenticeship of four or five years, and I would suggest, for the consideration of the Minister, that it might be desirable to' provide that, on serving a year longer under the eye of a com­petent master, and after passing a suitable examination and proving their skill in the art of teaching, they should be considered eligible for the position of head teachers. With regard to cutting down teachers' salaries, I think that the Minister should be very careful before taking any step in that direction. Ministers of religion receive salaries varying from £300 to £1,000 a year, but a large number of teachers re­ceive very much smaller salaries than £300 a year. A 4th class assistant only gets about £90, while a junior clerk in a bank commences with a salary of £130 or £140. It would be a great mistake to adopt a cheese-paring policy in regard to the salaries of teachers. The teachers must be encouraged if the education system is to become all that we desire it to be. The Minister objects to the large salaries obtained by teachers under the family arrangements. No doubt £1,000 appears a large sum for one family of teachers to receive yearly from the State, but if the amount is divided by four. or five-the number of persons employed in earning tha.t income-it is not much after all. What difference does it make whether those persons earn their salaries by teaching in the same school or in different schools? All that the depart­ment need care about is to see that their services are honestly worth the amonnt of remuneration they receive; In con­clusion, I desire to repeat that I and other members who support the preient

1194 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

educational system do not in the least undervalue religious instruction, but we consider that it ought to be given apart altogether from a State system of educa­tion.

Mr. D. M. DA VIES.-There have been some rather long speeches made during this debate, aud therefore, for the sake of a change, I shall be brief in the observations which I desire to address to the committee. Honorable members on this (the Ministerial) side of the House have been taunted with not speaking, but I think a proof has been given to-night that it cannot justly be alleged that we are not capable of speaking. One reason of our silence js that we have learned when not to talk, and another reason is that the time of the House is chiefly monopolized by honorable members on the other side of the House, so that members on this side have very little chance of speaking, even if they desire to do so. I. do not find fault with honorable members for making long speeches, but what I complain of is that they talk so much and say so little .. It would be a great ad­vantage to the House if some condensing process were applied to the long speeches, 130 as to bring the ideas which they con .. tain within a smaller compass. Like a little cream spread over a large piece of bread, which tastes more as if it were skimmed milk than cream, the views expressed by some honorable members are spread over such an immense area of words that they appear to be mere words and nothing else. 'Vith respect to the rcmtLrks of the honorable member for Bel­fast, comparing unfavorably the average attendance of children at school under the present Act with that under the old system, I may mention one cause which will tend to explain the difference. Under the old system 30 holidays per year were allowed, and the teachers had practically the sole control over those holidays, and they regulated them in such a way as to make the average attendance appear as high as possible. For instance, if on a wet day only 10 children came to a school that had 30 names on the roll, the teacher would proclaim that day a holiday, so that the smallness of the number present would not in any way interfere with the average attendance. Another way in which the teachers doctored the average attendance was by proclaiming holidays at a time of the year when a number of the children were Hkely to "be absent assisting their·

parents in harvest operations-or, in dis­tricts like Bungaree, in planting potatoes -instead of keeping holiday on such oc­casions as the Queen's birthday. Under the present system, however, the teachers are not able to doctor the average at­tendance in a similar ,yay, as the regula­tions with respect to holidays are more stringent. If allowance be made for the difference between the two systems in this respect, I believe that the present average attendance of children will com­pare favorably with the average under the old system. As to the grievance com­plained of by the Roman Catholics in connexion with the present system of education, I am not convinced that they have any grievance, notwithstanding all that has been said by members favorable to the prayer of the petitions which have emanated from that body. The honorable member for Belfast says we should be satisfied with the assertion that Roman Catholics have a conscientious objection to send their children to the State schools, but other religionists are entitled to know what their conscientious objection is. The State provides nothing that is objection­able, and, therefore, I cannot understand what conscientious scruples any section of the community can have in this matter. If the State provided some kind of re­ligion to which Roman Catholics ob­jected, I could understand there would be a grievance, but nothing of the kind is done. Does any Roman Catholic object to his children being taught reading, writ­ing, and arithmetic? These are the things provided by the State, aud what is there in them objectionable to the consciences of Roman Catholics? Notbjng at all. I think that the State, in respect to those persons who desire that religion should be taught in the schools, is very much in the position of the weather charmer, who

. told his fellow citizens that he would give them any weather they liked. One person asked him for fine weather, another for rainy weather, another for windy weather, and so forth, wJ;tereupon he turned round, and said to them-" It is impossible for me to give you different kinds of weather in the same locality at the same time; but when you are all agreed as to what sort of weather you want, I will give you that kind of weather." When the State is asked to allow religion to be taught in its schools, the question naturally arises-What sort of religious instruc­tion is wanted? Is it that which asserts

Supply. (OCTOBER 23.J Public Instruction. 1195

that the first day of the week is the Sab­bath, or that which declares that the last day of the week is the Sabbath? The State may very properly say to the persons who ask that religious instruction shall be given-" Good people, you had better go home, and settle amongst yourselves what religion you want to have taught; when you have agreed upon that point, we will teach you the religion you want, but, in the meantime, we will teach you nothing except what you all believe in." All believe in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and therefore what can there be objection­able to the Roman Catholic conscience in the. State imparting instruction to their children in those subjects? I can easily understand a total abstainer objecting, on grounds of conscience, to plum-pudding because it is covered with brandy sauce, but I cannot understand a hungry man objecting,' on grounds of conscience, to eat plum-pudding because it is not covered with brandy sauce. He might say that it would be a very desirable thing to have brandy Sauce with the pudding, but he could not object to eat the pudding with­out brandy sauce on the grounds of con­science. Roman Catholics may say that it is very desirable to mix up religion with the secular education provided by the State; but they cannot object to that secular in­struction by itself on grounds of conscience, because there is nothing in it that can be objected to. Until I am shown what their grievance really is, it is impossible for me to sympathize with them. Why should there be such an anxiety to mix up religious instruction with elementary education when it is not asked for in connexion with the higher education at the University? A child must have religious instruction given him when he is learning reading, writing, and arithmetic, but when he gets to the higher branches of education, and becomes more intelligent-more fitted to understand religion-Y.t is not necessary to give him any religious instruction at all.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY:- Who says that?

Mr. 'D. M. DA VIES.-Practically that is said by the Roman Catholics, because they do not ask that there. shall be reli­gious instruction given at the University. There have been no petitions presented praying for it. Again, why should they insist on religious instruction being im­parted in school-houses more than any­where else? In large towns, what diffi­culty i~ there in the Roman Catholics or

4R2

other denominations asking their children to attend their churches, and receive re­ligious instruction there before or after school hours? The Jews, I believe, do that, and they also teach their children the Hebrew language. If the Jews can teach religion to their children before or after school hours, why cannot the Roman Catholics do so?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-The Jews have their own school for that purpose.

Mr. D. M. DAVIES.-Why do not all the other religious bodies follow the example, or teach their children religion in their churches? I think that a church is a more suitable pJace than a school­house for teaching religion. I hope that the Minister of Public Instruction will be quite firm in not allowing clergymen to give religious instruction in the State schools. Let them go to their churches for that purpose. It would be very unfair to press Roman Catholic children to attend the State schools if they were open to clergymen of other denominations to im­part religious instruction at certain hours, for though Catholic children would be allowed to go out while such instruction was being given, there might be some inducement offered for them to remain in. So long as we are endeavouring, and are exceedingly desirous, to get Roman Ca­tholic children to attend the State schools, the Minister of Public Instruction should keep clergymen of all denominations out of them.

Mr. ZOX.-I do not know why the honorable and learned member for Vil­liers and Heytesbury should have taken umbrage at the statement of the honor­able member for East Bourke that an organization exists on the part of the Roman Catholics against the Education Act. If any section of the community labour under the impression that they suffer under a grievance, I, for one, am of opinion that they should exercise every legitimate means at their disposal for the express purpose of getting that grievance redressed; but they should. be exceed­ingly careful, in the first place, that their grievance is of such a tangible nature as to require legislation to remedy it. Now I contend that there is no denomination which, looking at the matter from an abstract point of view, labours under more disadvantages in referenca to this educa­tional question than the Jewish com­munity, to which I belong. At the same time they look at the matter f-rom this

1196 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

aspect-they believe the Education Act does the greatest good to the greatest number, and they are therefore perfectly satisfied. I, for one, have not the slightest doubt that the Education Act is beyond question one of the best Acts that has ever been passed in Victoria. I may here remark that the Jews of this colony have not only to see t):lat their children are instructed in the ordinary branches of education, but they have to teach them a language foreign to that of the country in which they live. The first thing which a Jewish child has to learn is to say his prayers in the Hebrew language. The knowledge of that language is one of the great links which binds the Jews in all parts of the world to their religion; for if a Jew enters into a synagogue in any country he can understand the prayers there, as they are said in Hebrew. If the Education Act were administered in its entirety-in the way in which, I believe, the framers of it intended it should be ad­ministered-I would not have the slightest word to say against it; but it is not ad­ministered properly. In my opinion the Act was framed for the express purpose of educating those children whose parents are unmindful of their duties in that re­spect; but anyone who goes through the streets and rights-of-way of Melbourne during the day time will see numbers of children who ought to be at school selling lucifer matches or some of those filthy publications which are a disgrace to any civilized city. These are the children who want educating. We talk about teaching children religion. I look upon a man's religion as a mere chance of birth-nothing more nor less. I WaS

born a Jew; I was not asked whether I would be a Jew or not; I was made a Jew. Other persons are born Catholics, or members of one or other of the various Protestant sects. Children, in fact, are brought up in the religion of their parents, and until a youth arrives at the age at which he is capable of judging for himself, he is really not responsible for the religion he adopts. For my part, I believe that when the different religions come to be weighed there is little or no difference be­tween them. All religions teach good; but education, in my opinion, tends to remove the prejudices that religion absolutely inculcates. I firmly believe that nothing can tend more to cement the bond of bro­therhood and friendship than for chil-' dren of all denominations to attend school

Mr. Zoz.

together, sit on the same form, learn from the same books, and be taught by the same teachers. The benefit of such education will be sure to be seen in after life. I went to one of the largest Christian schools in England, I was never asked what my re­ligion was, and some of the best friendships I have made during my life were formed while I was at that school. When children of different religious denominations are educated together, religious prejudices will not exist amongst them in after life. Education under such circumstances tends to eradicate religious prejudices. I regret very much that an important section of this community like the Roman Catholics, numbering about 200,000, should have conscientious scruples about accepting the form of education provided for them by the State. If the State were to say to them-"We will give you education, but if you receive that education you will be bound to accept the religious dogma which is dominant in this colony," I could understand they would object to the edu­cation offered them by the State; but there is ,no section of the community whose religious convictions are outraged by the present Education Act. The first thing I did when I became a member of the Legislative Assembly was to table a motion for instructions to be given to Professor Pearson to see that no religious dogma was taught in any of the State schools or contained in any of the school books. I have watched most anxiously for the report of that gentleman upon this ques­tion. Certainly if I were to find that in spite of the intentions of the framers of the Act religion is taught in the State schools, under no circumstances could there be a greater opponent of the Act than I would be. With the honorable and learned mem­ber for Villiers and Heytesbury it would be perfectly immaterial to me whether I sat in this House or not if I could not give expression to my conscientious convictions. I don't represent any section of the com­munity in this House. I don't 'represent the Jews or any denomination at all. I believe that when a man comes into this House he ought to sink his religion and his individuality as far as possible, and do whatever he possibly can to legislate for the benefit of the bulk of the people. For myself I perfectly coincide in the Educa­tion Act. I thoroughly believe in giving free, compulsory, and secular education to the people. No doubt the Act requires a. great amount of alteration. The system

Supply. [OCTOBER 23.J Public Instruction. 1197

is at present in its infancy; we don't yet see its benefits; but the time will come when its benefits will be fully realized. In a colony like this, where the highest positions in the State are open to every man whatever his position in life or what- . ever his religion may be, and where every man is entitled to a vote as soon as he reaches th~ age of 21, it is the duty of the State to see that every man is educated in such a way that he shall know how to exercise his franchise properly, and for the benefit of all classes of the community. Sir, it was stated by the honorable member for Belfast the other night that the form of oath was altered in the British House of Commons, for the express purpose of enabling Jews to sit in that House, and the honorable member attempted to show an analogy between the case of the Jews in England before that concession and the position of the Roman Catholics in this colony with reference to State education. But I cannot see the analogy. Until the oath was altered, a Jew could not take his seat in the House of Commons unless he absolutely foreswore his religion. He had to say that he took his seat on "the true faith of a Christian." A Jew could not do that. But in this case, all that the State said was-" Let the children of Jews, Christians, or the members of any denomination come to our schools, we will give them a first-dass education, and we will not interfere with their reli­gion one bit." 'Yhat man can really object to that? Of course, I am bound to respect the cs.mvictions of any denomi­nation though I may differ from them; but I do hope that the Education Act will be administered in its integrity. I do not blame the Roman Catholics or any denom­ination who think they labour under a grievance for coming and ventilating it here. While they pay their contribution towards the expenses of the State in the same proportion as other denominations, they are fully entitled to ventilate their grievances. At the same time I would point out that in this matter of public education, the Roman Catholics are no worse off than the Jews. The Jews have their schools, and every Jew in Melbourne is taxed to the extent of something like a guinea a year for the express purpose of supporting those schools. And here, I would venture to throw out a suggestion which, I think, is worth serious considera­tion. Supposing a number of parents who send their children to the State

Schools labour under the impression that they are getting more value from the State than their position warrants, why should the State object to those parents giving voluntary contributions towards the support of the State schools?

Mr. ORR.-It would be against the spirit of the Act.

Mr. ZOX.-Whether that be so or not, I think the suggestion is one worth con­sideration. One of the principal schools of the denomination to which I belong has now become almost self-supporting; all children that like are allowed to come to it; they receive their education free; at the same time, if the parents are willing to contribute a certain sum of money towards the cost of maintenance, the con­tributions are accepted. The result is that whereas, under the old Act, we had to go round to parents and req !lest them, almost to press them, to send their children to school, now the children come without solicitation, and, as I have said, the school is almost self-supporting. I do think that if such a payment as I suggest were allowed-and bear in mind that it would be voluntary, not compul­sory-no doubt hundreds and thousands of pounds would be contributed by parents towards the State schools of the colony. I have now stated from a Jewish point of view, fearlessly and conscientiouly, what I think of the Education Act. I consider it one of the best Acts ever passed in the colony, and I hope the time is far distant when its fundamental principles will be interfered with.

Mr. BROPHY.-l thiuk the honorable member for East Melbourne (:Mr. Zox) has. shown an example which may well be followed by every member of this House, no matter what his belief may be. I submit that the position of the Roman Catholics with regard to the education question is both fair and reasonable. The Roman Catholics have conscientious scru­ples against the education of their children where religion is excluded. This is shown by the fact that every Roman Catholic possessed. of means sends his children to a Roman Catholic school. Now the Roman Catholics, in the petitions which they have addressed to this House, don't ask for the alteration of a single line of the Education Act. I for one would resign my seat in this House, and go before the people who sent me here, rather than interfere in any way with that Act. But I submit that a· clause may be ~<i~le4 to tll~ Act which

1198 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

will not interfere with its operation, and which will give the utmost satisfaction to a large minority of the people. It has been stated that only about 13,000 children go to Roman Catholic schools; but I be­lieve 11,500 go to Roman Catholic schools in the city of Melbourne and its suburbs; and I know for a fact that 2,000 go to Roman Catholic schools in the district I have the honour to represent, and surely there must be a lot more children attend­ing Roman Catholic schools in the arch· diocese of Melbourne and the dioceses of Ballarat and Sandhurst. The whole thing is a mistake, though I think it makes little difference on this occasion, because I believe nothing will be done at present. I tbink the object of the honor­able member for Belfast, in bringing for­ward the subject, wa,s merely to let this House and the country know that the Roman Catholics have a grievance; and no doubt the time will corne when both tho House and the country will recognise that Roman Catholics have a conscience. I don't know that I would have spoken at all this evening, but for the reference made by the honorable member for Gren­ville (Mr. Davies) to Bungaree. lam here to take the part of Bungaree. It was stated the other evening by the Minister of Public Instruction, and the statement was endorsed by the late Minis­ter of Public Instruction,that all the teachers that were bad belonged to the class known as capitation teachers.

Major SMITH.-K early all. Mr. BROPHY.-I am sure the Mi­

nister of PubJic Instruction would be the last man in this House· to say a word against the district which he represents. It is I believe the honorable member's failing, if it be a failing, to stick up for Ballarat. That being so; it must be satis­factory to him to know, that the hist re­turn furnished under the old system-the return for 1872-3-shows that out of 10 public schools in Ballarat East and Bun­garee, 4 were capitation schools, and that while the average per centage of passes was 66, the percentage at one capitation school was 7'2, at another 71, and a third 84; and that in Bal1arat vVest, out of 11 public schools, there was only one capita­tion school, which headed the list with 82. I don't think there has been better teachiug t.han that in East Bourke. Whei'ever the capitation teachers of whom the Minister complains come from, it is clear that they conld not corne frQrn th~ ~an~rat distrlct!

Now, sir, it is bad enough to have to suffer a wrong without that wrong being made a great deal worse by, I won't say untruths, but certainly something very near it. Only a few weeks ago it was stated in some of the newspapers of this city that there had been a caucus meeting of the Roman Ca-

. tholic members of this House to take steps to undermine the Education Act. I don't know whether there was such a meeting. I don't know where the Roman Catholic members of this House are to make a caucus meeting. I think there are only five or six Roman Catholic members altogether, and to some of them I have not spoken six words since I have been a member of the House. If there has been such a meeting it must have been a very private one in­asmuch as I was left out in the cold. Then again, a few days afterwards, a statement was published to the effect that it was a well-known fact that the Roman Catholics, at the last election, made a bargain with the present Chief Secretary, and that they were to get in return a re­spectable amount out of the education vote. I think that statement requires very little denial. I know I was not asked by any Roman Catholic of Bal­larat East who I was going to support. I came into this House, as far as the Roman Catholic portion of my constituency is concerned, as independent as any man who ever came here. The honorable mem­ber for East Bourke stated, the other evening, that he had good friends among the Roman Catholics. If so, some of those gentlemen must have voted for him at the last election. Looking at the op­position benches, I see there gentlemen who must have received a fair proportion of the Roman Catholic vote. I cannot see what ground there was for saying that a bargain was made between- the Roman Catholics and the present Chief Secretary. I am disposed to think that the articles I refer to were written in the hope that they would cause a breach in the ranks of the people on this (the Minis­terial) side of the House. If there is no other way of accomplishing that end than by publis"hing articles which are not true, it will be a long time before such a breach is made. I came to this country when a boy, from Canada, where there is ill farce a system of education which is a credit not only to that colony but to; the world. The Protestant denominations, on the one side,have their School Act for themselves; a.p,d the Roman Catholics, on the other

Railways Bill. [OCTOBER 23.J Railways Bill. 1199

side, have their School Act also. You hear no bickering or quarrelling there. Now I think the Minister of Public In­struction might fairly ask that learned man, Professor Pearson, to report how the Roman Catholics can be made to benefit by the present expenditure on public edu­cation. I think the thing can be done and fairly done-in a way to give satis­faction to all parties. I consider there is no country in the world where a man would get fair play more than in Victoria, and I believe, with the honorable member for East Melbourne and other honorable members, that we have only to show that we have a real and genuine grievance to make the people of this colony desire that the grievance should be removed. I hope we . won't have many more sessions of Parliament before this education question is settled once for all.

On the motion of J\ir. McINTYRE, the debate was adjourned until the follow­ing evening.

Progress was then reported. The House adjourned at seven minutes

to eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, October 24, 1877.

Railway Construction Bill-Police Offences Statute Amend­ment Bill-Mining on Private Property Bill-Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill-Brighton Land Vesting Bill-Beechworth Waterworks Act Amendment BiIl­Inebriates Act Amendment Bill- Nationa.l Insurance Company of Australasia's Extension of Powers Bill.

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

PETITIONS. Petitions calling attention to the posi­

tion of the Roman Catholic body with regard to the State educational system, and praying for relief, were presented by the Hon. N. FITZGERALD (in the absence of the Hon. F. S. DOBSON), from Roman Catholics residing at Epping, Woodstock, Brunswick, and Coburg.

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION BILL. The Hon. R. S. ANDERSON brought

up the following report from the select committee appointed to prepare reasons for insisting on the amendments made by the Legislative Council in this Bill :-

"1. The Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly are the creation of an Imperial Statute, and haye no powers, either respectively or jointly, which are not conferred upon them by that Act.

"2. The 1st section of the Constitution Act establishes two Houses of Legislature, and authorizes Her Majesty, with the advice and consent of those two Houses, to make laws in and for Victoria in all cases whatsoever.

"3. The powers thus conferred equally and alike upon both Houses are qualified by the 56th section, which provides that Bills for appro­priating any part of the revenue of Victoria, and for imposing any duty, rate, tax, rent, re­turn, or impost, must originate in the Assembly, and may be rejected, but not altered, by the Council.

"4. Excepting the 56th section, no other section of the Constitution Act restricts the powers conferred by the 1 st section.

"5. This Bill does not come within the meaning of the 56th section, inasmuch as it neither appropriates any portion of Lhe revenue, nor imposes any duty, rate, tax, rent, return, or impost."

. On the motion of Mr. ANDERSON, the report was adopted.

Mr. ANDERSON then movecl­"That the Bill be returned to the Legislative

Assembly, with a message acquainting them that this House has taken into consideration the message from the Legislative Assembly return­ing the Bill intituled 'an Act to authorize the construction of certain lines of railway by the State,' and disagreeing with the amendments made therein by the Legislative Council because they are 'infractions of the privileges of the Legislative Assembly, inasmuch as they would, in their consequences, lay a charge upon the people'.

"That the Legislative Council is always de­sirous of joining the Legislative Assembly in passing measures for advancing the best inter­ests of the colony, including the opening up of the country by railways.

"That the Legislative Council is prepared at all times to treat with the respect due to the other branch of the Legislature any objections which may be urged by the latter to amend­ments made in Bills by the Legislative Council, and it would have been an assistance in consider­ing this question if the grounds had been more specifically set forth for alleging that amending any part of a Rail way Construction Bill was an infraction of the privileges conferred by the Con­stitution Act upon the Legislative Assembly.

"That the Legislative Council returns to the Legislative Assembly the Bill to authorize the construction of certain lines of railway by the State, and insists upon its amendments therein, for the following reasons."

[The reasons are those set forth in the report of the select committee.]

The motion was agreed to.

POLICE OFFENCES STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was passed through commit­tee with<?ut amendment,

1200 Regulation and [COUNCIL.] Inspection of Mines Bill.

On the motion of the Hon. R. S. AN­DERsoN' the Bill was read a third time and passed.

MINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BILL.

The Hon. N. FITZGERALD said he had been requested to state, in the ab­sence of the chairman of the select committee on this Bill, that they would be happy to receive any suggestions or information on the subject that persons interested in the measure would afford them.

REGULATION AND INSPECTION OF MIN;ES BILL.

The House went into committee for the further consideration of this Bill. . The Hon. H. Cuthbert's amendment, proposed on October 16, to add the fol­lowing to the general rules required by clause 6 to be observed, as far as prac­ticable, in every mine, was agreed to without discussion :-

"When a fence shall have been temporarily removed from any entrance to a shaft, whether on the surface or at any drive, a strong hori­zontal bar shall be securely fixed across such entrance, not less than 4 nor more than 5 feet from the surface or the level of the drive, as the case may be."

The Bill was then reported with a further amendment, and the report was adopted.

BRIGHTON LAND VESTING BILL. The Hon. J. BALFOUR moved the

second reading of this Bill. He said its object was to vest certain lands at Brigh­ton, which had been purchased for public recreation purposes, in the Brighton Borough Council.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was then read a second time,

and passed through its remaining stages.

BEECHWORTH WATERWORKS BILL.

This Bill was received from the Legis­lative Assembly, and, on the motion of the Hon. H. CUTHBERT, was read a first time.

INEBRIATES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

On the motion of the Hon. J. BALFOUR, the report of the committee on this Bill was adopted, and the Bill was re~cl ~ third t~nw a"nd passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AUSTRALASIA'S EXTENSION OF POWERS BILL.

On the motion of the Hon. F. T. SARGOOD, the report of the committee on this Bill was adopted.

The House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock until Tuesday, October 30.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, Octoher 24, 1877.

Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill - Railway Extension: Kerang-Order of Business: Administration of the Lands Depa.rtment: Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill­The Colorado Beetle-Railway Construction Bill-Business Licences on the Gold-fields-Scab in Sheep-London and Liverpool and Globe Insurance Company's Bill-Beech­worth Waterworks Act Amendment Bill-Criminal Cases Appeal Bill-Contagious Diseases Prevention Bill-Police Offences Statute Amendment Bill-Mr. Cashel Hoey­Supply: Public Instruction: Operation of the Education Aot: Third Night's Debate.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half­past four 0' clock p.~.

PETITIONS.

Petitions. calling attention to the posi­tion of the Roman Catholic body with regard to the State educational system, and praying for relief, were presented by

. Mr. J. T. SMITH, from Roman Catholics residing at Epping, Woodstock, Bruns­wick, and Coburg. A petition was pre­sented by Mr. D. M. DAVIES, from rate­payers of the east riding of Riponshire, praying for the opening of closed roads.

METROPOLITAN GAS COMPANY'S BILL.

Mr. MUNRO brought up the report from the select committee on this Bill.

The report was laid on the table.

RAILWAY EXTENSION.

Mr. WILLIAMS asked the Minister of Railways if the Government intended, during the recess, to direct the survey of a line of railway from Eaglehawk to Kerang?

Mr. WOODS said he presumed the honorable member referred to what was called a preliminary survey. (Mr. Wil­liams-" Yes.") He had no intention of effecting any more preliminary surveys unless there was some distinct object in view; but he had not the least doubt that a line in the direction indicated would

Order of Business. [OCTOBER 24.] The Colorado Beetle. 1201

. receive due attention when the Govern­ment were considering the next railway scheme. The fact of there being no preliminary survey would not affect the matter. He had already stated, on one or two occasions, that it was the intention of some members 0f the Government to make a personal inspection of different parts of the country where lines of railway were wanted or had been suggested.

ORDER OF BUSINESS. Mr. GAUNSON called the attention of

the Chief Secretary to a motion standing on the paper in his name for the appoint­ment of a select committee to inquire into the administration of the Lands depart­ment, particularly with reference to the case of Peter McArthur and others, and asked when an opportunity would be allowed him to bring it forward?

Mr. BERRY said he saw no objection to the motion being taken the following evening, after the refreshment hour, pro­vided honorable members who had busi­ness standing on the paper before that of the honorable member for Ararat consented to give way.

Mr. MACPHERSON mentioned that his name appeared in the motion as one of the mem bel'S of the proposed committee, but his consent had not been asked, and it would be impossible for him to serve. He believed there were other gentlemen in the same position. It would be well for the honorable member for Ararat to pursue the usual course, and obtain the consent of the gentlemen whom he pro­posed to nominate as the committee.

Mr. GAUNSON observed that, as the motion distinctly challenged the adminis­tra~ion of the Lands department during the regime of the late McCulloch Min­istry, he purposely named members of that Ministry as members of the committee in order that the inquiry might be fairly conducted.

The SPEAKER.-The honorablemem­bel' for Ararat should ascertain, before he submits his motion, whether the members named in it are willing to serve on the proposed committee.

Mr. LANGRIDGE reminded the Chief Secretary that there had been an under­standing that the second reading of the Friendly Societies Bill would be taken the following evening.

Mr. BERRY said that measure could be brought on, if time permitted, after Mr. Gaunson's motion had been disposed of.

Mr. R. CLARK (Sandhurst) suggested that there should be no sitting of the House next day, inasmuch as a large number of members wanted to leave town, some to proceed to Hamilton, to witness the opening of the railway to that place, and others to proceed to Kerang, to attend a banquet to the honorable member for Mandurang (Mr. Casey). Under these circumstances he hoped the Chief Secre­tary would consent to move that the House, at its rising, adjourn until the following Tuesday;

Mr. BERRY stated that he was loath to take that course, particularly as he believed that, notwithstanding the public events referred to, a sufficient number of mem bel'S would remain in town to form a full House, so that public business could be gone on with.

STATE SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION. Major SMITH presented a further

return to an order of the House (dated July 3) relating to State school accommo­dation and attendance in Benalla-shire, and the east riding of Echuca-shire.

THE COLORADO BEETLE. Mr. BAYLES asked the Chief Secre­

tary if, in order to prevent the introduction of the Colorado beetle into Victoria, he would take steps to have all bags and

. refuse brought with potatoes from America and Europe burnt on board the importing vessel? Stringent measures had been taken in England ·to prevent the introduction there of this destructive insect. In fact a Privy Council order had been issued prohibiting the landing of any potato-haulm, leaves, or stalks from the United States, Canada, or Ger­many, and giving power to the customs officers to destroy all sand, dirt, and refuse brought with the potatoes from those countries. He was of opinion that some such precautionary measures should be taken here. He was afraid that if the insect found its way to this colony, it would accomplish a large amount of destruction, especially in the district which he represented.

Mr. BERRY admitted the importance of the subject, but considering the long voyage, thought there was not the most remote probability of the beetle arriving in the colony. There were no direct importations of pot~ttoes from the countries referred to, but it was possible that som~ ships coming here might have

1202 Ol'imina l Cases [ASSEMBLY.] Appea 1 Bill.

refuse of potatoes placed on board for the ship's use with respect to which it might be desirable to take some action. The Secretary for Agriculture had furnished the following report on the subject :-

"I think it is most necessary to destroy aU refuse brought with potatoes from Europe and America as suggested, as there is great danger of importing the Colorado beetle. I would, how­ever, suggest for the consideration of the honor­able the Chief Secretary, whether it would not be desirable to go even further, and prohibit the introduction of potatoes from Europe and Arr.e­rica. We have many good varieties of potato in the colony, and it is questionable whether it is worth while running the risk of endangering our crops and bringing ruin upon the producers by allowing further importation until the danger of introducing the Colorado beetle shall have ceased. A short Act similar to the Diseased Grape-vines and Grape-vine Cuttings Importation Prohibition Act 1873, No. 457, would, in my opinion, meet the case.

"A. R. WALLI,S."

If, on further inquiry, such a course were deemed necessary, the Government would introduce a short Bill dealing with the subject.

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION BILL. This Bill was returned from the Legis­

lative Council, with a message intimating that they. insisted on their amendments for certain reasons which were stated.

The message was ordered to be con­sidered on Tuesday, October 30.

BUSINESS LICENCES. Mr. BIRD asked the Minister of

Mines if he was aware that there were great complaints on the gold-fields of the high fees for business licences, and if he would consider the advisability of making a reduction ?

Major SMITH said he was aware of the existence of such complaints, and he intended to inquire into the matter with the view of making some alteration.

SCAB IN SHEEP. Mr. G A UNSON a:sked the Chief Se­

cretary if he would inquire into a state­ment made by Mr. W. J. Clarke, at a meeting of the National Agricultural So­ciety, and reported in the Leader news­paper of September 29, relative to the shearing of scabby sheep imported from Tasmania? (See p. 933.)

Mr. BERHY stated that tbis question had been so long on the notice-paper without being put that he had mislaid the answer on the subject which he had recci ved from the Diseases in Stock de­partment. The e:lfec~ of it w~s tl1a~ po

scabby sheep had come from Tasmania, and the quarantine regulations in force here were quite sufficient to insure the safety of Victorian flocks.

EXPORTS. Mr. LALOR laid on the table a return

to an order of the House (dated July 3) of products of Victoria exported from 1870 to 1876 inclusive.

LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY'S

BILL. On the motion of Mr. LANGRIDGE,

this Bill was read a second time.

BEECHWORTH WATERWORKS BILL.

On the motion of Mr. BILLSON, this Bill was read a third time and passed.

CRIMINAL CASES APPEAL BILL. The debate on the motion for the

second reading of this Bill (adjourned from October 10) was resumed.

Mr. F. L. SMYTH.-I would have thought that no objection would have been raised to the passing of a Bill to secure the right of appeal in criminal cases, but objections to this measure have been raised by several legal members, including the Minister of Justice, who has expressed his intention of bringing in a Bill of another character. Having con­sidered the project· of the Minister of Justice, I think the measure which he indicates is really not one which should engage the attention of the House. The object of this Bill is stated in the mar­ginal note to the 3rd clause as follows :-

" Any defendant found guilty may move the Supreme Court for a rule nisi for a new trial, or to enter a verdict for the defendant, or to arrest the judgment." The last time this question was debated, it was stated that there are two classes of crimes - the one class being mis­demeanors and the other class felonies; that with regard to misdemeanors, under the existing law, new trials could be had; and that with regard to certain felonies­those entailing loss of life-there was at pres en t virtually an appeal from the de­cision of the jury and the sentence of the judge, because, before the sentence could be carried into effect, the case had to come under the review of the Executive Council. I find, by the Criminal Law and Practice Act, that there are 24 crimes which ~OU1e under the head of felonies,

Criminal ~ Cases [OCTOBER 24.J Appeal Bill. 1203

and that there are 25 which come· under the head of misdemeanors. Now, of the 24 crimes which are classed as felonies, only 3 come under the supervision of the Executive Council; so that there are 21 kinds of felony in which there is virtually no appeal. It is said that a new trial can take place in cases of misdemeanor. Nominally that is so, but practically no new trial can be had. The reason of this is that the Supreme Court will not enter­tain any motion for a new trial, unless the proceedings of the court in which the trial took place are brought before it on a writ of certiorari, and no writ of certi01'ari will lie after sentence has been pronounced, which is usually done imme­diately after the verdict is given, There­fore, as regards the 25 offences which come under the head of misdemeanors, virtually there can be no new trial. The Bill pro­vides that any person convicted of a criminal offence shall have the oppor­tunity of applying for a new trial. In order to obtain a new trial an application must be made to the Supreme Court, or to a judge of that court if the court be not then sitting, for a rule nisi calling upon the Crown to show cause why a new trial shall not be granted," The rule will afterwards be argued, and may either be discharged or made absolute; in the latter rase a new trial will take place. Surely this mode will afford a far greater safeguard against a man being punished for an offence of which he is innocent than by merely leaving his case to be considered, after his conviction, by the Executive or the Minister of J nstice, before whom the proceedings are really of an ex parte character, the prisoner baving no opportunity of being heard eithel; by himself or by counsel. I sub­mit, also, that the mode prescribed by the Bill is far preferable to that suggested by Mr. J, F. Stephen, which I understand the Minister of Justice to be in favour of. The honorable gentleman's idea, based on Mr. Stephen's theory, is, I presume, to allow persons convicted of criminal offences to appeal to a new court, con­sisting of two of the judges of the Su­preme Court and the Chief Secretary; but that method would not work satis­fa"ctorily. Amongst· other objections to it. is the fact that it would be impossible for the Chief Secretary to find time to act as one of such a tribunal, so that ~ny decision that it gave woulel be the decilSion of the two judges only. The

principle of the Bill is decidedly superioi' to Mr. Stephen's theory, and makes the criminal law conformable to the civil law in the matter of new trials. I trust that the opposition to the second reading of the measure will not be pressed; and, in conclusion, I will quote a brief extract from the speech of Chief Baron Kelly, when Attorney-General, on a similar Bill in the House of Commons :-

"He believed it could be productive of no cyil consequences whatever. It broke in upon no legal or constitutional principle. It invaded the rights of no member of the community. It involved not the expenditure of a single shilling of public money. He believed it would tend to the advancement of the just and pure adminis­tration of the law."

Mr, KERFERD.-I don't know that I am justified in occupying the time of the House by making any observations on the motion for the second reading of this Bill. The speech delivered by the Minister of Justice a fortnight ago thoroughly ex­hausted the subject, and proved that to pass such a measure into law would in­flict a positive wrong on the community. Any member of the Executive Council must be thoroughly aware that the in­quiries now instituted by the Minister of Justice into the case of any prisoner that is brought before him are far more search­ing than any investigation could be before a formal court of appellate jurisdiction.

Mr. F. L. SMYTH.-That is only in cases of felonies.

Mr. KERFERD.-The honorable and learned member is apparently not ac­quainted with the actual practice. Any prisoner convicted of a crime may petition the Governor, who forwards the petition to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice carefully and patiently investi­gates all the statements it contains, and then advises the Governor what should be done: Capital cases are dealt with by the Executive before it is determined whether or not the extreme penalty of the law shall be carried into effect, and the utmost care is taken by the Execu­tive in all such cases. "Witnesses are called, and no steps whatever are omitted that can help to clear up any doubts that may exist. The Execntive, by the ma­chinery it has at its disposal, the police force, and every branch of the public service, and the money it has at its command, is often enabled to procure in­formation which could not be bronght before an appellate court. The analogy which honorable members have attempted

1204 Criminal Cases [ASSEMBLY.] Appeal Bill.

to draw between civil and criminal cases is I of the law is that a prisoner shall not be not complete. Evidence is received with put in peril twice for the salliC offence; much greater strictness in criminal than that is to say, if he is acquitted once he in civil cases. On a criminal trial a great shall not be tried again. But, if there deal of evidence is altogether inadmissille were new trials in cases of acquittal, the which would be admissible in a civil case. Crown might go on until it obtained a We must also take into consideration the conviction, and the prisoner would have care and anxiety displayed on a criminal no chance at all. In conclusion, I must trial by the judge, who may almost be said repeat there is no necessity for such an to defend the prisoner. The judge has also amendment of the law as the Bill proposes. the power to make a recommendation to Proper provision exists for the careful the Governor in respect of any prisoner consideration of the case of every con­tried before him, independent of any ap- victed prisoner who memorializes the plication which may be sent in by the Governor. The practice adopted has prisoner. Under the present system, ac- been reduced to a system by the Law cording to my judgment and experience, officers. A rule has been laid down which there is not the slightest danger of any is not departed from. Whether a prisoner convicted prisoner having to remain in is rich or poor, whether he has friends or gaol if there are any facts which can be not, the same care is taken-the same brought forward to prove his innocence. anxious inquiry is made. I am satisfied Though the question of allowing new that it would be injurious to the interests trials in criminal cases has been more than of prisoners to create an appellate juris­once discussed in the House of Commons, diction in criminal cases. no alteration in the law of England has The motion for the second reading of been made in that direction. I think this the Bill was negatived without a division. fact proves that the people of England are satisfied that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs will do every justice to a convicted prisoner whose case is brought before him, and the tribunal which exists in this country for dealing with such cases'is of the same character. There is only one objection to it, which has already been referred to, namely, that the inquiry made by the Minister of Justice or the Executive is a secret inquiry. If it could be made public, I am sure there would not be a 'shadow of doubt in the minds of the community at large that every pri­soner has substantial justice done him. A great deal, however, may be said in favour of the present system in preference to the establishment of such a tribunal as that referred to by the Minister of Justice and suggested by Mr. J. F. Stephen. Very often, in the interests of justice, it is absolutely necessary that secrecy should be preserved during the progress of an inquiry relative to the guilt ~f a convicted prisoner, or ot.herwise the object of the inquiry would be defeated. To grant new trials in criminal cases would be pre­judicial even in the interest of prisoners; for if there is to be a new trial when a prisoner is convicted, the Crown must have the right to a new trial when a pri­soner is acquitted. The Legislature will surely never consent to a new trial being possible in the one case and not in the other. One of the fundamental maxims

Mr. Kerferd.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES PREVENTION BILL.

The debate on the motion for t.he second reading of this Bill (adjourned from vVednesday, October 3) was resumed.

Mr. BENT.-Sir, when the debate was adjourned I was pointing out that three methods of dealing with the evil which this Bill seeks to grapple with have been advocated, namely, the policy of repres­sion, the policy of forcible regulation, and the policy of indifference. The policy of indifference has been in operation in Vic­toria ever since the foundation of the colony, and the result is that there are not only 500 prostitutes In Melbourne, as I stated last week, but I am informed that there are about 2,500 in the city and sub­lubs. Up to within the last two or three years it was the custom for prostitutes to live in certain known streets, but, in con­sequence of the complaints of respectable householders, many of them have been brought before the magistrates and obliged to find new habitations. The result is that they are now scattered all over the city and suburbs. I may tell honorable members one fact which came under my observation when I accompanied certain gentlemen during a recent official inspec­tion of some of the houses of ill-fame in Melbourne. One place we visited is a fruit shop, near the Theatre Royal, and in the apartments beyond the shop were

Contagious Diseases [OCTORER 2-1:.J Prevention Bill. 1205

a number of men and prostitutes drinking beer, spirits, and champagne. From what I saw there and elsewhere I believe it is perfectly true that nearly as much drink is sold in places of ill-fame as in the licensed public-houses. The police watch the publicans very strictly to see that they sell no liquor after the authorized hours, but no account is taken of the large trade that is done in improper houses. The policy of indifference has had the effect of establishing 800 or 900 houses of ill­fame in Melbourne and its suburbs, and no one can take a walk through the streets at night without seeing evidence of the prevalence of prostitution. A gentleman cannot with propriety take his wife or daughter through some of the streets of Melbourne after night-fall; in fact, the footpaths of some of the principal streets are so crowded with prostitutes that they are practically closed in the even­ing against respectable persons. As an illustration of the extent to which the vice of prostitution exists, I may men­tion that one house of assignation in Flinders-street is visited nightly by 100 or 150 couples. When we bear in mind that there are 2,500 prostitutes in Mel­bourne and the suburbs, that about one out of every four of them is diseased, and that these women must be resorted to by a large number of men or they would not be able to live, no further statistics are required to show the necessity for legislation to reduce to some extent the evils of prostitution. In Victoria the policy of indifference has not succeeded in checking the evil; in other countries the policy of repres~ion has been tried and found utterly unsuccessful; and the evi­dence of doctors, clergymen, and others who have given the matter careful con­sideration is strongly in favour of the policy of regulation. I am informed that in one house of ill-fame in Melbourne the women voluntarily submit themselves to such regulations as 'the Bill proposes to place all prostitutes under. The Minister of Justice considers that the adoption of such a measure would have the effect of encouraging vice; but the evidence given before commissioners in England shows very clearly that the policy of regulation has a tendency to deter many females.from enter­ing upon an evil career. Let those persons who think that the law ought not to inter­fere to check the evils of prostitution con­sider what is done in the case of drunk­ards. If a man gets delirium tremens he

is sent to an asylum until he recovers; and the placing of diseased prostitutes in quarantine would no more encourage vice than sending a man to an asylum for deli1'iu.m tremens encourages drunken­ness. Another objection to the Bill is tbat it will interfere with the liberty of the subject. I carinot understand that objection. It will no more interfere with the liberty of the subject than does the law which allows of the arrest of a pros­titute for drunkenness. Only one or two authenticated cases have occurred in England in which the police have been accused of interfering with the liberty of the subject under the Contagious Diseases Act, and, upon investigation, it was shown that the accusation in those cases was un­founded. The Bill does not propose a sys­tem as stringent as the English system, but merely asks the Legislature to adopt the regulations now in force in Queensland.

Mr. MUNRO.-The law is a dead letter in Queensland.

Mr. BENT.-The law is not only not a dead letter in Queensland, but I have been informed within the last few days that it is found to be a very good law. I have receive.d a letter from the Chief Commissioner of Police ill Queensland, in which he says, speaking of the Con­tagious Diseases Act of that colony-

"It is in force in three of our towns, and works easily and well."

In England before the Contagious Diseases Act was passed one prostitute in four was diseased, but now the proportion is only one in 356. It appears from lIayter's Year Book that the number of deaths in Victoria last year from venereal disease was 26, and that the deaths from that disease and the number of prostitutes in the colony are increasing. Upon the evils arising from prostitution and the necessity for some legislative measure to check them, I will read an extract from Mr. David Blair's report:-

"In the eyes of every physician, and, indeed, in the eyes of most continental writers who have adverted to the subject, no other feature of English life appears so infamous as the fact that an epidemic, which is one of the most dreadful now existing amongst mankind, which communicates itself from the guilty husband to the innocent wife, and even transmits its taint to her offspring, and which the experience of other nations conclusively proves may be vastly diminished, should be suffered to rage unchecked because the Legislature refuses to take official cognizance of its existence or proper sanitary measures for its repression. . . . Infanticide is greatly multiplied, and a vast proportion of

1206 Contagious Diseases [ASSEMBLY. ] Prevention Bill.

those whose reputations and lives have beeu blasted by one momentary sin are hurled into the abyss of habitual prostitution, a condition which, owing to the sentence of public opinion and the neglect of legislators, is in no other European country so hopelessly vicious or so irrevocable. That the really irresistible force of these latter arguments is beginning to be felt and acknowledged in England is evident from the remarkable change in public opinion which has recently enabled the Government to introdnce that partial adaptation of the Conti­nental method which is embodied in the Conta­gious Diseases Acts. It is true that this line of policy has evoked the streuuous and powerful opposition of large and respectable sections of society; but the general course of public opinion is unmistakably shown in the twice-repeated confirmation and extension of the original Act. The opposition, after seven years of ineffectual struggle, appears to be at length abating. But, even if the Contagious Diseases Acts were repealed, it is by no means certain that the old traditionary-and most inconsistent and mis­chievous - method would be resumed. The necessity of recognising the evil as an incurable moral malady, and of making some legal provi­sion for its forcible regulation, has already become a settled principle in the social govern­ment of the country."

In 1870 an attempt was made in the House of Commons to obtain the repeal of the Acts of 1866 and 1869. A lengthy debate took place on the occasion, and the following is a summary of Dr. Lyon Play­fair's arguments against the proposal :-

"The A cts had been passed deliberately after three public inquiries and elaborate reports. The extreme prevalence of disease in the forces had compelled the Government to introduce them. The constant average loss of service from this cause, prior to 1864, was equal to two whole regiments and one fully-manned ironclad frigate. The State was bound to preserve its combatants from deterioration by disease. The working of the Acts for three years had been very satis­factory, as Dr. Balfour, who had been a strenuous opponent of them at first, now admitted. Dr. Balfour was now in favour of them, and had fur­nished him (Dr. P.) with statistics proving that within the scheduled districts, during the five years from 1864-9, the average of syphilitic cases had fallen from 93 to 58 per 1,000 men, whilst at the other stations there had been an actual in­crease from 107 to III per 1,000 men. The type of the disease had also become much milder, the average duration of illness amongst the men affected having fallen from 85! days to 37 days. The Acts were the greatest achievement in sani­tary legislation since the Compulsory Vaccination Act was passed. Amongst the registered women at Chatham the average of those diseased had fallen from 70 to 6 per cent. The Acts are not unjust in their application to women only, for women alone carryon a trade in the traffic. Regulation is not legal recognition, as crimes of all kinds are equally' regulated' by law, but not recognised. The liberty of the subject is equally infringed by every penal enactment,and instances of wrongful arrest always will happen, even in charges of murder. The allegation that the operation of the Acts degrade women is not

Mr. Bent.

alone unsupported, but it is totally opposed to all evidence. The chaplains, medical officers, and police all testify unanimously to the great improvement, both morally and physically, pro­duced in the women. This class of women has decreased in some of the districts by one-half, and one-fourth of the whole number have been restored to respectable life. Of 7,766 registered women, no less than 4,750 had either been restored or had left the district; 27 per cent. of the whole number are known to have been certainly re­claimed from infamy. It is known that the Acts deter numbers of women from entering on a life of vice. The decrease of open prostitution is a direct proof, not of the increase, but of a cor­responding decrease in clandestine vice, since it is from the latter source that the former class is supplied. No real cases of hardship had occurred to women under the Acts; the enforcement of the Act is conducted with the utmost caution by a select number of police officers, and not indis­criminately by all policemen. And lastly, both in their sanitary and moral effects, the Acts had been entirely and eminently successful."

The result of the debate was the appoint­ment of a Royal commission of inquiry, and the proceedings of that commission are thus dwelt upon by Mr. Blair:-

"This commission consisted of 25 members, of whom 23 signed the report, which was pre­sented to the Queen in December, 1871. The commissioners were much divided in opinion. Two-thirds of them were in favour of a qualified system of compulsory registration, and seven were in favour of strengthening rather than weakening the terms of the existing Act. Six were in favour of repealing all compulsory legis­lation; but aU were in favour of further legis­lation, with a view to so modifying the law as to make it applicable to the whole country. They reported that, after minute and searching inquiry, they had found t1;1at no real cases of hardship had arisen under the Acts, and that the state­ments of an opposite kind had either been gross exaggerations or sheer inventions. The mam recommendations of the report were-that the periodical examinations ordered by the Act of 1866 should be discontinued, and a return made to the system in force under the Act of 1864; that the power to detain women in hospital should be extended,as in the Acts of 1866 and 1869, to those who had Yoluntarily submitted themselves for examination; that the new Act should be applied to any place in the United Kingdom, except London and Westminster; which should make a request to that effect; and that the administration of the law should be transferred from the Admiralty and the War department to the Home-office. ' All the medi­cal witnesses engaged in the administration of the Acts concur,' says the report, 'in repre­senting the periodical examinations as essential to their efficiency;' and though it is added, that few of these witnesses had seen the Act of 1864 in operation, or had 'sufficiently discriminated between what was due to that Act and to its suc­cessor,' the report concedes that the frequent examination of women is 'the most efficacious means of controlling the disease" The commis~ sioners state, that they' attach great importance to the maintenance of a system which, if it can­not altogether annul, may at least materially mitigate a pestilence which is not, like other

Supply. [OCTOBER 2 .. 1.] Public Instruction. 1207

contagions, of occasional occurrence, but one of perennial growth. The offenders who bring this affliction upon themselves by their own vicions indulgence may have no claim to the compas­sionate care of the State, but the numerous inno­cent persons who suffer from the disease: are surely entitled to consideration. We ventnre to express our hope, therefore, that whilst due con­sideration is paid to the sentiments of the people in regard to prostitution, no misapprehension as to the real moral bearings of the question, and no want of courage will be suffered to prevent the application of such remedy as may be prac­ticable to this great evi1. The firmness of a former Parliament withstood the storm of cla­mour with which the discovery of vaccination was assailed by the ignorance and prejudice of the day, and relieved posterity from a sconrge which was the terror of earlier generations; and we would fain hope that an attempt to stay the progress of a plague scarcely less formidable in its ravages is Dot to be hastily abandoned."

The difference between these gentlemen ap­peared to resolve itself into this: whether there should be a compulsory examination of these women, or whether lock hospitals should be provided to which the women should resort voluntarily, or when they became so ill that they were unable to ply their vocation. Now I ask honorable members, and especially those who are op­posed to this Bill, what great harm-what interference with the liberty of the subject -would there be, when a prostitute is taken up drunk in the stree~, there being abundant evidence as to her mode of life, in having her subjected to a proper medi­cal examination? As to the suggestion that men found in brothels should also be subjected to medical examination, I may state that I would not object to a provi­sion to carry out that suggestion being embodied in the Bill. It has been said that the object of the measure is to enable married men to travel with comparative safety upon forbidden ground. And in reply to that I would ask-Is it not im­portant that the interests of poor innocent wives should be looked after, so that they may not become diseased through the mal­practices of their husbands? To show the success of the English Acts, it may be mentioned that, according to police statis­tics, the number of common women at Portsmouth known to the police in 1864 was 1,355, and that by the end of 1871 the number was reduced to 586. A similar, if not a greater, rate of decrease took place at all the 17 stations included in the Acts.

At this stage, the time allotted for giving precedence to private members' business having expired, the further con­sideration of the question was postponed until Wednesday, October 31. ;

POLICE OFFENCES STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was received from the Legis­lative Council, and, on the motion of Mr. GRANT, was read a first time.

MR. CASHEL HOEY. Mr. DUFFY moved-"That there be laid before this House copies

of all the correspondence and minutes relating to the removal of Mr. Cashel Hoey from his position in the office of the Agent-Genera1."

The motion was agreed to.

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. The House having resolved itself into

Committee of Supply, The debate on the education vote (ad­

journed from the previous evening) was resumed.

Mr. McINTYRE said-Mr. James, I feel constrained to occupy the attention of the committee for a short time on the present subject, for several reasons. Not the least of them is the fact that when the Education Act was about to pass into law I was somewhat active in advocating the continuation of the education system then in existence, with the addition of compulsory conditions like the compulsory clauses now in force; and that I then expressed the opinion. that if what I recommended was established by law, the colony would be fairly entitled to a pre­mier position, with respect to public edu­cation, among the countries of the world. In consequence, I have ever since been ac­cused, in the district I represent, of being an opponent of our present education system. The time has come, however, when I can testify that such is not the case, and say that I have seen cause to amend the views I then held. The result of the inquiries I have made throughout the world into the working of the free system of educa­tion satisfies me that the day is not far distant when in every civilized country there will be established an educational plan somewhat similar to our own. The introduction of a denominational element into our system of public instruction has been a prominent feature of the present debate, but with the facts and figures that have been laid before us in support of such a complete change in our educational arrangements I am extremely dissatisfied. Indeed I am thoroughly convinced that the proper thing is for us to go on in the way we are now going, and to attempt nothing whatever in the way of mingling

1208 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

with the secular teaching of our State schools anything in the shape of religious instruction. I quite admit that there appears to be some foundation for the scruples of conscience advanced by several honorable members, notably the honor­able member for Belfast and the honor­able and learned member for Villiers and I-Ieytesbury, but I dOll't think they prove the case of which they make those scruples the groundwork. When tle Roman Catholics say" Although you give us free educat.ion, which we are willing, if we can, to accept, it is a point of our religion that our children cannot go to your schools unless the religion we believe in is taught there," there seoms to be a good reason for regarding. them as in some way suffer­ing on account of conscience. There are few who have not been struck with the apparent fairness of the following para­graph of one of the Roman Catholic peti­tions to Parliament :-.

"That, as in 18i2, when the measure was under discussion, we urged the adoption of a system fair to all educational interests, being that known as 'payment by results' and 'capi­tation,' so now, we do not ask for the expendi­ture of any public money upon religious train­ing, nor for a separate grant to be expended under our own control, but that our schools be officially inspected like the State schools, and payment made upon the claim and cer­tificate usually adopted .by the Education de­partment."

But that is only one aspect of the ques­tion. If we concede what this petition asks for, what follows? We return at once to the denominational system. Other religious sects will then assert with more or less justice that they are no better satisfied with the existing state of things than the Catholics, and they will demand to be placed in a position equal with them. That claim we would under the circum­stances be ~otally unable to resist, and, on the ground of public justice, we would be compelled to place the religious feelings of even the Chinese on a level with those of members of the Church of Rome. But I am of opinion that the time has arrived when all controversy as to·the principles upon which public education should be carried on ought to cease. The country has spoken out so emphatically in favour of the free, compulsory, and unsectarian principle in educational matters, that I don't hesitate to assert that, if we were to give reality to the ideas suggested by our Roman Catholic friends, at least two-thirds of the community would speedily demon­strate in no mild way their disapproval of

Mr. McIntyre.

our conduct. I regret to have heard some remarks during the debate about what is called the Roman Catholic vote always going in one direction. With many of the statements made on that subject.1 don't at all agree. For myself, I may say that many Roman Catholics in my district gave me a very hearty support, although they knew well what my convictions on the subject of education were. Further­more, I will add that none of them at­tempted in any way, either directly or indirectly, to influence my vote on the question. I think that in this Australian community there onght to be, especially in political matters, no setting of class against class, particularly within the walls of this House. I quite admit that the Roman Ca­tholicsare entitled tounite on conscientious grounds with respect to matters like that of State education, but, speaking from experience, I am sure they have never done anything of the kind. I am sorry the honorable member for East Bourke is not here to hear my statements on this point, because I think it probable he would then see good cause to withdraw much that he said the other night about the unification of the Catholic vote. As for the politicians who run after that vote, I think they are served perfectly right when, as happens now and again, they get sold by it. So far as I can gather, those election candidates who openly state their convictions upon the public platform are as reasonably supported by the votes of Catholics as they are by the votes of any other class of the community. As to the continued establishment of a free and unsectarian educational system in this colony, I have already stated that it is a primary necessity. I have taken pains to see and learn what other countries are doing in that direction, and I don't think I can ask the House to look at a better sample of what I allude to than that afforded by our American cousins. Of course, as regards religious instruction, their system differs greatly from ours. The Bible is read in their schools-but then it is simply read-without any com­ment whatever; and I believe that a large proportion of the scholars are Catholics. But I will not talk of whether or not the free schools of the United States are attended by Catholics. Certainly the matter is one quite beside the present question. Hear what some of the lead­ing educationalists of the United States say. The Hon. Warren Johnson, state

Supply. [OCTOBEtt 24.J Public Instruction. 1209

superintendent of schools for Maine, re­marks-

"Free education for all is the instinctive demand and prime necessity for all republics."

I don't say that we ought to' go in at once for becoming a republic, but simply give Mr. Johnson's words for what they mean. He proceeds thus:-

"Society must assume the responsibility of ordering the education of youth. This responsi­bility cannot be left with the individual, with benevolent associations, fraternities, or religious bodies, or to charity. The old brotherhoods of France, the established Church of England, the parochial, denominational schools everywhere, have failed to accomplish the purpose. Society, through its organic forms of municipalities, state, or national governments, must issue the fiat-Free education for all."

Nothing can be more false than that a sys­tem to the support of which every taxpayer contributes is to be regarded as one based on charity. In Sweden they have an educat.ional system which is managed by the clergy, and it is stated that ~5 per cent. of the popnlation there are educated in the free schools so provided, where the sons of peasants and nobles sit side by siue. That is highly creditable to the Swedish clergy, but we have not a com­plete knowledge of how the arrangement works. To return to the United States. The state superintendent of schools for California writes-

"The people are so much in earnest in their support of the public schools, that in 1873 they voluntarily taxed themselves 10'48 per cent. more than they did in 1871."

If the American people are so emphatic in supporting a free education system which includes the reading of the Bible in schools, and if, nevertheless, the Roman Catholic denomination there are trying to secure separate euucational grants for themsel ves, I think our conclusion should be that we should do all in onr power to guard ourselves against the introduction into our schools of any religious instruc­tion whatever.' The superintendent of the Boston schools told me that the only thing he envied us Victorians about our system of education was its completely non-sectarian character. He said they had been fighting for the adoption of a similar plan in the United States for many years, and that the day was not far dis­tant when they would gain what they wanted. Exception is sometimes taken to our system on the ground that it cannot tend towards morality because it is ." god., less." That is something we ought to be

VOL. XXVI.-4 S

very cautious about. For instance, we ought to see that the books supplied to the children in our State schools are pro­per books. In the United States they take special care about that. I call honorable members' attention to the following :-

"The Statutes of Maine require the teacher to impress on the minds of the youth committed to his care and instruction the principles of morality and justice, and a sacred regard for truth, love of country, humanity, and a universal benevolence, sobriety, industry and frugality, chastity, moderation and temperance, and all other virtues which are the ornaments of society, and to lead those under l,lis care, as theil' ages and capacities admit, into a particular under­standing of the tendency of such virtues to pre­serve and perfect a republican Constitution and secure the blessings of liberty, and promote their future happiness, and the tendency of the oppo­site vices to slavery, degradation, and ruin."

That shows the moral teaching carried on in the American schools. As to our free schools tending towards irreligion, let me quote the opinion of the superintendent for Virginia, in reply to a kindred accusa­tion against the common schools there. He says-

"The infidel tendencies charged on public schools do not exist. Modern heresy and scep­ticism are indeed found closely allied with in­telligence, but it is not with the simple intelli­gence of the popular mind, which is everywhere true to the faith. The sources of infidelity are to be found in the temples, not in the syna­gogues of learning."

On the same subject the Hon.· F. A. Sawyer, United States senator, at the meeting of the National Teachers' Asso­ciation, in 1870, said-

"I have yet to learn that the pupils of the private schools, in which special moral and religious instrnction is given, are on the whole possessed of purer morals than those who rely, upon the free common schools for their only instruction. I speak of this subject because I know that there are many Americans who decry our public-school f::ystem, because they say it confines the pupil's development to his intel­lect, and leaves uncultivated that more impor­tant part of his nature upon which his value as a citizen and as a man depends, cven more than it does on his intellectual qualities. They say ours is a godless system; that it increases the power to 00 evil by stimulating and invigorating one set of faculties while it fails to give tone und vigour to another set, whose action and power become even more necessary to the edu­cated than to the uneducated man. I deny the existence of the fact. I claim that in general our public schools are not second, as ageneies of moral influence, to any other in use outside of the family and the church; and I aver that the exceptions go 110t to prove the defects of the system, but the want of faithfulness on the part of those who have the appointment of teachers and the general superviliion of the schools."

1210 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

And again-"Each year brings a new iteration of the

criticism that the public schools are godless schools; that they turn loose upon the country a swarm of'infidels, atheists, and criminals. Thus far this criticism stands in mere assertion; no facts or statistics are adduced to prove what is alleged. They do not tell us whether the Tweeds, Connollys, and their ilk attended public or sectarian schools. Until the facts and statis­tics are brought forward, the friends of public schools may rest easy, for the burthen of proof is with the objectors. Observations produces in me impressions quite opposite to the unsup­ported criticism referred to. All that statistics have thus far asserted is that ignorance and crime are everywhere closely wedded, and of all the means of prevention which the State has yet invented or established the public-school system is foremost and most effective."

I think these statements are sufficient to ease the anxieties of all who fear to ap­prove of our Victorian system of State education because it is not religious in its character. If we take care that our State school children are properly instructed in morals, there can be no need to dread the result. Last night the honorable member for Fitzroy (Mr. Macgregor) drew what he seemed to think a dreadful picture of abandonment in a night school, but I don't think the crime of running after a girl to pull her hat off a particularly hideous one in a boy. I think there are few honorable members who cannot plead guilty to having done things of very much the same kind when they were young, in spite of their education being conducted on religious principles. 'We may be quite sure morals can be taught in our schools by means of books and secular instruction, without in the least impinging the con­scientious scruples of the members of any denomination. Let me say at this stage that I consider. the honorable member for Belfast deserves considerable credit for introducing the present subject to the committee in the excellent spirit he dis­played with regard to it. We may not be able to agree with the views he laid down, but there is not one of us who would not be glad to find him devoting his great ability, experience as a public man, and. knowledge of public business, to assisting in the work of making our Education Act what it should be. U n­doubtedly it is far behind what we ought to make it, and I think we cannot fail to observe that many of the honorable mem­ber's criticisms have received marked con­firmation. And now I come to what the Minister of Public Instruction stated with regard to the teachers, and I wish he were

AIr. McIntyre.

in the House to hear what I have to say on the point. I think I could convince him, if he were here, that he would be very wrong to attempt to burst up family teaching in the schools. It seems to me that the Government programme is mostly made up of proposals to burst up something or another. Where does this family teaching fail? My impression is that I can show that its adoption has done more than any­thing else to make the Education Act a success. Take, for instance, the Irollbark school at Sandhurst, which has been un­der my special notice for many years past. There is no more creditable school in the country. Yet it was built up and is carried on under the family system. About 17 years ago its head teacher, a most active and energetic man with a peculiar capacity for his work, came to Sandhurst and established himself about a mile and a half from the centre of the city. Very few people resided in his neighbourhood, b'b.t, nevertheless, by per­severance and effort, he gathered round him a large number of scholars. In 1864, when I was Mayor of Sandhurst, I laid the foundation stone of his new school building, which was of considerable archi­tectural pretensions. In fact, the man helped more than anyone else to place education in Sandhurst on a proper basis. He was also always eager to improve the educational system of the whole colony, and frequently put himself to great in­convenience in order to promote that ob­ject. When the present Education Act became law, no man did more than he did to assist the first Minister of Public In­struction to bring it into operation; yet he is, I believe, one of the persons whom the present Minister of Public Instruction at­tacked so extraordinarily the other even­ing. He was at the period I allude to promised that every care should be taken to prevent injury accruing to him or his interests under the new arrangement. In fact, we all know that every sort of in­ducement was held out to leading teachers under the old system to come in under the new one. At that .time, too, Mr. Wilber­force Stephen, the first Minister of Public Instruction, made, in one of his speeches, special reference to this family system. He said-

"When the new school buildings are com­pleted, we shall have, accommodating from 500 to 1 ,000 children, 75 of them. The head teachers for these schools will receive, inde­pendently of the incidental additions from extra. Jlubjects a.nd bonuses for pupil-teachers-which

Supply. (OCTOBER 24.J Plthlic Instruction. 1211

are alone worth £100 in large schools-from £360 to £600, which is as good a salary as that of the higher class-except the very highest-of the civil service. There will be 116 assistant teachers, who will receive from £170 to £310 per year; whereas, in 1872, there were only 31 hend teachers receiving over £360, and only 44 assistants in receipt of over £170. You see that thus there will be an improvement in their status and emolument, and that the prizes of the profession will bear a larger proportion to the number employed than in my profession; or any other I know of. And then, in addi­tion, the wives and daughters of the teachers can always get employment as assistants in their schools." At another time, in reply to a deputation of teachers who waited on him to show him what injury the Act' was doing to them, M!. Stephen distinctly held out to them this family system as a prize which the new state of things offered-as some­thing teachers would have an undoubted right to look for. He said-. "He was aware that there was another

grievance complained of. Some parents, under the 1st clause of the Act, had refused to pay for extra subjects, and, consequently, many first­class teachers had to submit to an apparent loss in salary. He thought this temporary depriva­tion, powever, was fully made up by the in­creased advantage held forth to the teachers by the department. For instance, teachers with families could bring them up as pupil-teachers, with the ultimate view of getting them ap­pointed as assistants at their schools." It strikes one that if, in the face of facts of this sort, the Minister of Public In­struction persists in the idea, which he appeared to set forth as though the thought gave hini pleasure, of abolishing this family system, the Government will be guilty of a gross breach of faith. As to over £1,000 a year going to one school, the amount does not appear very large when the salaries are looked at separately. Take, for instance, this school at Ironbark. What is the amount of the 'salaries the individual members of the family who keep it receive? The eldest son, 24 years of age, gets 44s. per week; the next, 22 years of age, £3 per week; the next, 21 years of age, 19s. per week; and then comes a daughter, 17 years of age, 13s. 4d. per week. These do not loo,k like extravagant doings after all. I think, moreover, that before the Minister of Public Instruction takes up a position against this family system, he ought to show that it is wrong not because single families are getting, under it, so much from the State, but because its results are not good. If the honorable gentle­man will only look at the subject in that asp'ect, he will find that the very opposite

482

is the case. For example, the inspectors' reports for 1873-4 show the percentage of the Elphinstone school, carried on by the Benjamin family, to be 90'579 ; that of another school carried on by the Shugg family, 93'446; that of another carried on by the Clarke family, 88'521 ; and that of, another, carried on by the Rae family, 88'459. These are samples of what is done in family schools. In fact, if results are regarded as a test of family schools, they make them tower high above the schools in which the teachers are not members of the same family. No schools under other circumstances can show re­sults so good as those of the family schools; Surely, then, there is no cause of complaint against the family system on the ground of ineffectiveness. After all, what does the £13,,544 per annum divided among 20 family schools amount to? If there are five teachers in a school, it gives only £136 per annum for each; or, if there are only four teachers, their salaries will be respectively from £170 to £180. Is that sort of thing one of the gigantic prizes that were to stimulate and encourage teachers? Is a salary of that amount one of the things that Mr. Stephen had in his mind when he spoke of what a teacher might look forward to-what it would be possible for him to achieve? It seems· to me that there is no class in the com­munity having less inducements to advance in the shape of special prizes to win than the Victorian teachers. I warn the Edu­cation department that unless they can hold out prizes like that of a large income for a man and his family, when all are engaged in the work of teaching, they cannot expect to secure the most valuable kind of service. From the statements of the Minister of Public Instruction, one would imagine that there was quite a plethora of qualified applicants for em­ployment as teachers; but, according to Mr. Gladman, the case is quite different. He is referred to in the departmental re­port for 1876-7 as stating that-

"Although the number of applicants for ad­mission to a course of training is in excess of the requirements, there is still a great scarcity of suitable male candidates,"

If the business of teaching were really of the excellent and remunerative character the Minister of Public Instruction seems

, desirous to make it out to be, there would certainly not be the scarcity Mr. Glad­man allucfes to. Under the circumstances, I hope the Minister of Public Instruction

1212 Supply.

will be very careful before he interferes with the family system in schools, which he seems anxious to annihilate, or does anything else for the sake of economy likely to deprive the teachers as a class of the prizes which ought to be placed within their reach, and which they were promised from the beginning should be open to them. Then the Minister spoke of a teacher having only four hours' work per day, on five days of the week; but though there are only four school hours each day, they don't include anything like all the time a teacher is occupied. For example, he has to be from eight o'clock until a little after nine, each morning, giving instruction to pupil-teachers; between the morning and afternoon school-hours he is fully employed arranging lessons : a.nd after school is over he has always much other work in connexion with the school to perform. Altogether he is well occupied for eight hours in the day, and his labours are often largely added to by his having to prepare returns for the Education de­partmentwhich are required by this House. The returns which he has to prepare under the anti-flogging regulations now in force, and in which every offence a scholar com­mits, and the nature of the punishment awarded to him, have to appear, are alone something. considerable. ""Vhatever hap­pens, I sincerely hope the inducements which are calculated to keep really good men in the service of the department, and to encourage them to rise in it, will never be reduced for the sake of an ill-placed economy. Also, I think the power which the Education Act confers upon the Min­ister of Public Instruction renders him altogether too autocratic, and that they ought to be modified. I .fancy it would be well if, without any interference with the Minister's responsibility to Parliament, some of them were delegated to the boards of advice. At present the boards of advice are me!e shams. They do nothing, and are ignored in every way. I speak from per­sonal experience when I say that a Member of Parliament can get far more done in the way of promot.ing the educational facilities of his district than any board of advice. I will illustrate my meaning in this direc­tion by another reference to our American cousins, showing how they regard the re­lations between the public schools and the Central Government. The powers of the Central Government of the United States, with respect to public instruction, are summed up in A Statement of the

Mr. McIntyre.

Public instruction.

Theory of Education in the United States, recently issued by the Bureau of Education at Washington. That work states-

" 'By the Constitution of the United States, no powers are vested in the Central Government of the nation, unless the same relate immediately to the support and defencE' of the whole people, to their intercourse with foreign powers, or to the subordination of the several states compos­ing the Union.' It was held by many of the earlier statesmen of the country, including Washington, that the authority given by the Constitution 'to levy taxes and provide for the general welfare of the United States,' included the power to make laws respecting education. This opinion is not, however, generally accepted, and the more correct view appears to be that the relation of the National Government to public education· is limited. . . . Any in­vasion of the rights and duties of the munici­pality, either in respect to educ~tion or other questions, is regarded with the greatest distrust. . . . Any measure which, however slightly or indirectly, encroaches, or seems to encroach, upon the absolute independence of the several states excites antagonism. In 1872, Mr. Perce brought before Congress a Bill 'to establish an educational fund, and to apply the proceeds of the public lands to the education of the people.' The proposed object of the Bill was to dedicate the proceeds of the public lands to the education of aU the people of all the states. The income arising from the fund to be thus formed was to be annually apportioned to the several states and territories upon the basis of population; but it was required, as a condition of receiving a share of the appointment, that each state should report certain specified statistics at cer­tain fixed times in the year. This was sufficient to arouse the vigilance of the state officers, and the Bill was resisted on the ground that it would encourage centralization, and be prejudicial to the cause of education. . . . 'The local school officers examine, appoint, and fix the salaries of teachers, when not otherwise done, build school­houses, procure school supplies, arrange courses of study, prescribe the rules and regulations for the government of the schools, and adminis­ter the schools.'"

In fact the simple principle of the Ameri­can school laws is that the people can be trusted to attend to their own business. Are we not able to constitute local bodies that can be equally trusted? I think we are, and that the idea might be well carried out by extending the powers and functions of the boards of advice. Again, I don't think that upon the whole we are getting an adequate return for the vast amount of money we now so ungrudgingly spend upon our educational system. In my opinion the inspection is greatly behind what it ought to be. What are eighteen inspec­tors for a country like this? I am con­fid~llt that the number is greatly insuffi­cient, and that some of the inspectors find it almost impossible to properly visit all the schools in their district in the course

Supply. [OCTOBER 24.J Public Instruction. 1213

of every twelve months. In order to show the importance attached in the United States to t.his part of th~ manage­ment of their educational system, let me quote a paragraph from the report for 1871 of the Hon. A. B. Weaver, Superin­tendent of Public Iustruction for New York state. It is as follows :-

"There is no attribute of our school system which, when wisely and faithfully exercised, is productive of more direct or practical benefit than personal supervision by competent officers. Much of the success and improvement which has already been witnessed in many of the cities and rural districts of the State is due to this agency; and if -ever our schools are brought to the highest condition of excellence, it will be through an efficient administration of this branch of educational service."

Again, in Adams' Free Schools of the United States, I find the following :-

"Between the local school board and the state board or superintendent., a third office, charged with the duty of inspection and supervision, has been created in most of the states-that of 'country superintendent,' which is now in use in 28 states and 6 territories. Upon the neces­sity for such an agency American educationalists are unanimous. In their school reports, the motto of Holland-' As your inspection is, so is your school,' is constantly enforced and quoted."

I am confident that if we want to get full value for the money we spend on educa­tion, we must reform and grea,tly improve our system of inspection. With regard to school examinations by inspectors, there is, I understand, a good denl of what I may call favoritism. I do not state this in accusation of the present inspectors, who are all, as far as I can learn, quite competent for their f;osition, but because, under existing arrangements, the matters connected with their duties being so ill defined, it is almost impossible for them to avoid being easy with some schools and difficult with others. In short, there should be more uniformity, and until that is secured the inspection will never be what it ought to be. Moreover, until we get a compulsory system in full work the real object of the Education Act will never be achieved. I think we are altogether too neglectful in that direction. Our average of attendance is much below what it ought t.o be. In those parts of the world where a compulsory plan is in operation its adoption is fast becoming general throughout England as well as the United States-we find education making far more progress than it does with us. Compulsory arrangements have been at work in Massaehusetts for eighteen years

past, and what is the result? There per­sons who cannot read or write are un­known. In fact, it is impossible for a man there to arrive at maturity in a state of utter ignorance without being subject to all manner of fines and penalties. More­over, if he cannot read the Constitution of the United States and write also he can­not vote, and is ineligible for any public office. The last educational report from Boston shows that 99 per cent. of the children there are accounted for-92 per cent. attending public schools and 7 per cent. private educational institutions. All that has been brought about under com­pulsory conditions, which have always proved a great success wherever they have been rigidly enforced. Our com­pulsory clauses are not rigidly enforced, and I don't know the reason why. I maintain that if our anti-flogging prac­tice is persevered in, and the compulsory clauses are not kept in active operation, our educational system will be very far from the success the greatest believers in it ex­pect it to be. Perhaps, as we hear of truant officers being appointed, and that they are doing their work, the next edu­cation report laid before us will show -a large increase in the percentage of school attendance. Of the way in which the Minister of Public Instruction has dis­charged his duties I cannot speak, because he has been so short a time in office, but I may say that I most sincerely hope he will make every possible effort to have the gutter children of the colony brought into the school buildings, which are in­tended for them more than for any other class of children in the country. Speaking of those buildings, I beg to point out to him the advisability of taking care to select good sites for them, and also the necessity there is for watchfulness, lest palatial schools should be erected in loca­lities which will, in all probability, in the course of a few years, be almost deserted. Again, while the style of the new school buildings that are going up in various parts of the country is in many respects exceed­ingly good, althongh there is too much uniformity a-bout it, far from sufficient attention is paid t.o the comfort of the ·children. For instance, I do not see any of them provided with verandahs where the children can get shelter from rain or

_ heat. A good plan would be to make the basement story of schools an open place which could be used as a playground in winter or f'1~m~~r: ~ ~~~]_J;l_Qt do better

1214 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Puhlic Instruction~

than finish with another extract from Mr. Adams' book, at the same time expressing a hope that before long as much may be said for this country also. Mr. Adams says-

e< The people of the United States have come to the conclusion that it is cheaper to pay for schools than gaols and poor-houses. Public in­telligence has accepted the fact that education is the best investment for the community; therefore it is that education taxes are paid cheerfully. What is spent in this direction returns many fold in increased national power nud wealth. The people seem to have taken to heart the wise words of William Penn respecting the education of his ehildren-' I. .. et their learning be liberal; spare 110 cost, for by mueh parsimony all is lost that is saved.' " Let the Minister of Public Instruction take that sentence of Penn's to heart when he undertakes to cut down the teachers' salaries. Here, too, is another passage :-

" The free school controversy in the states is at an end, and reformers and educationists are now united in devoting their attention to points of detail in which imperfections are admitted. That there is room for improvement no one denies, but there is nothing sluggish ill action, nothing retrogressi.e in principle. Every move­ment is forward. In the ultimate accomplish­men t of the destiny of the republic, the usefulnesli and success of its education system, and its in­fluence as a first measure in the development of national power and prosperity, are unlimited."

Let us devote ourselves to trying to es­tablish our educational system on a similar basis. Let us set aside our denomina­tional prejudices, and, with the assistance of the honorable member for Belfast and those who act with him, raise our teaching power to the highest level, and give our happy land a future the world may well envy.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Sir, I do not think the present scanty attendance of honorable members in this Chamber is any reflex of the interest taken by the community generally in the working of the Educa­tion Act, and consequently I will not be deterred by it from placing before the committee several matters of interest in connexion with the subject under our consideration. I will begin by congratu­lating the committee on the fact that it is at last possible for an honorable member to criticise the administration of the Act without being set down as one of its opponents. I recollect that on the two previous occasions I ventured to take that course I was at once stigmatized as an enemy to the system, the operation of which I simply wished to improve. I cannot help remarking too that we have now prominently before us, for t4e first

time since the Act was passed, the ques­tion which the honorable member for Belfast has raised. The Act has been at work ·for five years, yet this is the first occasion on which an attempt has been openly and avowedly made to secure attention to the claims with respect to State education of the denomination the honorable member may be said to repre­sent. At the same time I may declare that with the putting forth of those claims I have no sympathy whatever. That lack of sympathy is owing to the fact that the claims are set up on two grounds which I consider untenable. The first is that the Roman Catholic body represents one-fourth of the population, and the second that its members cannot, because of their conscientious scruples, avail themselves of the State schools of the country; I don't think the first ground will bear looking at. If you once admit the claims of the Catholics as representing one-fourth of the popula­tion, you establish a principle of repre­sentation respecting which we cannot tell where to draw the line. For instance, what proportion must a denomination bear to the rest of the population in order to have its separate claims with regard to education acknowledged by the State? If we grant what the Roman Catholics ask, because they are one-fourth of the popUlation, could we logically or justly refuse the same concession to a denomi­nation numbering, say, one-twentieth? I come next to the matter of scruples of conscience. On this point I fully admit what was stated by the honorable mem­ber for Grenville (Mr. Davies), and also by the honorable member for Ballarat

.East (Mr. Brophy), who asserted that he believed that if any denomination could make out a clear case of conscientious scruples-that they had a real grievance on that score-Parliament and· the coun­try would at once give them the relief they were entitled to. But up to the present time they have made out nothing of the kind. Their grievance is at any rate of only a negative character. They do not complain of being forced to do that which they object to, but that they cannot get something they think they ought to obtain. I submit that the country cannot take into consideration any such negative griev­ance as this. Then again I say, looking at the facts, they fail to make out a case in support either of a positive grievance

,or ~ negative grie-vance .. I find that in

Supply. [OCTOBER 24.] Public Instruction. 1215

the year 1876, the total number of children of practical school age, that is from 3 to 16-the legal school age is from 6 to 15 years-was, according to Mr. Hayter's statistics, 286,R04. Aitd here let me say that it is to this difference between these two ages that so much of the confusion which has arisen in connexion with school statistics is to be traced. Of that number there were in attendance at State schools

. 181,873 ; and at private schools, 31,164 ; making a total of 213,037. And there were some children over the age of 16 who were also attending school. Reckoning them at 3,000, and deducting that number from the total I have just given, we find the net total attending school, between these ages, to be 210,037, leaving the number of children not attending any school at 76,767. Of that number I will presume that one-fourth belonged to the Roman Catholic de­nomination. That gives 19,192 Roman Catholic children who were not attending any school-State school or private school -during the year 1876. Now I ask where and how have the Roman Catholics of this colony given us any evidence that their conscientious convictions in relation to religious instruction are of the over­powering nature which the petitions that have been presented to this House would lead us to suppose? I don't know that the Roman Catholic denomination are making any effort to afford religious instruction to those 19,192 children; but so soon as any number of those children are brought into State schools, then a great de­mand for religious instruction for them will be developed by the denomination. The fact that children are not getting religious instruction along with secular instruction is the reason urged by the Roman Catholics why a separate grant should be given them for school purposes. When this de­nomination endeavours to provide religious instruction for those children that don't go to school at all, and consequently are more in want of it than those who go to State schools, and there learn the rudi­ments of secular education, I may have a little more faith in the conscientious scruples which they urge as a reason why they should be dealt with differently from the rest of the community. N ow we have this fact staring us in the face: that, of . the 52,509 Roman Catholic children who attended some school or other during 1876, only 13,430 went to schools of their own distinctive character, leaving 39,079 as attending State schools. So that the

fact of their children attending State schools does not appear to be very painful to the consciences of many Roman Catholic parents. Another fact I desire to men­tion. We all know that one day in the week is set apart specially for religious instruction in this colony; and one would naturally think that if one denomination more than another desired that religious instruction should be imparted to children on that day, it is the Roman Catholic de­nomination. But I don't find that they make any efforts to impart this all-impor­tant religious instruction to their own children in their own churches or Sunday schools on the very day that is set apart for the purpose.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-That is no~ correct.

Mr. MIRAMS.-Perhaps the honor­able member for Belfu,st will wait until I quote the figures which support my as­sertion. I find by IVIr. Hayter's statistics that, in 1 ~76, the number of Roman Ca­tholic children attending Roman Catholic Sunday schools was only 17,892, and this while the Roman Catholic population num­bered 198,067.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Where do you get your return from?

Mr. MIRAMS.-From Mr. Hayter's book.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-But where does he get it from?

Mr. MIRAMS.-I presume he has as much opportunity of obtaining figures from one denomination as from another. Clearly if the figures are good for one denomina­tion they are good for another; but if the figures are to be disputed whenever they differ from the ideas of anyone denomi­nation the sooner the book is torn up the better. If the honorable member will refer to the chapter headed "Religious Progress," he will find the figures I quote. Now I find that, during the sarno year, the 'Vesleyans, with a popUlation of 109,000 -or a little more than half the Roman Catholic population-had 34,:305 children (or gouble t.he number of Roman Catho­lic children) attending Sunday schools. Certainly these facts do DOt show that there is so much conscientious objection on the part of Roman Catholics to the State schools, on account of the want of religious instruction, as we are asked to believe. But I will go a step further. If there is one thing more than another that this denomination claims credit for it is that in all countries it is the same, and

1216 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Pleblic Instruction.

that in all ages it has been the same. Now I have here an extract from aNew York newspaper. It is headed-" The Bible in State schools," and it says~

"The Roman Catholics of New Rochelle, in this state, have presented to the school trustees a petition that their children be excused from lis­tening to the Bible reading at the opening of the schools. There are three public schools in the town, and there was till a year ago a Catholic parochial school attended by many of the children of Roman Catholic parents. The Roman Catho­lic children were allowed by the teachers to absent themselves from the opening exercises in the public school, and the Catholics having gained so much began as usual to try for more. They no,v ask for the. total abolishment of reli­gious exercises in the schools, or else that a Catholic teacher be appointed who shall con­duct religious exercises, at which the Catholic children shall be allowed to be present." An alternative is thus set before the school board for N ew York state. The Roman Catholics of that state are content to receive secular instruction; they are content that religious instruction shall be totally abolished except on condition that they have a teacher of their own who shall give it. Now if the Roman Catho­lics of New York state can accept a system of education which includes no religious instruction, how can the Roman Catholics of Victoria urge conscientious scruples against a system of education of exactly the same character? To my mind these facts are unanswerable; and until the Roman Catholic denomination can show that they have a real and not a fancied grievance, they will not get this House or the country to have any sym­pathy with them, ·because they have full opportunity for imparting the religious education which the State refuses to give, and very justly as I think. Having dealt with the question from the Roman Catho­lic point of view, I now come to the report of the Education department. I have not had much experience of that department during the short time I have held a seat in this House, but, from the little experience I have had, it is my opinion that there is not a department of the State that has more carefully studied and more thoroughly reduced to practice Mr. Tite Barnacle's theory "how not to do it." The document called the report of the Education department, though pro­fessing to be a true and fa.ithful accouut of the present educational system and its results, is misleading in the extreme. Without wishing to charge any officer with having done it purposely, I say that, reading the report from my stand-point, it

Mr. Mira7M, .

looks as if there was very much like a desire on the part of the Education department to make things appear a great deal pleasanter th~n they really are, and to lead the public to believe that the system is a much greater success, finan­cially and educationally, than it really is. In the first place I say the report is meagre. It contains scarcely a single item of the in­formation which honorable members want, and which therefo~e they have to move for. As I have said already, there are two school ages in the colony which are con­tinually facing writers and speakers on the education question, and yet the report makes no distinction with regard to those ages. It does not say how the attend­ance is divided according to age; how many children there are uuder the age of 6, how many there are between the ages of 6 and 15, and how many there are above 1 :'5. The whole number is jumbled together. BeforeI could make any calcula­tion based on a comparison of the statistics for last year with those for previous years, I had to move that a return showing the number of children of the various ages attending school should be furnished to this House. Then again the pUblication of the report is kept back until July, in order that we may have a statement of the expenditure for the year ending the 30th June, but an examination of the report shows that all the statistical infor­mation contained in it closes on the 31st December, so that, but for the statement of the expenditure for the financial year, there is no reason why the report should not be printed in February. But when I come to examine the last report with the view of ascertaining the total expenditure, so that I may divide it by the number of children attending school, and thus arrive at the cost per head, I find that the state­ment of account is for six months only and not for twelve. months ; and in con­sequence, before I could make a single comparison between the expenditure for the past year and the previous year, I had to move for a return giving the expendi­ture for the entire twelve months. I mention this to show that the report is meagre-that it contains little or no infor­mation; and that what information we are possessed of we have had to drag out of the department piecemeal, by returns moved for in this House. I have next to complain that the report is misleading. In one part of it there is a tabulated statement showing the total number of

Supply. [OCTOBEn 24.J Public Insl1·uction. 1217

children enrolled and the average attend­ance, from which it would appear that the total number enrolled, in 1876, was 231,560; but in an earlier part of the report there is a paragraph which puts a different face upon the matter. It is as follows :-

" The number on the rolls reduced for attend­ance at more than one school in the same ratio as in the returns for last year and for previous years would give a total of 201,817 distinct indi­vidual children who attended during the year, against 195,252 in 1875. This reduction is one not usually made in educational statistics, pro~ bably because it is only possible to arrive at an approximation." The department does not tell us what the number would be if the reduction were made according to any other system. Then we come to another paragraph :-

"In order to ascertain as closely as possible the number of children who during the year had attended more than one school, the teachers were instructed to inquire individually of each child present on a particular day (the 6th of December) whether he had attended at any other school during the year. The result showed that 16'213 per cent. had attended at more than one school, or about 31 per cent. more than had hitherto been estimated." So that the calculation contained in the previous paragraph, that "201,817 dis-' tinct individual children attended during the year," is wrong to the extent· of 31 per cent. In other words, the number of distinct individual children who attended school during 1876 was 194,018. But, strange to say, in no part of the report are the right figures given; and I venture to say that no newspaper in the colony that has written on the subject has not used the figures 231,560 as the number of children attending school last year. Why they were the figures used by the Minister of Public Instruction himself, when replying to the honorable member for Belfast. But we don't want to know the number of children enrolled; there may be more names on the roll than there are children in the colony, if children are· sent to a number of schools; all that we want is the number of" distinct individual children attending school, and that num­ber, according to the department, is 194,018. But the fact does not appear­it is not worked out-in the report. 1\11'. Hayter, in his statistics, gives the number of children enrolled as 281,560, and in the next column gives the ~umber of distinct children attending school, as it ought to be given, as 194,018. I will mention another fact to show the misleading character of the report. The school attendance for five

years is given, but included in the attend- . ance for each of the last two years is the attendance at night schools; but in no pre­vious year is the attendance at night schools included; so that, for the purposes of com­parison, the information given us with re­spect to the last five years is absolutely worthless. Of course it is improper to mix up the attendance at night schools with the attendance at day schools, because the one means six hours per week, and the other means twenty-five hours per week. Now deducting from 194,01~, the number of children attending night schools, we get 181,873 as the number of distinct indi­vidual children attending school during 1876. I state emphatically-and I chal­lenge contradiction of the statement either in this House or anywhere else-that there was not a single child beyond the number of 181,873 attending State schools during 1876. There is another point on which the report is misleading-so misleading indeed that it led even the late Minister of Public Instruction astray when speaking, the other night, of the cost of education per head. The report states that "the cost for the instruction of each child in average attendance during the year 1876 was £3 14s. 3d.," and then it goes on to mention what is reckoned in this:-

" In computing the cost per child, the amounts which have been paid under the following heads have been taken, viz. :-Teachers' salaries,results, bonuses for pupil-teachers, drill, singing, draw­ing. exhibitions granted, books and requisites, and maintenance allowances for schools." So that we don't get the whole cost per child; we get only a portion of the cost. But what would be said of any manufac­turer who, if he wanted to reckon up the cost of an article turned out from his workshop, left out of his calculation the interest on the money which he had in­vested in plant and buildings? It would be said that a man who did business after that fashion would soon get into the insol­vent court. As n matter of fact the cost per child is £4 11 s. 11 !d. instead of £3 14s. 3d. I say that the report is not only meagre but that it is misleading, and a disgrace to the department from which it emanates. And here I have a few further observations to make on the subject of attendance. I am going to refer to two years only-1874 and 1876. I take 1874. because that is the best year the system has had. In 1874, the number of child­ren attending State schools, reduced for attendance at more than one school, was 181,790; in 1876, the number was

1218 Supply. [ASSEMBLY. ] Public Instruction.

181,873 ; or an increase in two years of lHore especially passed. Looked at in only 83. I find that in these two years that light, I say the system is a total the average attendance decreased by 1879, failure. I say it is a disgrace to the the average attendance in 1874 being Education department that, considering 104,375, while in 1876 it was 102,496. the lavish expenditure of public money­Sir, the Minister of Public Instruction the ungrudging votes passed by this congratulated the House, the other night, House from year to year-there should upon the fact that we had so many more still be 104,931 children untouched by the children under instruction now than we national system of education, and that had previously. But I think one ques- the 181,873 who do go to State sehools tion we ought to ask ourselves is-" What are there not much more than half their sort of children are we getting into the time, the average attendance being only schools?" In 1872, the last year of the old 102,000. So that out of a total popu­system, there were in the colony, 263,057 lation of school age of 286,804, the children between the ages of 3 and 16; number that received a year's instruc­of. that number, 118,498 attended the com- tion during 1876 by the State expen~ mon schools under the old system, leaving diture on education was no more than 144,.559 unreached by the Board of Edu- 102,000. Of course it may be said that cation. In 1876, there were 286,804 child- 181,873 attend'ed some time or other during ren between the ages named, of whom the year, and that, therefore, they were 181,873 attended the State schools some brought more or less within the reach of time or other during the year, leaving instruction. But what difference does it a balance of 104,931 untouched by the make to us, who have to provide the national system. The total increased money and wish to see the Act a success, attendance in the four 'years was 63,375. whether 102,000 get a whole year's in­Now how are these 63,375 children struction, or twice the number get half a accounted for? They are accounted year's instruction, or four times the num­for first of all by the fact that the school ber get three months' instruction? It population increased during the four comes to just the same thing in the end. years by 23,747, and the State system Our system has provided twelve months' got hold of the whole of that increase. instruction-that is 230days' instruction­Then there was an increase in attendance for 102,000 children; and that, with' the of the children under 6 years of 19,320. exception of the night schools, is the sum That information I have obtained from a total we have secured. return supplied to me yesterday afternoon Mr. LEVIEN.~How about the num­in response to an order of the House made, ber that received certificates of com­at my instance, some two months ago. I petency? may here mention that every session for Mr. MIRAMS.-The number is 18,000 three sessions I have asked for that return. in the four years, most of whom, how­The previous Government told me I could ever, are above 16 years of age. And not obtain it; twice they refused it to me; now I desire to offer a few further and I have to thank the present Minister words as to the cost of the system. of Public Instruction for his courtesy in Weare told by the report that it is cndeaveuring to give honorable members £3 14s. 3d. per head. I am not going all the information in his power in con- to take into account the money expended llexion with the Education department. on school buildings, because that is an This return shows, what I have all along exceptional expenditure which will end believed, that a very large portion of the sooner or later-it may be three or four increased attendance of children consists years hence-but I am going to take into of children under 6 years of age; ,children account the interest on the money bor­that the Education Act never contem- rowed, which certainly ought to be in­plateel-or made provision for getting to eluded with as much reason as a merchant school. Deducting the figures I have includes in his expenditure the interest on already given (23,747 and 19,320) from the capital invested in his warehouse. lfind the increase of 63,375, we have left only that in 1874 the total expenditure by the 20,308 that have been secured, during department was £377,898, and the interest the four years, from the mass of children be- upon the money spent on buildings up to tween the ages of 6 and 16 that the State that time, reckoned at 4~ per cent., I more especially wishes to get, and for I estimate at £14,980, making a. total ex­whose benefit the Educ~#on Act Wl;liS penditure of ~392,878, From that I

Mr. Mirams l

Supply. [OCTOBER 24.J Public Inst1'uctioll. 1219

deduct £2,130 as the expense of the night schools, which I deal with sepa­rately, and thus we have £390,748 as the net cost of the system during 1874. That sum divided by the average attendance of children gives £3 14s. lOcI., as the cost per head. Now, what do we find in 1876? The expenditure by the department amounted to £450,027 ; and the interest on the money spent upon school buildings amounted to £27,443 ; making a total of £477,470. Deducting £6,199 for night schools, we have left £471,271, as the

'expenditure on day schools for ) 876, or an increase on the expenditure for 1874 of £80,523. And while there was an in­crease of expenditure to the amount of £80,523 the increase of children that attended during the year was only 83, and there was a decrease in the average attend­ance of 1,879. So that we really provided, in 1876, a year's instruction for 1,879 less children than we had in 1874, at an increased cost of £80,523. These figures are taken from the department's OWll

returns, and they show that the cost per head in 1876 was £4 lIs. 11 ~d., as against £3 14s. 10d. in 1874. Two years ago, when I inquired why an increased vote was asked for, the then Minister of Public Instruction told me it was for extending the system. N ow if, by "extending the system," the honorable member meant the putting up of more buildings, and the employment of more teachers, he was per­fectly correct; but, if he meant the reach­ing of more children, and the giving of more instruction, he was perfectly incor­rect. I find that, during the same two years, the number of teachers has increased by 376. Let me here state, by the way, that these figures are taken from the edu­cation report and not from Mr. Hayter's statistics, though I find on comparing the 'two ~ocuments another glaring inconsis­tency in the report, because in giving the number of teachers employed it leaves out altogether the teachers in the eapitation schools, who are just as much State school teachers, until the capitation grant is done away with, as the other teachers are. And while the number of teachers has .increased by 376, the number of schools has increased by 387. So that the de­partment in two years has actually built 387 schools, has employed 376 more teachers, and spent £80,000 more money to get 83 more children in nominal at­tendance and 1,879 less children in actual average attendance. That is the result

of two years efforts in this department under the late Minister of Public Instruc­tion. 'Ve have heard something of com­parisons between this expellditure and the expenditure on education in other countries. 'Ve lutve had comparisons, too, made between the cost of the present and the past system in this country. I wonld not have referred to this, how­ever, but for the fact that the honorable member for East Bourke made, the other evening, a statement which was somewhat startling. He stated that the present system of education in this colony is less costly than the old system-that under the old system we spent more per head for each child in average attendance than we do now. Afterwards, I went over and asked the honorable member whether he included the whole of the ex~ penditure; and he said he presumed so­he had obtained the figures from the Sec­retary of the department. The honorable member stated to the committee that the cost of the old system was £3 16s. 4d. per head, and that the cost of the present system is £3 14s. 3d., quoting the state­ment contained in the education report which I have shown is utterly wrong because it includes only a part of the expenditure; the real amount being £4 lIs. ll!d. On turning to the education report for 1871 I find that the total expenditure on educa­tion for that year, including local contri­butions, children's fees, and Government aid, is set down at £274,384, un'd that the average attendance of children during that year was 67,233. Dividing the one by the other I find that the cost pel' head in 1871 was £4 ) s. 7 !eI. as against £4 11 s. ll!d. in 1876, showing thnt the system now in operation is 10s. 4d. per head more costly than the old system in which fees were included. The honorable mem­ber for ,Srurdhurst (Mr. Mackay) stated, last night, that we had no right to insti­tute a comparison between the cost of education in this colony" and the cost of education in England, because in England a large amount of money had been left at various times by various people for educa­tional purposes, and that, this money being available, there was no necessity to draw upon the public funds for educational pur­poses to the same extent that it is necessary to do in this colony. Now I have here a return which was furnished to the Honse of Commons, 011 the motion of Lord Robert Montagu, with reference to the endowed charities in England. From that return I

1220 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

find that the total income of the endowed charities of all kinds in England, during 1876, was £2,198,464, of which £646,8~2 was dedicated to educational purposes. I find that, in addition to the money avail­able from endowed charities, there was an expenditure for educational purposes last year in England of £2,748,356, and in Wales £172,176, making a total of £3,567,414. Now in that same year the population of England and Wales was ~4,250,OOO, so that the expenditure on education was eqnal to £147,109 for overy 1,000,000 of the population

Mr. BOSISTO.-Does that include buildings?

Mr. MIR.~MS. - It includes every­thing. And while in England and Wales £147,109 is spent on education for every 1,000,000 of the population, we, with u,

population of much less than 1,000,000, spend £500,000, and, including the ex­penditure upon buildings, it will be this year nearly £700,000. Coming to the aggregate cost per head, I have here an extract from a recent report of the London School Board. It says-

" The gross annual cost per child of 30 schools, with an average attendance of 14,273 examined during the quarter by the Government inspec­tors, shows £2 11 s. 11 ~d. Various payments by the parents and by the Government, how­ever, bring down the net cost of each child to £1 13s 2!d."

And, mark you, the London School Board look upon £2 lIs. 11 ~d. per head-which is small compared with our £4 11 s. 11 ~ d. per head-as such a high price to pay that they insert another paragraph to show how it comes about :-

"Several of the schools thus examined and accounted for, it should be noted, are small tem­porary or transferred schools, which are, as a rule, much more costly to work than the new permanent schools of the board." .

The honorable member for Sandhurst re­ferred last night to certain states of Ame­rica which spend more money per head on education than we do. I am not prepared to dispute that some of those states do spend more money than we do; but I say that in reckoning the cost of an article we have to loo}< to quality as well as to price. If the honorable member for Sandhurst, when he spoke of the cost of education in Massachusetts, had told us what was given for the money, the committee would have seen that the cases were not parallel at all, and that the case of Massachusetts ought not to be brought into a discussion of this sort. I think it very unfair for an

honorable gentleman who has helU the position of Minister of Public Instruction, and whose words are on that account re­ceived with an amount of respect which does not attach to the utterances of othel' honorable members who have not held that position, to make statements wbich show one side of tho case only, and which therefore are calculated to mislead. I find in the report of the Commissioner of Edu­cation for the United States for the year 1875, the following' statement with re­ference to education ill Massachusetts :-

,. Every town is required to maintain at the public expense, for at least six months in each year, under teachers of competent ability and good morals, a sufficient number of schools, properly furnished and conveniently located, for the instruction of all the children who lllay legally attend school therein' in orthography, reading, writing, English grammar, geography, arithmetic, drawing, the history of the United States, and good behaviour. Algebra, vocal music, agriculture, physiology, and hygiene are also to be taught by lectures or otherwise in any public schools in which the committee deem it expedient. Provision is made, too, fill' giving free instruction in industrial or mechanical drawing, in day or evening schools, to persons over 15 years of a.ge, in any town where the committee may think it best, and in all where the population is upwards of 10,000, as well as for maintaining, in towns with over 500 families or householders, a school in which general his­tory, book-keeping, surveying, geometery, na­tural philosophy, chemistry, botany, the civil polity of Massachusetts llnd of the United States, and the Latin language shall be added to t.he studies mentioned above. In every town con­taining over 4,000 inhabitants, the teacher or teachers must further be competent to give in­struction in the Greek and French languages, astronomy, geology, rhetoric, logic, intellectual and moral science, and political economy."

I ask-Has any honorable member ill this House the right to bring the expendi­ture of a state upon an education of that description into competition with the miserable education, for the price paid, which is furnished in our schools? Sir, one of the most difficult things in endea­vouring to draw a parallel between the expenses of anyone country and another, and especially between this country and the United States, is to find any point of comparison that can be laid hold of. The school ages .in all the American states vary from each other, and they all vary from ours. The kind of . instruction afforded varies in nearly every state, and it all varies from ours. However, in look­ing through the elaborate report from which I have quoted, and which is some­thing like what the report of an Educa­tion department should be, I came across

Supply. [OCTOBER 24. j Public instruction. 1221

one table which furnishes me with a ground of comparison between some of the American states and this colony. It is a table giving the cost of education per head of the population between the ages of 6 and 16. I find that in Victoria the cost per head of the population between those ages is £3 Is. 2d.; and in the dis­t.rict of Columbia it is £3 Is. 10d.; in Rhode Island, £3 3s. 3d.; in Montana, £3 2s. 4d.; in Ohio, £2 Is. 4d.; in Ver­mont, £2 6s. 2d.; in Iowa, £2 16s. 10d.; in New Hampshire, £2 6s. 9d.; in Utah, £1 11s. 8d. ; in Kansas, £2 Os. 2d.; and in Virginia, 13s. 1 d. The average is £2 6s. 4d., as against our £3 1 s. 2d.; and for that expenditure those states have systems of education of the highest cha­racter, including high schools, colleges, medical schools, theological schools, and schools of philosophy. For an average cost of £2 6s. 4d. per head of the school population, the states I have named give as good an education as that which young men receive at our University, while we pay £3 Is. 2d. per head of the school population for instruction in the three" R's" and a smattering of geo­graphyand grammar. One reason to my mind why the cost is so excessive is that there are, in our schools, a number of children that the State never contemplated teaching, because if this House and the country had· thought that children under six onght to be educated at the expense of the State, a lower age would have been mentioned in the Education Act. If it had been thought advisable that children under six should go to school to be taught at the expense of the State, four or five years would have been the limit provided for in the Education Act instead of six years.

Mr. ORR.-Certainly not. Mr. MIRAMS.-The honorable mem­

ber may have his opinion; perhaps he will allow me to have mine.

Mr. ORR.-I was a member of this House when the Education Act was passed.

Mr. MIRAMS.-The common sense view of the case is that six years would not have been mentioned as the minimum legal age, if the Legislature had not de­·sired that children should go. to school then, and not earlier.

Mr. ORR.-It was because compulsion commenced then.

Mr. MIRAMS.-And free education commenced when the compulsion com,;. menced.

Mr. ORR.-No; certainly not.

Mr.MIRAMS.-Isay"Yes." Freeedu­cation was given because of compulsion. There was no talk of free education until there was a talk of compulsion. If we have 40,000 children under six years of age at the State schools, at a cost of 2s. 61d. each per week, is not that expense some­thing frightful to contemplate considering how little such children can learn, and the large demands made on the Government for various other purposes besides educa­tion? Another reason, in my opinion, why our expenditure on education is so excessi ve is that, instead of children being forced into the schools in large towns, where there are thousands of children still outside the reach of education, money is squandered in the establishment of schools in country districts. There are 499 . schools with an average attendance of less than 30 children, who are being educated at a cost of £5 9s. 5d. per annum each, and of those 499 schools there are 40 with an average attendance of less than 12 children each, whose education is costing £718s. 5d. or nearly ~8per head per annum. There is one other matter to which I will refer, namely, the night schools. As I stated at the commencement of my re­marks, I left night schools out of any calculation altogether, because they are a recent addition to the system, and mixing them up with the day schools would only tend to unnecessarily confuse and complicate the question. Last year there were over 14,000 children entered on the rolls of night schools, and the average attendance was only a few hun­dreds over 4,000. What is the llse of the department swelling the tables showing the school attendance by including in them tbe number who go to night schools, when the attendance on each night that such schools are open is only for about two hours, and, on the average, not much more than one-fourth of the children on the rolls are present? The reports of almost all the inspectors condemn the night schools. Some of them propose that night schools should be retained only for children who are more than 15 years of age, who have already passed the ordinary examination at a day school, and who wish to receive instruction in some of the higher branches of education. My belief is that night schools are really diminishing the attendance at day schools. Many children are taken from day schools who ought to be there, and a pretence of compliance with the Act is made by

1222 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Puhlic Instruction.

entering their names on the roll of a night school and so satisfying the truant officers. By this means the intentions of the Act are practically defeated. Mr. Inspector Main says that night schools are" a sorry substitute for the day school to those children whose parents have neglected to keep them regularly at school at the proper time," and he pro­poses that they should be kept only for those children who have learned what the day schools can teach them and wish to receive instruction in the higher branches. I desire also to briefly allude to the flogging circular issued by the Minister of Public Instruction. I agree with the Minister that flogging should not be indiscriminately ad­ministered, and that it should not be ad­ministered by all teachers; but I disagree with the honorable gentleman in the opinion that its application should be by the head teachers only. Many of the present assist­ants were formerly head teachers, and it is somewhat degrading to them, as well as derogatory to their position in the eyes of the children, to imply that they are not competent to do now what they did some time ago. The Minister seems to be averse

. to flogging, but I will ask him what he would do in a case of this kind, which recently occurred. A boy for three months played the truant in such a way that he deluded his parents and deceived the teacher. He made a point each day of seeing one of the boys who attended the school, and got from him the lessons to be learned at home, which he duly attended to, and actually forged the teacher's initials to the exercises which he wrote at'home. By this means both the teacher and his parents were actually kept in the dark for three months as to his playing truant. Cases of this kind, and many other cases of misbehaviour, cannot be dealt with ex­cept by corporal punishment. I regret that the Minister has restricted the use of the rod to head teachers. I think he ought also to allow it to be applied by the assist­ant-teachers, but prohibit pupil-teachers from using it. That would meet all the. req uirements . of the case. In conclusion, I beg to thank the Minister for his cour­tesy in using his best efforts to supply all the returns and information which I and other members have asked for bear­ing on the administration of the Educa­tion Act.

Mr. BARR.-We have heard so much of the disadvantages of the Education Act, that it is as well to say something

about its advantages. If those honorable members who have traduced it had seen its operation in country districts, I think they would agree with me and most of my constituents that it is the best Act ever passed by the Legislature of Vic­toria. I was a member of one of the boards under the old system, and I must say that a more miserable exhibition of denominationalism I never saw. There seemed to be a perpetual squabble between the sects, and the welfare of the schools was in many instances almos,t totally neglected in order to favour members of one denomination or another. The hon­orable member for Belfast talked about the present Act being calculated to lead to denominational differences amongst the rising generation, but I am sure that the very opposite is the case. The children of Catholics and of Protestants, of Jews and of Gentiles, sit together side by side at the same school, so that they see there are as honest and straightforward persons belonging to one religion as to another, and the consequence will be that they will grow up free from any sectarian pre­judices and bitterness. I altogether dis­agree with the complaint about the want of religious instruction in the State schools. I had the advantage of being educated in Scotland, in a school where the Bible was made a task-book. Every morning the scholars had to repeat so many verses of the Bible, and if they failed to know any out of a long list of biblical names, they had to hold out their hands to receive punishment. Surely that is not the way to make religious instruction of any use to the young. In fact the Psalms of David and the paraphrases became an abomination in the eyes of the boys. I am happy to know that this colony is free from a system which makes the best of books a task-book and a punishment .. There are some respects in which I am of opinion that the administration 6f the Education Act might be improved. I think that the boards of advice ought to be utilized and made of some real service, instead of being, as at present, merely a use­less appendage to the educational system:. A great deal of power might safely be intrusted to them. If that were done, much of the work now performed in tl;1e department in Melbourne could be mote economically and better managed in the country districts. I also consider that the State schools might in some measure be made a nursery to the volunteer' force.

Supply. [OCTOBER 24.J Public Instruction. 1223

If military drill were taught in the whole of the schools it would be of great advan­tage to the colony, for the State scholars would then form the nucleus of an effi­cient volunteer corps. I am likewise of opinion that the teachers ought to be classified, and placed on the civil service list. They now labour under all the dis­ndvantages and disabilities of the civil service, but they have few or none of the benefits of it. I hope that the promises which have been made that the teachers shall be members of the civil service will be given effect to before long, and that at the same time provision will be made for the establishment of an insurance fund in connexion with the civil service, to which all the members of the service shall be compelled to contribute.

Mr. ORR.-After the lengthy debate which has taken place, I do not intend to trouble the committee for many minutes. I regret very much that the two branches of the discussion have not been kept sepa­rate. Honorable members have mixed up the discussion of the grievances under which the honorable member for Belfast represents the Roman Catholic denomina­tion to be laboring with criticisms on the details of the administration and operation of the Act. I confess it would have been far more satisfactory if the discussion of those two things had been kept separate and distinct. All sorts of assertions have been made as to the operation of the Act, which nine-tenths of honorable members are not in a position to deal with; in fact, they can only be properly replied to by the Minister, who has the whole ma­chinery of the department at his disposal to enable him to answer them. I feel bound, however, to notice one or two of the remarks made by the honorable mem­ber for Belfast. The honorable member alleged that Mr. Stephen, by whom the measure was introduced in 1872, stated that it was brought in to injure the Roman Catholics. Now I was a mem­ber of . the Assembly at that time, and I do not remember that anything of the kind was said by Mr. Stephen or anyone else, and I can find no record in Hansard of any such statement having been made. It is n~t fair that such an imputation should be thrown out when there is no foundation for it. One objection to the present educational system is that it is ad­ministered by a Minister of the Crown. In fact, an idea has been attempted to be urged upon the public mind that there is

something horrible in a Minister adminis­tering snch a department; but I would point out that we have already had ex­perience of the working of a board in the administration of an Education Act, and that experience was not favorable. The mode in which the Heales Common Schools Act was worked compared with the ad-

I ministration of the present law shows how much superior a Minister is to a board. The object of the Common Schools Act was to introduce something like the pre­sent system, without making education compulsory. Unfortunately a~l amend­ment was introduced into that measure during its passage through Parliament­for which, I regret to say, I voted, not seeing the effect of it at the time-provid­ing that no two members of the Board of Education should belong to the same reli­gious denomination. The honorable mem­ber for Belfast, who was then Chief Secretary, but who was opposed to the Common Schools Act, interpreted that provision as meaning that the head of every denomination should be called upon to nominate a representative to the board. That was totally unwarranted by the Act, or by anything that transpired in the de­bates upon the measure, but the result was tbat the Act was worked from the com­mencement as a purely denominational system. Each member of the board was supposed to represent his own denomina­tion, and, when I had any occasion to do business with the board in connexion with any particular school, I had always to go to the member of the board who was sup­posed to represent the denomination to which that school was attached. Thus, instead of there being one Ministerre­sponsible to Parliament, there were a number of members-I forget how many -who were responsible to nobody. On one occasion a teacher was dismissed from his situation without there being a scrap of writing in the office forfourmonthsafter­wards to show the reason of his dismissal. Such a thing would be impossible under the present system. As to the figures of the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) relative to the cost of the present system, it is well known that figures can be made to prove anything; but, even accepting the honorable mem­ber's figures as accurate, it appears that there is only a difference of lOs. 4d. per head between the cost of the education now and the cost in 1872. The honor­able member, in reckoning the expense of

1224 Supply_ [ASSEMBLY.] Public Inst1·uction.

the present system, includes interest on the cost of the erection of school buildings, a thing never done before. Against this it must be remembered that a vast amount of sett1~ment bas taken place tbroughout the country since 1872, and that the Education department has provided schools wherever there is a small township. There has also been a great expense in estab­lishing a training instit.ution for the education of future teachers. Even if the cost is ] Os. 4ci. per head more than it was in 1872, that is a very small increase compared with the ext,l'a benefits which the country is deriving under the present system. It is said that very few more children are now being taught than in 1872; but no man who has gone through the country with his eyes open can concur in that statement. There are at least one­third more children attending the State schools now than were embraced in the grasp of the Heales Common Schools Act. In the Goulburn Valley, in an area of something like 100 square miles, where in 1872 there was hardly a settler, there are now perhaps a dozen or twenty centres of population; in fact, people 'are scattered over the whole district, and schools have been erected in different places for the education of their children. There are, however, one or two points in tIle administration of the present Act which require alteration. For instance, the mode of ascertaining results is, in my opinion, altogether unsatisfactory. The children are not examined in the subjects of the class in which they are at the time of the examination, but in the subjects of the class in which they were the year before; thus, if a boy who is in the 5th class this year was in the 4th class last year, he will be examined this year in the subjects of the 4th class. By this means a much higher percentage of res.ults is obtained than would otherwise be the case. Again, the system of exhibitions is altogether a mistake. It was established with the idea of giving clever children of poor parents an opportunity of being pushed forward, and going to the Uni­versity. The result, however, is that the exhibitions are chiefly obtained by children who only attend a State school occasion­ally, for the purpose of competing for an exhibition, but who are taught at gram­mar schools, or have private tutors. A child who is taught only at a State school has no chance of winning an exhibition under the present system. While the

Mr. Orr.

idea with which exhibitions were estab­lished was a good and proper one, I think that the way in which they are worked is altogether a mistake, and that they ought at once to be abolished. As to the teachers' salaries, I think that on one point the Minister is right and that on another he is wrong. I do not think that the head teachers receive too much, as a rule, and in the few instances in which they obtain £7GO a year their salaries may be regarded as little plums which offer an inducement to the general body of teachers to make themselves as efficient as possible; and there ought to be some prizes of that character. I con­sider the Minister is quite correct in his view as to the family arrangements. I certainly think that, where a head teacher brings up other members of his family to be teachers, employment should be found for them in some other school thau his own; for I believe that the pupils will be likely to suffer when the whole teacbing of a school is in the hands of one family. I think that the committee and the country are under a great obli­gation to the honorable member for Bel­fast for raising a discussion as to the grievance of which Catholics complain in connexion with the Education Act. The flippant way in which that grievance has been dealt with by some honorable members is altogether unworthy of them. I refer especially to a remark made by one honorable member, to the effect that he had disposed of the Catholic conscience. The Catholic conscience is a matter which can only be disposed of by Catholics themselves. However much I may dis­agree with their views on the education question, I think that their representations deserve careful consideration; and I re­gret that they have been mixed up with the discussion of a lot of petty details connected with the administration of the Act. . In conclusion, I would suggest to the Minister of Public Instruction that it would be a great advantage if he would, after the session is over, appoint a com­mission or board to investigate certain accusations made against the department; for example, one of the accusations made by the honorable member for Collingwood, if it means anything at all, means' that the department has been falsifying returns. Such an inquiry as I suggest, if strictly and efficiently carried out, would enable the Minister to ascertain in what directions amendments are needed.

Supply. [OCTOBER' 24.J Public Instruction. 1225

Mr. COOPER.-Whatever be the re­sult of this debate, I think that we must feel ourselves under some obligation to the honorable member for Belfast for the very elaborate, calm, and proper manner in which he initiated it. I also think the discussion has brought out some latent talent which has been slumbering on the Ministerial benches. The honorable mem­ber for Sandhurst (Mr. Mackay) must now be convinced that the supporters of the Government are not all "dumb dogs" - that some of them can not only bark, but bark nearly as long as he can himself. The Minister of Public Instruction has been blamed for not re­tracting or reiterating the famous speech he made at Wangaratta about the state of the Education department, but I believe the honorable gentleman has acted very wisely in doing neither the one nor the other. The Minister was new in office when he delivered that speech, and, in his zeal for the proper administration of the department, he made statements which no doubt he felt at the time to be perfectly justified - statements based on what seemed to him to be perfectly clear-but now he has toned down his views to some extent, because, having been longer in office, he finds difficulties in the way of applying remedies, and sees that what he desires cannot be done in a week, or a month, or a year. A great deal has been said about the officers of the department, but so far as my experience, as a member of the House, goes, I find that in the matter of correspondence the Education department is more prompt than any other department of the public service. I believe that the department is now getting into a state which is credit­able not only to its officers, but to the Minister; and I have no doubt that, if the House will have a reasonable amount of patience, it will ultimately get into such a system of order that it will be a credit to the colony, and perhaps equal to any other educational department in the world. Honorable members must not forget that the results obtained under the present educational system have been de­rived under some disadvantageous circum­stances. Many of the teachers employed are relics of the past-teachers who, by reason of their age and past services, are now employed in State schools, though they are not as competent as they ought to be, and, in some cases, not qualified to teach extra subjects. I trust that the

VOL. XXVI.-4 T

Minister, in carrying out the reforms he deems necessary to complete the present system, will take care that young men who have qualified themselves to teach extra subjects, but are now occupying subor­dinate positions, will have an opportunity of putting their teaching power in full force. In many respects the present sys­tem is vastly superior to the old system. Under the old system many of the schools were miserable tumble-down buildings, which were not fit to be used "for educa­tional purposes; but in their place sub­stantial structures-many of them worthy of being called school palaces-have been erected, and are a credit both to the de­partment and to the colony. Under the old system, if the children of poor people wanted to be educated, their parents had to go cap in hand to a minister of re­ligion or a magistrate and get a certifi­cate that they were unable to pay for the education of their children. That was a most humiliating position to place them in, and their children were "spotted" at school, and treated differently from other children. In fact, in many cases teachers· made such a distinction between paying and non-paying scholars as to call for the interference of the local boards. This is entirely changed under the pre­sent system, for all the scholars are taught without charge, and are therefore, all on an equality. I regard ·the pre­sent Act as incomparably beyond the one· which it has superseded. It may not. have accomplished all that can be wished -no doubt there is a great deal yet to be done-but the Minister, as we are in­formed, is steadily pursuing his purpose­of thoroughly organizing the system so as to get the greatest possible amount of good out of the Act as it stands. I regard the appointment of Professor Pearson, with which I thoroughly concur, as an evidence of the Minister's earnestness in that direction. Even if no other practical advantages ensue from Professor Pearson's appointment, I trust that it will result in making the department thoroughly capa­ble of grappling with the great work which it has in hand. It is no doubt most unfortunate to have a large and in­fluential section of the community dis­satisfied with any law of the country, as the Roman Catholics are with the Educa­tion Act. A good deal has been said as to the Roman Catholics having put for­ward their views on the education ques­tion as a matter of conscience, but I do not

1226 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

think that it is for any other sections of the community to say that they ought not to have a conscience, or how they should re­gulate their conscience. The Catholics must attend to their own conscience them­selves; that is part and parcel of their duty, and nobody else can do it for them. I agree with the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox), who deserves to be complimented on his very excellent speech, that the religion to which a man belongs depends very much upon the acci­dent of his birth. As a rule men were trained in the religion professed by their parents-I may say that they were born in the religious views which they hold­and I apprehend that the rule applies to Catholics as well as to persons of other denominations. Catholics are taught cer­tain principles when they are children which they believe when they become adults. Those principles are a matter of conscience to them, and it is not for Pro­testants to tell Catholics they are wrong in regarding their views on the education question as a matter of conscience. I hope we will be able to do something to meet the views of the Catholics on this subject, though I am sorry to say that, at present, I cannot see a way to effect that object, because, if what the Catholics desire is conceded to them, other denominations will ask for the same privileges, and so the whole basis of the Act will be upset, and the very principle we have been fight­ing for for years will be lost.

Mr. DWYER.-All the other denomi­nations are satisfied with the Act.

Mr. COOPER.-I believe there are other denominations which are not satis­fied, and would be only too glad to share in the plunder. They would claim the same privileges, and that I regard as being fatal to the concession asked for by the Catholics. .

Mr. D WYER.-Then the Education Act is not a national Act.

Mr. COOPER.-The Act is a national one, because it is supported by the vast majority of the people, and in all free countries we must be governed by the majority. The present Act is the national expression of the country's voice and will on the education question. I admit, however, that the minority have rights­that they. have a conscience - and I would be only too glad if we could supply the requirements of their conscience with­out violating the principles of this most important Ace. While I am not disposed

to support any grant being given to the Catholic denomination, I hope that some means will be devised-either by getting them to appreciate the Act, or in some other way-by which this large section of the community will be satisfied. I shall be very glad to assist in accomplishing that if it can be done without jeopardizing the present education system.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I desire to offer a few observations in reply to some remarks which have been made during the discussion. In the first place, I must express my obligations to the committee for the manner in which the views that I have put forward have been listened to on a subject which, from the very nature of it, is rather calculated to excite hostility than to allay it. At the same time, I think honorable members will give me the credit of having endeavoured to steer clear of saying anything which could possibly be offensive to anyone. I must also thank the Minister of Public Instruc­tion for having done everything in his power to facilitate the production of the returns and information which I applied for relative to the operation of the Edu­cation Act. I wish to correct an error into which the Minister has fallen, and, in correcting that error, I will at the same time take away the force of some of the observations of the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams). The Minister, in the course of bis speech, said-

"I will show him, by means of information derived from the most reliable sources, that he has in a vast number of instances drawn· most improper conclusions from very distorted facts. He referred to his own denomination as form­ing a very considerable portion of the general community, and so it does. Statistics show that the Roman Catholics of the colony constitute nearly one-fourth of the entire population-that is, they number about 200,000 out of a total population of 840,000. But what is the next fact brought under our notice? It is that there are attending the various schools of the colony -State schools and all-about 260,000 children. How many of them attend Roman Catholic schools? Only 13,500 children. Taking the total number of the Roman Catholic children in the colony to be 65,000, or one-fourth of 260,000, we find that only 13,500 of them attend Roman Catholic schools. What schools do the balance of that 65,000 attend? Most of them must belong to some school or another. I think this is a most important circumstance, and one that has a crushing effect upon several of the honorable member's arguments."

Now what are the facts? In the first place, the Minister did not say from what source he derived this statement.

Major SMITH.-Hayter's statistics.

Supply. [OCTOBER 24.] Public Instruction. 1227

Sir J. O'SHANASSY. - Then Mr. Hayter has made a: grievous mistake, as I will show. In 1871, when the last census was taken, the Catholic population of Vic­toria was 170,620 out of a total population of 731,000, and there were then 45,000 Catholic children between the ages of five and fifteen. In the present year, the total population being 844,000, the Catholic population may be reckoned at about 200,OOO-the proportion mentioned by the Minister of Public Instruction. It appears, therefore, that the number of Catholic children. between the ages of five. and fifteen now in the colony is 53,000, instead of the 65,000 the honorable member spoke of. How he arrived at 65,000 as the number of Catholic children of the school age in the colony I can hardly conceive.

Mr. MACKAY.-Children under age attend school.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-But the Mi­nister of Public Instruction must have included children at the breast in his reckoning. At any rate he made a tremendous mistake. Furthermore, he asserted that the attendance at all the Catholic schools of the colony was only 13,500. That must be another great mis­take. Why in the Catholic archdiocese of Melbourne alone there are H3 Catholic schools with an average attendance of 13,500. Has this circumstance been put down as referring to the whole colony?

An HONORABLE MEl\IBER.-Where did those figures come from ?

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-I got them yesterday fro;m Mr. Forbes, the secretary of the Catholic education committee. Well, taking the number of Catholic chil­dren enrolled as belonging to Catholic schools to be double the average of actual attendance at those schools-the calcula­tion is· not unfair, seeing that the State BchoQl returns show 231,000 scholars enrolled, against an average actual at­tendance of. 106,000-1 am entitled to put down the total number of children attached to Catholic schools in the arch­diocese of Melbourne as 27,000. There ean-be no doubt that is the lowest esti­mate. Coming next to the diocese of Ballarat, I find that the number of chil­dren attending Catholic schools in the city of Ballarat itself is 1,500, while those at­tending the Catholic schools in the rest of the diocese-at Warrnambool, Belfast, Koroit, Woodford, Hamilton, Coleraine, Colac,andlnglewood-may fairly be set down at 1,500 more, making a total for

4T2

the diocese of 3,000. In the diocese of Sandhurst-a new one-there is a Catho· lic population of about 40,000, and I estimate the number of children attend­ing Catholic schools there at 2,000. I received this morning a letter from a man of great experience in school matters, who called my attention to the circum­stance that the Education department had in this year's report ,suppressed the names of the capitation schools, so that the denomination to which each be­longed was not given. It appears that there are 67 Buch schools, and that the total attendance at them amounts to 12,000; therefore, as I find from my correspondent that 53 of the number are Catholic schools, I may put down the Catholic children attending them at 8,000 -a low estimate. Why, I would like to know, is the last report of the Education department silent on this subject? Lastly, I put down 2,000 as the number of Catholic children at the industrial and reformatory schools, at grammar schools, receiving private tuition in families-I know that sort of thing exists very largely-and at private schools conducted by Catholic teachers. From these various sources I gather that there are at present 42,000 children attending Roman Catholic schools in Victoria. What, then, becomes of the statement that there are 50,000 Catholic children attending State schools? The Minister of Public Instruction stands convicted of having, in order to maintain the position he has taken up, made a rash statement which facts do not justify or support.. Does not the circumstance that there are at present 42,000 children in the colony attending strictly Catholic schools show that the conscientious scruples of the Catholic body respecting the matter of education are something about which they are very much in earnest, and that it cannot be said for a moment that they are not themselves attending to the in­struction of their own children? Does not the Minister of Public Instruction see that he has made a grand mistake, and that the sooner he corrects it the better? As a sample of what the Catholics are doing, let me mention that the other day, passing through Richmond, I went into a church and found there 400 Catholic children, girls and boys, being instructed in religion by the Rev. Father Mulhall, who was in that way pre­paring them for their duties as Christians. Can any more satisfactory evidcllco be

1229 Supply. [ASSEMBLY.] Public Instruction.

brought to show that the Catholic body, by refusing to avail themselves of the palatial schools which are offered them free, and incurring all the trouble and expense of educating their children them­selves, are as much governed by conscien­tious feeling as any body can be expected to be? Is it likely they would refuse to let the State educate their children if such an arrangement really suited them? The honorable member for Col­lingwood told us, I think, that the Roman Catholics of New York asked that the Bible should not be read in the schools, which they offered to accept for their children if their request was acceded to. But that state of things is perfectly recon­cilable with the position the Catholics in Victoria take up. The New York Catho­lics simply don't agree with the Bible being read in schools (by the way, the honorable member did not mention what Bible is read) by a master not of their persuasion, and they are naturally ready to say-" Of two evils we will choose the least; we prefer an educational sys­tem totally without religious instruction to one including religious instruction of a kind we disapprove of." Their saying that does not in the least lessen the justice of the demand the Catholics of Victoria make. The honorable member also drew a comparison between the Sunday schools of the Catholics and those of the W es­leyans; but I beg to point out that the method of religious instruction pursued by the two bodies is very different, and that the Sunday school organization of the Wesleyans-of whom I wish to speak with great respect-is admittedly one of the most perfect in existence. But I have not done yet with the Minister of Public Instruction. He said the teachers brought over into the State system from the capitation schools were most inferior, and that he proposed to remedy the error of his predecessors in taking them into the Educat~on department at all by giving them compensation for loss of office, and sending them about their business. That is a statement which requires some con­firmation. It remains to be seen whether he will be as good as his word. If he carries out what he says, he will place the department in a somewhat false posi­tion. I have some experience of these denominational schools, and I assert that if you refer to the reports upon them of the inspectors under the old Board of Education, you will find that they certify

Sir J. 0' Shana$8V.

largely to· the teaching ability displayed in connexion with them, and also to the excellence of the system under which they were carried on, which only wanted a few amendments to make it about per­fect. Again, the honorable member asks us to believe that during the four or five years it has been in force the Educa­tion Act has already operated to reduce crime. I wonder at his making such a statement. What does the last edition of Hayter say? That the greatest criminals are those more highly instructed than the rest. The paragraph I allude to is as follows :-

"Education of Adults.-Those over 15 years arrested numbered 24,096, and of those, 5,223, or more than a fifth (including those possessed of superior instruction), could read and write well, and 3,967, or nearly a sixth, could not read. Those over 15 years of age committed fqr trial numbered 667, of whom 178, or more than a fourth, could read and write well, or were pos­sessed of superior instruction, and 100, or not much above a seventh, were unable to read. According to these figures, the persons charged with offences. serious enough to call for their commitment for trial were better educated than the other arrested persons."

I make the honorable member a present of all that statement conveys. Certainly, if he were correct the results of the Edu­cation Act must have exhibited them­selves in an astonishingly short time. It is rather novel doctrine that after four years' operation a new system of education can begin to empty the gaols and reforma­tories of a country. I will just say a word about the statement that the educa­tional system of the colony had to be changed because of the manner in which I, in 1862, constituted the Board of Educa­tion under the Heales Education Act. The gentlemen I appointed were Messrs. C. J. Griffith, W. H. Archer, Matthew Hervey, T. J. Sumner, and Isaac Hart, all ge~tlemen of unimpeachable integrity, and, as required by the Act, of different religious denominations. Does the Min­ister of Public Instruction recollect the following words of the Act:-

"Provided always that no two members of such board shall belong to one and the same religious denomination?"

I think I could not offer a greater proof of' my independence in the matter than the fact that I oonstituted the board of three Protestants, one Roman Catholic, and one Jew. On what ground can the appoint­ment be challenged? As for the feelings of the denominations concerned, I may mention that I was besieged by deputations

SupplYe [OCTOBER 24.] Public Instruction. 1229

from them on the subject, and that I re­sisted very strong pressure indeed when I refused to put a fourth Protestant on the board. I have never regretted that ap­pointment from the hour I made it; and, after it was made, I never interfered in the matter further. By whatever the denominations did with respect to the subject my choice was not in the least affected. I left .office in 1863, and a num­ber of other appointments to the board were made by my successors. How the complaints of the working of the board are attributable to me I cannot understand. I am challenged to give authority for my statement of what Mr. Wilberforce Stephen said, in connexion with the passing of the Education Act, about his motives in the matter, and the operation the change in the law would have against the Roman Catholic denomination. I cannot lay my hand upon the speech in which the remark occurred, but I remember reading it at the time. Indeed I took mental note of the thing, and could not forget it. At any r.ate the Rev. J. O'Malley published a pamphlet, openly charging Mr. Stephen with having ·made this particular state­ment, which I have frequently seen re­ferred to in the Advocate newspaper, and it has never been contradicted. Certainly I did not invent the statement. Some honorable members have made a point by contending that if overwhelming proof were afforded of the sincerity of the Catholics in scrupling to avail themselves of the State schools of the country, their case, and their claims on the Treasury for assistance in the education of their chil­dren, would be taken into consideration. But what proof will be accepted? Till when are the Catholics to continue their sacrifices in the matter of the education of their children, in order to prove their ear­nestness? How long are we to go on competing with a system upon which the State spends annually nearly £500,000, and in connexion with which it has already expended many hundreds of thousands in the erection of school buildings, and indicated that it will eventually devote £200,000 more to the same object? For what period are we to continue fighting against the opposition of the State, which builds palatial school-houses where they are not needed, solely in order to in­duce Catholic parents to prefer them to Catholic schools? I admit that in country districts, where it is not possible to found Catholic schools, some 8,000 or 10,000

Catholic children attend State schools, but any man of common sense must see that that state of things involves no sacrifice of principle. The Catholic parents con­cerned simply allow their children to get instruction in the only schools available to them. In what other way is it open to the Roman Catholic body to prove the perfect sincerity and unfeigned strength of their convictions as to the principle on which their children's education ought to be conducted?· 1 trust we shall be be­lieved when we say that if any other reli­gious body in the country were to suffer under grievances like those we now com­plain of, we would advocate their case equally strongly with our own. I have a word or two to say about the mistake the honorable member for East Bourke fell into the other night with respect to the comparative cost of education under the old and new systems. The expense per child in 1869, 1870, and 1871 ought to be set down as follows :-State grant for salaries, £1 2s.; parents' fees, 15s. 6d. ; results, 5s. 6d.; poor children, 2s. 2d.; total, £2 5s. 2d. This is exclusive of ma­nagement and the money expended on school buildings, many of which were erected by the denominations. As for the present system, if you divide the gross amount of the education vote by the aver­age school attendance you prove the cost to be £5 per child. The latter calculation does not include many matters 'that might well be taken into consideration in connexion with it, such as the interest on the loan for school buildings and on the money expended for the same purpose during the last four or five years out of the general revenue, and the cost of the services of the police in collecting school census papers. I have been shown many education census papers which have never been called for by any .collector. I have also left out of con­sideration the expense of the great facilities afforded to the Education department by the Post-office. In proof of my conten­tion that the existing educational system does not give satisfaction, I will mention the circumstance that during the present debate no honorable member has addressed himself to the subject without making a series of recommendations, the adoption of which he considered necessary to render the Education Act a success. Altogether the conclusions to which I have arrived are that the cost of working the Act is double the original estimate of its promoters; that th~ ~~hool attendance

1230 Supply. [A~SEMBLY.] Public Instr~ction.

is not in proportion to the population of the country or the extravagant expendi­ture of the department; that the neglected children of the colony, for whom the Act was mainly intended, are not brought under it; that one fourth of the population are incapable of, accepting its provisions; that the religious difficulty is not met; that the system has become entirely poli­tical; that the teaching and the method of paying the teachers has not been im­proved; that the extra subjects plan has failed; that the ,night schools have failed; and that small schools have multiplied where it was hoped they would become fewer. I will say nothing further. I trust that when the subject of our educa­tion system is fairly considered by Par­liament and the entire community a bett~r state of things will be brought about; and that then the claims which are now put forth in good faith will be admitted. '

Major SMITH.-I intended to reply rather fully to the statements made during the debate, and particularly to the criti­cisms of the honorable members, who, while pointing to defects in the Act and its administration, are upon the whole strong supporters of both, but at this late hour I will only detain the committee for a moment or two. To the able speech of the honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mimms) I listened with great in­terest, and when I undertake the amend­ment of the Act I will carefully consider his statements in detail. The honorable member for Belfast, who questions the statistics respecting the attendance of Catholic children in our State schools which I gave in my speech last week, will perhaps bear in mind that the figures I quoted are not mine, but were taken by me from the tables of the Government Statist, who, having a large staff at his disposal and a whole year to devote to the preparation of his figures, is bound to give them as accurately as possible. I may obsm:ve, however, that the case of Canada, to which the honorable mem­ber for Ballarat East (Mr. Brophy) re­ferred, shows a state of things almost on a par with that described in Hayter. According to Dr. Ryerson, who has had 37 years' experience of educational affairs in Canada, out of 70,000 Catholic children in that country, only 15,000 attend the separate Catholic schools. In fact, I have any amount of materi~l for confuting the representations the houOJ.'~b~e member fOf

Belfast has put forward. One of my pre­decessors in office, the honorable member for Sandhurst, has spoken strongly in favour of flogging '; but I assure him that the Spectat01', which is perhaps one of the ablest papers in Europe, states, that the greatest minds have fully discussed the point, and that in England the system of flogging in public schools is dying out.

Sir J. O'SHANASSY.-Will the Min­.ister of Public Instruction give us figures showing the real number of the Catholic children attending' Catholic schools?

Major SMITH.-I have done so. The honorable member took his figures from the dignitaries of his church, but I prefer Ha.yter as the safest authority. The hon­orable member for East Bourke told us a good deal of the "cheekiness" of colonial youth and the importance of keeping them in orde~. My own opinion is, however, that our youth compare favorably with those of any other country. For the pur­pose of ascertaining whether all this talk about our boys was justified by facts, I obtained a day or two since a return of the number of persons who 'were-to use a mild form of expression-kept without their liberty in various establishments of the country on Saturday last, and I find that on that day 1,508 were in "durance vile." Now I think we may assume that fully half the population' of Victoria are native born; but what do we find with respect to last Saturday? That out of the 1,508 individuals I allude to, only 251-one-sixth of the entire number -were natives. With a grand fact like that before us, let us hear no more of Vic­torian boys being worse than the boys of other countries.

The vote of £234,599, to co~plete the vote (£484,599) for the department of Public Instruction, was agreed to.

The resolution was then reported to the House.

The House adjourned at eight minutes past eleven o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Tltursday, October 25, 1877.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half­past four o'clock p.m., and, in the absence of a quorum, declared the House adjourned ~nt~l l'uesday, October 30.

INDEX.

VOLS. as &. a7.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

.A.'BECKETT, Hon. T. T. (c. Prov.) Constitution of the Legislative Council, 2365. Contempt-The Hon. W. Wilson, 1401. InternatioDA.1 Exhibitions Bill, 1628. Land Tax Bill, 882 and 950. La.ying ARide a Bill, 888. Messages between the Two Houses, 1781 and

1782. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1166, 1629,

1630, and 1668. Payment of Members-Address to the Go­

. vernor, 126~; Payment of Members Bm, 1795 and 2309 ..

Personal Explanation, 1074. Political Situation-Ministerial Memorandum,

2264. Railway Loan Account Applicat.ion Bill, 1785. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 843,

844,854, 857, and 1002. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 1403.

Addresses to the Governor-In reply to His Excellency'S speech on the opening of the session, 17; objecting to the inclusion of a sum for payment of members in the annual Appropriation Bill, 1374; upon the circum­stances attending the laying aside of the Appropriation Bill, 1973; asking for copy of ~-1inisterial memorandum forwarded to the ~ecretary of State, 1982; praying for copy of His Excellenl'Y's instructions. 2048 ; submitting the Council's views on the Min­isterial memorandum, 2363.

Addresses to the Queen, re Political Situation, 1983 and 2140.

Adjournment - Discussion as to whether the House should sit on a dlty not included in the sessional order, or adjourn over Christ­mas, 1896.

Adjournments of the House-Pending elections consequent on change of Ministry, 2; in the absence of business, 1820; over Christ·· lllas holidays, 1960-4.

ANDERSON, Hon. R. S. (E. Prov.) Adjollrnment of the Council, 1970. Beechworth Rate Validating Bill, 2363 and

2376. Beechworth Waterworks Act Amendment

Bill, 1374.

A

ANDERSON, Hon. R. S. (continued)-City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

671. Contempt-The Hon. W. Wilson, 1401. Customs Duties Bill, 1965. Defence of the Colony-Sir William Jervois'

Report, 1965 and 1974. Expiring Law (Drawbacks) Continuation Bill,

1969. • Gonlbnrn Valley Railway Rill, 1782. International Exhibitions Bill, 1627 and 1629. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

585, 671, and 672. Melbollrne Market Site Bill, 419 and 420. Messages between the Two Honses, 1968. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 1538. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1164, 1567,

1;)68, and 1633. Money Bills dealt with by the Legislative

Council, 1001 and 1073. Motion that a Member be heard, 2239. Parliamentary Costs Bill, 1075. Payment of Members-Address to the Go­

vernor, 1263, 128:;, 1322, 1335, 1328, and 1372; Payment of Members Bill, 1798,2302, and 2327.

Police Offences Statute Amendment Bill, 1075 and 1200.

Political Situation-Ministerial Memoranilum, 1979, 1990, and 2265; Governor's Instruc· tions, 2047.

Prhileges of the Legislative Council, 1398, HOIl, 1493, 1498. all!I 1;)37.

Railway Bills Confprence. 1860 Railway Construction Bill, 750, 1113, 1150,

and 1199. Railway Lmm Acrount Application nill, 1784. Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Procedure

Bill, ~38. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1969. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 1403.

Appropriation Bill-Receivecl from Lpgislative Assembly, and read first time, 18~9; dis­cussions re time for taking second reading, 1829 and 1861; second reading moved by Mr. Cuthbert, 1897; amendment hy ~it· Charles·Sladen, for l:1.ying aside the Bill b('callse it induded an item fill' payment of memb!:'rs, 189i-190:!; subjl'ct debated hy Mr. Belcher, 19U2; Mr". Sargood, 19113; Mr. Campbell, 1904; Mr. Balfour, 19U5; Mr.

2 INDEX.

Appropriation Bill (continued)-Simson, 1906; Mr. Reid, ] 907; Mr. Wallace, 1907; Mr. Jenner, ]908; Mr. Bear, 1910; Mr. Fraser, 1910; Mr. Cuthbert, 1911; Mr. Fitzgerald, 1914 ; Bill laid aside, 1917 . (See Crisis.)

Appropriation Bill (No. 2)-Received from Legis­lative Assembly, and read first time, 2355; second reading moved by Mr. Cuthbert, 2~.72; debated by Sir Charles SJaden, 2a73 ; Hill read second time. 2376; passed through remaining stages, 2:376; Boyal assent, 2425 .

. Art Unions-Question by Mr. Balfour, 2242. Assent to Bills, ai, 142, 621, 1064, 1264, 1905,

1976,2131, and 2425.

BALFOUR, H on. JAMES (8. Prov.) Appropriation Bill, 1905. Art Unions, 2242. Brighton Land Vesting Bill, 1073, 1113, and

1200. Conduct of Government Business, 1965 and

1996. Defence of the Colony-Sir William Jervois'

Report, 1975. Dower Abolition Bill, 1751. Forts and Armaments Bill, 1574. :Friday ~itting, 585. Gippsland Hailway Completion Bill, ] 506. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1510. Inebriates A"ct Amendment Bill, 1073, 1113,

and 1200. Land Tax Bill, 912. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 1508, 1538,

and 1569. Mining on Private Property Bill, ]568. Parliamentary Costs Bill, 1075. Payment of Members-Address to the Go­

vernor, 1322 and 1331; Payment of Mem­bers Bill, 1801 and 2309.

Political Situation-Ministerial Memorandum, 1981, Ig92, 215':", and 2362; Governor's In­structions, 2048.

Railway Construction Bill, 519, 585,749,751, 773, 791, and 831.

Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1787.

Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 715, 716.858, and 10112.

Tolls Bill, 1994,2049, and 2355. 'Vaterworks Act Amendm~nt Bill, 1003, 1403,

and 1405.

BEAR, Hon. J. P. (S. Prov.) Appropriation Bill, 1830, 1861, and 19lO. Differential Shire Hating', 100 l. Dowel' Abolition Bill, 1752. :Friday ~itting, 18g7. Goulburn Valley Hailway Bill, 1509 and 1511. Land Tax Bill, 921 :md 950. Melbonrne and Oakleigh Railway-Purchase

of Land, 2241 and 2307. Me~sages between the Two Houses, 1950. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1567,1630,

1634, and 1749. Passengers. Harbours, and Navigation Statute

Amendment Bill. 1964. Payment of Members, 1910 and 2330. Political :-iituation-;'vlinisterial Memorandum,

2262; Payment of Members lliIl, 2330. Railway Bills Conference, 2383. Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1264. Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1787. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1957 and 1958.

Beechwol'th Rate Validating Bill- Received from Legislative Assembly, 2363; ordered to be treated as a pubHc Bill, 2364 ; read first time, 2364; passed through remaining stages, 2376; Royal ::lssent, 2425.

Beech worth Waterworks Act Amendment Bill­Heceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1200; statement by Mr. Cuthbert that the Bill had been read first time as a public Bill, whereas it was a private Bill, 1231; resolution for first reading rescinded, 1231; certificate re­quired by standing orders produced. and Bill read first time, 1231 ; second reading, 1264; passeil through committee, 1286; report adopted, 1374; Bill read third time, 1405; Royal assent, 1905.

BELCHER, Hon. G. F. (S. W. Prov.) Appropriation Bill-Payment of Members,

] 902. Dismissed Civil Servants, 1975, 1977, 2046,

2157, and 2235. I-,and Tax Bill, 888 and 925. Melbourne Market Site BiI1, 420. Political Situation-1Vlinisterial Memorandum,

2269 ; :Payment of Members Bill, 2330. Hailway Construction Bill, 585 and 794. Tolls Bill, 2049. ___ _

Benalla, General Sessions at. (See General Sessions.)

Bill Ordered to be Read a Second Time "This day six months "-Railway Loan Acco,unt Application Bill, 1790.

Bills Discharged from the Paper-County Courts Law Amendment Bill, 1004; Insolvency Law Amendment Bill, 1498.

Bills Laid Aside-Forts and Armaments Bill, 1576; Appropriation Bill, 1917.

Bills Hejected on Motion for Second Reading­International Exhibitions Bill, 1629 ; Dower Abolition Bill, 1752 ; Payment of Members Bill, 1802.

Bills Rejected by the Legislative Council....:.Re­turn ordered, on motion of Sir Charles Sladen, 1952.

BLACK, Hon. NIEL (W. rrov.) ~ Dower Abolition Bill, 1752. Land Tax Bill, g28.

----Brighton Land Vesting Bill-Received from

Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1073; the President rules that the Bill should be proceeded with as a private Bill, 1113 ; resolution for first reading rescinded, 1113; ordered, on motion of Mr. Balfour, that the fees be remitted, and that the Bill be treated as a public Bill, 1113; Bill read first time, 1113 ; passed through remaining stages, 1200; Royal assent, 1264.

BROllIELL, Hon. THOMAS (W. Prov.) Land Tax Bill, 881. Language of Petitions, 1780.

BUCHANAN, Hon. JAMES (S. Prov.) Goulburn Valley Hailway Bill, 1511. Governor's Speech, 13. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1749. Hailway Construction Bill, 793 and 8:32. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 677,

714, 844, 858, and '953. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1957 ~nd 1960.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. 3

CAJlIPBELL, Hon. 'YILLIAlI[ (N. lV. Prov.) Appropriation Bill, 1829, 1831, and 1904. Assent to Bills, 1969. Conduct of Government Busincss, 1966 and

1996. Dower Abolition Bill, 1752. Ejaculations during Debate, 2295. Friday Sitting, 1897. Governor's Speech, 13. International Exhibitions Bill, 1628. JJand Tax Bill, 783,918, 920,951, and 1001. Language of Petitions, 1780. Messages between the Two Houses, 1950. Mines Drainage Law Amendment Bill, 1578,

1671, and 1961. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1167, 1568,

1631, and 1632. Mortgaged Landed Estates, 749. Payment of Members-Address to the Go­

vernor, 1264, 1322, 1325, and 1330; Pay­ment of Members Bill, 2312, 2316, and 2328.

Personal Explanation, 1074. ° Polit.ical Situation-Ministerial Memorandum,

1982; Address to the Queen, 1984; Pay­ment of Members Bill, 2312,2316, and 2:~28.

Railway Construction Bill, 656, 750, 752, and 832.

Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 677, 678, 714, 716, and 1002.

Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, ] 958. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 1003.

Canterbury, Viscount-Death of-Statement by Mr. W. Wilson, 37 ; by Sir Charles Sladen, 37.

Canterbury, Viscount-Unpublished Despatches of-Transmitted by the Governor, 2242.

Casting Vote of President-On l\lr. Cuthbert's motion for second reading of Dower Aboli­tion Bill, 1752.

Chairman of Committecs-Mr.Jennerelected, 17.

Chairman of Committees, Hulings of­Payment of witnesses, 655. Tolls Bill, 1963. Use of the term" caucus," 787.

Christmas Holidays. (See Adjournment.) City of Melbourne Corporation Hating Bill­

Received from L('gislative Assembly, and read first time, 629; second reading, 671 ; considered in committee, 671 and 842 ; third reading, 843 ; Royal assent, ] 064.

Civil Servants, Dismissed-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Belcher, 1977; questions by Mr. Belcher, 2046 and 2157 j return pro­duced, 2235; ordered to be printed, 2236. (See Government Appointments.)

COLE, Hon. G. W. (C. Prov.) Defence of the Colony, 1975 and 1977. Forts and Armaments Bill, 1563. Friday Sitting, 585. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1506. Land Tax Bill, 882. Payment of Members-Address to the Go­

vernor, 1374; Payment of Members Bill, 1794,2301,2317, and 2328.

Political Situation - Ministerial Memoran­dum, 2268 and 2361.

Committees (permanent)-Appointed, 17.

A2

Committees (select) - Appointccl- Governor's Speech,!l; Railway Construction Bill, 1159 ; Mining on Private Property Bill, 1168 j

Payment of Members-Address to the Go­vernor, 1325; Privileges of the Council­Heply to the Assembly, 1401 ; Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 1404 ; Railway Bills Conference, 1861; the Political Situation -Address to the Governor, 1973; Mi­nisterial Memorandum-Address to the Go­vernor, 1982; the Political Situation­Address to the Queen, 1983; Governor's In­structiolls~ Address to the Governor, 2048 ; the Political Situation-Further Address to the Queen, 2140; the Political Situation­Further Address to the Governor, 2287.

Conference with Legislative Assembly-Mes­sage ordered to be transmitted to the JJegis­lative Assembly, inviting conference re Council's amendments in the Goulburn Valley Hailway Bill and Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1783; message from Legis­lative Assembly, intimating appointment of a committee of ten members of that House to confer with a commi:tee of ten members of the COllncil, 1860, committee of ten members of Council atot)ointed, 1861; ~ro­gress report from Conil'rence Committee brought up, 1896; statement by Sir Charles Siaden re proceedings of conference, 1951 ; re re-assembling of conference, 2354 j re separation of conference" without any in­tention of coming together again," 2383.

Consolidated Revenue (£710,000) Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and passed through all its stag('s, 141; Royal assent, 142.

Consolidated Revenue (£750,000) Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 620; p!lss<'d through remaining stages, 621 ; Royal assent, 62\.

Consolidated Hevenue (£800,000) Bill--Reeeived °from Legif>iative Assembly, and read first time, 123\; passed through remailling sblg'es, 12fH; Hoyal assent., ] 264.

Constitution, The. (~ee Leyislative Council.) Contempt-i\Ir. W. 'Wilson committed for" con­

tempt," 1401 ; Mr. Wilson apologizes, 1405 ; is relieved from" contempt," 1405.

Counts Out-During discussion on Mr. Cuth­bert's motion for the adjournment of the House over the Melbourne "Cup" day, 1265; on assembling', 1985.

County Courts Law A l1Icndment Rill-Brought in by Mr. W. Wilson, and read first time, 9; discharged from the paper, 1004.

Crisis, The-Question by Sir Charles Sladen, re adjournment of the JJegisJative Assembly, 1949; statement by Mr. Cuthbert, that it is not his "intention to proceed with any of the Government business on the paper," 1965 and 1995; discussion thereon, 1965 and 1995; 1\11'. Anderson takes charge of the business on the paper, ] 965-9; questions by Sir Charles Sladen, re Ministerial me­morandum forwarded to the Secretary of State, 1970 and 1975; motion by Sir Charles Sladen for address to the Governor" upon the circumstances attending the laying aside of the A ppropriation Bill by the Council, and upon the present anomalous state of Parliament," 1971; agreed to, 19i~ ; committee appoint.ed to prepare address, 1973; addrei3s brought up, 1973; adopted, 1974; His Excellency's reply, 1976; motion

INDEX.

Crisis, The (cont:n ued)-by Sir Charles Sladen for address to the Governor, asking for copy of Ministerial memorandum forwarded to the Secretary of State, 1977; debated by Mr. Cuthbert, 1979; Mr. Anderson, 1979; Mr. Balfour, 1981; Mr. Fitzgerald, 198i ; Mr. Campbell, 1982 ; agreed to, 1982 ; committee appointed to prepare andress, 1982; address brought up and a.dopted, 1982; His Excellency's re­ply, 1985; motion by Sir Charles Sladen for address to the Queen, "setting forth the facts and circumstances of the present crisis, and pra.ying that such instructions may be given to the Governor as will secure the constitutional goverument of this colony," 19M2; agreed to, 1983; committee flppointed to prepare address, 1983; address brought up, 1983; adopted, 1984; the President announces receipt of communiration from Governor's private secreta,ry intimating that His Excellency will transmit the address ill due course, 1985; motion by Sir Charles Sladen for telegram to Secretary of State re Ministerial memorandum, 1986 ; debated by Mr. Cuthbert, 1988; Dr. Dobson, 1990 ; Mr. Anderson, 1990; Mr. Balfour, 199:!; Mr. Fitzgerald, 1992; Mr. W. Wilson, 1993; agreed to, 1993; address to the Governor, praying him to forward telegram, 1993-4 ; His Excellency's reply, 2045; motion by Sir Charles Sladen for address to the Go­vernor praying for copy of His Excellency's instructions, &c., from the Secretary of State, 2046; debated by Mr. Cuthbert, 2046; Mr. Anderson, 2047; Mr. W. Wilson, 2048 ; Mr. Simson, 2048; agreed to, 2048; select committee appointed to prepare address, 2048; address brought up, 20ot8; adopted, 2049; His Excellency's reply, 2131 ; motion by ~ir Charles Sladen for address to the Queen "in reply to the address of the Assembly to Her Majesty adopted on the I:Hh instant," :!I:31; debate:l by :\Ir. W. "\Vilson, :! I :l8; ag-reed to. :! loto; select com­Illi tee appointed to prepare address, 2140 ; ad,lress brought up, 2140; adopted, 214,3 ; address to the Governor, praying him to transmit the address to Her Majesty, 2143; Governor's message transmitting copy of MlI1isterial memorandum. 2157 ; statement by Mr. Jenner l'e pmposal for a conference, 23:36; motion by Sir Charles ~;Iaden for an address to the Governor submitting the views of the Legislative Council on the Ministerial memorandum, 2243; debated by Mr. Cuthbert, 2253; Mr. a'Beckett, 2264; Mr. Anderson, 2265; Captain Cole, 2268; Mr. Belcher, 2269; debate adjourned, 2269 ; resumed by Mr. Simson, 2278; continued by Mr. Sargood, 2279; ~ir Charles Sladen, 2:!81; motion agreed to, 2287; committee appointed to prepare address, 2287; address brought up, 2287; motion by Sir Charles Sladen for adoption of address, 2290; de­bate adjourned, 2290; resumed by Mr. Cuthbert, 2356; continued by Sir Charles Sl:,den, ~358; Captain Cole, 2361 ; Mr. W. Wilson, 2361; Mr. Balfour, 2362; Sir Sa­muel Wilson, 2363; address adopted, 2363 ; His Excellency's reply, ~382; motion by Mr. Sargood for papers re counsel's opinion on section 45 of Constitution Act, agreed to, 2383.

CUMMING, Hon. JOHN (S. W. Prov.) Friday Sitting, 585. I",and Tax Bill, 926. Railway Construction Bill, 655. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 677.

Customs Act Amendment Bill-Received from ~Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1917; second reading, 1964; considered in committee, 1964 and 1997; third reading, 1997; Royal assent, 2131.

Customs Duties Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1951 ; second reading, 1965-8 j passed through remaining stages, 1968; Hoyal assent, 1976.

CUTHBERT, Hon. HENRY, Postmaster-General (S. W. Prov.)-Introduced on re-election after accepting office, 141.

Adjournment of the House, 1265, 1955, and 1970.

A ppropriation Bill, 1829, 1830, 1861,1897, and 1911. '

Appropriation Bill (No, 2), 2355 and 2372. Art Unions, 2242. Beechworth Waterworks Act Amendment

Bill, 120'), 1231,1264, and 1405. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

629, 671, and 843. Conduct of Government Business, 1965, 1966,

1995, and 1996. Consolidated Revenue Bills, 141, 620, 1.231,

and 1264. Contempt-The Hon. W. Wilson, 1405. Conveyance by Railway of Live Stock for

Exhibitions, 748. Customs Act Amendment Bill, 1917 and 1964. Customs Duties Bill, 1951. Defence of the Colony, 1965, 1977, and 2046. Differential Shire Hating, 1001. Dismissed Civil :-Servants, 2046,2157, and 2235. Dower Abolition Bill, 1567, 1750, and 1752. Expiring Law Continuation Bills-Diseases in

Stock,'1511 and 1537.; Fences, 1511 and 1537; Drawbacks, 1951.

Explosive Substances Bill, 1511, 1566, 1670, and 1708.

Extradition Bill, 1497 and 1567. Forts and Armaments Bill, 1511, 1562, 1564,

1569, 1571, and 1572. Friday Sitting, 584 and 1896. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill, 1511,

1536, and 1566. Geelong and Queenscliff Railway, ] 780 and

224~.

General Sessions at BenaUa and Wangaratta, 1075.

Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1471, 1500,1503, 150ot, 1507, and 1536.

Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1471, ]508" 1536,1781, and 1782.

Governor's Speech, 9 and 10. International Exhibitions Bill, 1567, 1626, and

1628. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

672. Land Tax Bill, 717,752,782,861,875,888,

919,921,929,931,949, and 1001. Language of Petitions, 1780. Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance

Company's Bill, 1512. Melbourne and Oakleigh Railway-Purchase

of Land, 2241.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

CUTHBERT, Hon. HENRY (continued)­Melbourne Market Site Bill, 419 and 420. Members Interested in the Hobson's Bay Rail­

way, 1074. Messages between the Two Houses, 1781, 1949,

1950, 1953, and 1967. Mines Drainage Law Amendment Bill, 1511,

1566, 1576, 1578, 1671, 1672, 1709,1750, and 1960.

Mining on Private Property Bill, 1074, 1159, 1168, 1231, 1471, 1539, 1568, 1629, 1631, 1632, 1634, 1668, 1750, and 1779.

Mortgaged Landed Estates, 749. Parliamentary Costs Bill, 1001,1075, and 1113. Passengers, Harbours, and Navigation Statute

Amendment Bill, 1917 and 1964. Payment of Members-Address to the Go­

vernor, 1264, 1285, 1322, and 1325; Payment of Members Bill, 1]79, 1790, 2236, 2238, 2240,2290,2293,2303,2308,2313,2316,2318, and 2323.

Political Situation-Adjournment of the Le­gislative Assembly, 1949; Ministerial Memo­randum, 1979, 1982, 1988,2157, 2241,2253, 2290, 2355, and 2356; Governor's Instruc­tions, 2046 and 2048.

Privileges of the Legislative Council, 1400. Publication of Despatches, 2382. Public Works Loan Account Application Bill,

421. Public Works Loan Expenditure Validating

Bill, 678 and 843. R~ilway Bills Conference, 1860. Railway Construction Bill, 418, 509,521,655,

656,750, 752,784,832,842, and 1147. Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1264. Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1779,

1783, and 1788. Railway Surveys Bill, 1708 and 1749. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 419,

673, 675, 676, 678, 714, 716, 843, 844, 853, 854,856,858,860,952, 1002,1075,1231, and 1498.

Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Procedure Bill, 203, 421, and 620.

Tolls Bill, 1917, 1961, 1962, 1995, and 2355. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1895, 1953,

1958, and 1960. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 419, 1002,

1075,;tU3, 1402, and 1404. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill (No.2),

1567 and 1629.

Days of Sitting-Appointed, 17. (See Sessional A1'Tangements. )

Defence of the Colony-Governor's message transmitting despatch from Secretary of State, 1708 ; question by Mr. Anderson, re Sir William Jervois' report, 1965; report produced, 1974; adopted, 1975; motion by Captain Cole for papers, proposed and with­drawn, 1977; question by Dr. Dobson, re report from Captain Mandeville, 2046. (See Forts and Armaments Bill.)

Despatches from Secretary of State for the Colonies - Transmitted by the Governor, 1708; presented by command, 1986, 2157, 2317, and 2355.

Despatches, Publication of-Statement by Sir Charles Sladen, during debate on second reading of Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2374 ; statement by Mr. Cuthbert in reply, 2382.

Diseases in Stock. (See Expiring Law Continu-ation Bill.) .

Divisions-In full House-On second reading of Land Tax Bill, 931 ; on Sir Charles Sladen's proposal for laying a'>ide the Forts and Armaments Bill, Hi76 ; on second reading of International Exhibitions Bill, 1629; on second reading of Dower Abolition Bill, 1752; on second reading of Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1789; on second reading of Payment of Members Bill, 1802; on Mr. Cuthbert's motion that the House should sit on Friday, 21st December, 1897; on motion for committal of Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1959; on Sir Charles Sladen's motion for conferen(~e with Legis­lative Assembly re Payment of Members Bill, 2331; on Mr. Cuthbert's motion for omission of certain paragraphs from address to the Governor re political situation, 2363.

Divisions-In Committee-On Mr. Sargood's amendment in clause 6 of Reg'ulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 716; on Mr. W. Wilson's and Sir Charles Sladen's amend­ments in 1st sub-section (Melbourne and Oakleigh line) of clause 3 of Railway Con­struction Bill, 794 ; on Sir Charles Sladen's amendment in 2ud sub-section (Goulburn Valley line), 836 ; on motions for insisting on amendments in clause 6 of Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 149!).

DOBSON, Hon. F. S. (S. Prov.) Consolidated l{evenue Bills, 621. Defence of the Colony, 2046. Dower Abolition Bill. 1751. Goulburu Valley Railway Bill, 1782. Land Tax Bill, 885. Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance

Company's Bill, 1411 and 1569. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 420. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 1538. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1166, 1567,

and 1569. Motion that a Member be heard, 2238. Payment of Members Bill, 2240, 2302, 2308,

and 2314. Political Situation - Ministerial Memoran­

dum, 1990. Privileges of the Legislative Council, 1399. Railway Construction Bill, 750, 781, 795, 829,

and lIM. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 674

and 844. Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Procedure

Bill, 333 and 338. Use of the term "Caucus," 787. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 1403.

Document, Confidential-Publication of-Iettet· from Clerk of the Council, 2242.

Dower Abolition Bill-Received from Legisla­tive Assembly, and read first time, 1567; second reading moved by Mr. Cuthbert, 1750; debated by Sir Charles Sladen. 1750; Dr. Dobson, 1751; Mr. Sargood, 1751; Mr. Balfour, 1751; Mr. W. Wilson, 1751; Mr. Sumner, 1752; Mr. Simson, 1752; Mr. Campbell, 1752; Mr. Bear, 1752; Mr. Black, 1752; motion for second reading negatived by the President's casting vote, 1752.

Drawbacks. (See Expiring Law Oontinuution Bill.)

Elections and Qualifications Committee~fresi­sident's w~rr~nt produced, 9;

6 INDEX.

Electoral u,eturns-Ordered, on motion of Mr. Highett, 842; produced, and ordered to be printed, 853.

Exhibitions. (See International Exhibitions Bill.) Expiring Law (Diseases in Stock) Continuation

Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1511; passed through remaining stages, 1537 ; Royal assent, 1905.

Expiring Law (Drawbacks) Continuation Bill­Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1951 j passed throngh re­maining stages, 1969 ; Royal assent, 1976.

Expil'ing Law (Fences) Continuation Bil1-Ueceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1511; passed through reo maining stages, 1537; Hoyal assent, 1905.

Explosive t;ubstanees Bill-Heceived from Legis­lative Assembly, and read first time, 1511 ; second reading, 1566; considered in com­mittee, 1567 and 16iO; third reading, 1708; Royal assent, 1905.

Extradition l3ill-Heceivefl from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1497 ; second reading, 1567; passed through remaining stages, 1578.; amendments rGeol1l:J\cndcd. by the Governor adopted, 1790; Royal assent, 19U5.

Fences. (See Expiring Law Continuation Bill.)

FITZGERALD, lIon. NlCIIOJ,AS (N. lV. Prov.) Appropriation Bill, 1914. . Conduct of Government Business, 1995 and

1996. Friday Sitting, 585. Gippsland Hail way Completion Bill, 1503 and

1504. Goullmrn Valley Railway Bill, 1782. Govcfllment Appoilltillents, 1975 and 1977. Governor's Speech, 15. Land Tax t~ill, i83, 861, ana 897. Messages betwecn the Two Houses, 1%4. Mines Drainage Law Amendmcnt Bill, 1566,

15i6, 1578, 167U, 1709, and 1970. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1162, 1200,

15G8, 1(;32, and 1669. Payment of Members-Address to the Go­

vernor, 1322, 1334, and 1915; Payment of Members Bill, 2314, 2316, and 2323.

Political Situation-;\Iinisterial Memorandulll, 1981 and 199:2; Go\'crnor's Instructions, 2U48 j Paymellt of Members Bill, 2314, 2316, and :23:23.

Railway Construction Bill, 517, 521, 585, 655, 656, 75U, i88, and 835.

Railway Lonn A~count. App1ication Dill, 1786. Heg-ulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 675,

677,714,855,856, 231(i, and 23:23. Supreme Court J urbdiction and Procedure

Bill, 338. Tolls Bill, EJ63 and 199·L Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 18()6 and 1957.

Forts and Armaments Bill-Heceived from Legislative ASSClll\lly, and read first time, 1511 ; second readiug' moved by ::\11'. Cuth­bert, 156~ ; debated hy Captain Cole, 15G3 ; t)ir Charles Sladcn, 15G4; debate ac1journed, 15G6; statement by 1V[1'. Cuthbert, 1569; amendment by Sir Charlc:s Slatiell, for lay­ing aside the Bill, 1571-4; debate continued by Mr. Balfour, 1574; :Mr. Sargood, 1575; mnendment ('arrieLl, and Bill laid aside, }576: (See Defence pfthe Colony.) : ,

FRASER, Hon. ALEXANDER (N. W. Prov.) Appropriation Bill-Payment of Members,

191J. l\lessages between the Two Houses, 1949 and

1940. Regnlation and Inf'pection of Mines Bill, 844,

860,951, and 952.

Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill­Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1511 ; sccolld rcading, 1536 j

considered in committee, 1536; third read­ing. 1566; amendment recolllmended by the Goyernor adopted, 1790; Hoyal assent, 1905.

Geelong and Queenscliff Railway-Questions by Mr. Jenner, li80 and 2242.

General Sessions-Message from Legislative • Assembly, inviting concurrence in address to Governor" praying that courts of general sessions may be held at Benp-lja. and Wan­garatta," 1074; address concurred in, 1075.

Gippsland Railway Completion Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1471; second reading moved by Mr. Cuthbert, 15UO; debated by Sir Charles Siaden, 1501 j Mr. Wallace, 1502 ; Bill read second time, 1503 ; considered in committee, 1503; third reading, 1536 ; message from LC'gislative Assembly, intimating disagree­ment with Council's ame11l1ments, 1779; amendments insisted on, 1783. (Sec Con­ference; also Oalde/9ft and ,1/ elbourne Rail­way, and l~ail/Oay Construction Bill.)

Goulburn Valley Railway Bill--Heceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1471 ; second reading, 1508 ; considered in committee, 1509 ; third reading, 1536 ; mes­sage from Legislative Assembly, intimating disagrel'ment with Council's amendments, 1778 ; message considered, 1781 ; the Presi­dent rules that the message is not in accord­ance with the ith joint standing order, 1 iSl ; amendments insisted on, 1783. (Spe. Con­ference; also Railwa!! Construction Bill.)

Government Appo.i.ntments-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Fitzgerald, 1977 ; produced, 2236 ; ordercll to be printed, 2425. (See Civil Servants, Dismissed.) .~

Govel'l1or, His Exeellency the (Sir George Ferguson Bowen. G.C.M.G.)-Speech of, opening Parliament, 79; motion by Mr. Cuthbert for select committee to prepare address in reply, agreed to, 9; address brought up, 9; motion by Mr. Cuthbert fol' adoption of address, 10; seconded by 1\11'. Buchanan, 13; dC'bated by 1{r. Camp­bell, 13; ]\fl'. Fitzgerald, 15; alldress adopted, 17; His Excellency'S answer, 56 ; visits Parliament House to a.ssent to mils, 3i, J.:\,2, 621, 1063, 1264, 1905, and 2425; speech on pl'orog-ation of Parliament, :!425.

Governor's Instructions. (See Crisis.) Governor's Messages-Transmitting despatehes

from t;ecretary of State 1'e defenee of the colony, and titular distinction of retired jullgcs of the Supreme Court, 1708; inti­mating that he has given the Hoyal assent to certain Bills, 1976 and 2131; transmit­tiug Ministerial memorandum re political situation, 2157; transmitting unpublislJeu despatches of Governor Viscount Canter­bury, 2242.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. 7

GRAHAl\I, Hon. JAMES (C. Prov.) Appropriation Bill, 1829. Friday Sitting, 1896. Land Tax Bill, 927. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 420. rayment of Members Bill, 2329.

HIGHETT, Hon. WILLLU[ (E. Prov.) Electoral Returns, 842 and 853. Personal 11;xplanation, 1074. Political Situation-i\·linisterial Memorandum,

1976; Paynient of Members Bill, 2317. Railway Construction Bill, 751. Regulation and lnspection of Mines Bill, 854. Waterworks Act Amendment Bi1J, 1003.

Hobson's Bay Railway Company-Personal ex­planations by :\11'. Campbell, Mr. a'Beckett, and Mr. llighett, 10i4.

Inebdaies Act Amendment Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1073 ; second reading, 1113 ; passed through committee, 1114 ; read tllird time, 1200; Hoyal assent, 1264.

Insolvency Law Amendment Bill-Brought in by Mr. Sargood, and read first time, 1147 ; discharged from the paper, 1498.

International Exhibitions Bill-Recei ved from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1567 ; second reading moved by Mr. Cuth­bert, 1626 ; debated by Sir Charlcs Sladen, 16:27 ; Mr. Anderson, 1627; Mr. Sargood, '16:27; Mr. Simson, 1628; Mr. Campbell, 16:28 ; Mr. "\VaJlace, 1628; Mr. a'Beckett, 1628 ; motion for second reading negatived, 1629.

JENNER, Hon. C. J. (S. w. P7·ov.) Adjournment of the House, 1820. Appropriation Bill-Payment of Members,

1908. Election of Chairman of Committees, 17. Geelong and Queensc1iff Railway, 1780 and

2242. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1167. National Insurance Company of Australasia's

Extension of Powers Bill, 1231. Payment of Members BiJI, 2290. Personal ]~xplanations, 2236 and 2242. Political Sitnation-Ministeriall'.'IE'morandum,

1975; Proposed Conference, 22:36. (See Chairman of Committees.)

Justices of the Peace Aet Amellument Bill­Received from Legis1n.tive ARsembly, and read first time, 585; second reading, 671-2 ; considered in committee, 672; third reading, 673; Royal assent, 1064.

Land Tax Bill-Motion hy Sir Charles Sladen for return of landed estates, 716 ; debated, 717 ; agreeiJ. to, 717 ; retul'll produced, 861 ; motion by Mr. Simsoll for return of mort­gaged estates, 748; debatecl,H9; with­drawn. 749 ; Bill received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 752; dis­cussion l'e taking of second reading, 782 ; questions by Sir Charles Sladen, 861 and 888; second reading of Bill moved by 1\11'. Cuthbert, 861 ; :mlClldl1lent by Sir Charles Sl.tuen, for la.yillg asitle the Bill, 86t3-7 I ;

Land Tax Bill (cont-inued)- . debate continued by Mr. Bromell, 881 j Cap­tain Cole, 882; Mr. a'Beckett, 882 j Dr. Dobson, 885; debate adjourned, 887 j re­sumed by 1\11'. Sargood, 888 j continued by Mr. Fitzgerald, 897 ; Mr. W. Wilson, 907 ; Mr. SitllSOlJ, 910; Mr. Balfour, 912 j Mr. Campbell, 918 ; debate adjourned, 921 ; re­sumed by Sir Samuel Wilson, 921 ; con­tinued by Mr. Belcher, 925 ; Mr. Cumming, 926; Mr. Graham, 927; 1\11'. Black, 928 j

1\1.r. Sumner, 929; Mr. Cuthbert's reply, 929 ; amendment negatived, and Bill read second time, 931; passed through committee, 931 ; third reading moved by 1\1:1'. Cuthbert, 949 ; amendment by Sir Charles Sladen, that the Bill be rejected, 949-50; subject debated, 950; amendment negatived, and Bill read third time, 951 ; amendment recommended by the Governor adopted, 1001; Royal assent, 1064.

Legislative Council, Constitution of the­Motion by Mr. Sargood for select committee, 2364; debated, 2365; withdrawn, 2365.

Liverpool and I,ondon and Globe Insurance Company's Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1471 ; second reading, 1512; passed through committee, 1539; report adopted, 1561; Bill read third time, 1569 ; Hoyal assent, 1905.

Local Government Act, Amendment of. (See City of .JlclbOIl1'1lC Corporation Rating Bill.)

Melbourne Market Site Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 333; second reading, 419; considered in cODlmittee, 420; third reading, 522; Royal assent, 1064.

I\Ielbourne, Municipal Rating in. (See City of AI elbourne Corpora.tion Rating Bill.)

Member committed :f.or "contempt "-Mr. W. Wilson, 1401. (See Contempt.)

Member, New-Introduced and Sworn-Mr. Cuthbert, 141.

Membel'-lV[otion carried that a Member be heard, 2238.

Member of the. Legislative Assembly examined as a witness at the bar of the Coullcil, 552 and 585.

Members absent from illness-Sir Charles Sladen, 203; 1\11'. Heid, 2157.

Members, New-Swearing of-President's com­mission, 9.

Messages between the Two Houses-The Presi­dent rules that the messages from the Legis­lative Assembly intimating disagreement with Council's amendments ill the Goulburu Valley Railway Bill and the Gippsland Hailway Completion Bill are "not ill accord­ance with the 7th joint standillg order," 1781; discussion thereon, 1781; the Presicleut rules ., that according' to the practice of Parlia­ment it is not competent for the Council to receive a. messrlge from the other House when the other I-louse is not sitting," 1949 ; discussion thereon, ] 950; the President rules that before :my Bill can be submitted for the Royal assent the fact that it has passed both Houses must be communicated bylllessage from one Chamber to the other, and that this C:1.11ll0t be done unless both lIomrs arc sitting, U)52 and 1%0 j (1iseWj, 11lop ~lt~rcon, 1953 a~~t.! Hl60q

8 INDEX.

Metropolitan Gas Company'R Bill-Ref!eived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1471; second rl'ading, 1508; con­sidered in commit.tee, 1538; report adopted, l.,)fil; third reading-, 1569; RoyaL assent, 1905.

Mines Drainage Law Amendment. Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1511; second reading, 1566; con­sidered in committee, 1576, 1670, and 1709 ; third reading, 1750 j message from Legisla­tive Assembly intimating that they had amended one of Council's amendments, 1895; message considered, 1960 and 19iO; As .. sembly's amendment adopted, 197U; Royal assent, 1976.

Mining Accidents. (See Regulation and Inspec­tion of Mines Bill.)

Mining on Private Property Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1074; second reading moved by Mr. Cuthbert, 1159; debated by Mr. Fitzgera1d, 1162; Mr:. Anderson, 1164; Mr. Wallace, 1165; Mr Simson, 1165; Mr. a'Beckett, 1166; Dr. Dobson, 1166; Mr. W. Wilson, 1167; Mr. Jennet·, 1167; Mr. Camphell, 1167; Bill read second time, 1168; referred to seleet committee, 11 ti8; !ltatement hy Mr. Fitzgerald, 1 :WO; question by Mr. Wallace, 1~31; by Mr. Cuthbert. 1471 and 1539; committee's report brought up.1561; cons dered, 1567; adopted, 1568; question by Mr. Cuthbert, 1568; discussioll thereon, 1568; hill considered in committee, 1629, 1667,17 0 8, and 1749; third reading, 1779.

Ministry-Statement by Mr. W. Wilson that i\lr. Cuthbert had aCl~epted. the offi('e of Postma.ster-General, 96. (See South- West­ern Pruvince.)

MITCHELL, Hon. Sir W. H. F. (N. W. Prov.) Personal Explanation, 1949. Visitor-Governor Sir William Robinson, 829.

(See' The Hon. the President.)

Money Bills dealt with by the Legislative Coun­cil-Beturn ordered, on motion of Mr. Anderson, 1001 i produced, lUi3.

Kational Insurance Company of Am~tralasia's j<:xtell~ion of Powers Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, 954; read first time, I (lU ~; second reading, 1075; passed through committee, 1 114; report adopted, 1200 ; Bill read third time, 1231 ; Royal assent, 1905.

Oaklpigh and Melbonrne Railway-Question by Mr. Bt'ar, re purchase of land, 2241; return ordpred, on motion of Mr. Bear, 2307. (~ee Railway Oonstruction Bill; also Gippsland RaiLway Cumpletiun Bill.)

Parliament-Opening of, by commission, 1; by the Governor, 7; prorogation, 2426.

Parliamentary Costs Bill-I{eceived from Legis­lative Assembly, and read first time, 10UI; second reading, 1075; passed through com­mittee, 1075; read third time, 1113; Hoyal assent, 1264.

Passengers, Harbours, and Navigation Statnte Amendment Bill-I{eceived trom Legisla­tive Assembly, and read first time, 191i; re;ui second time and passed through com­mittee, 1964; thir4 re;:tding, 1997; Royal a.sl:le~t, 2131, ..

I>ayment of Members-Questions by Mr. Ander­son, 1263 and 1285 ; motion by Mr. Ander­son for address to the Governor, "pointing ont that the inclusion of a sum for the payment uf members in the Appropri~tion Bill might make snch procedure the instru­ment of enabling one branch of the Legisla­ture to coerce the other," 1322-5; debated by Mr. Cuthbert, 1325; Mr. Campbell, 1330; Mr. Baltour, 1331 ; Mr. Sumner, 1333; Mr. W. Wilson, 1333; Mr. Fitzgerald, 1334; motion carried, 1335; select committee appoint.ed to prepare address. 1335 ; address bronght up, 1:372; adopted, 1374; His Excellency's reply, 1398; the President anllounces receipt of application from Under Treasurer for a return of the memuers of the Council who received payment during their absence from the colony, 1895 ; des­patch from the Secretary of State presented, 1986.

Payment of Members Bill-Received from Legisla.ti ve Assembly, and read first time, 1779; second reading moved by Mr. Cuth­bert, 1 i90; debated by Sir Charles Sladen, 1793; Captain Cole, 1794; Mr. a'Beckett, 1795; Mr. Anderson, 1798 ; Mr. W. Wilson, 1799; Mr. Balfour, 1801; motion "That the Hill be now read a second time" nega­tived, 1802; appeal by Mr. Cuthbert to be allowed to reinstate the Bill on the paper without notice, ~2:16-8; objected to, 2238 ; notice of motion for second reading given by Mr. Cuthbert for next sitting, 2240; motion submitted, 2293; debated by Sir Charles ~laden, 2300; Captnin Cole, 2301; 1\11'. Anderson, 2302; Mr. Cuthbert, 230:1 ; debate adjourned, 2304; resumed loy Dr. Dobson, 2:308; continued by Mr. Balfour, 2309 ; Mr. W. Wilson, 2311 ; Mr. Campbell, 2312; Bill read second time, 2313; con­sidered in committee, 2316 and 2318; adoption of report, 2318-23; motion by Sir Challes Sladen for conference with Legis­lative Assembly. 2323; debated by Mr. Cuthbert, 232~ ; Mr. Fitzgerald, 2323 ; Y1r. W. Wilson, 2326; Mr. Anderson, 2327; Captain Cole, 2328; Mr. Campbell, 2328 ; Mr. (iraham, 2329; Mr. Cumming, 2329 ; Mr. Bear, 2330; Mr. Belcher, 2330; Mr. Simson, 2330;' motion negatived, 2331; Bill read third time, 2332; Royal assent, 2425. (See Appropriation Bill; also Crisis.)

Personal Explllnations-By Mr. Campbell, 1074 ; by Mr. a'Beckett, 1074; by Mr. Highett, lOZ4; by the President, 1949; by Mr. Jenner, 2236 and 2242. (See Document, Oonfidential )

Petition-Objection taken by Mr. Cuthbert to reception of a petition on the gronnd that "it seemed to charge the Government with being communists," 1780; discnssion thereon, 1780.

Petitions presented-Re State edncational sys­tem and the Roman Catholics, 333, 418, 509, 552, 584, 654, 670, 713, 748, 773, 842,861, 10U1, 1073, 1147, and 1199; re Melbourne and Oakleigh Railway, 418, 509, 655, and 1561; for "outer circle" line, 418, 509, 584, and 1561 ; re St. Arnaud Railway, 509; re Goulbnrn Valley Hail way, 509; for railway extension to Camperdown, 620; for Geelong and Queenscliff Railway, 629 ; for railway extensiop to Gardiner, 670 ; r~

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. 9

Petitions presented (continued)-Hobson's Bay Railway Company and Rail­way Construction 13ill, 670; re Mining on Private Property Bill, 1146, 1263, and 1285 ; for amendments in Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 1497; re payment of

'members, 1567, 1667, 1708, 1749,1780,1829, 1860, 1965, and 2046 ; re Mines Drainage Law Amendment Bill, 1567 ; for Tolls Bill, 1985 and 198b; re the political situation­attitude of the Legislative Council, 2046, 2156, 2235, and 2307.

Phylloxera Vastatrix. (See Vine Diseases Era dic a (ion Bill.)

Police Offences Statute Amendment Bill­Brought in by Sir Charles Sladen, and read first time, 921 ; second reading, 1075; passed through committee, 1199; third reading, 120U.

Political Situation. (See Addresses; also Crisis.)

PRESIDENT, Hon. the (Sir W. H. F. Mitchell)-Rulings of-

Appropriation Bill, 1829 anq. 1904. Asking questions, 1285. Assent to Bills, 1952 and 1960. Brighton Land Vesting Bill, 1113. Contempt-The Hon. W. Wilson, 1400, 1401,

and 1405. Despatches from the Governor to the Secre-

tary of State, 1976. Ejaculations during debate, 2295. Language of petitions, 1780. Messages between the Two Houses, 1781,1949,

HJ50, 195:l, and 1969. Ministerial statements, 2239. Motions-For third reading of a Bill without

notice, 931 ; for adjournment of the House, 1956; for papers, 1975; that a member be heard, 2238 and 2239; for committal of Bills, 2313.

Notices of Motion-Amendment of, 1322 and 1325 ; mode of giving, 2236, 2238, and 2240.

Payment of Members Bill, 1904. Proceedings of select committees, 2356 and

2365. Proposition to lay aside a Bill, 887 and 888. Reference to debates in" another place," 1157 ;

to what is " on the stocks" there, 1793. Statements during the taking of divisions,

1629. Unparliamentary language, 1966, 2253, and

2299. Use of the Governor's name in debate, 1991

and 2360. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1896.

President Absent-Mr. Jenner acts as Deputy­President, 656.

Privileges of the Legislative Council-Message from Legislative Assembly, transmitting the grounds on which they disagreed with the Council's amendments in the Hailway Construction Bill, 1398 j motion by Mr. Anderson for select committee to prepare reply, 1398; debated by Mr. W. Wilson, 1398 ; Sir Charles Sladen, 1399 j Dr. Dob­son, 1399; Mr. Cuthbert, 140U; motion agreed to, 1400; select committee ap­pointed, HOI; committee's report brought up, 1493; adopted, and reply ordered to be transmitted tv Legislative Assembly, 1537-8. (See Waterworks Act Amendment Bill; also Conference.) ..

Public Works Loan Account Application BiU­Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 233 ; passed through remain­ing stages, 4:l1 ; Royal assent, 6:!.1.

Public Works Loa.n Expenditure Validating Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 678; passed through remaining stages, 843; Royal assent, 1064.

Qualification, Declarations of- Delivered to Clerk, 2, 7, 36, 141, and 203.

Queen, Her Majesty the. (See Addresses.) Queenscliff Railway. (See Gee/uug and Queens­

cli.ff· Railway.)

Railway Construction' Bill - Recei ved from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 418; the Council resolve to examine wit .. nesses at bar of the House, 419 j second reading of Bill moved by Mr. Cuthbert, 509 ; debated by Sir Charles Sladen, 51n; Mr. Fitzgerald, 517; ]\,lr. Balfour, 519; Mr. Simson, 5:U ; Bill read second time, 521 j

witnesses exa.mined at bar of the House, 552,585, 621, 629, 655, 670, 713, and 749; message ordered to be sent to Legislative Assembly requesting attendance of Mr. A. K. Smith, a member of that House, as a, witness, 552; production of charts of pro­jected railways ordered, on motion of Mr. Simson, 552; Bill considered in commit­tee, 773, 8:l7, 842, and 853 j Dunollyand St. Arnaud line, 773; Melbourne and Oakleigh line, 774 and 784; Goulburn VaHey line, 827; evidence taken at the bar ordered to be printed, 842 ; Bill read third time, 951 ; message from Legislative Assembly, inti­mating that they disagreed with the Coun­cil's amendments-with those in clause 3 because they were ., infractions of the privileges of the Legislative Assembly, inasmuch as they would, in their conse­quences, lay a charge upon the people," 1073; message considered, 1147; motion by Mr. Cuthbert, that the Council's amend­ments be not insisted on, 1147; amendment by Mr. Anderson, that the amendments be insisted on, 1150-5; subject debated by Dr. Dobson, 1155; Mr. VY. Wilson, 1158; amendment carried, 1159; select committee appointed to prepare reasons for insisting on Council's amendments, 1159; reasons brought up, adopted, and ordered to be transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, 1199.

Railway Construction Bill (No. 2)-Received from Legislative Assembly, and passed through all its stages, 1264; Royal assent, 1264. (See Privileges of the Legis/atiL'e Council; also Gippsland Railway Lbmple­tion Bill, and Goulburn Valley Railway Bill.)

Railway Department-Motion by Mr. Simson, for return re conveyance of live stock to exhibitions, 748 ; agreed to, 748 ; produced, 842.

Railway Loan Account Application Bill-Re­ceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1779 ; second reading moved by Mr. Cuthbert, 1783; amendment by Mr. Anderson, " That the Bill be I'ead a second time this day six months," 1784; Rubject debated by Mr. a'Beckett, 1785 ; Mr .. Fitz-

. gerald, 1786; Mr, W. Wilson, 1786; Mr.

10 INDEX.

Railway Loan Application Bill (continued)­Balfour, 1787 ; M.r. Bear, 1787; Mr. Sal' good, 1787; 1\11'. Cuthbert, 1788; Mr. Simson, 1789 ; 1\11'. Sumner, 1789 ; amendment car­ried, 1790.

Railway Surveys Bill-Received from Legisla­tivc Assel1lbly, a:ld read first time, 1708; passed through remaining stages, 1749; Hoyal assrut, 1905.

Ratepayers-Heturns' ordered, on motion of Sir Charles Sladcn, 2131 and 22~1.

RegUlation :ll1d Inspection of Mines Bill-Re­ceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 419; second reading, 6'73-4; con­sidered in committee, 674, 713, 843, 853, 951, 1001, 1075, and 1200; third reading, 12:~ I ; message from Legislative Assembly, intimating that they disagreed with some of the Council's amendments and agreed to others with amendmcnts, 1471 ; message considered, 1498; certain amcndments in­sisted OIl, 1-199; Royal assent, 1905.

REID, Hon. R. D. (E. Prov.) Appropriatioll Bill-Payment of Members,

1907. GOlllbul'll Valley Railway Bill, 1509. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1568. Hailway Construction Bill, 830. Hegulatioll and Inspection of Mines Bill, 676.

Road Tolls. (See Tulls Bills.)

ROBERTSON, Hon. J!'UANCIS (N. W. Prov.) Rail way Construction Bill, 784 and 79t. Hegulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 8,13,

860, and 952. 'Vatcl'works Act Amendment Dill, 1002.

SARGOOD, Hon. F. '1'. (C. Prov.) Appropriation Bill, 1829 and 1903. COllstitution of the Legislative' Council, 2364. Customs Act Amendment Bill, 1964, 1995, and

In97. Dower Abolition Bill, 1751. Explosive Substances Bill, 1567 and 1670. Forts aml Armaments Bill, 1575. Gippsland Hailway Completion Bill, 1504. Government Appointments, 2425. Insolvency I,aw Amendment Bill, 1147 and

1498. International Exhibitions Bill, 1627. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Pill,

672. Land Tax Bm, 888. Melbourne Markct Site Bill, 4, 19, and 420. Messages between the Two Houses, 1961. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 14i I. Mining 011 Privll,te Property Bill, 1568, 1630,

and 16:12. National Insurance Company of Austrnlasia's

Extension of Powers Bill, 1004,1075, and 1200.

ra~srngel"~, Harhours, and Navigation Statute Amelldnlent Bill, 1!)97.

l">olitieal Situatioll- Conduct of Business, 1954 anJ 1965 ; Address to the Governor, 227!).

Railway Construction Bill, 655, 750, and 7i8. Hailway Loan Account Application /;ilI, 1787. H():~H!:tti"ll alli1 Inspection of J\finc's nill, 676,

678,714, 843, 844, 854, 857, 858, 8GO, 953, lOfI:~, 1075, and 1-199:

SARGOOD, Hon. F. T. (continued)-Section 45 of the Constitution Act-Counsel's

Opinions, 2383. Tolls Bill, 1962 and 1995. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1958.

Sessional Arrangements-Appointments of days of bnsiness and standing committees, 17; House sits at two o'clock. p;m. to examine witnesses re Hailway Construction Bill, 552, 584, 6~0, 629, and 654 ; at three o'clock, 670 ; motion by Mr. Outhbert for House to sit on Friday, 58t; discussed, 584 ; withdrawn, 585.

Shire Rates, Differential - Question by Mr. Bear, 1001.

SIlIISON, Hon. ROBERT (W. Prov.) Appropriation Bill-Payment of Members,

1906. Conduct of Government Business, 1996. Conten~pt-The Hon. W. Wilson, 1400 and

1405. Conveyance by Railway of Live Stock for Ex-

hibitions, 748. Dower Abolition Bill, 1752. Friday Ritting, 584. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1507. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1509 and 1510. International Exhibitions Bill, 1628. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

673. Land Tax Bill, 910. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 420. Messages between the Two Houses, 1950 and

1961. l\lining on Private Property Bill, 1165, 1568,

1630,1633,1668, and 1708. Mortgaged Landj3d Estates, 748. Political t'ituation-Address to the Queen,

1984 ; Governor's Instructions, 2048 ; Ad­dress to the Governor,. 2278; Payment of Members Bill, 2315,23[7, and 2330.

Publication of Despatches, 2383. Railway Construction Bill, 521, 552, 750, and

793. Hailway Loan Account Application Bill, 1789. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 674,

6i6. 678, 715, 716, 844, 855,856, 858, 953, 100 I, and 1498

Tolls Bill, 1962 and 19!)4. Ville I>iseases Eradication Bill, 1896, 1956,

1959, and 1960. . Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 1003.

SLADEN, Hon. Sir CIURL},S (W. Prov.) Adjournment of the House, 1960, 1!)71, 1975,

and 1!)84. Appropriation Bill, 1861 and 1897. Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2:373. Bi lis Rl'jectcd by the Legislative Council, 1 !)52. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

671 alld 842. Consolidate('! Reveniw (£750,000) Bill, 620. Constitution of the Lrgislative Council, 2365. Contempt-The Hon W. Wilson, 1.401. Customs Duties Bill. 1967. Death of Viscount (:n,nterbury, 37. Dowel' Abolition Bill, 1750. . Forts a.nd Armaments Bill, 1564, 1566, 1569,

and 1571. Friday Sitting, 584 and 1896. Gipp~land RaiIwayCompletion Bill, 150],1504,

1508, and 1783!

LEGISL!.TIVE COUNCIL. 11

SLADEN, Sir ·CHARLES (contillued)-Goulburn Valley Hallway Bill, 1508, 1510

1536,1781, and 1782. International Exhibitions Bill, 1627. Land Tax Bill, 716, 783, 784, 7!J.!, 861,868,

888, 931, and 949. Melbourne and Oak leigh Hailway-l"lurchaso

of Land, 2241. Mrssagos betwocn tho Two IIouses, 1781, H150,

1954, 1n55, and 1967. Mines Draillflg'o Law Amendment Bill, 19GO. Mining on Private Proper!.y Bill, 1569, 1630,

1632, and 1668. Passengers, Harbonrs, and Kavigation Statute

Amendment Bill, 1964. Payment of Members-Address to the Gover­

nor, ; 325 ; Payment of :Membcrs Bill, 1793, 22~8, 2240, 2290, 2298, 230~, 2308, 2313, 2315, 2:~16, 2318, 2323, and 2331.

Police OtI£mces Statute Amendment BllI, 921 and 1075.

Politicn 1 Situation-Adjournment of the As­sembI .... , 1949 ; Sittings of the Council, 1954; l\linist ;rialMemorallllum, 19i1, 1977, 1!)86, 1993, \ ~:~4, 2240, 235G, and 2358; Addresses to the (;overnor, 1971, 1!)73, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1982, 2243, 2281, 2287, and 2290; Addresses to the Queen, 1982, 1984, 2131, 2140, and 2143; Governor's Instruc­tions, 2C46 and 2048.

Privileges of the Legislative Conncil, I.'3!)9. Publication of Despatches, 2374 and 2383. Hailway Bills Conference, 1860, 1896, 1951,

2354, and 2383. Railway Construction Bill, 418, 515, 521,552,

585, 629, 671, 750, 774, 827, 842, 853, and 951.

Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 855, 858, and 860.

Return of Hatepayers, 2131 and 2241. Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Procedure

Bill,421. Tolls Bill, 19G2. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1896, 1956,

1958,1960, and 1969. W· aterworks Act Amendment Bill, 1402 and

1404. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill (No.2),

1629.

South-Western Province, Hepresentation of­Re-election of Mr. Cuthbert announced, 141 ; Mr. Cuthbert introduced and sworn, 141. (See lllinistry )

SU:lINER, HOll. '1'. J. tC. Prov.) Assent tu Bills, 19G9. Conduct of Government Business, 1966. Defence of the Colony-Sir William Jervois'

Heport, 1975. Dower Abolition Bill, 1752. Laud Tax Bill, 929. Messages between the Two Houses, 1950. Payment of Members-Address to the Gover-

nor, 1:33:3. Railway Bills Conference, 1861. Hailway Construction Bill, 781 and 830. l~ailway Loan Account Application Bill, 1789. Hegl11ation and Inspectiun of Mines Bill, 953

and 1499. Supreme Court .Jurisdiction awl Jlrocedure

Bill, 338. '·rolls Bill, 1995 and 2049.

Supreme Court Judges (Hetired), Titular Dis­tinction of-Govcrnor's message transmit­tin~~ despatch frOID Secretary of State, 1708.

::;uprelilc Court Jurisdiction and Proce(lurc Bill -Brought in by 1\11'. Cuthbert, amI read first tlll1E', 20:3; second reading, 33:3-8; c0l115illcred ill committee, 421 ; third reading, G20.

Tolls Continuation Bill-Rereived from J ... egis­latiyc .A~;;el1lbly, and passed through all its stages, 3i ; Boyal aRsent, :3 7.

Tolls 13ill-Heceivcd from Legislati ve Assembly, and Tead first time, 191 i; second reading moved by Mr. Cuthbert, 1961; c1elmted by Sir Charlcs Siauen, 1962; :Mr. ~argood, 19G2; 1\11'. "\Yallace, 1962; Mr. Simson, ] 962; Bill read second time, 1062; con­sidered in committee, 1962; reported with amendments, 1 flG:3; :-'fr. Cuthbert decHnes to " move the aJoption of the report becanse, by bdng amemled, the Bill was pl'actieally lost," 1963; motion by Mr. Balfour for re­consideration of 13ill in committee, 1004; debated, 1994; agn:ed to, 1 U!)5; Bill recon­sidered in committee, 1 !)95 alld 2049; third· rea'ling, 2049; question by lUr. Balfour, 2355.

Vine Diseases Eradication Bill-Heceivec1 from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1895; second reading moved by Mr. Cuthbert, ] 953; debated by Sir Charles SI:\(1oIl, 1956; 1\11'. Simson, 1956; Mr. "\Vallace, 1957; Mr. Bucllflnan, 1%7; Mr. Bear, 1957; 1\11'. :Fitzgerald, 1957; Bill read second time. 1958; considered in committee, 195!) ; report adopted, 1970; Bill read third til1lo, 1970; Hoyal assent, 197G.

Visitor-Ac\~omlllodated with a scat on the fioor oE the House-Governor Sir William Robiu­son, 820.

"\YALLACE, Hon. J. A. (E. Prov.) Appropriation Bi!l- Payment of Members,

1907. Gippsland Hailwa.y Completion Bill, 1502. Goulburn Vallcy Hailway Bill, 1509. International Exhibitions Bill, 1628. ]\(essages between the Two Houses, 19.')0. Mines Drainage Law Amendment Bill, 1566,

1577,1578,1671. 1709, and 1961. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1I65, 1168,

12:::], 1471, Hi39, 1!l61, 1567, 1568, 1629, 16311, 16:32, 16.'34, 1667, 1668,1670, and 1750.

Hailway Construction Bill, 621 and 655. Hailway Construction Bill (Xo. 2), 12G4-. Regulation and! nspoction of l\lines Bill, 674,

676,678,713,714,843,844, 853, 854,856, 8.58,860, 9.')2, 1001, 1002, and 1499.

Tolls Bill, 1962. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1957 and ]!)GO.

"\Yangaratta, General Sessions at. (See General Sessions.)

·Waterworks Act Amendment Bill-Heceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 410; seC'ond reading, 1002; con­sidered iu committee, 1003 and 1075; read third timc, 1] I:~; l11e;;sag-e froll\ I ... eg-islath'c Asscmbly, intimating thut they diRagreed with two of the Council's amellc1mentl:!

12 INDEX.

Waterworks Bill (continued)-because they were "infringements of the privileges of the Legislative Assembly, in­asmuch as they alter the proposed mode of collecting the rate," 1335; message con­sidered, 1401; amendments insisted on, 1404; select committee appointed to prepare "reasons" in reply to the Assembly, 1404 ; "reasons" brought up, 1497; adopted, and ordered to be transmitted to the Assembly, 1498.

Waterworks Act Amendment Bill (No. 2)­Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1567; passed through re­maining stages, 1629; Royal assent, 1 ~05.

WILSON, Hon. Sir SAlI1UEL (W. Prov.) Appropriation Bill, ]830. Land Tax Bill, 921 and 950. Mining 011 Pri vate Property Bill, 1632, 1634,

1668, and 1670. Political Situation--Addresses to the Queen,

1984 and 2138; Address to the Goveruor, 2363.

Railway Construction Bill, 713. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, G77,

714, and 844.

WILSON, Hon. WILT.IAIII (E. Prov.) Adjournmen~ of the House pending elections

consequent on change of Ministry, 2. Appropriation Bill, 1830. Chairman of Committees, 17. Consolidated Revenue (£750,000) Bill, 621. Contempt, 1401 and 1405.

WILSON, Hon. WILLIAM (continued)­County Courts Law Amendment Bill, !l. Death of Viscount Canterbury, 37. Dower Abolition Bill, 1751. Friday Sitting, 584. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1781 and 1782. Land Tax Bill, 783, 887, and 907. Language of Petitions, 1780. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 333 and 420. Mining 011 Private Property Bill, 1167. Mortgaged Landed Estates, 749. Payment of Mem bel'S - Address to the

Governor, 1324 and 1333; Payment of Members Bill, 1799,2239,2311,2314,2317, and 2:i26.

Political Situation-Ministerial Memorandum, 1993 and 2361; Governor's Instructions, 2048.

Privileges of the Legislative Council, 1398 and 1400.

Public Works Loan Account Application Bill, 333.

Railway Construction Bill, 585, 621, 655, 750, 780, 794, 830, and 1I58.

Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1786. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 678

and 845. Sessional Arrangements-Days of Sitting and

Standing Committees, 17. Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Procedure

Bills, 338. Tolls Continuation Bill, 37.

Witnesses Examined at the Bar of the House. (See Railway Construction Bill.)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

Aborigines, The-Questions by Mr. Mirams, re Coranderrk station, 233 and 933; by Mr. Munro, 233o

Absence of the Clerk. (See Legislative As­sembly.)

Acclimatisation of South European Industries­Question by Mr. Dow, 1077.

Acclimatisation Societies-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 933.

Addresses to the Governor adopted-In reply to His Exc.ellency's speech on the opening of the session, 35; praying that courts of general sessions might be held at Benalla and Wangaratta, 1065; praying for presen­tation of Viscount Canterbury's unpublisbed despatches re parliamentary dead-lock (1866-8), 2165; thanking His Excellency "for his impartial and constitutional action during the crisis," 2401-16.

Adjournment, Motions for-The Speaker asks " the assistance of the House to prevent the interruption of business, night after night, by motions for adjournment," 1291; state­ment by Mr. Gaunson, 1291.

Adjournments of the House-Pending elections consequent on change of Ministry. 7; on receipt of news of death of Viscount Can­terbury, 36; in consequence of the Mayor of Melbourne's ball, 623-9; in consequence of the Legislative Council postponing for a fortnight the consideration of the Land Tax BilI,837, 841,848,and 853; in consequence of National Agricultural Show, 1146; over the "Cup" day, 1286 and 1322; in consequence of the Kyneton Agricultural Show, and the Governor's visit to Ballarat, 1547 and 1561; in consequence of Mr. G. Paton Smith's death, 1779; over the Christmas hoI idays, 1921 and 1949; re the political crisis, 2130 and 2235; pending Railway Bills conference, 2372 and 2381.

Adulteration of Liquors-Subject discussed in connexion with vote for liquor inspectors, 946 and 1236; question by Mr. L. L. Smith, 1539. (See PuMic-lwuses Act.)

Agent-General's Department-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 823. (See War; also Hoey, Mr. Oashel.)

Agricultural College-Question by Mr. Bird, 1489; by Mr. L. L. Smith, \701.

Agriculture, Department of--Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Bird, 753; produced, 1077.

Albert Park, Improvement of-Question by Mr. Nimmo, 181; votes re Albert-park Lake discussed in Committee of Sup­ply, 1489 and 1701. (See Parks and Gardens.)

Alcoholic Poisoning-Question by Mr. Nimmo, 2427.

Alma Consols Company-Select committee ap­pointed, on motion of Mr. Brophy, 552; committee's report brought up, 1540.

ANDREW, Mr. JOHN (W. Melbourne) Hreach of Customs Laws, 2371. Fencing of Public Roads, 5116. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill, 1283. Land Tax Bill, 731. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 955, 1268,

and 1338. Political Situation-Appropriation Bill (No.2),

2336. Tariff Revision-Children's Boots and Shoes,

1378; Saddle-trees, 1388; Silks-Ribbons, 1427; Umbrellas, 1428; Lined Hats, 1428.

Vehicles in Public Parks, 1491.

Appropriation Bill-Brought in by Mr. oBerry, and read first and second t.ime, 1819; con­sidered in committee, 1821; third reading, 1831. (See Crisis.)

Appropriation Bill (No. 2)-Brought in by Mr. Berry, and read first t.ime, 2349; second reading,2349-54; passed through remaining stages, 2354.

Art Unions, Regulation of-Question by Mr. Kernot, 1580.

Assent to Bills, 56, U7, 628, 1073, 1284, 1923, 1997, and 2198.

Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admission Bill-Brought in by Mr. Purves, and read first t.ime, 84; second reading, 167-8; con­sidered in committee, 234.

Auriferous Land. (See Land, Auriferous.)

Baker, Mr. R. C.-Case of-Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. Bell, 132:.!; produced, 1582.

Bank Deposits, Unclaimed-Questions by Mr. Bowman, 1432 and 1998.

BARR, Mr. J. M. (MaOryborough and Talbot) Acoustics of the Legislative Assembly Cham­

ber, 1581. Administration of the Land Law-The Resi-

dence Condition, 1434. Civil Servants, 85 Coroners' Inquests, 2146. Customs Duties Bill, 1933. Election Petitions-Sandhurst, 108; South

Gippsland, 372 ; Barwon, 1734. Electoml Rolls, 587. Education Vote, ] 222. Fencing of Public Roads, 90. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill, 1282. Industrial Sehools, 1072. Jurors in Count.ry Dist.ricts, 2158. Maryborough Railway Station, 999. Mining Hoards, 1000. Mining on Private Property Bill, 626. Mr. Eaton, 932, 1046,1047, 1050, and 1438. Municipal Audits, 589. Municipal Endowments, 796. National Bank of Issue, 2158. l'olice, 644. Political Situation-Address to the Queen,

2058.

I·! lNDEX.

BARR, Mr. J. 1\1. (conlinued)­Prospecting for Gold, 204. Hail wny Constrnction Bill, 17 ;'5. Hailway Extension to the Darling, 1579 and

2050. Railway Fares Paid by Clergymen, 846. Regnlation and Inspection of l\1ines Bill, 159,

324, 326, and 328. Scab Prevention and Diseases in Stock, 826. Tariff Revision -Earthenware, &c., 1384;

Watt1e Bark, 1933. Telegraph Messages, 2379. Timber Cutting, 588. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1846.

Barwon Election Petition-Petition from John Ince, against l\'fJ;. Levien's return, presented, 18; referred to Elections Committee, III ; report of committee-that Mr. Levien was not duly elected and that tbe election' was void, and awarding costs to petitioner­brought up, 1636 ; the Speaker calls atten­tion to the fact that the grounds on which costs are given are not specified, 1636; motion by Mr. Lalor for referring report back to committee, 1636; amendment by Mr. Service, to add to the motion the words "with respect to costs only," 1636 ; subject debated by Mr. Kerferd, 1637 ; Mr. Lalor. 1637; Sir John O'Sbanassy, 1638; Mr, Munro, ]638; Mr. Young, 1639; Mr. Bent, ] 639 ; Mr. Service, 1639; Mr. Berry, 1642; Mr. Mackay, 1644; Dr. Madden, 1646; Mr. Hichardson, 1647 ; Mr. Ma.cBain, 1649 ; Mr. Orr, 1649; Mr. Ramsay, 1650; Mr. Langridge, ] 652; Mr. Gillies, 1652; Mr. Gaunson, 1 (154; Sir John O'Shanassy asks the Speaker whether, in consequence of the committee's report, he will issue a writ for a fresh election, J 658; the Speaker ex­presses doubt whether the report has been "received by the House," and intimates that when the report is "received" he is bound to act upon it, 1658; point of order dis­cussed, 1658-63; debate on the main ques­tion continued by Mr. Dwyer, 1663; Mr. Dow, 1665 ; amendment negatived and mo­tion for referring report back to committee carried, 1667; question by Mr. Mirams, 1710; second report-declaring Mr. Levien guilty of bribery, and Mr. Ince duly elected, and awarding costs to the latter, on the ground that the defence of the seat 'by Mr. Levien was frivolous and vexatious­bronght up, 17 10; subject debated by Mr. J{erferd, ]711; Mr. Gaunson, 1712; Sir John O'Shanassy, 1713; Mr. Mirams, 1714; motion by Mr. Ben't for postponing con­sideration of report, 1715; debate continued by Mr. Gaunson, 1716; Mr. Mackay, 1717 ; Mr. Gillies, 1720; Mr. King, 1724; state­ment by the Speaker that, until a motion that it lie on the table is passed, the report is not "received," 1726 ; debate continued by Mr. Berry, 1726; Mr. Kerferd, 1729; Mr. Dixon, 1731 ; Mr. MacPherson, 1732; Mr. Langridge, 1732; Mr. Young, 1733; Mr. Service, 1733; Mr. Richardson, 1734; Mr. Barr, 1734; Mr. Hamsay, 1734 ; Mr. Lalor, 1735; Mr. Carter, 1737; Mr. Purves, 1738; Mr.Dow,1741; Sir Charles MacMahon, 1741; Mr. Bent's motion negatived, 1742; ordered, "That the report do lie on the table," 1742; Mr. luce introduced and sworn, 1759.

BAYLES, Mr. 'VILLIAlIf (Villiers and Heytesbw'Y) Agent-Gencml'R Department, 823. Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admission

Bill, 239. Barwon Election Petition, 1716. Charitable Institutions, 943. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating BilI,466. Civil Service Life Assurance and Endowment,

1622. Colorado Beetle, 1201. Differential Rating Bill, 1535. Dower Abolition Bill, 1436. Ex-employes of the Dredging Department,

1624. Expenditure under Loans-Water Supply, 306. Expiring Law (Diseases in Stock) Continua­

tion Bill, 1518. Fencing of Public Roads, 722. Gratuities to Families of Deceased Public

Servants, 944. International Exhibitions Bill, 1484. Land Tax Bill, 684 and 745. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 330. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 806, 955,

and 1342. Mount Abrupt Fi'eestone, 143 and 204. Mr. Eaton, 1050. Mr. "V. M. Fergusson, 1513. Mr. J. Richardson, M.P. (The late), 1626. Payment of Members Bill, 1744, 1755, and

1757. . Political Situation-Appropriation Bill, 2345. Port Campbell, 932 and 945. Railway Construction Bill, 196, 229, and 310. Hoads Damaged by Cartage of Railway Ma-

terial, 294. Stone for the New Law Courts, 320. Tariff Hevision-Gold and Silver Leaf, 1386. Tolls Bill, 1804. Warrnambool Harbour Improvements, 1057,

1068, and 1071. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 332.

Beechworth Railway-Return ordered, on mo­tion of Mr. Gaunsoll, 424; produced, 523.

Beechworth Hate Validating Bill-Brought in by Mr. Hillson, and passed through all its stages, 2371-2.

Beechworth Waterworks Act Amendment Bill­Brought in by Mr. Billson, and read first time, 553-4; second reading, 630-2; re­ferred to select committee, 720; com­mittE:'e's report brought up, 932; Bill read third time, 1202.

Beet-root Spirit. (See Stauglzton Vale Dis­tillery.)

BELL, Mr. HENRY (Ballarat West) Administration of the Land Law-Mortgaging

of Selections, 122. Government Contracts-Provision for Arbitra-

tion, 1999. Letter Carriers, 2369. Mr. R. C. Baker, 1322. Public Instruction-Truant Officers, 1376. Railway Construction Bill, 178 and 243. Railway Department-Workshops at Ballarat,

318 and 994; Conditions of Contracts, 994; Wood Traffic at Ballarat East, 1705.

Tariff Revision-Wooden Doors, 1383; Gold Leaf, 1386; Redgum Timber, 1467.

Benalla General Sessions. (See General Ses~ sions.)

LEGISLA1'IVE ASSEl\1BLY. 15

BENT, Mr. TlImIAS (B)'igltton) Brighton Horticultural Society, 945 and 170l. Brighton Land Vesting Bill, 670, 798, 957,

and 1038. Chairman of Committees, 39 anu 40. Chevalier Bruno, 1560. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Dill,

466 and 468. . Contagious Diseases Prev'ention Bill, 720, 957,

958, 1204, 1272, and 1435. Coroners' Inquests, 936 and 939. Customs Duties Bill, 1893 and 1927. Differelltial Hating Bill, 1513, ]533, and 1534. Drafting Bills, 934. . Elections Committee-The Speaker's 'War­

rant, 78. Election Petitions~Sandhurst, 107; South

Gippsland, 365, 1472, 1476, 1480,1541, 1581, 1819; and 1870; Barwon, ] 715.

Expenditure under Loans- 'Vater Supply, 307. Friendly Societies. Laws Amendment Bill,

1280 and 1282. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1424. International Exhibitions Bill, 1485 and 1487. Melbourne and Oakleigh Railway, 294, 309,

and 310. Melbourne Market Accommodation, 1778. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 59, 330, and 332. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 720, 955,

1267, 1268, and 1343.' Mr. T. H. Budden, 1625. Officials in Parliament Act Amendment Bill,

1541,1542, and 2165. Payment of Members Bill, 1755. Police,644. . Police Court Visitor, 934. Political Situation"":"Rejection of the Appro.

priation Bill by the Legislative Council, 1948; Public Payments on Votes of the Assembly, 2044; Address to the Queen, 2063; Conference between the Houses, 2156 and 2165; Postponement of Business, 2164; Mr. Berry's Motion re Charges Incidental to the Management of the Revenue, 2233.

Railway Construction Bm, 174, 178,227, 288, 294, 309, 310, and 348.

Railway Contracts-Remission of Fines, 320, 1322, 1862, 1918, 2000, 2164, and 2369.

Railway Department - Woods' Continuous Brake, 1920 and 2370.

Stony-creek Bridge, 1706. Tariff Revision-Children's Boots and Shoes,

1382; Maize, 1927 and ]930; Wooden Doors, 1893.

Tolls Continuation Bills, 48, 51, 54, 56, 1804, 1817,1834,1859,1895, and 1922.

Tramways, 1170. Volnnteer Force, 941; Head-quarters Band, 942.

BERRY, Mr. GRAHAlII, Chief Secretary and Trea-surer (Geelol1g)

Aborigines, 233 Absence of the Clerk, 142. Acclimatisat.ion Societies, 933. Adjournments of the House-On death of

Viscount Canterbury, 36; for the Mayor of Melbourne's Ball, 623; pending consider­ation of Land Tax Bill by Legislative Council, 837, 842, 848, and 853; for Na­tional Agricultural Show, 1146; for Kyne­ton Agricultural Show, &c., 1547; on death of Mr.G. Paton Smith, 1779; for the "Cup" Day, 1266 and 1287; over the Christmas Holidays, 1921.

BERRY, Mr. GRAIJAJI[ (collfl'71ued)­Administration of· the Lanus Drpartment­

Peter :McArthur, 797,1254, 153:.!, and 1540. Administration of the IJund Tax Act, 1619

and 1620. Admiuistration of the Public-houses Act, 60,

640,948,1512, and 1539. Agent-General's Department, 823. Alcoholic Poisoning, 2427. Amendment of the Constitution Act, 356. Amendment of the .Juries Statute, 59. Amendment of the Public Health Act, 233. Amendment of the Sale of Poisons Act, 588. Appropriation Bill, 1819, 1821, and 1822. Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2334, 2340, and

2350. Blind Asylum, 847. Border Customs, 1375. Budget, 490, 562, and 604; Supplementary

Statement, 1583 and 1588. . Chairman of Committees, 44 and 46. Charitable Institutions, 124, 752, 943, 1513,

2305, and 2333. . Chevalier Bruno, 1559. Civil Service-The Blue Book, 85; Loans

among Civil Servants, 463; Amendment of the Civil Service Act, 935, 944, and 1037 ; Civil Service Life Assurance and Endow­ment, 1622 ; Dismissed Civil Servants, 2083, 2084,2147, and 2378.

Collingwood Gas Compally's Extension of Powers Bill, 30.

Colorado Beetle, 1201. Commissions and Boards of Inquiry, 1622. Communication with Europe-The Cape

Route, 389, 422, 462, 814, and 1233. Compensation and Gratuities, 935, 944, and

1622. Consolidated Hevenue Bills, 147, 624, 1241,

and 1242. Contngious Diseases Prevention Dill, B35. Coroners' Inquests, 1233. Curator of Estates of Deceased Persons, 939. Customs Department-'Veigher Fraser, 1703. Death of Viscount Canterbury, 36 and 6l. Debate -Disorderly Hemarks, 32; Mainte-

nance of Order in Debate, 1252. Deep Sea Fishing, 1037. Defence of the Colony, 38,320,942, and 1073 ;

The Caberlls, 142 and 942 ; Volunteer Force, 718 and 2384; Head-quarters Band, 942; Torpedoes, 1234 and 1522; Sing-Ie-gun Boats, 1838; Captain Mandeville's Heport, 2050.

Deputy Registrars of Births, &c., 143. Differential Rating Bill, 1471. Diphtheria-Mr. Greathead's Specific, 1472. Eight Hours Anniversary, 61 and 2368. Elections Committee - The Speaker's War~

rant, 77. Election Petitions, 95; Snndhurst, III ; South

Gippsland, 357, 363, 374, 1473, 1477, 1871, and 2422; Rodney, 1115, 1118, 1120, and 1130; Barwon, 1642, 1644, 1658, anci 1726.

Electoral-Printing of the nolls, 146; Divi­sions of Districts,' 421; Compilation of the Rolls, 587; Boundaries - Gippsland and Mornington, 1710; Cost of General Elec­tions, 1862; Amendment of the Electoral Act, 948 and 2384.

Expenditure under Loans-Hailway Construc­tion, 390.

Expiring Law Continuation Bills-Diseases in Stock, 1481, 1516, and 1519; Fences, 1481 and 1520; Drawbacks, 1803.

16 tNDEX.

BERRY, Mr. GRAHAM (continued)­Extradition Bill, 19. Factory Act Violation, 1375 ; Juvenil.e Labour

in Factories, 1513. Families of the Lost Seamen of the Victoria,

59. Farming Improvements, 553. Fencing of l">ublic Roads, 86, 89, and 724. Fever at Toorak, 2379. Forts and Armaments Bill, 1376, 1429, 1520,

and 1522. Free Libraries, 933 and 934. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill, 232,

523, and 1274. Gippsland Lakes, 1433. Gippsland Railway-Melbourne and Oakleigh

Hection, 295, 305, 309, 2422. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1286,

1407,1410, and 1774. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1286, 1413, and

1774. Government Advertising, 1837, 1838, 1848,

1855, 1857, and 1858. Government Botanist, 823. Government Contracts-Provision for Arhi­

tration, 1999; Contracts for Clothing­Victorian Manufactures, 2376.

Hansard, 587. Horticultural Societies, 945 and 1701. Industrial Schools-Boarding-out System, 846;

Vote for Buildings, 1072. Inebriates Act Amendment Bill, 1241. Inland Bonding Warl'houses, 2416. International Exhibitions Bill, 1066,1376,1429,

1470, 1482,1484,1486,1488, 1515, 1516, and 1672.

Kew Lunatic Asylum, 145 and 934. Land Tax Bill, 504,508,623,657,680,693,712,

727, 730, 732, 734, 737, 741,743, 744,837, 840, 848, and 853.

I~arrikinism, 23(,,6. Legislative Assembly, 1581, 1590, 1623, and

1917. Longden v. Weigall, 945. Marine Board Bill, 204. Melbourne Gaol, 2159. Melbourne Harbour Trust Act, 1432. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 804. Mint Arrn.ngements-·Charges for Silver, 181 ;

Copper Coinage, 264. Mr. Eaton, 1288, 14fi5, and 1457. Mr. W. M. Fergnsson, 1513. Mr. Samuel Fielclhouse, 1555. Mr. Gaunson and Mr. Hamsay, 1256. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1558. Mr. J. Hichardson, M.P. (The late),) 623 and

1626. Mr. Service and Mr. Berry, 1642. Mr. W. H. Wright (The late), 1626. Mrs. Wintle (The late), 1635. Municipal Audits, 847. Municipal ]~ndowment, 796. National Bank of Issue-Land Selectors and

the Banks, 21 h8 and 2270. Newspaper Comments on Proceedings in Par­

liament, 319. Paris Exhibition - Acclimatisation of South

European Industries, 1077 j Improvement in Mall ufactu res, 1170.

Parks and Gardens, 1489. Parliament-Dr. Macartney's Qualification,

390, 418, and 458; Distribution of Parlia­mentary Pap~rs, 81 and 1581; "Unopposed" Motions, 1289.

BERRY, Mr. GRAHAM (continued)~ Payment of Members, 619, 1434, 1547,1673,

2000, and 2376; Payment of Members Vote, 1590, 1617, and 1680 j Payment of Members Bill, 1743, 1744, 1754, and 1759.

Penal Department-Gratuities to Prisoners, 522 and 622; Life-sentence Prisoners, 588, 838, and 2163; Gaol Warders, 647, 648, and 1539 j Country Gaols, 647 ; Prison Dis­ci pline, 648 and 651.

Police, 640, 645,646,976, 1037, and 1472. Police Court Visitor, 934. Political :::;ituation-Customs Duties Bill, 1874-

and 1931; Rejection of the Appropriation Bill by the Legislative Council, 1934 j Pub­lic Payments on Votes of the Assembly, 200 I and 2036 j Addr~ss to the Queen, 2051, 2082, 2085, 2087, 2119, and 2180; Charges Incidental to the Management of the I:te­venue, 2148, 2165, and 2:l34; Reform of the Constitution, 2158 and 2368; Negotiations for a Compromise, 2163, 2195, and 2305; Adjournments of the House, 2273, 2292, and 2305; Appropriation Bill (No.2), 23:34, 2349, and 2350 j The Governor's Action, 2401 and 2412.

Ports and Harbours, 945 and 946. Postal Department, 992; Letter Carriers,

1169,1580, 1919,and 2369; Gippsland Mails, 1287; Reduction of Postage, 1545; Promo­tions, 1703; Landing of the English Mails at Portland, 1862; Lake 130lac Post-office, 1920; Port Albert Mails, 2159.

Privileges of the Legislative Assembly, 1246, 1249,1305,1746, and 1934.

Prospecting, 1748 and 1827. Public Instruction-Teachers' Salaries, 146. Queensland Chinese Act, 1064. Railway Accident at Barnawartha, 1432. Railway Bills Conference, 1837, 1859, 2381,

2385, and 2388. Railway Construction Bill, 124, 158, 175, 178,

228, 245, 249, 250, 255, 259, 261, 285, 293, 309,313,314,316,318, and 340; Legislative Council's Amendments, 1012, 1018, 1019, 1242, 1244, 1246, and 1249.

Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1249, 1250, 1252, and 1266.

Railway Contracts-Mr. Doran, 1919. Railway Department - Clergymen's Fares,

1635. Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1516,

1551, 1552, 175~, 1761, 1764, and 1769. Railways Authorized by the Act of 1877-8,

1376. Royal-park Powder Magazine, 932 and 948. Scab Prevention and Diseases in Stock, 422 ;

Inspectors' Salaries, 826 and 1634; Infected ~heep from Tasmania, 933 and 1202 j Vete­rinary Surgeon, 933 ; Admission of Sheep from Victoria into New South Wales, 1555.

Sessional Arrangements-Order of Business, 39,40,374,1201,1273,1434,1547, and 21(;3; Days of Sitting, 61 and 67; Standing Com­mittees, 68; Hour of Meeting, 81; Close of the Session, 1406 and 1434.

Sharks, 1703. Sir Charles Mac Mahon and Mr. Berry, 83

and 84. State Forests, 1472. Statue of the Queen, 1621, 1622, and 1825. Supply, 35, 145, 623, and 630; Votes on Ac-

count, 145 and 623.

LEGISLATIVE ASSE~IBLY. 1'7

BERRY, Mr. GRAHAM (confinued)-Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Procedure

Bill,1471. Tariff Redsion, 98,502,1232,1821, and 1822;

Cornsacks and Woolpacks, 763 and 77'2; Live Stock, 977. 978, 988, and 99() j

Children's Boots and Shoes, 1380; "Wattle Bark, 1459 and 1933; Hedgum Timber, 1468 j Maize, 1929.

Telegraph Department - Employes, 12~2; Delay in Transmission of Messages. 2~80.

Telegraph Extension, 146, 992,1076, and 1232. The (iovernor and Sir William MitcheI1, 2404. The Nelson, 1406 and 1581. The Speaker-Congratulations on Election,

IS; on being created a KC.M.G., 1923. The Speaker and Mr. Purves, 303. The Speaker and Mr. G. Paton Smith, 102S. The Speaker's Salary. 639. Tolls Continuation Bills, 49, 56, 1170, 1434,

1512,19'22, 2083, ~0t\4, 2368, and 2377. Unclaimed Bank Deposits, 1432 and 1998. Unseaworthy Ships, 234. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1832, 1838,

IS52, and 1872. Visitors, 837 and 1413. Volunteer Force-Captain Greenfield, 1918. Wahgunyah Bridge, 977 and 2146. War in Europe-Proclamation of Neutrality,

27. War Telegrams, 27, 38,82, 143,389,423,639,

S23. and S'24. Warrnambool Harbonr Improvement~, 106S. Ways and Means, 35, 147, 623,1241, lS19, and

IS5S. Weather Telegrams, 746. West Melbourne Election, 2144, 2332, and

2417. White Horse Road, 1395.

Bill Lapsed-Differential Rating Bill (No.2), 1535.

Bill Hejected on Motion for Second Reading­Criminal Cases Appeal Bill, 1204.

Bill Withdrawn-Insolvency Statute Amendment BiIl,15:10.

Bills Discharged from the Paper-Dog Act Amenoment Bill, 164; Electoral Act Amendment Bill, 949; t ontagious Diseases Pre\'ention Bill, 1435; Supreme and County Courts Procedure Bill, 1435 ; University Act Amenoment Bill. 1437; Differelltial Rating Bill, 1471"; Snpreme Court Jnds­diction and Procedure Bill, 14i I ; Police Offences Statllte Amenoment Bill, 1533; Mining on Private Property llill, 2:~68.

Bills, Drafting of-Qnestions by Mr. Bent, 934; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Dwyer, 1046; produced,23SI.

Bills Laid ARide-Railway Const·rnction Rill, 1246; Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 1548.

BILLSON, Mr. GEORGE (The Oven.~) Beechworth Hate Validating Bill, 2369 and

237 I. Beephworth Waterworks Act Amendment

Bill, 553, 630, 72:1, and 1202. Border Customs, ·1375. Charitable Institutions, 124 and 752. Coronl'rs' Inquest>:, 9~8. Curator of Estat.rs of J)eceflsed Persons, 939. Customs Duties Bill, 1894 and 1\;133. Fencing of Public Roads, 559.

B

BILLS ON. Mr. GEORGE (continued)-Friendly Societies J,aws Amendment Bill,

14:11. Harrietdlle :-lna Omeo Road, 264. Land Tax Bill, 735. Uq uor Inspectors, 947, 94S, and] 239. Metropolitan GHS Company's BIll, 956. Railway Construction Bill, ISO. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 141,

160, 162, and ~25. Road Tolls, 1434. Springs and Wabgunynh Railway, 231)5. State :-5<:hool Teachers, 294. Tariff Revision-Cornsacks nntI Woolpncks,

770; Children'R Boots and Shoes, 1381; Corks, Ifl94; Drugs, 1894; Earthenware, &c., 1385; ·Wattle Bark, ]933.

Vine Disl·ases Eradication Bill, IS44. Wodonga Hoad, ~64.

BIRD, Mr. JOBS (Grenl,;lIe) Administration of the l.andLa,v-Unsuccrssful

A pplicallts' :Fees, 463; Agents at the Lands­office, 976; J .. an<1 at Ea!'t Charlton, 2158.

Amelldlllellt of the ('onstit ution Ad, 356. A mendment of the Friendly Sucieties Act, 232. Agricultural College, 1489. . Agricultural I h'partlllent, 753. Businl'ss Licences, 12U2 and 2143. Hansard, 587. Legis!ation of the Session, 2165. Milling- on Private Property Bill, 964 and 975. Mining tlhafts, :2380. New Land Bill - Transfer of 49th s('ction

Selections, 16:34. Public Instruction - 8('ho01 Requisites, 795;

Drowlling an(l Hnakebite, 954; Profe,sor Pparsnn's Heport. 1999; Charts of lnsecti­,"orous Birds, :1'292.

Queensland Chinese Act, 1064. Railway I lppal'tnll"nt - Use of vYd!!hbridges

and Tarp'lUlins, 1472 ; Saturday EX('ursioll 'riekets, 1673; Sunday Traffic, IS20 ; Traffic Rptllrns, 2372.

Regulatiun and Inspection of Mines Bill, 352. Survey Fl'es. 2426. Tolls Bill, IS18. Unantl.orized Timbf'r Cutting, 142. Violation of the Factory Act, 13i5.

Biros, Insectivorous. (See P1lblic Jnstrurtion.) Blind Asylum-Question by Mr. Gilullson, SH. Boardillg"-ont Systelli. (See Jndu.~/riul Sclw"/.~.) BOlloing (Inland) \Varl'llOIISeS Bill-Motion by

. MI'. ;\ldllt.''l'C. for leave to introduce, pro­pO~l·d alld wi11ldl'uwll. 2416.

Border ('ustollls-Qn('s' ion hy Mr. Billsl'n. 1375. Boroonriar;l, Hl'pn'Sl'l1tatioll of-Death of Mr.

G. Paton i:'\mith annoutlcld, 1779; return of :Mr. R Mllrnw Smith announced, 1937; Mr. R. Murray t;mith introduced and swurn, Hl9i.

BOSISTO, Mr. JOSEPH (Richmond) Election of Chairman of Committees, 42. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1407. Liq nor Insp('ctors, 9,t6 and 1240. Mdbourne and Oakleigh Railway-The Ob-

sen'atory, 3114. Metropolitan Gas Comp!lny's Bill. 956. l\lillt Chargl's for SilVl'r, 180. l'tlrks and Gardens-Holidays to Employe::,

1999.

lH iNDEX.

BOSISTO, Mr. JOSEPH (continucd)-Railway Construction Bill, 230 and 341. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of Sitting, 67. Tariff Revision-Drugs, 1384; Wattle Bark,

1463. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1832, 1839,

and 1857.

Botanic (Melbourne) Gnrdens.-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 1489; question by Mr. iJixon, re holidays to employes, 1917.

Bourke (South) Eleetion Petition -Petition against Mr. Fergusson's return presented, 18; referred to Elections Committee, III ; committee's r~port-declaring Mr. Fergus­sop duly ele(~ted-brought up, 1233; question by Mr. Hichardson, 1635.

BOWllrA~, Mr. ROBERT (Maryborough and Tlllhot)

Amenrlment of the Sale of Poisons Act, 588. Coroner's J tIries, 81. Gaol Warders. 6H. Geelong and Colac Railway, 232. Government Appointments, 85. Melbourne Harbour Trust Act, 1432. Moyston Post-office, 1555. Payment of Members Bill, 1754. Railway Construction Bill, 174, 177, 178, 245,

antI ~60. 'Railway Department - Return Tickets, 1287. RegUlation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 133,

138, 140, and 3:l9. St. Arnaud Railway, 181. Tariff Hevision-Cornsacks and. Wool packs,

771. '. Unclaimed Bank Deposits, 1432 ar.d 1998. Unclaimed Gold in the Treasury, 1561.

Brandy Creek, noads at - Motion by Dr. Macartn(·y. ill favour of au expenditure of

. £12,000,119; dt-bated, 119 ; withdrawn, 120. BrIghton Ln.nrl Vesting Bill-i~rought in by

Mr. Bent, awl read first time, 670; second reading-, i!hl; pas:5ed through committee, 957; third reading, 1038.

BROPHY, Mr. DANIEL (Ballarat East) Adjournment of the House,1547. AlUla Comols Company. 552. CustOI1lS Duties Bill. 1894 and 1925. Education Vote, 1197. . Ex-employes of the Dredging Department,

1624. Liquor Inspectors, 947. Minillg on Private Property Bill, 663 and 665. Police, 645. Railway ('onstruction Bill, ] 78 and 317. Railwl1Y Department-Wood Traffic at Balla-

rat East, 1704; Express Trains, 1919; Medical Examillation of Applicants for Employment, 2000; Children attending the Juvenile Industrial Exhibition at Ballarat, 2304.

Regulation and IIJspection of Mines Bill, U6, 13i, 135, 139,161,323, and 326.

Tariff Revision-ChilJren's Boots and Shoes, 1380; Gla.ss Bottles, 1894; Maize, 1925.

Tolls Bill, 1806 and 1818.

Bruno, Chevalier -Case of-Motion by Mr. Sharpe for select Gommittee, 1£j59 ; debated, 1559; withdrawn, 1561.

Budden, Mr. T. H. - Case of-Vote for costs discussed in Committee of Supply, 1625.

Budget, The-Submitted by Mr. Berry in Com­mittee of Ways and Means, 490; debated by Sir John O'Shanassy, 523; Sir James McCulloch, 534; Mr. Lyell, 542; Mr. Rich­m'dson, 546; debate adjourned, 552; re­sumed by Mr. MacBain, 561 ; continued by Mr. Service, 567; Mr. Gaunsou, 579; debate adjourned, 583; resumed by Mr. Mirams, 589; continued by Mr. McIntyre, 594; Mr. P. L. Smyth, 597 ; Mr. Levien, 599; Mr. Nimmo, 603; Mr. Berry's reply, 604; debate con­tinued by Mr. Carter, 613; debate ter­minated, 620; Mr. Kerferd asks for "a statement of the present condition and pros­pects of the revenue" before Additional Estimates are dealt with, 1582 ; statement by Mr. Berry, 1583; subject dehated by Mr. Kerferd, 1583; Mr. Service, 1584; Mr. B~rry, 1588; Mr. Purves, 1590. (See Tariff; also Land Tax Bill.)

Bury, Mr. Thomas-Case of-Questions by Dr. Macartney, 795 and 796. .

Business Licences on the Gold-fields-Questions by Mr. Bird, 1202 and 2143.

Business, Order of-Question by Mr .. Service, 955; by Mr. Langridge, 1201; statement by Mr. Gaunson, re postponement of private members' business, 1272; by Mr. Levien, 1273; by Mr. F. L. Smyth, 1273; by Mr. Berry, 1273 ; by the Speaker, ]273; state­ment by Mr. Berry, re precedence to private members' business, 1434; postponement of pri vate members' business on Wednesday, to enable Government business to be brought forward, objected to, 2164. (See Sessional Arrangements; also Notice Paper.) .

California, Mining in. (See Sandllurst School of M~u) .

CAMERON, Mr. DONALD (W. Bourke) Tolls Bill, 1836.

CAlIIERON, Mr. E. H. (Evelyn) Tolls Bill, 1859. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1858. White Horse Road, 1388 and 1398.

Canterbury, Viscount - Death of, announced, and adjournment of House in consequence, 36; qnestion by Mr. Casey re address of condolence t.o Larly Canterbury, 61.

Canterbury, Viscount-Unpublished Despatches of-Motion by Mr. A. T. Clark for address to Governor, praying for presentation of despatches, agreed to, 2165; Governor's

. message, transmitting despatches, 2273. ;Oardigansitire, The-Question by Mr. A. T. Clark,

2:~81. .. Carlton Gardens-Question byMr.F. L. Smyth, I 1635. .

CARTER, Mr. G. D. (St. Kilda) Budget,613. . " Cup" Day, 1287. Customs Duties Bill, 1893, 1894, 1924, nnd

19:3 I. Election Petitions-Rodney, 1126; Barwon,

1737. Fencini' of Pub~c RoaCls, 129.

tEC+ISLATIVE ASSEMBLf'. 19

CARTER, Mr. G. D. (continued)-Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1408. Harbour Trust Employes, 1624. International Exhibitions Bill, 1067 and 1486. Land Tax Bill, 686,732,735, 736, 740,742, and

745 ; Administration of the Land Tax Act, 1620.

Liquor Inspectors, 12~6. Melbourne Market ~ite Bill, 331. Members and their Places in the House, 468. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 801, 1266,

1270, 133~ 1339, 1340, 1342, 1344, and 1434.

Municipal Returns, 753. National Insurance Company of Australasia's

Extension of Powers Bill, 463, 464,553, 630, and 957.

Payment of Members Vote, 1603 and 1696. Payment of Members Bill, 1745. Penal Establishments, 653. Police, 641 and 642. Political Situation-Mr. Berry's Motion re

Charges Incidental to the Management of the Hevenue, 2227.

Publicans' Licences, 1674. Public Instruction-Swimming, 1753. Railway Construction Bill, 223 and 350. Sharks, 1703. Statue of the Queen, 1622. Tariff Revision-Cornsacks and Wool packs ,

771 ; Live Stock, 984; Earthenware, &c., 1365; Corks, 1386; Saddle-trees, 1388; Bottles, 1426 and 1894; Wattle Bark, 1462 ; Redgum Timber, 1470; Jams, 1893; Bottled Beer, 1893; Maize, 1924; Salt, 1931.

Tolls Bill, 1170, 1777, and 1922. Vine ])iseases Eradication ]Jill, 1845 and 1853. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 355. Yan Yean Water ::;upply, 1051, 1052, and

1054.

CASEY, Mr. J. J. (Mandurang) Administration of the Land Law-Issue of

Crown Grants, 339. Coroners' Inquests, 937. Criminal Cases Appeal Bill, 1044. Death of Viscount Canterbury, 36 and 61. Dog Act Amendment Bill, 164. Elections Committee-The Speaker's War-

rant,74. Export of Victorian Prodllcts, 6 J. Inehriates Act Amendment Bill, 957 and 1038. Interlineation of Petitions, 339. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

84, 127, J 28, J 65, 166, and 554. Land Tax Bill, 680. Melbourne and Oakleigh Railway, 296. Mining on Private Property Bill, 970. Personal Explanation-Public Roads, 589. Privileges of the Legislative Assembly, 1344. Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney,

406. Railway Construction Bill, 230, 246, and 287 ;

Legislative Council's Amendments, 1023, 1029, and 1036.

Sandhurst Election Petition, 103 and 104. Sessional Arrangements-Hour of Sitting, 68. Sir John O'Shanassy and Mr. Casey, 1316. Standing Orders Committee-Supply, 630. The Speaker and Mr. Punes, ~04. Vacancies in a New Parliament-Issue of

Writs, 97. (Granted Lea.ve of Absence, 2165.)

n2

Casting Vote of Chairman of Committees-On Mr. Bent's motion to reduce the duty on maize to 6d. per 100 lbs., 1930.

Cerberus, The-Papers re appointment and dis­missal of officers, &c., ordcred, un motion of Mr. MlwPherson, 95 ; produced, 14~; state­ment by Mr. Berry, 142 ; question by Mr. Kernot, 942. (See Defence of tlte Cn/ony.)

Chairman of Committees, Election of-Motion by Mr. Bent for election of Mr. B. G. Davies, 41; debated, 42; negatived, 47 ; motion by Mr. Munro for election of Mr. James, 47; carried, 47; Mr. Jame.s returns thanks, 47.

Chairman of Committees, Rulings of­Application of the term" eccentric" to an

honorable member, 1755. Conduct of Business in Committee of Supply,

823 and 1700. Disagreement with the Chairman's ruling,

1864. Members and their places in the House, 467

and 468. Mining on Private Property Bill, 970. Payment of Members Vote, 1596, 1606, ~nd

1618. Personally offensive words, 292. Proposals for taxation, i'28, 730, and 983. Railway Construction Bill, 207, 231, and 249. Reduction of the duty on maize, 1930. Resolutions founded on a select committee's

report., 1864. Tolls Bill. 1836. Use of the term "clap-trap," 652.

Charitable Institutions-Questions by Mr. Bill­son, 124 and 752; vote discussed in Com­mittee of Supply, 943; question by Mr. Zox, 1513; hy Mr. R. Clark (lVimmera), 2:104; by Mr. Service, 2305; by Mr. Orr, 2:~33.

Chinese (Queen!:'lanrl) Act-Question by Mr. Bird, 1064. (See ,11 clbulIrne West Swamp.)

City of Melbourne Corporation Hating BiIL­Rroug-ht in by Mr. J. T. Smith, and read first time, 2M; second readiug, 464; con­sidered in committee, 465 ami 554; third reading, 633.

City Police-court Visitor-Question by Mr. Bent, 934.

Civil Servants- Return ordered, 011 motion of Mr. Barr, 85; q\le~tion by Mr. Fmser, re 10al1s among civil SCI'vants, 46:~ ; return re prOllll.tions ordered, on Illotion of ~'Ir.l)wyer, ]046; produced, 1375; que3tion by Mr. Graves, 1'e dismissed civil servants, 2083; by Mr. R M. Smith, 1'e compensation, 2084 ; subject of dismissal of ci vil servants referred to during debate on Mr. Berry's motion for an address to the Queen, 1'e the political situation, 2093; question by Mr. Zox, re civil servants discharged from the Edueation and Railway departments, 2147; hy Mr. Service, 1'e reinstatements and compensation, 23i8; statement by Mr. Berry, 2:li8 ; ques­tion by Mr. Dwyer, re maximum salaries, 2427. (See Government Appointments.)

Civil Service Act, Amendmellt of-Statement by Mr. Berry, 9'35 ; qucRtion by Mr. Ba.yles, 944; b.l' Mr. Dwyer, I U37; vote for payment for "act uarial lub;)ur un seheme of ch"il service life assurance and endowment" dis­cussed in Committee of SUPplYI 1622.

20 tNDEX.

CLARtt, Mr. A. T. (Williamstown) Applica.tions for Land"":""Peter McArthur's

Case, -123. Defence of the Colony-Colonel Scratchley,

38 alld 61. . Families of the Lost Seamen of the Victoria,

59. l?encing of Public Roads, 93. Land Tax Bill, 7 10 ] 'ersnnal Explanations, 19. Political !;ituation-Appropriation Bill (No.

2), 2349. Railway Construction Rill, 260. Seamen and Shippfng Laws, 234. Srocks ill Bond, 6(). The Cardiganshire, 2381. Viscount Canterbury's unpublished De­

spatches, 2165.

CLARK, Mr. HOBERT (Sandlmrst) Amendment of the Mining Statute, 46l. Coliban Water Supply, 306 And 1064. Customs Dut.ies Bi II, 1926 and 1931. Differential Rating Bill, 1535. :Education Vote, 1192. Elecroral Returns, 4~3. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill, 1281

and 128-/.. . Mining Inspectors, 172. Mining on Private Property Bill, 62:'), 663, and

755. Mr. J. Richaroson, M.P. (The late), 1626. Order of Blisiness, 1201. Payment of M, mbers Vot.e, 1597 and 1675. PaYlJlent of Memhers Bill, 1756. Political Situation-Address to the Queen,

2()65; Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2340. Qualification of Members - Dr. Macartney,

438. Ra.ilway Constrnction Bill, 21>8 and 317.' Railwa..v Department-Free Passes, 1579. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 114,

1:33, 134, 137, 139, 1-10, 159, 161, 163, 322, 328, 3;):2, I -130, and 199R.

Sandhurst Powder Magazine, 629. Sandhurst ~chool of Mines-Mining in Cali­

fOl"llia, 656. South Gippsland Election Petition, 1479. Tariff Revision -Children's Boots and Shoes,

1381; Hedg-ulll Timber, 1468; Maize, 1926; Cast-steel Drills, 1931.

Tolls Bill, 1805. Tree Pla.nting aronnd State Schools, 1375. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1844. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 333, 353,

and 356. Workmen's Lien Bill, 629.

CLARK, Mr. HOBERT (Wimmera) Charitable Iustitutions, 2304. Hailwa.y Reserve~, 21:')7. ~rawell and Horsham Hailway, 1(')99. Water Supply to Country Districts, 2084.

Coliban Water Supply. (See Water Supply.) Colorado Beetle-Question by Mr. Bayles, 1201. Colling\"ood Gas t~ompany's Extension of Powers

Bill-Morion by Dr. Madden, for leave to ('Jerk ot I 'ri vate Bills to prod nce papers betore the Prothonotary, 39; debated 39' debate adjourned, 39; order for resumptio~ of debate discharged, 632. (See M etro­politan Gas Company's Bill.)

Commissions and Boards of Inquiry, Expenses of-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 1622.

Committees (permanent)-Appointed, 68. Committees (select)-Appointed-Elections and

Qualifications Committee, 19; Governor's Spt'ech, 34; Rosstown Junction Railway Bill, 127; Seamen and Shipping Laws. 234; Alma Consols Company, 552; National In­surance Company of Australasia's Exten­sion of Powers Bill, 630; Beechworth vYaterworks Act Amendment Bill, 720; Parliamentary Reports, 948 ; Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 957; Legislative Coun­cil's amendments in }{ailway Construction Bill, 1246 ; Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company's Bill, 1271; Uailway Contracts-remission of fines, 1322; Rail­way Bills Conference, 1859; Address to the Queen, re Political Situation, 2082; Appro­priation Bill, 2349; Address 'to the Gover­nor, l'e action during the crisis, 2412.

Compensation and Gratuities-Vote discussed iu Committee of Supply, 1622. (See Gratuities to Families.)

Condah Swamp, Draina.ge of-Question by Mr. Cope, 1433.

Conference with Legislative Council-Message from Legislative Council, insisting on their amendments ill the Goulburn Valley Rail­way Bill and Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, and inviting a conference, 1819; ques­tion by Mr. Munro, 1837; statement by Mr. Berry, 1837; committee . appointed to confer with committee of Legislati ve Coun­cil, 1859; committee's report brought up, 1919; statement by Mr. 'Woods, re assem­bling of confeL"ence, 2370; question by Mr. Gallnson, 2385; by Mr. F. L. ~myth, 2385; statement by Mr. Woods "that the conference has ended in a failure," 2385; subject debated by Mr. Sharpe, :l387; Mr. Berry, 2388; Mr. Service, 238R ; Mr. Munro, 2389; Mr. A. K. Smith, 2390; Mr. Orr, 2391 ; Mr. F. L. Smyth, 2391; Mr. Purves, 2392; Mr. Gaunson, 23\J4; Mr. Hiehardson, 2397; Mr. Gillies, 2:399; Mr. J. T. Smith, 2401 ; debate terminated, 2401.

Consolidated Hevenue (£710,000) Bill-Brought in by Mr. Berry, and passed through all its stages, 147.

Consolidatp.d Hevenue (£750,000) Bill-Brought in by Mr. Berry, and passed through all its stages, 623-4.

Consolidated Hevenue (£800,000) BiIl---:Bronght in by Mr. Berry, and passed t.hrough all its stages, 1241-2.

Constitution Act, Amendment of-Question by Mr Bird, 356; i\·lr. Berry gives notice of resolutions for a reform of the Constitution, 2158; resolutions withdrawn, 2368.

Contagious Diseases Prevention Bill-Brought in by Mr. Bent, and read first time, 7:20; second reading moved by Mr. Bent, 958 and 1204; Bill discharged from the paper, 1435.

Coode, Sir John. (See Gippsland Lalles; also W arrnambool.)

COOK, Mr. W. M. (East Bourke Boroughs) Coroners' Inquests, 938; Payment of Jurors,

2333. Customs Duties Bill, 1894. Gaol Warders, 647 and 1539.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 21

Corm:, Mr. W. M. (continued)-Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1409 and

1413. Harbour Trust Employes, 1624. North Melbourne Election Petition, 98 and 111. Police, 645. Railway Construction Bill, 202, 293, 314, and

318. Tariff Revision-Earthenware, 1894. Tolls Continuation Bill, 53.

COOPER, Mr. THOMAS (Creswick) Agl'nt-General's Department, 825. Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admission

Bill, 238. Charitable Institutions, 944. City of :\1elbourne Corporation Rating Bill, 466. Creswick Free Library, 933. Election Petitions-Fitzroy, 110; Hodney,

1125. Expenditure under Loans-Water Supply,307. Fencing of Public Hoads, 636. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill,

1280,1282, and 1284. Gold Discoveries - L R. Carter and party, 239. Goulburn Valley Hail way Bill,1423 and 1424. Horticultural Societies, 945 and 1701. Land ~electors Engaged in Trade, 847. Land Selectors and the Banks, 2277. Land Tax Bill, 688, 736, and 745. Liquor Inspectors, 1238. Map of Victoria, 630. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bm, 805, 1267,

and 1342. Mining on . Private Property BiU, 473, 62.j~

627,661, 664,.666,668,754, and 971. Mr. Eaton, 1050. Payment of Members Vote, 1596 and 1606. Payment of Members Bill, 1744. Penal Establishments, 646 and 653. Police, 640, 643, and 644. Police Magistrates, 936. Political Situation-Customs Duties Bill, 1888,

Mr. Berry's Motion re Charges Incidental to the Management of the Revenue, 2216 ; Appr(lpriation Bill (No.2), 2343.

Public Instruction-Education Vote, 1225; Enforcement of the Compulsory Clause, 2050.

Railway Construction Bill, 230, 257, and ::146. Railwa.y Department, 1705; Creswi('k ~tation,

999, 1703, and 2380; Gatekeepers' Cottages, 2366.

Railway Traffic Rates and Land Taxation, 1579.

Hegulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 117, 132, 134, 136, 138, 159 161 163 .323, 325, and 352.

. Secretary for Mines, 1000 State Forests. 181. Statue of the Queen, 1621. Supply Bills, 624. Tariff Hevision-Children's Boots and Shoes,

1377,1380, and 1893; Corks. 1386 ; Ribbons, 1427; Redgum Timber, 1467.

Tolls Bill, 1812. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1857. Volunteer Force, 939, 940, and 942. Voting on Divisions, 1930. War 1'elegrams, 389 and 423. Water Supply to Country Districts, 1998. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 356. Yan Yean Works' and tbe Melbourne Cor­

poration, 1053.

COPE, Mr. THOMAS (Portland) Auction Sales of Agricultural Lands, 124. Coudah Swamp, 1433. Export Duty on Wattle Bark, 1466. Mr. Eaton, 104~. Municipal Rates and Valuations, 1561. Payment of Members, 1673, 1803, and 2000. Railway Construction Bill, 261 and 262. Sherifl"s Department, 935.

Cornsacks. (See Ta."~ff:) Coroners'Inquests-Question by Mr. Bowman,

re p:1.yment of juror", 81; vote for coroners discussed in Committee of Supply, 936; on consideration of report, 1233; question by Mr. Barr, 2146; by Mr. Cook, :.!333.

Corruption, Charges of-Statement by Mr. Gaunson that the late Ministry" lived by corruption," 32; the Speaker calls the honorable member to order, :32; discussion thereon, 32; questioll by Sir Charles Mae Mahon, re Mr. Berry's allegation at a public meeting at Geelong, with reference to "a corrupt Speaker and a COITUpt Chair­man of CommitteeR," 83; statements by Mr. Berry, 83 and 84.

Counts Out-During diRcussion, in Committee of Supply, on vote for Public Library, &c., 748; Oll assembling of House, 9:H and 1230.

County Court JUdges-Question by Mr. King, 1803.

Criminal Cases Appeal Bill-TIrought in by Mr. L. L. Smith, and read first time, i20; seeond reading moved by Mr. L. L. ~mith, 1038; debated by Mr. Grant, 1042; .!\ir. Casey, 104-1; Sir John O'Hhanassy, 1045; Mr. Dwyer, 1045; Mr. :F. L. S,llyt,h, 1046; debate adjourned, 1046; resumed by Mr. :F. L. Slllyth, I:W2; continued by Mr. 1\.er­ferd, 1:203; motion for second reading nega­tived, 1204.

Crisis, The-Mr. Berry intimates (December 20) that the Appropriation Bill has been rejected by the Legislative Council, and moves the adjournment of the Assembly until 5th .February, 1934-9; subject de" bated by :Mr. Giilies, 1939 ; Major Smi th, l!H2; i\lr . .i\\uuro, 1944 ; Mr. 'W oods, 1946 ; 1\11'. Gaunson, 1947; Mr. Bent, 19.t8; .iHr. Dwyer, 1948; motion carril'd, 19.tU; mo­tion by MI'. Berry, re public payments on votes of the Legislative Assembly, 2001 ; debated by Mr. Sillies, 2009; Mr. Lalor, 2014; Sir Juhn O'~hallassy, 2017; i\lr. Service, 2022; ~lr. Dwyer, 202:;; ,\11'. Ramsay, 2028; i'llr. Orr, 2U30; Mr. H. M. Smith, 20:31; i\1r. l\lackay, :2033; 1\11' . Berry's reply, 2036 ; debate continued hy Mr. Purves, :.!040 ; Mr. Williallls, 2043 ; Mr. Bent, 2044 ; motion carried, 2045 ; motion by Mr. Berry for an address to the Queen, "setting forth the present position of afl'airs in Victoria, eaused by the uneonstitutioual action of the LegIslative Coumil in rejl'cting the annual Appropriatiun Bill," ,iU51 ; de­bated by i\lr. Kerferd, 2051 ; Mr. Ni11l1110, 2052 ; Mr. McIutyre, 2()5:3 ; Mr. Barr, 2058 ; amendment by Mr. Servil'e to substitute the words "consequent upon the" for t.he words "caused by the uuconstitutional," 2059; debate coutinued by Mr. Purves, 2059 ; Mr. Bent, 2063 ; Mr. Zox, 2063 j Mr.

22 INDEX.

Crisis, The (continued)-R. Clark (Sandhurst), 2065 ; Mr. Mackay, 2067; Mr. Gaunson, 2069; Sir J obn O'Shanassy, 2076; Mr. Laurens, '2077 ; i\lr. Williams, :2080 ; Mr. Dwyer, 2U81 ; amend­ment negatived, and motion carried, 2082 ; committee appointed to prepare address, 2082 ; address brought up, 2085 ; motion by Mr. Berry for adoption of address, 2087 ; debated by Mr. Gillies, 2087; Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, 2100; Mr. Service, 2105 ; ;vir. Gaunson, 2109; Dr. Madden, 2115 ; Mr. Berry, 2119; Sir John O'Shanassy, 2125 ; ad(lress adopted, 2 1 :;0 ; ordered to be pre­sented to the Governor for transmission to Her Majesty, 2l:30; Mr. Berry gives notice of motion to treat the charges incidental to the collection and management of the revenue as a special appropriation, 2148 ; statement by Mr. Service, 2156; motion submitted, 2165; debated by Mr. Gillies, 2171; :'I1r. Patterson, 2180; Sir John O'Shanassy, 218-l; Sir Bryan O'Logblen, 2189; :Mr. Kerferd, 2191 ; debate adjourned, 2197; resumed by Mr. Dwyer, 2198; con­tinued by Mr. Mackay, 2201 ; Mr. Miraills, 2206; Mr. R. M. Smith, 2211 ; Mr. Cooper, 2216 ; Mr. Lyell, 2220; Mr. Gaunson, 2:221 ; Mr. Carter, 2227; Mr. Dow, 2229; Mr. Laurens, 22~2; Mr. Bent, 2233; motion carried, 2235; JVIr. Bent gives notice of motion for a conference between the two Houses, 2156; motion withdrawn, 2165; Mr. Berry gives notice of resolutions for an alteration of the Constitution Act, 2158 ; resolutions withdrawn, 2368 ; statement by Mr. Lyell of his endeu,vours to "establisb a compromise between the two Houses," 2161 ; statement by Mr. Munro, 2162 ; by Mr. Bprry, 216:3; the political situation debated on the motion "That the House do now adjourn," 2273, 2292, and 2305 ; state­ment by Mr. Berry, re negotiations for a compromise, 2306; by Mr. Richardson, 2::506 ; by Mr. Lyell, 2307 ; motion by Mr. Berry for select committee" to inspect the Minutes of the Legislative Council with rela­tion to flny proceedings upon the Appropri­ation Bill 1877-8," 2334; debated by Mr. Ly(>ll, 2335 ; Mr. Andrew, 2336 ; Mr. Munro, 2:i36 ; Mr. L. L. Smith, 2338 ; Mr. Service, 2338; Mr. R. Clark (Sandhurst), 2340 ; Mr. Uichardson, 2:HO; Sir John O'Shanassy. 2341 ; Mr. F. L. Smyth, 2343; Mr. Cooper, 2343; Mr. Williams, 2345; Mr. Bayles, 2345; Mr. Nimmo, 2:346; Mr. Gaunson, 2346; Mr. Zox, 2348 ; motion carried, 2349 ; committee's report brought up, 2349 ; new Appropriation Bill introduced,2349. (l::iee Appropriation Bill, No.2; also Governor.)

Crown Solicitor. (See Law Department.) Cnmberland Disease-Papers ordered, on motion

of Mr. L. L. Smith, 252 ; produced, 8-l6. (See Stocll Department.)

" Cup" Day, Anjonrnment of the Hons~ for­Question by Mr. Dwyer, 1266 ; motIOn by Mr. Dixon, for adjournment of House over "Cup" day, 1286 ; debated, 1286; a.greed to, 1287 ; question by Mr. L. L. S111lth, 1'e proclamation of "Cup" day as a general holiday, 1287.

Curator of Estates of Deceased Persons-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 939.

Customs Act Amendment Bill-Brought in by Mr. Lalor, and read first and second time, and passed through committee, IS72 ; third reading, 1921.

Customs Department-Question by Mr. A. T. Clark, re stocks in bonn, 60 ; by Mr. Zox, re drawback on children's boots, 2333. (See E3:ports.)

Customs Duties Bill-Brought in by Mr. Lalor, and read first time, 1832 ; resolution affirm­ing the expediency. of consolidating t~e duties of customs 111 one Act, passed III

Committee of Wa.ys and Means, 1858; re­porteu Hnd adopted, IS73; second reading of Bill moved by Mr. Lalor, 1873; debated by Mr. Gillies, 1873 ; Mr. Berry, 1874; Mr. Kerferd, IRi6; Mr. Lalor, 1879; Mr. ~at­terson, 1879; Mr. Mackay, IS82; Mr. Mirams, 1885 ; Mr. Richardson, 1886 ; Mr. Orr, 1887; Mr. Cooper, 1888.; Mr. Gaunson, 1890; Mr. Lyell, 1892; BIll read second time 1893' considered in committee, 1893 and i 923; t'llird reading, 1934. (See Tariff.)

Customs Laws, Breach of-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Tucker, 523 ; produced, 2050 ; ordered to be printed, 2370-1.

DAVIES. Mr. B. G. (The Avoca) Dunoily Free Library, 934. Election of Chairman of Committees, 46. Electoral Act Amendment Bill, 948. Geelong and Colac Hailway, 232. New Land Bill, 339. New Public Offices, 742. Hail way Travelling, li05. Regulation and lnspection of Mines Bill, 326.

DAVIES, Mr. D. M. (Grenville) ]~dueation Vote, 1194. Fencing of Public Roads, 635. Land Selections-Meering, 1170; Moe District,

1579. Mining Leases, 71S. Police and the Franchise, 1037. Rail way Construction Bill, 25S. . Railway Department-Conveyance of Horses,

490 ; Lal Lal Station, 1540 and 1802 ; Pay­ment of Salaries, 1820.

Hailwav Extension to Smythesdale, 1512. Regula"tion and Inspection of Mines Bill, 134. Survey Fees, 1231. Tolls Bill, IS18.

Days of Sitting-Appointed, 61-7. Debates in Parliament, Daily Reports of-Select

committee appointed, on motion of Mr. Hichardson, 948; committee's report brought up, 1673.

Defence of the Colony-Questions by Mr. A. '1'. Clark, re Colonel Scratchley, 3S ; return ordered on motioll of Mr. A. '1'. Clark, 61 ; produc~d, 421 ; question by Mr. ~ox, re Sir 'Villiam Jervois' recommendatIOns, 320; votes for defences discussed in Committee of Supply, 939 and 1073 ; questions by Mr. A. K. Smith, re torpedOeS, 942 and 1233 ; Governor's message transmitting despatch from Secretary of State, 1710 ; question by Mr. L. L. Smith, re single-gun boats, 1838 ; motion by Mr. Dixon, for Captain Mande­ville's report proposed and withdrawn, 2050-1. (See' Forts and Armaments Bill; also Ce1'berus, and Volunteer Fm'ce.)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEl\IBLY. 23

Despatches from Secretary of State for the Co­lonies-Transmitted by the Governor, 1710; presented by command, 1997, 2143, 2354, and ~368.

DHferential Rating Bill-Brought in by Mr. Patterson, and read first time, 1077 ; dis­charged from the paper, Ui! ; new Bill brought in by Mr. Patterson, and read first and second times, 1513-14; considered in committee, 1533·; Mr. Bent intimates that he is determined to obstruct the progress of the Bill, 1535; Mr. Patterson announces that, under the circumstances, he will pro­ceed with the measure no further, 1535.

Diphtheria. (See Greathead's Specific.) Diseases in Stock. (See E:cpiring Law Continu­

ation Bill; also Oumberland Disease, and Stock Department.)

Divisions-In full House-Be election of Chair­man of Committees, 47 ; on second reading of Tolls Continuation Bill, 55 ; on motion for referring petition against Mr. Blackham's return for Sandhurst to Elections Com­mittee, 109 ; on Mr. Service's amendment to Mr. Berry's motion, re qualification of members-Dr. Macartney, 461; on Mr. Service's proposal to add new clause to Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill, 555 ; on second reading of Land Tax Bill, 711; 011 Mr. Nimmo's amendment to Mr. Tucker's motion, re fencing of public roads, 723; on Mr. Berry's motion for adjourn­ment of the House pending consideration by the Legislative Council of the Land Tax Bill, 842 ; on the" previous question," moved by Mr. Mirams,re South Gippsland election peti­tion (No.2), 1481; on Mr. Lalor's motion for referring report on Barwon election petition back to the Elections Committee, 1667 ; on the question that the report on the Burwon election petition" do lie on the table," 1 i 42; on third reading of Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1774; on the question that the Tolls Bill "do pass," 1895 ; on the final stage of the Tolls Bill, 1921 and 1923; on Mr. Berry's motion re public payments on votes passed in Committee of Supply, 2045; on Mr. Berry'S motion for an address to the Queen, re the.political situation, 205~ and 2130 j on Mr. Lyell's motion for pro­duction, at Melbourne General Sessions, of documents rela ting to the West Melbourne election, 2160 j 011 Mr. Berry's motion to treat the charges incidental to the collection and management of the consolidated revenue as a special appropriation, 2235; on Mr. Berry's motion for an address. to the Go­vernor, "thanking him for his impartial and constitutional action during the crisis," 2412; on Mr. :::lervice's motion for pro­duction of documents at the trial of the returning officer for 'Vest Melbourne, 2421.

Divisions - In Committee - On 1st schedule (Melbourne and Oakleigh line) to Hailway Construction Bill, 231; on Mr. Dow's amendment (re St. Arnaud Hailway) on 3rd schedule to Bill, 245 j on Mr. Woods' proposal for substituting amended schedule re Goulburn Valley Railway, 292; on pro­posal re Warrenheip :md Gordons Railway, 318 j on Mr. Carter's proposal to amend clause 8 of Land Tax Bill, 737; on Mr. Berry's proposal for imposing duties on the importation of cornsacks and woolpacks,

Divisions in Committee (continued)-ii2 ; for imposing duty on imported stock, 990 ; for increasillg duty on children's boots and shoes, 1382 ; on Mr. Cook's amendment (re" outer circ.le" line) on clause 3 ofGipps­land Railway Completion Bill, 1413; on Mr. Gillies' amendment to the schedule to the Goulhurn Valley Railway Bill, 1424; on Mr. Lalor's proposal to impose an e:XI>0rt duty on wattle bark, 1466; and to imp9se an export duty on red gum timber~ 14·70 ; on vote for payment of members, 1618 j on vote for compensation to ex-employes in the Dredging department, 1624 j on vote for the widow of the late.Mr. John Hichardson, M.P., 1626; on Mr. Berry's motion p,reliJ)li­nary to the introduction of the Payment of Members Bill, 1744 j on Mr. Purves' amend­ment to limit the Bill to the Legislative Assembly, 17!i8; O.n. Mr. Story's amend­ment (re St. HIlda-road toll) in sehedule to Tolls Bill, 1819 j on MI". Ramsay's proposal to omit the vote for payment of me~llbers from the Appropriation Bill, 1826 ; (In Mr. Duffy's amendment (re Blue Mountain·road toll) in schedule to Tolls Bill, 18:~5 j on Mr. Nimmo's anwndment re tiandridge-road toll, 1835; on Mr. D. Cameron's amendment re Romsey-shire toll, 1836 ; on clauses 3 and 5 of Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1854 and 1857 ; on Mr. Tucker's motion to abolish the duty on maize, 1930; on Mr. Bent's motion to reduce the duty to 6d. per 100Ibs., 1930 ; on :Mr. Gaunson's motion re wattle bark, 1934.

DIXON, ·Mr. E. J. (St. Kilda) Administration of the Land Tax Act, 1619. Barwon Election Petition, 1731. Botanic Gardens and Domain, 1917. "Cup" Day, 1286. Customs Duties Bill, 1925, 1931, and 1934. Defence of the Colony, 2050. Frieildly Societies Laws Amendment Bill, 1283. Friendly Societies Heserves, 1699 and 1700. Liquor Inspectors, 946. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 1267, 1268,

1340, and 1342. 1\'Ir. Bryant Waymouth, 1625. Public Library, &c.-Opening on Sunday, 747. Railway Construction Bill-Melbourne and

Oakleigh line, 2 I 2, 303, 304, and 342. Roads Damaged by Cartage of Hailway

Material, 294. Secretary for Mines, 999. Tariff Revision - ButcherH' Hooks, 1425 j

Leather, 1426 j Wattle Bark, 1462anu 19:34; Hedgum Timber, 1468; Maize, 1925 i Corks, 1931.

Tolls Bill, 1817. Wattle Bark Commission, 2291. Yall Yean Water Supply, 1053.

Dock, Gra.ving-Estimates of expenditure con­sidered in committee, 182 and 18 ....

Dog Act Amendment Bill-Brought in by Dr. Madden, and read first time, 127; dis­charged from the paper, 164; motion by Dr. Madden for leave to introduce new Bill, withdmwn, 632.

Dower Abolition Bill-Brought in' .l?y Mr. Gaunson, and read first time, 554 ; second rEading, 1435-7 ; eonsidered in cOIUmittee, l435-i ; third reading, 1553.

24 INDEX.

Dow, Mr. J. L. (J(ara J(ara) Acclimat.isatioll of South European Industries,

11177. Customs Dnties BiIl-:\Taize, 1925 and 1927. Election Petitions-Rodney, 11:0; Harwon,

1665 and. 1 H 1. Expiring Law (Diseases ill Stock) Continua-

tion Bill, 1516. Feneing of Public Hoads, 93. Governor's Speech. 20 and 34. Land ~electors and the Banks, 2271 and 2276. Llt'ld Tax Bill, 700. 1\1 r. Gillies. 1665. Mr. Ogier, P.M., 1170. New Railways-Dunolly and St. Arnaud,

::;tawell and Horsham, 2292. Qualifi.:ation of Members-Dr. Macartney,

410. Payment of Members, 1614. l'olitical Hituation-;\lr. Derry's Motion re

Charges Incidental to the Management of the Hevenue, 2229; Appropriation Bill (No.2), :!S54.

Rai way Construction Bill, 176, 179, 239, and :!61.

Scab Prpvention and Diseases in Stock, 827 and 848.

Tillis Bill, 1816. Vine ()isea~es Er::tclication Bm, 1852 and] 855. West .Mel bourne Election, 2000.

Drawhacks. (See Expil in,Q Law Continuation Bii!; also Cuslom.~ IJL'partfllellt.)

Dred):!,ing Depart.ml'nt, Ex-employes of-State­nH'llt hy Mr. Purves, I fi9U; vote for COIII­

pensafiou discussed in Committee of ::;up­ply, 16~4.

Drysdale Jetty-Question by Mr. Levien, 945.

DUFFY, Sir CHARLES GAVAN (N. Gippsland) Ell-ction III' :--peaker. 6. Mr. Purves and the Speaker, 1739 alld 2041. Mr. G. Par!)11 Smith aUlI rhe ~peakt'r, 1251. Per,.;onal Exp;anatiotl-Case of Wee church,

658. Vaca,lIcies in a new Parliament-Issue of

Writs, 18. (Congratulated on being created a

K.C.M li., HI23.) (~ee The Hon. the :::''pealler.)

DUFFY, Mr. J. GAVAN (Dulhollsie) Ahorigines, 9:~:3. Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admission

Uill, 167, 2:35, and :!37. Civil Servants-l{emuneration in addition to

::;alary, 992. Friendly f:5ocieties Reserve~, 1 iOO. Insolvency Statute Amen(iment Bill, 1550. I:nprovement of the Goulburn, 1 i02. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

128 and 164. Land Tax Bill, 736. Mr. Cashel Hoey, 1207. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1555, 1557, and

1:359. Payment of Members Bill, ] i58. "Public Instruction-Education Vote, 1103

and 1105. Publi(' 'W orks De"(lartmcnt - Accouutant's

Salary, 1046. . Qualification of Memuei.'s-·l~r. ~racartney,

.. l:!5. Railway Construction TIm, 205/ 260, and 291.

DUFFY, Mr. J. GAVAN (continued)-}bilway Department-Lighting. &c., of Car­

riag-es, 994; Secrp.tar,Y for Railways, 1704. Hailway Loan Account Application Bill, 1 i65. H.lJgulatioll and Inspection of Mines Bill, 327

and 329. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of Sitting,

64; Private Members' Business, 67. Telegraph Extension to Trentham, 992. The Nelson, 1581. Tolls Bill, 1833. . University Act Amendment Bill, 80. Vine Diseases Eradication liill, 1842, 1852,

and 18;')8. War Telegrams, 82.

Dunolly and St. Arnaud Railway-Question by Mr. Dow, 2292.

DWYER, Mr. JERElI1IAH (Villiers and Heytesbury) Appro])riation Bill, 1825. Civil Sen ice- Competitive Appointments,

1O:~7 ; Pl'Oll1otiOIlS, 10-16; Salaries, 2-127. Criminal Cases Appeal Bill, 1045. Crown Solicitor, 1076, 1288, and 1920. c. Cup" Day, 1266. . Dower Abolition Bill, 1437. Drafting Bills, 1046. Education Vote, 1189. Election l'etitions- South Gippsland, 401,

1869,1870, and 2422; Rooney, 1116,1118, 11:34, and 1145; Barwon, 1663.

Fencing of Public Boads, 92, 726, 1438, and :W51l.

FeTer at Toorak, 2379. Forts alld Armaments Bill, 1522. IlItE'rnational Exhibitions Bill, 1485 and 1486. Lake Bolac Post-office, 1920. Land Tax Bill, 70 I and 718. Law Dt:!partment-Officers' Salaries, 1004,

1265, 1::!88, 1375, and 1433. Law Heform, 1037. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 330. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 719 and

1342. Mining on Private Property Bill, 483. 1\1 r. Jeremiah Hyan, 848. l'ayment of Members, 1684. l'olitical Situation-Hejection of the Appro­

priation Bill by the Legislati ve Council, 1948; Public Payments on Votes of the Assembly, 2025; Address to the Queen, 2U81 ; Mr. Berry's Motion re Charges Inci­dental to the Management of the l{evenue, 2198.

Port Campbell, 2380. l'ostal Department, 991. Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney,

401. Railway Construction Bill, 178, 227, and 350. Railway Contracts-Hemission of Fines, 1864

and 1866. Railway Department - Gatrkeepers' Wages,

2366; Hell10val of Railway Guards, 2367. Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1773. Hegulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 329. Supreme and County Courts Procedure Bill,

1038. Tax on Imported Stock, 983, 984, and 990. 'roll Bills, 18:36. " Unopposed" "lotions, 1288 and 1291. Ville Diseases Eradication Bill, 1843 and 1856. Warrnambool Harbour ImprQnmellts, 1055

and Wi~.

LEGI::iLATIVE AHSEnIBLY. 25

Eaton, Mr.-Case of-Question by Mr. 13arr, 932; further question, 1046; statement by Mr. Patterson, 1047; discussion thereon, 1048; petition presented, 1 :288; motion by Mr. Barr for address to Governor "request­ing that a sum be placed upon an Additional EE:timate for the purpose of reimbursing Mr. Eaton for losses incurred through his dismissal fr0111 the public service," 1438; seconded by Mr. Sainsbury, 1440; debated by Mr. Patterson, 144U; Mr. Macgregor, 1442; Mr. Tytherleigh, 1443; Mr. t)ervlCe, 1443; Mr. Richardson, 1448; Mr'. Kerferd, 1451; Mr. Mirams, 1453; Sir John O'Shan­assy, 1454; Mr. Zox, 14fl5; Mr. Berry, 1455; motion withdrawn, 1457.

Education. (See Public Instruction.) Eight Hours Anniversary-Questions by Mr.

Langridge, re propriety of proclaiming public holiday, 60 and 2368.

Election Petitions-Presentation of, announced, 18; the Speaker's warrant appointing the Elections and Qualifications Committee produced, 19; motion by Dr. Macartney" disapproving of appointment of Mr. Dwyer, submitted and withdrawn, 69; motion by Mr. Gaunson, declaring the Speaker's war­rant to be null and void, 69; debated by Sir John O'Shanassy, 72; Mr. Casey, 74; Mr. Berry,77; Mr. Bent, 78; Mr. Lalor, 79; negatived, 80; motion by Mr. Levien, disap­proving of appointment of Mr. Lalor, 80; lapsed for want of a seconder, 80; members of committee sworn, 84; motion by Mr. Berry for referring petitions to committee, 95; debate adjourned, 95; motion for refer­ring ~andhurst petition to committee, pro­post'd and negatived, 98-109; other petitions referred to committee, I II. (t)ee Barwon Election Petilion; also Bourke Sou/h, Fitz­ruy. Grenville, Gippsland Suuth, Melbourne North, Uodne.y, Sandlwrst, and Wimmera.)

Elections Committee, Proceedillgs of- Question by Mr. Bent, re adjournment of eommittee sine die, 1581; statt-ment by Mr. Berry, re Mr. Service, 1642; statement by Mr. Purves, re Mr. Lalor, 1738-40.

Elections General-Cost of-Question by Mr. Graves, 1862. '

Election, Writs of-Statement by the Speaker, re issue of writs for vacancies in the new Parliament caused by change of Ministry, 18; question by Mr, Casey, 97.

Electoral Act Amendment Bill-Brought in by Mr. Munro, and read first time, 121; dis­charged from the paper, 949; question by Mr. Graves, re amendment of the electoral law, 2384.

Electoral Boundaries-Question by Dr. Macart­ney, re Gippsland and Mornington, 1709.

Electoral I listricts, Divisions of-Question by Mr. MacPherson, 421.

Electoral Returns - Ordered, on motion of Mr. R. Clark (Sandlzurst), 423; produced, 796.

Electoral Holls-Question by Mr. Hunt, re print­ing, 146; by Mr. Barr, re remuneration for compilation, 587.

Electors' Hights-Question by Mr. A. K. Smith, re issue of electors' rights to blind men, 23i7.

Emerald Hill-Question by Mr. Nimmo, 1'e salt­water baths, 38; re drainage of low-lying lands, 181.

Engineer-in-Chief of Railways and the Chief Secretary-Statement by Mr. Berry, 295; by Mr. Wooos, 329.

Estimates brought down-Estimates of ex­penditure for 1877-8, 143; estimates of re­venue and further estimates of expenuiture, 48!.1; second further estimates of expendi­ture, 1540; third further estimates of ex­penditure, 158u.

Exhibitions. (See In/ernalional E.r:hillitions Bill.) Expiring Law (Diseases in ~tock) Continnation

Bill-Brought in by MI'. Berry, and read first time, 1481; second readJllg, 1516-19; passed through remaining stages, 1519.

Expiring Law (Drawbacks) Continuation Bill­Governor's message brought down, 1803; resolution for an appropriation passed in committee, 1803; resolution reported and adopted, 1803; Bill brought in and read first time, 1803; second reading, 1833; passed through remaining stages, 1934.

Expiring Law (Fences) Continuatioll BiII­Brought in by MI'. Berry, and reau first time, 1481; passed through remaining stages, 1520.

Explosive Substances Bill-Motion by Major Smith, for considering in committee the law relating to explosive suhstances, agreed to, 490; resolutions affirming the desirability of amending the law. passed in committee. 669; reported and adopted, 6(i9; Bill brought in, and read first time, 669; read second time, and passed througlt committee, 1492; third readiDg, 1514-15; returned from Legisla­ti ve Council, with amendments, 1710; amendments adopted, 1759.

Export Duties. (See Tariff) Exports-Question by ~ir John O'Shanassy, re

export of Victorian products, 38; return ordered, on motion of ~il' John O'Shanassy, 61; produced, 121 and 1202; return '1'e ex· ports and imports of flour and wheat ordered, on motion of Mr. Munro, 340; produced, 5~2. (See III/ports.)

Extradition Bill-Brought in by Mr. Berry, and read first time, 19; passed th rough relwtining stages, 1492; verbal amendments recom­mended by Governor's message, agreed to, 1803.

Factories-Question by Mr. Bird, re violation of Factory Act, 1375; by Mr. Sharpe, re ju venile labour in factories, 1512.

Farming Improvements, Compensation for­Question by Mr. Levien, 553.

FARRELL, Mr. JAlIIES (Castlernaine) Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 356.

Fences. (See Expi1'ing Law Continuation Bill.)

FERGUSSON, Mr. JAMES (S. Bourlle) Breach of Customs Laws, 23i I. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

467. Customs Duties Bill-Maize, 1927. Differential Rating Bill, 1535. Friendly Societies' Reserves, I iOO. International Exhihitions Bill, 1487 and 16i2, Land Tax Bill, 731. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 3.'32. Mr. Purves and Mr. Fergusson, 2065.

26 INDEX.

FERGUSSON, Mr. JAlIIES (continued)­Oakleigh and IHulgrave Roads, 293. Payment of Members Bill, 1754. Police, 612. Sharks, 932. Tolls Continuation Bill, 7 and 53. White Horse Hoad, 1745.

Fergusson, Mr. W. M.-Case of-Question by Mr. Bayles, 1513.

Fieldhouse, Mr. Samuel~Case of-Motion by Mr. Tytherleigh for select committee, 1553; debated, 1554; withdrawn, 1555.

Finance-Sir James McCulloch and Mr. Service -Statements by Mr. Service, 568,617, and 619; by Sir James McCulloch, 616 and 618.

FINCHAlII, Mr. G. R. (Ballarat West) Christmas Holidays, 1917. Export Duty on Wattle Bark, 1461. Express Trains, 84fi. Locomotives for the Moama and Deniliquin

Hailway, 144. Mining on Private Property Bill, 966. Railway Construction Bill, 174, 176, and 242. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Hill, lIS,

136, 139, 140, 159, 162, 321, 3~6, and 32S. Tolls Bill, 1818. South Gippsland Election Petition, 37;3. University Examinations, 2049. Volunteer Force-Captain Greenfield, 1918. Water Supply to Country Districts, 308.

Fishing, Deep Sea-Question by Mr. Levien, 1037.

Fitzroy Election Petition-Petition against Mr. Macgregor's return presented, 18 ; referred to Elections Committee, III ; committee's report-declaring Mr. Macgregor "d uly elected"-brought up, 142; further report, 52~.

Forests, State. (See State Forests.) Forts and Armaments Bill-Governor's message

brought down, 1231; considered in com­mittee, 1376 ; resolution for an appropria­tion " for the purposes of a Bill for defraying the expense of constructing and providing forts and armaments" proposed by Mr. Berry and agreed to, 13i6; reported and adopted, 1429; Bill brought in, and read first time, 1429; second reading, 1520; con­sidered in comillitt~e, 1521 ; third reading, 1522.

Fraser, Donald-Case of-Discussed in con­nexion with vote for Customs department, 1234; question by Mr. Nimmo, 1703.

FRASER, Mr. SIlIION (Rodne.1J) Export Duty 011 Redgum Timber, 1468 and

1470. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1415, 1422, and

1424. Loans among Civil Servants, 463. Mr. Gaunson, 292. Railway C0nstruction Bill, 230, 260, and 276.

Free Libraries-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 933; in committee on the Appro­priation Bill, 1826.

Freestone [!'Om Mount Abrupt-Question b'y Mr. Bayles, 143. (Se~ SUP?'c7(le Court.)

Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill-Ques­tion by Mr. Bird, 232 ; Bill brought in by Mr. Berry, and read first time, 523 ; second reading, 1274; considered hi 'committee, 1280, 1430, and 1492; third readi~g, 1515; returned from Legislative Cou,ncil with amendments, 1581; amendmen~$ adopted, ] 699; formal amendment, recommended by Goyernor's message, agreed to, ISQ3 .. ,

Friendly Societies Reserves-Papers ordered, on Illotion of Mr. Tucker, 1481; produced, 1578; subject of the propriety of. the re­serves on Emerald Hill reverting to' the State discussed in Committee of Supply, 1699.

Gaol Warders, Pay of-Subject discu~sed in connexion with vote for penal ,establish­ments, 647; question by Mr. Cook, ,'J539. (See Penal Establishments.)

GAUNSON, Mr. DAVID (Arar~t) _, Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admission

Bill, 236 and 238. • ' Beechworth Rate Validating Bill, 2371. Beechworth Waterworks Act Arqendment

Bill, 631 and 932. Blind Asylum, 847. Breach of Customs Laws, 2371. Budget, 579 and 580. , Chairman of Committees, 39, 40, and 42. Charges of Corruption, 32 and~3. " Chevalier Bruno, 1560. . Contagious Diseases Prevention Bill, } 4,35. Coroners' Inquests, 93S. Criminal Cases Appeal Bill, 720. Crown Solicitor, 1292. "Cup" Day, 1287. Deniliquin Railway, 2424. Dower Abolition Bill, 554, 1435,""1436, and

1553. Elections Committee-The Speaker'~ War-

rant, 69, 79, and 80. , Election Petitions-Sandhurst, 95, 96, and 98 ;

South Gippsland, 357, 359, 363, 36,5,,369, 1473, and 1871; Rodney,'587, 718, '1114, 11l7, 1119, 1133, 1I38, II 441 and )146; Barwon, 1641,1654,1712, and,1716 ...

Electoral Act Amendment Bill, 949. Expenditure under Loans-Water Supply,

308. ' Expiring Law (Diseases in Stock) Continua­

tion Bill, 1517 and 1519. Fencing of Public Roads, 94, 559, 589, and

725. ' Free Libraries, 1827. , Friendly Societies Laws Amendment BilJ,

1280. Governor's Speech, 32 and 34. International Exhibitions Bill, 1484. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment, EilI,

165 and 555. Lands Department-Complaints against ~ Se.

lectors, 522; Peter MCArthur's Case, 797, 1201,1250, 1254, 1271,1522, 1533, 1539, and

, 1540. Land Tax Bill, 682; 707, 739, 740, and 745. Liquor Inspectors, 1289. ,':', ' • Memhers and their Places in. the; Rouse, 467

and 468. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 719, 806,

1269, and 1342. Mining on Private Property Bill, 486, 666,

668, 757, 970, and 974.

LEGISLA.TIVE ASSEMBLY. 27

GAtJNSON, Mr. DAVID (continued)-Mr. Samuel Fieldhonse, 1553 and 1554. Mr. Gaunson anti the Hobson's Bny Railway

Company,3U. Mr. Gillies, 1249, 1253, and 1255. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1557 and 1558. Mr. Ramsay and Mr. Gannsoo, 1255. Newspaper Comments on Proceedings in Par-

liament, 319. Parliament-Dr. Macartney's Qualification,

453; Framing of the Notice-paper, 1254; Private Membcrs' Business, 1"272; The Speaker and Motions for Adjournment, 1291; "Unopposed" Motions, 1:!90, 129:!, and 1344.

Parliamentary Costs Bill, 670. Passengers, Harbours, and Navigation Statute

Amendment Bill, 1873. Payment of Members, 1547, 1598, 1693, and

1697. Payment of Witnesses, 935. Penal Establishments, 649. l'etitioIl1'e "Onter Circle" Railway, 2385. Political Situation-Customs Duties Bill, 1890;

Rejection of the A ppropriation Bill by the Legislative Council, 1947 and 1948; Address to the Queen, 2069 and 2109; Mr. Berry's Motion re Charges Incidental to the Man­agement of the Hevenue, 2221; Adjourn­ments of the House, 2275; Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2346; The Governor's Action, 2413.

Postal Department-Promotions, 1703; Re-duction of Postage, 149::1 and 1545.

Prospecting, 1707, 1828, and 2334. Public Library, &c.-Opening on Sunday, 747. Railway Bills COl1ierenee, 2385 and 2394. Rail way Construction Bill, 179, 245, 291, and

311; Legislative Council's Amendments, 1 '145.

Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1249, 1250. 1253, and 1254.

RaHway Department-'Vants of Ararat and Kiora, 1704; Tree Plan~ing along Railways, 1705.

Railway Loan Account Application Bill. 1774. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 141

and 328. Sandridge Bend, 1702. Secretary for Mines, 1000. Sheep frOID Tasmania, 933 and 1202. l:-iir John O'Shanassy and Mr. Gaumon, 2188. Sir John O'Shanassy and the Speaker, 1252. Sorrento, 2334. Supreme Court Procedure Simplification Bill,

2000. Tariff Hevision-Drugs, 1384; Earthenware,

&c., 1385;" CorkR, 1386; Saddle-trees, 1388; W"attle Bark, 1463 and 1932; Redgum Tim~ ber, 1469; Bottled Beer, 1893; Children's Boots and Shoes, 1893; Iron Pipes, 1931.

The Speaker and Mr. Purves, 1738. The Stevenson Case, 1872. Tolls Continuation Bills, 54, 1818, 1895, and

1921. "Travelled" Members, 304. Wangaratta and Beechworth Railway, 424. 'Var Telegrams, 82. Wattle Trees, 522. West Melbourne Election, 2144, 2160, and

2420. Vehicles in Public Parks, 1491. Vine Diseases lTIradication Bill, 1844, 1849,

1853, 1854, 1856, and 1858.

Geelong and Colac Railway, Opening of-Ques­tion by Mr. Levien, 232; by Mr. B. G. Davies, 232; by 1\[r. Bowman, 232.

Geelong Water Supply. (See Water Supply.) General Sessions-Address to Governor" pmy­

ing that courts of general sessions may be held at Benalla and "Wangaratta," adopted, on motion of Mr. Grant, 1065.

GeOlogical Survey- Question by Mr. Kcrnot, 1000.

GILLIES, Mr. DUNCAN (Rodney) Answering Questions, 320. Chevalier Bruno. 1559. Customs Duties Bill, 1873. Election of Speaker, 6. Election of Chairmau of Committees, 43. Elections Committee-The Speaker's War-

rant, i7. Election Petitions-South Gippsland, 1479

and 1870; Barwon, 1652 and 1720. Export Duties-W nttle Bark and Rcdgum

Timber, H66 nnd 1470. Fencing of Public Roads, 87 and 93. Forts ann Armaments Bill, 1521. Gippsland Hailway-Melbourne and Oakleigh

:::lection, 24~2. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1414 and 1419. Internntional Exhibition, 1066. La'nd rl'ax Bill, 690, 696, 743, 744, 758, 763,

and 841 ; Administration of the Land Tax Act, 1619 and 1621.

La.nds Department- Peter McArthur's Case, 1529 and 1540.

Melbourne Market Site Bill, 331. Mines Drainage Law Amendment Bill, 1833. Mining on Private Property Bill, 476, 624,

662, 665, 666, 754, 756, 964, and 968. Mr. Dow and. Mr. (3illies, 1666. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1559. Mr. Lalor and Mr. Gillies, 2016. Mr. Lalor and Mr. Purves, 206:3. Mr. Mimms and Mr. Gillies, 2201. Payment of Members Bill, 1 H3 and 1744. Political Situation-Rejection of the Appro-

priation Bill by the Legislative Council, 1939; Public Payments on Votes of the Assembly, 2009; Address to the Queen, 2082 and 2087; 1\[1'. Berry's Motion re Charges Incideptal to the Management of the Revenue, 2171; Adjournments of the House, 2293; The Governor's Action, 2409 and 2413.

Privileges of the Legislative Assembly, 1934. Public Instruction-School Book s, 121; Tem­

porary Clerical Assistance, 1622. Railway Bills Conference, 2387 and 2399. Rai.lway Construction Bill, 1:25, 157, 158, 174,

247,259,268, and 293 ; Legislative Council's Amendments, 1018.

Railway Contracts-Remission of Fines, 1918. Railway Department-Saturday Excursion

Tickets, 1673. Railways Authorized under the Act of 1877-8, "

1376. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 133,

135, 136,138, 141, 160,326,328, and 1429. Repetition of Private Conversations, 194:5. Roads at Brandy Creek, 120. Sessional Arrangements-Hour of Meeting,

8l. Supply-Votes on Account, 623. Tolls Continuation Bills, 50, 1817, a,nd 2083. Vine Diseases Eracliclttion Bill, 1852.

28 INDEX.

GILLIES, Mr. DUNCAN (continued)­Warrnambool Harbour fmprovements, 1069. vVest Melbourne Swamp, 1072 and 2291. White Horse l~oa(), 1397.

(Unseated on petition, 1146 j iutroduced on re-election, 1336.)

Gippsland r~akes, Entrance to-Questions by Mr. F. L. Smyth, re tele!!raph extension, 99:3 and 1076 ; re visit of Sir John Coode, 1433, 1999, and 2146; statement by Mr. Patterson, 2146; by M.1". McIntyre. 2147; further question by Mr. F. L. Smyth, 21U7 ; question by Mr. Kerferd, 2198:

Gippsland "Iails-Questiolls by Dr. Macartney, 1077 and 1287.

Gippsland, Public Works in-Questions by Dr. Macartney, 2148.

Gippsland Railway-Question by Mr. F. L. Smyth, re ~Ielbourne and Oakleigh section, 38; by Dr. Macartney, re Bunyip, Moe. and Morwell sections, 143; statement by Mr. Service,1'e proposal to carry Melbourne and Oakleigh section through the Domain and Bot.anic Gardens, 295; discussion thereon, 295 ; question hy lvlr. L. L. Smith, re Oak­leigh station, 320 ; by Mr. F. L. Smyth, re Morwell to Moe, 489, 1169,and 1433; state­ment by i\oIr. Woods, 489 ; question by I>r. Macartney,1'e Oak leigh and Bunyip section, 796 ; re goods shed at Bunyip st1trion, 1037 ; re engineering staff at Moe, 1065 ; re con­veyance of mails, 1077; by Mr. F. L. Smyth, re Stde station, 1169; by Dr. Macartney, re Morwell and Moe section, 1579; by Mr. F. L. Smyth, re cutting of track from main road to Noonan's section, 1820, 18:31, and 1862; by Mr. Nimmo, re Drouin West sral iOIl, 1998; by Mr. F. L. ~myth, l'e opening of line, 1998; re Oakleigh station, 2269; by Mr. Purves, re closing of line during winter, 2:333; motion by Mr. F. L. Smyth, authorizing the extension of the "Gippsland Rail­way from the Oakleigh terminus to a point on a practicable road," 2421; ruled out of order, 2422. (See Enginee1'-in-Cluef)

Gippsland Hailway Completion Bill-Brought in by Mr. Berry, and read first time, 1286 ; second reading, 1407-8; considered in com­mittee, 1408; third reading, 1413 ; returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 1548; amendments disagreed with, 1774. (~ee Railway Construction Bill; also Con­ference.)

Gippsland (~outh), Hepresentation of-Petition against Dr. Macartney's return presented, 18 ; referred to Elections Committee, III ; committee's report - declaring that Dr. Maeartneyat the time of his election was disqualified- brought up, 357; debated, 357; motion by Mr. Gaunson, declaring that Dr. Macartney was not disqulllified, and referring the petition back to the com­mittee, 359-6.'3; debated, 363; "previous question" moveu by Mr. Mirams, 3G9 ; car­ried, 374 ; Dr. :Macartney's re-election an­nounced, 624; Dr. Macartney introduced and sworn, 624 ; petition against Dr Mac­artney's return pre:;ented, 932 ; motion by Mr. Bent for referring petition to Elections Committee, 1472-3 ; opposed by Mr. Berry, on the ground that the petition contained clauses alleging the sitting member to be a

G ippsl and (South), Representation of (contin ued)­minister of religion, 1473; subject debated, 1-174; Mr. Bent offers to withdraw the objec­tionable clauses, 1477 ; " previOUs question" moved by Mr. l\Jirams, 1478 j carried, 1481 j

motion by Mr. Bent for referring petition (minus paragraphs 5, 6, and 7) to Elections Committee, agreed to, 1541 ; motion by Mr. Bent for calling committee together, 1581 ; debated, 1581 ; withdrawn, 1582; question by Mr. Bent, 1819; letter from the peti­tioner (Mr. F. C. Mason) asking leave to withdraw the petition, together with the deposit accompanying it, 1832 ann 1869; motion by ;\1r. Uwyer for return of deposit, 187U; debated, 1870; agreed to, 187:.!; motion by Mr. Dwyer for making provision to reimburee the petitioner and the sitting member their taxed costs, proposed and withdrawn, 2422. (See Members, CJ.ualifi­cation of)

Gold Discoveries-Papers re L. R. Carter Rnd party ordered, on motiou of Mr. Cooper, 239 ; produced, 264. (See Prospecting.)

Gold in the Treasury Unclaimed - Retul'll ordered, on motion of Mr. Bowman, 1561 ; produced, 1582.

Gold-saving Machine-Question by Mr. L. L. Smith, 796.

Goulburn, Clearing of the-Question by Mr. Hunt, 1059; vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 1702.

Goulburn Valley Hailway Bill-Brought in by Mr. Berry, and read first time, 1286; second reading moved by Mr. Berry, 1413; debated by Mr. Gillies, 1414; Mr. Hunt, 1414; Mr. Ifraser, 1415; Mr. Sharpe. 1416 ; Mr. Long­more, 1416; 1\Jr. Kerferd, 1417; Mr. Orr, 1418; mIl read second time, 1419 j con­sidered in committee, 1419 ; third reading, 1424-5; returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 1548; amendments dis­agreeri with, li74. (See Railway Construc­tion Bill; also Conference.)

Government Advertising-Question by Mr. Zox, re withdrawal of advertisements from the Daily Telegraph, 1837; by Mr. McIntyre, 1838; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Mirams, 2165; produced, 2304.

Government Appointments-Motion by Mr. King for return, 68; debated, 68; post­poned, 69 ; discharged from the paper, 84; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Bowman, 85 ; produced, 421. (See Civil Servants.)

Government Contracts-Question by Mr. Bell, re provision for arbitration in cases of dis­pute, 1999; by Mr. Tucker, "e Victorian manufactures, 2376 ; by Mr. L. L. Smith, 2:-176 ; by Mr. Service, 2376. (See Railway Contracts. )

Government House, Construction of-Motion by .Mr. McIntyre for papers, 1'e brickwork, pro­posed and withdrawn, 1998.

Governor, His Excellt:'ncy the (Sir George Fer· gilson Bowen, G.C.M.G.)-Motion by Mr. Dow for address in reply to speech, 20; seconded by Mr. Macgregor, 23; debated by Sir John O'Shal1assy, 27; Mr. Hamsay, 27; Major Smith, 29; Mr. Levien, 31 ; Mr. Gaunson, 32; motion agreed to, and committee appointed to prepare address, 34 ; address brought up, 34 ; adopted, 35 ; His Excellency's answer, 57; motion by Mr. Berry for committee to draw up an

LEGISLATtVE ASSEIIIBLY. 29

Governor, His Excellency the (continued)­address to His Excellency" thanking him for his impartial and constitutional action during the crisis," 2401; debated by Mr. Gillies, 2409 ; carried, 2412 ; address brought up, 2412; motion by Mr. Berry for adop­tion of address, 2412; debated by Mr. Gillies, 2413; Mr. Gaunson, 2413; Mr. Mackay, 2413; address adopted, 2416; His Excellency's reply, 2426.

Governor's Messages-Transmitting Estimates, 143, 489, 1540, and 1580; re Land Tax Bill, 679 and 1004- ; re International Exhibitions Bill, 1231 ; re Forts and Armaments Bill, 1231 ; re Railway Loan Account Applica­tion Bill, 1472; transmitting despatches from Secretary of State, re defence of the colony, and titular distinction of retired judges of the Supreme Court, 1710; re Payment of Members Bill, 1742; re Ex­piring Law (Drawbacks) Continuation Bill, 180a; re Friendly Societies Laws Amend­ment Bill, 1803; re Extradition Bill, 1803 ; intimating that he has given the Roy~l assent to cel'tain Bills, 1997 and 2198; transmitting Viscount Canterbury's unpub­lished despatches, 2273.

GRANT, Mr. J. M., Minister of Justice (The Avoca)

Adjournment of the House pending elections consequent on cha.nge of Ministry, 7.

Amendment of the Juries Statute, 2158 .. Appropriation Bill, 1831. Art Unions, 1580. Beechworth Waterworks Act Amendment

Bill, 553. Civil Sen ants-Remuneration in addition to

Salary, 992 and 2427. Collingwood Gas Company's Extension of

Powers Bill-Taxation of Costs, 39. Contagious Diseases Prevention BIll, 957. Coroners' Inquests, 81, 938, 2146, and· 2333. Criminal Cases Appeal Bill, 720 and 1042. Crown Solicitor, 1076 and 1920. Customs Act Amendme~t Bill, 1921. Death of Viscount Canterbury, 36. Drafting Bills, 934. Dower Abolition Bill, 1436. Election of Speaker, 3 and 6. Election of Chairlllan of Committees, 43 and 46. Election Petitions-Sandhurst, 101; Rodney,

1115; South Gippsland, 1478 and 1872; Barwon, 1661.

Electors' Rights-Blind Men, 2378. Extradition Bill, 1492. Fencing of Public Roads, 172 and 726. Frank Spearin, 1064. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill, 1281,

1283, and 1284. General Sessions at Benalla and Wangaratta,

1065. Insolvency Statute Amendment Bill, 1514,

1549, and 1550. International Exhibitions Bill, 1550. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

127 and 555. Land Tax Bill, 682, 683, 733, 734, 736, 741,

742, 745, and 753. Law Heform, 1037. Leave to a Member to attend before Legisla­

tive Council, 560. Life-sentence Prisoners, 7, 1037, 1432, 1803,

and 1921.

GRANT, Mr. J. M. (continued)-Magistrates-Conduct of a Magistrate at

Rochester, 5S6 ; Police :\'rngistrates, 9:36 and 1918; Mr. Ogier, P.M., 1170; Appointment of Magistrates in the Wimment District, 1635; Marysville and Gobur, 1753; Travelling Expenses of Stipendiary Magistrates, 1753; Direction re Previous Convictions of Pri­soners, 2158.

Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 9.'>6. Mines Drainage Law Amendment IHII, 1520. Mining on Private Property Bill, 382, 472, 667,

i 56, 965, 976, and 1005. Mr. T. H. Budden, 1625. Mr. Eaton, 144-l. Order of Business, 955. Parliamentary Costs Bill, 390, 669, 670, 763,

and 964. Passengers, Harbours, and Navigation Statute

Amendment Bill, 1873 and 19:H. Payment of Witnesses, 936. Police Offences Statute Amendment Bill, 1207. Political Situation-Passing of the Payment

of Members Bill, 2349. Privileges of the Legislative Assembly, 1748. }'ublicans'Licences, 1674. Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney,

399. Railway Construction Bill, 125, 178, 230;

Legislatiye Council's Amendments, 1030. Registrar of Probates, 935. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 132,

135,137.138,140,159,160,162,327, and 329. Roads at Brandy Creek, 120. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of Sitting, 63. Sheriff's Department, 935. Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Procedure

Bill, 622. The Cardiganshire, 2381. Tolls Continuation Bill, 7 and 52. " Unopposed" Motions. 1290. Vine Disea.ses Eradication Bill, 1846. West Melbourne Election, 2416.

Grantville, Jetty at-Question by Mr. Purves, 1702.

Gratuities to Families of Deceased Public Ser­vants-Question by Mr. Macgregor, 935; vote dis(!ussed in Committee of Supply, 944. (See Compensations and Gratuities.)

GRAVES, Mr. J. H. (Delatite) Amendment of the Electoral Act, 2384. Auriferous Land, 390. Cost of General Elections, 1862. Dismissed Civil Servants, 2083. Euroa Railway Station, 1921. Fencing of Public Roads, 558 and 796. Land Tax Bill, 712. Personal Explanation, 796. . Scab Prevention and Diseases in Stock­

Charge on Stock, 422; Inspectors, 826. South Gippsland ]~lection Petition, 1479. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1856 and 1872.

Gray, Mr. Wilson (The late)-Motion by Mr. Duffy, declaring that" the disinterested and distinguished services of the late Mr. Wilson GrM'are entitled to the grateful recognition of this House," and recommending an ex­penditure of £300 for a portrait, 1555; debated, 1557; motion, amended by the omission of reference to portrait, agreed to, 1559 ..

80 INDEX.

Greathead's Specific for Diphtherin. and Scarlet Fever-Question by Mr. J. T. Smith, 1472.

Grenville Election Petition-Petition against Mr. D. M. Davies' retUTn presented, 18; referred to Elections Committee, III ; com­mittee's report-declaring Mr. Davies" duly elected"-brought up, 203.

Ransard - Question by Mr. Bird, 587. (See Debates in Parliament.)

Harbour, Safety of the-Question by Mr. J. T. Smith, re night signals from steam-ships, 2292.

Harrietville and Omeo Road-Question by Mr. Hillson, 264.

Hoey, Mr. Cashel-Case of-Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. Duffy, 1207; produced, 1406.

Holidays to Public Servants-Question by Mr. Fincham, 1917; by Mr. Dixon, 1917.

Horticultural Societies-Votes discussed in Committee of Supply, 945 and 1701.

Hotham, Nuisance at-Statement by Mr. Laurens, 1701 ; discussion thereon, 1702.

HUNT, Mr. THOllUS (Kilmore and Anglesey) Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2353. Clearing the Goulburn, 105!:) and 1702. Differential Rating Bill, 1535. Friendly Societies' Reserves, 1700. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1410 and

1413. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1414 and 1424. Liquor Inspectors, 947. Magistrates at Marysville and Gobur, 1753. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1559. Payment of Members, 1434. Printing of the Electoral Rolls, 146. Railway Accident at Broadford, 124. Railway Construction Bill, 211, 230, 246, 258,

260,293,315,317, and 318. Railway Contracts-Remission of Fines, 1864. Rail way Department-Station Accommoda­

tion on the North-Eastern line, 1004, 1406, and 1704; Sunday Trafiic-Wandong, 1803; Trains to Seymour, 2366; Gatekeepers' Wages, 2366.

Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 136, 138, and 163.

Road Works and Bridges outside Municipali-ties, 679.

Road Works Damaged by Floods, 2305. Sheep Inspectors, 827. Telegraph Extension, 1232. Wood's .Point and Alexandra Road, 1708.

Imports-Return ordered, on motion of Sir John O'Sbanassy, 523; produced, 932; return re watches and clocks ordered, on motion of Mr. Zox, 659; produced, 679.' (See Exports.)

Impounding Laws, Amendment of-Question by Mr. Ramsay, 658; by Mr. Young, 1266. '

INCE, Mr. JOHN (Barwon)-Petitions against the r(',lturn of Mr. Levien, 18; Mr. Ince declared duly elected, 1710 ; introduced and sworn, 1759.

Industrial 'Schools-Question by Mr. Levien, 846 ; vote for buildings discussed in Com­mittee of Snpply, 1072 ; return ordered, on motion' of :Mr. Langridge, 1514; produced, 2143.

Inebriates Act Amendment .Bill-Brought in-by Mr. Casey, and read first time, 957 ; passed through remaining stages, 1038 ; returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 1241 ; amendments ad.lpted, 1241.

Insolvency Statute Amendment Bill-Brought in by Mr. Grant, and read first time, 1514 ; second reading moved by Mr. Grant, 1549 ; debated, 1549 ; Bill withdrawn, 1550.

International Exhibitions Bill-Vote of £7000, "towards the erection of an industrial exhi­bition building," discussed in Committee of Supply, 1066 ; Governor's message brougbt down, 1231 ; considered in committee, 13~ ; resolutiun for an appropriation "for the purposes of a Bill to provide for the holding of Victorian exhibitions," proposed by Mr. Berry, and agreed to, 1376 ; reported and adopted, 1429; Bill brougbtin and read first time, 1429 ; second reading, 1470; considered in committee, 1481 and 1515 ; third reading, 1515; amendments made on motion of Mr. Grant, 1550; Bill passed, 15.jl ; question by Mr. Fergusson, re rejec­tion of Bill by Legislative Council, 1672 ; statement by Mr. Berry, 1672.

Irrigation-Question by Mr. L. L. Smith, 1635.

JAMES, Mr. JOHN (Ballarat East) , Election of Chairman of Committees, 47.

Woods' Continuons Railway Brake, 2367. (See Chairman of Committees.)

JOHNSTONE, Mr. R. DE BRUCE (Geelong) Geelong Railway Station,,37. Geelong Water Supply, 97. , Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

166. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 140. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of Sitting, '66. Signals in Railway Carriages, 356. Tariff Revision-~addle-trees, 1388.

Judges, Leave of Absence to~Retnrn ordered, on motion of Mr. Tucker, 2198; prodllced, 2380.· .

Jurors, Qualification of- Question by Mr. Tucker, 59 ; by Mr. Barr, 215S.

Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill­Brought in by Mr. Casey,and read first time, 84 ; second reading, 127"':8; considered in committee, 128 and 164 ; report adopted, 167 ; Bill read third time, 554 ; new clause proposed by Mr. Service and rejected, 554-5; new clauses proposed by Mr. Service and Mr. Ramsay, agreed to, 556; Bill passed, 556.

KERFERD, Mr. G. B. (The Ovens) Acclimatisation Societies, 933. Amendments on Tariff Proposals, 984. Breach of Customs Laws-Printing of Re-

turns, 2371. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

464 and 466. Coroners' Inquests, 938. Criminal Cases Appeal Bill, 720 and 1203. Dower Abolition Bill, 1436. Election Petitions-Rodney, 32, 1115, 1116,

1125,1128,1714, and 1336; Sandburst, 106; South Gippsland, 1474 and 1871 ; Barwon, 1637,1660, 16fi7, 1711, and 1729.

Engineer-in-Chief of Railways and the Chief Secretary, 329.

LEGISLATIYR ASSEMBLY. 31

KERFERD, Mr.G. B. (continued)-E,xpenditur!') under Loans-Water Supply,

307. Expiring Law (Drawbacks) Continuation Bill,

IS'33. Fenc,ing of Public Roads, 560. Finance~S,llpplementary Budget Statement,

1582 and 1583. Forts and Armaments Bill, 1522. General ,Ses;;ions at Benalla and Wangaratta,

1065; \ Gippsland Lakes-Sir John Coode, 21!l8. Goulbt;lrn Valley Hailway Bill, 1417 and 1423. Graving-dock, 184. Insolvency Statute Amendment Bill, 1550. International Exhibitions Bill, 1067, 1481,

1482, 1184, and 1486. Justic~S,:9f the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

554. Land Selections by Squatters' Relatives, 954. Land 'l'ax Bill, 681, 837, 838, and 848; Ad-

m\nistration of the Land Tax Act, 1619. Liquor Inspectors, 1236. Melbourne and Oakleigh Hailway, 297. Melbou~ne Market Site Bill, 330. MetroJlolitan Gas Company's Bill, 719, 804,

955, lJ56, 1~67, 1271, 1342, and 1435. Mining onPriyate Property Bill, 624, 660, 664,

'666, and 1006. Mr. Berry, 1644. ~r. 1', H. Bu{1den, 1625. Mr., Eaton, 1049, 1451, and 1457. Mr. Samuel Fieldhouse, Ip54. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1557 and 1559. New, Law: COl;l.rts, 182. P~rliament-.order of Business, 40; Qualifica­

tion of MePlbers, 418; Prayer of Petitions, 1~88; "Unopposed" Motions, 1289 and 1344; Laying Papers on the Table, 1289 ; Close of the Session, 1406.

Parli::j:q1entary Costs Bill, 669 and 670. Passe~gers, :aarbours, and Navigation Statute

AlIlendment Bill, 183S and 1873. PaYl11ent of Members, 1548, 1617. and 1674. Politic,al Situation-Customs Duties Bill, 1876;

Ad,dress to the Queen, 2051 ; Mr. Berry's motion re Charges. Incidental to the Man­agpment of the Revenue, 2191.

Pri vi,leges of the Legislative Assembly, 1359 ~nd 1146. . '

Prof~~sor Pearson, 34. ProS'pecting, 1748. Railway Construction Bill-Legislative Coun­

cil'sAmendments, 1034 and 1245. Rail,Way Contracts-Remission of ,Fines, 1864

and 1866. Railway Loan Account ~pplication Bill, 1552

and 116,"'" Rail,way Revenue Statisti<;!s, 463. Registrar of Prob1\tes, 934. RegUlation a,~d Inspection of Mines Bill, 159,

160, 320, 322, 326, 328, and 352. Slleri:tJ;'s. Deplgtment, 93,5. Sp'~a1rer's Salary, 639. Steam ,ComqlUnication with Europe - The C~pe ,Route~ 813.

Stevl:)nso.n Cas~ 1872. Tolls Continuatiol;!, Bills, 48,53,55, 1811, and

~!.834. " Ville Diseasei;l EradiQatipn Bill, 1843 and 1855. WaterwOJ,'ks ,Act Amendment Bill (No.2),

,l.I;i4",. ~ .. Wcst.M~lboUJ;ne Electio,n,2332. Ya.n,'):eJl,n Woi'lu, 147.--,

KERNOT, Mr. CHARLES (Geelol1g) Agent-General's Department, 824. Art Unions, 1580. Budget, 580. Defence of the Colony, The Cerberus-942 ;

Torpedoes, 943. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill,

1281. Geelong Water Supply, 1054. Geological Survey, 1000. Gra villg-c1ock, 184. Liquor Inspectors, 387 and 948. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 806. Parliamentary Papers, 1580. Prison Discipline, 647. Prospecling, 1748. Public Instruction-Truant Officer~, 85. Hailway Construction Bill, 179 and 180. Railway Department-Locomotive Superin.

tendent, 998. Scab Prevention, 827. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of Sitting,

63. Stone for the New Law Courts, 182. Tariff Revision-Cornsacks and Wool packs,

771; Drugs, 1384 and 1894; Corks and Bungs, 1386 ; Leather, 1426.

Tolls Bill, 1818. War Telegrams, 824.

Kew Lunatic Asylum. (See Lunatic Asylums.)

KING, Mr. M. L. (Footscray) Agent-General's Department. 823. Barwon Election Petition, 1724. Beet-root Spirit-Staughton Vale Distillery,

753. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

464 and 466. County Court Judges, 1803. Customs Duties Bill, 1924. Gas in Railway Carriages, 121. Government Appointments, 68. Government Botanist, 823. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill

554. Legislative Assembly-Ex-Doorkeepers, 1623. Mr. Eaton, 1049, Payment of Members Bill, 1755. Police, 6-l0 and 642. Railway Department-Special Trains, 68;

Fares for Volunteers, 1265. Rosstown Junction Railway Bill, 389. Stony-creek Bridge, 1706. Tariff Revision-Ribbons, 1427; Maize, 1924. Tolls Bill, 1836. War Telegrams, 824. West Melbourne Swamp - Chinese Labour,

1831.

LALOR, Mr. PETER, Minister of Trade and Customs (Grant)

Appropriation Bill. 1823. Charges of Corruption. 33. Customs Act Amendment Bill, 1872. Customs Department-Stocks in Bond, 60;

WeigherFraser,1234and 1236; The Steven. son Case, 1234, 1236, and 1872; Breach of Customs Laws, 2371.

Customs Duties Bill, 1832, 1873, 1879, 1893, 1894, 1930, and 1932.

Drawbacks, 2333. Elections Committee-The Speaker's War ...

rant, 79.

32 INDEX.

LAt_oR, Mr. PETER (continued)-Election Petitiolls - Sandhurst, 96; South

Gippsland, 3fi7, 368, 37:3, 1581, 1 fi82, and lKiO; Hotlney, :iS7, itS, 1114, 1118, and 1122 ; South Bourh, 16~5 ; Barwon, 1636, 1645. 1660, 1668, and 1735.

Expiring Law (Drawbacks) Continuation Bill, 183:3 and J 934.

EXJlort of Victorian Products, 38. Gmving-do{'k, 184. Lands Department--Peter McArthur's Case,

lfi40. L:tnd Tax Bill, 681, 728, 7:33, 736, and 761. Liquor Inspector", 388 and 1236. Locomotives for the Moama and Deniliquin

Hailway, 144. Melbourne and Oakleigh Hailway, 297 and 298 .. Melbourne Harbour Trust Act, 639. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1006, lOll,

and 1012. Mr. Gillies and Mr. Lalor, 2016. Mr. Bryant Waymouth, 1625. Night Signals for the Harbour, 2292. Opium Duties, 1405. l'arliament-Prap.tice re " Calling Attention,"

58; Issue of Writs to Fill Vacancies before A ppointment of Speak!'!r, 97; Dr. Macart­ney's Qualification, 439; "Unopposed" Mo­tions, 1289; Laying Papers on the Table, 1289; New Standing Order re Taxing Officer, 17 :)3.

Passengers, Harbours, and Navigation Statute AmendmeDt Bill, 1838 and 1873.

Pet'sonal Explanations, 19. Political Situation-Appeal to the Country,

1889; Public Payments on Votes of the Assembly, 20 J 4.

Port Albert Harbour-boat-Messrs, Thomas and Hocking, 2 J 98.

Port Campbell, 932 and 2380. Postal Department, 992 j Reduction of Post­

age, 38. Railway Construction Bill, 245, 247, and 253. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 134,

160, and 320. . Sharks, 932 and 1336. Sly grog Selling, 1512. Tariff Revision, 984 and 1823; Increased

Duties, 1376; Children's Boots and Shoes, 1377, 1378, and 1893; Remissions, 1381 and 1:383; DrugR, 1384 and 1894; Earthenware, &c., 1384 and 1894; Gold and Hilver Leaf, 1385 j Corks, 1386 and 1894; Matches and Vestas, 1:387; Saddle-tree~, 1388; Substi­tuted Duties, 1425; Butchers' Hooks, 1425; Bott.les, 1426 i Leather, 1426; Silks, 1427 ; Lined Hats, 1428; Glassware, 1428and 1832; Dried Fruits and Gloves, 1893; Bottled Beer, 1893; Wooden Doors, 1894; Maize, 1894and 1930; 0ast-steel Drills, 1932; CHrpeting, &c., and Watches, 1932; Export Duties-Wattle Bark, 1457 and 2291; Redgum Timber, 1466, 1468, 1470, 1580, and 1832; Scrap Iron, 1470 and 1932.

Telegraph Extension, 83 and 992. The Speaker. and Mr. Purves, 304. Unsea worthy Ships, 251. West Melbourne Election, 2144.

Land Act, Amendment of-Question by. Mr. Zox, 339; by Mr. B. G. Davies, 339 ; by Mr. Sharpe. 718 ; hy Mr. Bird, 1634.

Land, Auriferous-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Graves, 390.

Land Law, Administration of-Question by Dr. :Macartney, re 49th section selections, 37 ; papers re .feremiah Dwyer's selection or­dered, on motion of Dr.. Macartney, 95; produced, 204 j question by Dr. Maeartney, 233 ; by Mr. Bell, 1'e mortgaging of selec­tions, 122 ; by Mr. Sharpe, 294 and 717; by Mr. MacBain, 658; statements by Mr. Longmore, 1~2, 294, 658, and 718 ; question by M t'. Cope, 1'e stoppage of sales by auction of agricultural lands, 1:24 ; by Mr, Levien, 1'e delay in issue of "permits to occupy," 233; hy JVlI·. Tytherleigh, 1'e selectors en­gaged in trade, 339 and J 4:34; by Mr. Cooper, 847; by Mr. Casey, re issue of Crown grants, 339; return re pastoral occupation and agricultural settlement ordered, on motion of ;\1r. l\lirams, 375 ; produced, 1077 ; ques­tion by Mr. Bird, re unsuccessful applicants for selections and their fees, 463 ; by Mr. Gaunson, re complaints against seleetors, 522 ; by Mr. LevieR, re maps of lands avail­able for selection, 656; papers re John Schutt's case ordererl, on motion of Mr. F. L. Smyth, 679 ; produ(~ed, 954 ; question by Mt'. Kerferd, 1'e William Huon, jun., of W odonga, 954; return 1'e pastoral lands held by Crown tenants ornered, on motion of Mr. Mirams, 963; questiou by Mr. Bird, re land agents, 976; by :\1r. Sharpe, re selectors' grievances:-land needed for rail­ways, 1004 and 1036; papers re selections at Mering ordered. on motion of Mr. D. M. Davies, 1170; produced, 1406 ; question by Mr. Hharpe, re the five-mile regulation, 1232; by Mr. Barr, re the residence condi­tion, 1434; papers re John McMahon, Milewa, ordered, on motion of Mr. Young, 1514; produced, 1710; motion by :\·)r. Mirams, 1'e squatters' assessments, with­drawn, 1555; question hy Mr. D. M. Davies, re selections in the Moe district, 1579; by Mr. Bird, 1'e transfer of 49th section selec­tions, 1634; by Dr. Macartney, 1'e Crown lands bailiff for South Gippsland, 1820 ; by Mr. Tytherleigb, re information as to situa­tion of selections, 1920; by Mr; R. Clark (Wimmel'a), 1'l'. railway re~erves b'etween Stawell and Horsham, 2157; by Mr. Barr, re land selectors and the establisllment of a national bank of issue, :HS8 ; by Mr. Bird, re appeal cases in reference to land at East Charlton, 2158; return re inspection of selections in South Gippsland ordered, on motion of Dr. Macartney, 2198; produced, 2381 ; question by Mr. Service, re land selectors and t.be banks, 2270; by Mr. Dow, l'e pecuniary assistance to selectors, 2271 ; statement by Mr. Longmore, 2271 ; subject debated on motion for adjournment of the House, 2276. (See McArthur, Peter; also Survey Fees.)

Land Tax Bill-Resolution submitted in Com­mittee of Ways and Means by Mr. Berry, 508; amendment by Mr. Levien, 602; amendment negatived and resolution agreed to, 620; resolution reported and adopted, 623 ; Bill brought in and read first time, 62:3; question by Mr. MacPherson, 657 ; Governor's message recommending appro­priation hrou/!ht down, 679 ; objection taken by Mr. G. Paton Smith to form of preamble to Bill, 679 ; debated, 680; overruled,683; second reading of Bill moved by Mr. Grant,

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 33

Land Tax Bill (continued)-683; debated by Mr. Levien, 684; Mr. Bayles, 684 ; Sir James McCulloch, 685; Mr. Carter, 680; Mr. F. L. Smyth, 687 ; Mr. Sharpe. 687; Mr. Cooper. 688 ; Mr. Gillies, 690; Mr. Berry, 6f13 ; Sir John O'Shanassy, 697 ; 1\1r. Dow, 700 ; Mr. Dwyer, 701; Mr. Laurens, 703; Mr. Mackay, 705; Mr. Gaumon, 707; Mr. Lyell, 710; Bill read second time, 7 II ; motion by Mr. Nimmo, in favor of a progressive tax, 711 ; debated, 712; withdrawn, 713; statement by Mr. Dwyer, re division on second reading. 718 ; by the Speaker, 718; Bill considered in committee, 7'27, 742, and 753; order for considering Governor's message discharged, 745; objection taken by Mr. Gillies to form of preamble to Bill, 758; debated, 761 ; overruled, 763 ; Bill read third time, 760; formal amendment recommended by Governor's message, agreed to, 1004. (~ee Tariff; also Adjournments of the House.)

Land Tax Act, A dministration of-Vote dis­cussed in Committee of Supply, 1619.

LANGRIDGE, Mr. G. D. (Oollingwood) Albert Park, 1490. "Cup" Day, 1280. Deputy-Registrars of Births, &c., 143. Eight Hours Anniverllary, 60 and 2368. Election Petitions-Hodney, 1124; Barwon,

1652 and 1732. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill,

12ul, 1274,1280,1282,1284,1430, and 1515. Friendly Societits Reserves, 1700. Gippsland Hailway Completion Bill, ]413. Industrial Schools, 1514. Legislative Assemhly-Ex· Doorkeepers, 1623. Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance

Company's Bill. 10:37. 1202, and 12i 1. Met.ropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 800. Mr. Eaton, 1048. Paris Exhibition-Improvements in Manufac­

tures, 1170. Parliamentary Practice, re Asking Questions,

58~ Personal Explanation-Payment of Members,

1 i53. Police, 976. Public Works Department - Measuring of

Works, 1050. Rail way Construction Bill, 344. Hailway Passes to ex· Members of Parliament,

21-l7 . Rosstown Junction Hailway Bill. 126 and 2372. Tank Heserve, Eastern Hill, 2334. Tariff Revisiun-Wooden Doors, 1383; Red-

gum Timber, 1469. Warrnambool Harhour Improvements, 1071. Yan Yean Tramway, 2384. Yan Yean Water Rates, 59.

Larrikinism-Question by Mr. Zox, 2366.

LAURENS, Mr. JOHN (N. Melbourne) -Amendment of the Public Health Act, 233. City of Melbourne Corporation Hating Bill,

467. -Customs Duties Bill. 1893 and 1923. Differential Hating Bill, 15:34. Dower Abolition Uill, 1436. }'encing of Public goads, 637. Free Libraries, 934.

o

LAURENS, Mr. JOHN (continued)-Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill,

1431. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1412. Land Tax Bill, 703 and 740. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 331. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 719, 800,

1271, 1~38, 1341,1342, and 1434. Mr. William Monie, 1555. Municipal Audits, 847. Nuisance at Hotham, li01. Payment of Members, 161S, 1699, 1754, and

2:376. Penal Establishments, 653. Political Situation -Address to the Queen,

2077; Mr. Berry's Motion re Charges Inci­dental to the Management of the Hevenue, 22:~2.

Railway Construction Bill, 204. Rai\wHy Loan Account Application Bill, \ 767. Hoyal-park I'owd!:'r Magazine, 948. South Gippsland Election Petitioll, 1474. State Forests, 14i2. Tariff Revision-Cornsacks and Wool packs,

7!i6 Hnd 769 ; Live Stock, 984; Children's Boots and Shoes, 1381; Bottled Beer, 1893; Maize, 1923.

Tolls Bill, 1813 and 1836. West Melbourne :--wamp, 12~, 1072, and 2290. Yan Yean Water Supply, 105 ....

Law Courts, New. (See Supreme Court.) Law J Jepartment-Retllrn re offi"!:'rs' salaries

ordered. on llIotion of Mr. ]) ",yer, 1004; produced. 1005; question by Mr. Dwyer, re Crown Solicitor, I ()76; re payments to (,meers out of I{,ailway Construction Fund, 126fi; ret urn of fees deducted from Crown SolicilOr's salary (11' :ered, on mot.ioll of ~Ir. Dwyer, 1288; produce:l, 1582; mothlls by Mr. Dwyer and Mr. Ker/erc! for papers. set down as "unopposed," t rclered to he plat·ed in the ordinary list., 1288-91 and 1344; que!l­tions by 1\1 r. Dwyer, re payments out of education vote, I :17fi and 143:-1 ; re cla:<l'Iified civil servants in the Crdwn Solicitor's office, 1921). (See rrown Sulicitor.)

Law Ref'orm-Que~tion by Mr. Dwyer, 1017. Legislation of the St-~sion-l{eturn ordered, on

motion of Mr. Bird, 2165 ; produced,2:!73. Legislative Assembly-The Clerk of the Ass. m­

bly ab~ellt from ill1l('ss-the Clerl{-Assisj ant ordered to Hctpro (em., i4:!; qUI stion by Mr. Service, re a::lditional clvrk, 15!1!); ",·tt' fnr compl'llsation 10 ex-doorkeep.)'s uis('nssed in ('ollJlllittee of t;upply, 1ti:!:i; qtH'stioll by lVIr. Fincham, re clos:ng IIf b.uildiII g'S during Christmas hulidays, 1917. (See Taxinq Officer.)

Legislative Asselllbly Chan~ber. (See Parlia­ment IJ Ililrlmg.~.)

Letter Carriers. (See Postal Department.)

LEVIEN, Mr. J. F. (Burwon) Adminil'llration of t.he Land Law-Selectors'

Lkf'lll'es, 2:~:l; Suney Fee!l, 294 ; Maps of IJands anl.ilahle for :-Ielect.ion, 656.

A ttOl'n('~":, Solicitor~, alJd Proctors Admission. B'lI, 2:~8.

TIu:lg-et., 5,,9. City of l\le:bourne Corporation Ratillg 13ill.

467. "Cup" Day, 1287.

34 INDEX.

LEVIEN, Mr. J. F. (continued)­Deep Sea FiRhing, l,O:l7. Difierf'ntial Rating Bill, 1535. Drysdale Jetty, 945. Elections Committee-Mr. Lalor, 80. Farming Improvements, 553. Fencing of Public Roads, 637. Friendly SQcieties Laws Amendment Bill,

1280. Geelong AcclimatisationSocjety, 933. Geelong and Colac Railway, 232. Geelong Water Supply, 306. Governor's Speech, 31. Industrial Schools-Hoarding·out System, 846. Justices of the .Peace Act Amendment Bill,

555. Land Tax Bill, 684, 710, 729, 732, 735, 737,

and 740. Liquor Inspectors. 1240. Longden v. Weigall, 945. Members and their Places in the House, 468. Mount'Moriac Railway Station, 846. Mr. Eaton, 1050 and 1443. Mr. Gaunson and Mr. Gillies, 1263. Personal Explanation, 19 and 20. Public Instruction- School Requisites, 38;

Exhibitions, 1242. Privileges of the Legislative Assembly, 136S. Queenscliff -Health ()fficer's Boat, 823. Hail way Construction Bill, 124, 177, 229, 243,

261, 3!3, and a17. Regulati,ln and Inspection of Mines Bill, 134. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of Sitting,

60l and 66; Order of Business on Wednes­daYil, 1273.

Sharks, 1·'3:36. South Gippsland Election Petition, 372. Tariff Hevision-Cornsacks and W oolpacks,

770; Wattle Bark, 1460 and 1466. Telegr:-lph Extension to Drysdale, 83 and 146. 'foIls Continuation 13iil, 52 and 619. Volunteer Force, 718 and 9:~9. 'Varm<tlllbool Harhour hnpro"ements, 1065.

(lJ"nsLated on petition, 1710.)

Lhuor InRpf:ctors. (See Public 'louses Act.) Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance

l 'ompany's Bill-Brought in by Mr. Lang­ridge, and read first time. 1037-8; second reading, 1202; referred to select committee, 1271 ; comnlittee's report brought up, 1336 ; Bill read third time, 14~5.

Loan!':, Expenditure unrler-Estimates of expen­diture re Graving·do(·k, Silpreme Court, and pub ic oftiees, passed through eommittee, 182-:3; estimate of expenditure re water supply to country disl ricts considered in committee, 305 ; agreerl to, 309. (~ee Public Wor/ls Loan ACl'oltnt Application Bill; also Railways AutllOrized.)

Local Bodies, Endowment of. (See Municipal Endllwment.)

Local GovernmentAct, Amendment of. (See City of ,~lelbourne Curporation Uating Bill; also Differential Rating Bill.) 1

Longden v. We ig a ll-Vote to satisfy taxed costs discussed ill Committee of Supply, 945.

LONGMORE, Mr. FRANCIS, Minister of Lands and Agriculture (/lipon and Hampden)

Adillinistration of the Land LaW-49th Section Selections, 38; ~ortgaging of Selections, 122,294, i5i, and 718; Laud Auction Sales,

LONGMORE, Mr. FRA::-lCIS (continued- . 124; Selectors' T,j,cences, 233; Mr. Dwvrer's Selection, 233; Survey Fees, 294, 123, and 2427; Selectors Engaged in. Trade, 339,848, and 1434; Issue of Crown Grants, 339; Unsucces~ful Applicants'Fees, 463; Com­plaints against Selectors, 522; Maps of Lands Available for Selection, 65 i; Selections by Squatters' .Relatives, 954 ; Land Agents, ,976; . Selectors' Gr~evances-J.J<tnd Needed for Railways, 1037; The Residence Condi­tion, 1434; Selections in the Moe District, 1579; Land at East Charlton, 2158; Land Selectors and the Banks, 2271.

Agricultural College, ] 489 and 1701. Albert Park, 181, 1849, and 1490. Amendment of the Impounding Laws, 658

and 1266. Carlton Gardens, 1635. Chevalier Bruno, 1561. Condah Swamp, 1433. Drainage of Low Lands at Emerald Hill, IS]. Ex-employes of the Dredging Department,

1624. Export Duty on Redgum. Timber, 1466. Fencing of Public RoaJ~, 88,.144, 172, .559,

847, and 2050. Friendly Societies' Reserves, 1700. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1416. Land Tax Bill, 713 and 728. Map of Victoria, 630. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 59,132,330, and

332. Mr. Eaton, 1445 and 1446. Mr. J. Hichardson, M.P. (The late), 1625. New Land Bill, 339, 718, and 1634. Nuisance at Hotham, 1702. Parks and Gardens, 389,1491, 1999,2163, and

2380. Payment of Members, 1693. Personal Explanations, 20. Railway Construction Bill, 176, 241,244, and

259. Rail way Reserves between Stawell and Hor-

sh:-lm, 2158. Railway Returns, 2372. ~Rlt-water Baths at Emerald Hill, 38. Sea Sand Encroachment, L 702. Tracks in South Gippsland, 1:)13. Unauthorized Timber Cutting, 142. Vehicles in Public Parks, 1490. Water Supply to Couutry Districts, 1998. Wattle Trees, 522. West Melbourne Swamp, 123.

Lunatic Asylums-Question by Mr. G. Paton Smith, re petition from attendants at Kew, IH; by Mr. Mackay, 're report on Kew Asylum, 934.

LYELL, M-r. ANDREW (Emerald Hill) Admission of Sheep from Victoria into New

South Wales, 1555. Budget, 542. Customs Department-Weigher Fraser, 1234. Election Petitions-Sandhurst, 108; South

Gippsland, 1477 and 1872. Fencing of Public Roads, 131. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill,

1281 and 1282. Land Selectors and the Banks, 2276. Land Tax Bill, 710,731, 732, and 744. Marine Boa.rd Bill, 204.

tEGISLATIYE ASSEMBLY. 35

LYELL, Mr. ANDREW (contiu'lled)­Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 1341 and

and 1343. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1007 and

1008. Mr. Gaunson and Mr. G. Paton Smith, 1258. 11'1r. Gillies, 1259. Payment of Members Vote, 1612. Payment of Members Bill, 1757. Political Situation-Customs Duties Bill, 1892;

Personal Explanation-Negotiations fOl' a Compromise, 2161 and 2307; Mr. Berry's Motion re Charges Incidental to the Man­agement of the Revenue, 2220; Appro­priation Bill (No.2), 2335.

Postage, 1546. Privilt'ges of the Legislative Assembly, 1371. Railway Construction Bill, 217,287, and 293;

Legislative Council's Amendments, 1036. Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1258. Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1767. Regulation and Inspectiou of Mines Bill, 133. Tariff Revisiou-Live Stock, 985; Children's

Boots and Shoes, 13i9 and 1382; Earthen­ware, &c., 1385; Printing Ink, 1388; Rib· bons, 1427; Lined Hats, 1428.

Tolls Bill, 1815. Wattle Bark, 2291. West Melbourne Election, 2144 and 2159.

McArthur, Peter-Case of-Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. A. '1'. Clark, 423; produced, 489; question by Mr. Gaunson, re motion for select committee,797 and 1201 ; COIll­

plaint by Mr. MacPherson, that members of the proposed committee had been nominated without their consent, 1201; question by Mr. Gaunson, 1254; discussion thereon, 1254; motion by Mr. Gaunson, declaring that .( the applications of Petror McArthur, in connexion with land at Ecklin and Elin­gamitl', were dealt with in slll:h a manner by the Hon. Duncan Gillies as to descrve the censure of this House," 15~2; debated by Mr. Gillics, 15:29; Mr. Sharpe, 1532 ; Mr. ilerr.v, 1532 ; motion withdrawn, 1533 ; question by Mr. Gaunson, 15:39 ; statement by Mr. Berry, 1540; discussion thereon, 1540.

MACARTNEY, Dr. G. D. (S. Gipp8land) Administration of the Land Law-49th Sec­

tion Selections, 37; Mr. Dwyer's Selection, 95 and 233; Crown Lands ilailiff for South Gippsland, 18:20.

Elections Committee-Mr. Dwyer, 69. Electoral Boundaries-Gippsland and Morn­

ington, 1709. Gippsland Mails, 1077 and 1287; Port Albert,

2159. Gippsland Railway, 143, 796, 1037, 1065, and

1579. Mr. Thomas Bury, 795 and 796. Port Albert Harbour-boat-Messrs. Thomas

and Hocking, 2198. Public Works in Gippsland, 2148. Roads at Brandy Creek, 119 and 120. State School Accommodation at Buln-Buln,

1802. South Gippsland Officials, 2198. Tracks in South Gippsland, 1513. Traralgon and "Valhalla H,oad, 232.

(Unseated on petition, 357; introduced on re-election, 624.)

02

MACBAIN, :M:r. J~1ES (The fVimme1'a) Administration of the Land Law-Mortgaging

of Selections, 658. Agent-General's Department, 824. Appropriation Bill, 1824. . Budget, 561. Charitable Institutions, 943. Coliban and Geelong Water Supply Schemes,

306. Communication with Europe - The Cape

Route, 389 and 811. Dower Abolition Bill, 1436. Election Petitions-Bouth Gippsland, 1480;

Barwon, 1649. Ex-employes of the Dredging Department,

1624. Expiring Law (Diseases in Stock) Continua-

tion Bill, 1518. Fencing of Public Roads, 91, 560, and 633. International Exhibitions Bill, 1376 and 1485. Land Tax Bill, 713, 727, 729,733, 734, 736,

743, 744, and 839. Magistrates in the Wimmera District, 1635. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 719 and

955. Mr. Eaton, 1051. Mr. Gaunson and Mr. Gillies, 1263. Police, 644. Public Instruction-School Accommodation

in the Wimmera Distric·t, 2367. H.ailway Construction Bill, 310; Legislative

Council's Amendments, 1246. Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1262. Hailway Contracts-Remission of Fines, 1869. Railway Department, 996. Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1763

and 1764. Scab Department, 826 .

. Speaker's Salary, 6-10. Tariff Revision, 981, !l87, 990, and 1232; Corn­

sacks and WOlllpacks, i64; Live Stock, 978; ChildI'f>Il's Boots an(l Shoes. 1:~i8 l.nd 1::\8 I; Wooden Doors, 1382; Hemissions, 18:l4.

Telegraph Extension. 992. Tolls Bill, 1806. W HI' Telegrams, 824. 'Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 333. White Horse Ruad, 1393.

MCCULLOCH, Sir JAlIJES (Wm'rnambool) Budget, :'):34-. Death of Viscount Canterhury, 36. ] >eath of M ... G. Pat on Smith, 17 i9. Finance-Mr. Service and Sir James McCul-

loch, 61 ti and 618. Land Tax Bill, 685. Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1761. Warruambool Harbour Improvements, 1054

and 1061. War Telegrams, 38.

MACGREGOR, Mr. ROBERT (Fifzroy) Administration of the Land Tax Act, 1620. Appropriation Bill, ] 825. Coroners' Inquests, 938. Customs Duties BiIl-;\1aize, 1923. Fencing of Public Roads, 557. Governor's Speech, 23. Gratuities to Families of Deceased Public

~ervantR, 9.'35. International Exhibitions Bill, 1482 and 1487. Liquor Inspectors, 947.

36 iNDEX.

MACGREGOR, Mr. ROBERT (continlled)­Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 957. Mr Eaton, l-l42. Puhlic Instruction-Training Schools, 977;

Education Vote, 1183 ; Teachers' Salaries, 2367.

Public Library, &c.-Opening on Sunday, 747. Railway Construction Bill, 211. Sonth Gippsland Election Petition, 1479. Tolls Bill, 1835.

McINTYRE, Mr. JOHN (Sandhurst) Adjournments of the House, 126, 849,853, and

2369. Agent-General's Department, 824. Budget, 594. Civil Service Dismissalfl, 2057 and 2274. Customs Duties B,ll, 1927, 1929, and 1932. Dr. Pouncls, 1623. Election Petitions-South Gippsland, 362, 372,

1870, and 2422; Rodney, 1143; Barwon, 1725 ann 1728.

Expenditure under Loans-Water Supply, 308. }~xplosive Substances Bill, 1515.' Fencing of Public Roads, 558. Friendly. Societies Laws Amendment Bill,

1430. Gippsland Lakes, 2147. Government Advertising', 1838. Government Home Contract, 1998. Inhllld Bonding Warehouses, 2372, 2381, and

2416. L:tnd Tax Bill, 849. Melbourne and Oakleigh Railwa~r, 302. Mining on Private Property Bill, 469, 625,

6.19, 660, 665, 666, 668, 75-1-, 757, 965,976, 100.1, 10U8. and 1011.

Motions for Adjolll'Dment, 1918. Payment of Members, 1595 Political Situation-Address to the Queen,

2053; Mr Berry's Motion re Charges Inci­dental to the Manag<'ment of the Revenue, 22:35 ; Adjournments of the House, 2273.

Prospecting, 2272. Puhlic lnstruction-:-Education Vote, 1207;

Compensation to Teachers, 1336 ; Mr. John Rae, 1919 and 2381.

I~ailway Construction Bill, 207, 290, and 343. Railway Contracts-Rerllission of Finl's, 1863. Rail way Department-'Vorkshop Employes,

145; Excursion Trains, 622; Station He­turns. 6i9 and. 158n; !i:xpress Trains, 995 ; Hefre~;]lInent Arrangements, 995; Shed Accomm:dation at Sandhurst, 995 ; Hail­way Workshops, 995 ; vVoods' Coutinuous Brake, :1369 and 2370.

Regulation anel Inspection of Mines Bill, 113, 1:33, 13-1-, 138, 14U, 1:19, 160, 323,352, and 1429.

Signalling in Mines, 145. Stipendiary ;\Iagislmtes, 1753. Tariff Revision, 9i; Dut\, on Maize, 1927

and 19:!9; Cast-steel lJrilIs, 1932. The ~"'-els()n, 158 I. 'rolls Bill, 1834, 1859, and 1860. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1846.

MACKAY, 1\11' ANGUS (Sandhurst)-Introduced ani sworn, 268.

COllllllissions and Boards of Inquiry, 1622. Coroners' Iuqucsts, 937. . Election Petitions-Rodney, 1121; . South

Gippsland, 1478 ; Barwon, 1644, 1646, and I 1717.

MACKAY, Mr. ANGUS (continued)-Export Duties-Wattle Bark, 1464.; RedguQl

Timber, 1467 and 1469. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill,

1280, 1282, and 1284. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1421. l{ew Lunatic Asylum, 934. Land Tax Bill, 705, 708, 710, and 851 ; Ad­

ministration of the Land Tax Act, ] 619. Major Smith and Mr. ;\1ackay, 1770. Mining' on Private Property Bill, 381, 628,

661, 663, 666, 754, 757, 966,975, IU05, and 1010.

Mr. Gaunson and Mr. Mackay, 1688. Mr. Gillies, 1258. Mr. Service, 1645. Payment of Members, 1618. Passengers, Harbour'l, and Navigation Statute

Amendment Bill, 1873. Penal Establishments, 652. Police, 6 .. 2. Political Situation-Customs Dut.ies Bill,

1882 ; Public Payments on Votes of the Assembly, 2033; Address to. the Queen, 2067; Mr. Berry's Motion ~e Charges Inci­dental to the Ma.nagement of the Hevenue, 2201 ; The Governor's Action, 2413.

Public Instruction-Eeiucation Vote, 1100 and 1171 ; Teachers, 13-14 and 1492.

Privileges of the Legislative Asaembly, 1371. Prospeeting, 1707 and 1828. Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney,

4-1-2. . Railway Construction Bill, 288 and 345;

LegislatiYe Council's Amendments, 1030. Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1250, 1253,

and 1257. Railway Gates at Level Crosflings, 1704. Hailway Loan Account Application Bill, 1770. RegUlation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 351,

354, ano 1429. Sharks, 1703. Statue of the Queen, 1621. Tax on Imported ~tock, 979. ,. Unopposed" Motions, 1288. 1290, and 1344. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1853, 1854,

and 1856. Woods' Continuous Rail way Brake, 2424.

MAC '1 AHON, Sir CHA RLES (W. Melbourne) Election of Speaker, 4. Election Petitions-Rodney, 1139; South

Gippsland, 1470 ; Barwon, 1741. Legislative Assembly-Ex-l)oorkeepers, 1623. Mr. Berry and Sir Charles Mac Mahon, 83. Parliamentary Practice re "Calling Atten-

tion," 58. Railway Constrnction Bill, 222.

(Resignation announced, 1997.)

MACPHERSON, Mr. J. A. (Dundas) Civil Servants, !:I5. Contagious Diseases Prevention Bill, 1435. Coroners' Inquests, 12:~3. Divisions of Electoral Districts, 421. Election of Speaker, 18. Elect.ion Petitions-Rodney, 1115 and 1139;

Barwon, 1732 and 1736. Eledions Committee-The Speaker's War­

rallt, 79 ; Adjournments of the Committee, 1582.

Free Libraries, 1827. Lands Department-Peter McArthur's Case,

1201.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 37

MACPHERSON, Mr. J. A. (continued)-Land Tax Bill, 657, 727, 728, 730, 732, and

734. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 956. Personally Offensive Language, 33. Quaiification of Members-Dr. Macartney,

436. Railway Construction Bill, 349. Statue of the Queen, 162 I. Tax on Imported Stock, 983. The Cerberus, 95. The Speaker and Mr. Purves, 304. Vine Diseases Eradication Bi n, 1852 and 1854. White Horse Road, 1391 and 1394.

MADDEN, Dr. JOHN (Sandridge) Attorneys, Solicitors, and l:'roctors Admission

Bill, 167,.235, and 237. Collingwood Gas Company's Extension of

Powers Bill-Taxation of Costs, 39 and 632.

Dog Act Amendment Bill, 127, 164, and 632. Election Petitions-Rodney, 1123; Barwon,

1646, 1662, 1726, and 1729. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

127 and 166. Liquor Inspectors, 1237. :Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 1271. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1009, 1010,

and 1012. Parks and Gardens, 173, 389, and 2163. Political Situation-Address to the Queen,

2115. Preservation of Order, 2061. Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney,

451 and 457. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 325. Tolls Bill, 1807. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1855 and 1856. West Melbourne Election~ 2145.

Magistrates-Question by Mr. G. Paton Smith, re conduct of a ma~istrate at the Rodney election, 586; by Mr. MacBain, re magis­trates in the Wimmera district, 1635; by Mr. Hnnt, re magistrates at Marysville and Gobur, 1753; by Mr. :E'. L. Smyth, re direc­tion as to records of previous convictions of offenders,2158. (See Police Magistrates.)

Mail Communication with Europe-Question by Mr. MacBain, re steam comDluuication via Cape of Good Hope, 389 ; by Mr. Serviee, 422 and 462 ; statement by Mr. Berry, 422 ; debate raised by Mr. Service on order of the day for going into Committee of Supply, 806; continued by Mr. MacBain. 811 ; Mr. Kerferd, 813; Mr. Berry, 814; Sir John O'Shanassy, 818 ; Mr. Ramsay, 822; dehate terminated, 8~2; question by Mr. Service, 1233.

Mails. (See Postal Department.) Map of Victoria (New)-Question by Mr. Cooper,

630. Market Accommodation. (See Melbourne Market

Site Bill.) Marine Board Bill-Question by Mr. Lyell,

204. Mechanics'Institutes. (See Fl'ee Libraries.) Melbourne Gaol, Removal of-Question by Mr.

Zox, 2159. Melbourne Harbour Trust Act-Motion hy Mr.

Lalor for considering subject in committee, withdrawn, 639; question by Mr. Bowman, 1432; statement by Mr. Berry, 1432.

Melbourne Market Site Bill-Question by Mr. Bent, 59; Bill brought in by Mr. Long-more, and read first time, 13:2; seeond readillg, 330; considered in committee, ;~30; reau third time, 332 ; returned from Legislative Council. with amendments, 552; amend­ments adopted, 669.

~Ielbourne, Municipal Hating in. (See City of lH elbourlle Corporation Rating Bill.)

Melbourne (North) Election Petition-Petition against the return of Mr. btory and Mr. Laurens presented, 18; referred to Elections Comlllittee, Ill; statements by Mr. Cook, 98 and III.

Melbourne (West), Representation of-Resigna­tion of Sir Charles Mae.Vlahon and eleetion of ~ir Bryan O'Loghl('n announced, 1997 ; Sir Bryan O'Loghlen introduced and sworn, 1997; mot.ion by .\11'. I low for copy of police report, re \Vest }\'[elbourne election, agreed

·to, 20uO; report produced, 2050; petition for production at Melbourne General Ses­sions of certain documents relating to the 'Vest Melbourne election, presented, 2144 ; motion by Mr. Lyell, authorizing an officer of the Legislative Assembly to attend the General Sessions with the do(~uments, 2144 ; debated, 2144; withdrawn, 2146; amended petition presented, :2159; motion l)y Mr. J~yell, authorizing product jon of the docu­ments, 2159; debated, :2160; npgatived. 2160; quest.ion hy Mr. Kerferd, re alleged personation, 2332; statement by Mr. Berry, 2332; pet.itionfor production of certain docu­ments at the trial of the returning officer for breaches of the Electoral Act, presented, 2368 ; motion by Mr. Service, authorizing an officer of the Assemhly to attend with the documents, 2416 ; debated, ~417 ; nega­tived, :!421.

Melbourne (West) Swamp, Reclamation of­Question by Mr. I~aurens, 123; vote dis­cussed in Committee of Supply, 1072; ques­tion by 1\11'. Kin!!, re employment of Chinese labour, 1831 ; by Mr. Laurens, re flooding of works. 2290.

Member, Absence of-Leave of absence granted to Mr. Casey, :2165.

Member Aut.llOrized to atten(l Legisht.ive Coun­cil, re Railway Construction mil-Mr. A. K. Smith, 560.

Member, Death of-Announced-Mr. G. 'Paton Smith, lii9 ..

Memher, Uesignatinn of - Announced - Sir Charles ;\1 ac'\l ahon, 19U7.

Members and their Places in the House-Subject discussed in committee 011 the City of Mel· bonrne Corp 'ration Hatinl! Bill, 467.

Members, Qualifit'ation of-Dr. ;\Iacartlley's Case-Motion by :\Ir. Berry, dceladng an ex­minister of religion" who ma.y, prior to his election as a nWl\lher of t.his \ ssemhly, have publicly ceased to profess to be such m'inister, and evidenced the ce~satlon of his millistry by some public act," capable of being elected a member of the Assembly, 390;

. amendlllent hy Mr. Service, for :1dditioll to motion of the woros "and that a Bill te brought in to carry out this ref:olution," 391-9 ; question .\!:'hated by Mr. Grant, :~!:J9 ; 1\11'. Dwyer, 401 ; l\1L·. Casey, 406 i Mr. Dllw, 410; ;\Ir. Hichardson, 411 ; Mr. A. K. Smith, 413; Sir John 0 'Shanassy, 414; l\1r, Zox, 417; debat.e adjourned, 418; resumed br

38 INDEX.

Members, Qualification of (continued)-Mr. L. L. Smith, 42-1-; continued by Mr. Duffy, 4:!5; Mr. Munro, 4:!9; Mr 1\lac­Pherson, 4:16; Mr. H. Clark (SI/.ndhurst), 438; Mr. Lalor, 439; Mr. Mackay, 44i; 1\11'. Sharpe, 4-t6; Mr. Nimmo, 447; Mr. Mirams, 448; Dr. Madden, 451 ; Mr. Gaun­son, 453; 1\11'. Berry's reply, 458 ; amend­ment negati vcd and motion carried, 461. (See Gippsland South Election Petitions.)

Memberli Sworn-2, 18,263,624,1336,1759, and 1997; Speaker's commission to swear new me III bpI's produeed, 17.

Members Unseated on Petition-Dr. Macartney, 357 ; Mr. Gillies, 1146 ; Mr. Levien, 1710.

Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill-Brought in by Mr. Munro, and read first time, 719-20; second reading moved by Mr. Munro, 798 ; debated by .\11'. Story, 800; Mr. Langridge, 800; Mr. I __ aurens, 800; Mr. Cartcr, 801 ; Mr. A. K. Smith, 802; 1\11'. Berry, 804; Mr. Kerferd, 804; Mr. Cooper, 805; Sir John O'Shanassy, 805; Mr. Kcrnot, 806; Mr. Bayles, 806; Bill read second time, 806 ; referred to select committee, 955-7 ; com­mittee's report brought up, 1200; con­sidered, 1266; amendments made by COUl­

mittee adopted, 1267 and 12 i 1 ; third rcad­ing, 1336-40; amendments proposed by Mr. Carter, Mr. Dixon, and 1\11'. Laurens adopted, 1340-3 and 1434-5; Bill passcd, 14:35; statement by .\11'. Munro, 1582. (See

. CollillHwood Gas Company.) MInes Drainage Law Amendment Bill-Brought

in by Major Smith, and read first time, 1171; pas~ed through remaining stages, 1520; returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 1759; amendments considered, 1833; agreed to with an amendment, 1833 and 1895.

Mines, Schools of. (See Sandhurst School of Nines. )

Mines, Signalling in-Question by Mr. McIn­tyre, 145.

}lining Boarcls-Question by Mr. 'WilIiams, 1000; statement by Major Smith, 1000; discussion thereon, 100U.

Mining Department-Vote discussed in Com­mittee of Supply, 999.

Mining Industry, Development of the. (See Prospecting.)

Mining Inspectors-Return ordered, on motion· of Mr. H. Clark (Sandkurst), I i2 ; pro­duced, 180.

Mining Leases-Question by Mr. n. M. Davies, t'e reduction of rent, 718; by Mr. 'VilIiams, t'e enforcemeut of covenants, 1169 ; by Mr. F. L. Smyth, re shepherding, 1512 and 2377.

Mining 011 Pivate Property Bill-Brought ill by l\lajor Smith, and read first time, 68 ; second reading moved by Major Smith, 375; de­bated by Mr. Mackay, 381; Sir John O'Shanassy, 385; debate adjonrned, 387; resumed by Mr. l!"'. L. ~myth, 468; con­tinued by ~Ir. McIntyre, 469 ; Mr. Cooper, 473; Mr. Gillies, -!76 ; MI'. Patterson, 480 ; l\fr. Dwycr, 483; Mr. IUchardson, 484; Mr. ~tory, 486; Mr. G~LllIIson, 486; Bill read second time, 489 ; considered in com­mittee, 624-, 659, 753, and !l64; report adopted, 1005-7; Bill read third time, lu07; passecl, 1012; returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 1802; discharged f~'om the paper, 2368~

Mining Shafts, Filling of-Question by Mr. Bird, '2380.

Mining Statute, Amendment of-Question by I\lr. R. Clark (Sand/tIlrst), 461.

Ministers of Religion in Parliament. (See Members.)

MinistrY-Adjournment of the House pending elections consequent on the resignation of Sir James McCulloch's Government and the formation of new Ministry by Mr. Berry, 7 ; new Ministers introduced and sworn, 18.

Mint, The-Question by Mr Bosisto, re charges for silver, 180; by Mr. Uichardson, re copper coinage, 264.

MIRAMS, Mr. JA:\IES (Collingwood) Aboriginal Station at Coranderrk, 233 and 933. Administration of the Public-houses Act, 60

and 947. Albert Park, 1489. Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admission

Bill, 239. Budget, 589. Customs Duties Bill, 1924 and 1929. Election Petitions-South Gippsland, 369 and

1477; Barwon, 1663, 1710, and 1714. Fencing of Pu blic Hoads, 168 and 172. Fitzroy Free Library, 934. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill,

1281,12&2, and 1430. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1412. Government Advertising, 2165. Gratuities to Families of Deceased Public

Servants, 944. International Exhibitions Bill, 1482 and 1486. Mr. Eaton, 1049 and 1453. Mr. Gillies and Mr. Mirams, 2201 and 2206. Parks and Gardens, 1489. Parliamentary Papers, 81. Pastoral Oc!!upatiun and Agricultural Settle­

ment, 375 anel 963; He-assessment of the Squatters' Runs, 1555.

Payment of Members Bill, 1756. Political Situation-Customs Duties Bill­

Payment of Members, 1885; Mr. Berry'S Motion re Charges Incidental to the Manage­ment of the Revenue, 2206.

Public Instruction-School Attendance, 61, 375, and 1076; Annual Report, 264; Re­ceipts and Disbursements, 340; Education Vote, 1214.

Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney, 448.

Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1764. Tariff l{evision-Children's Boots and Shoes,

1379 and 1893; Glassware, 1428; Maize, 1893,1894,192-1-, and 1929.

Tolls Bill, 1836 and 1922. Victorian Year iJooli, 1622. White Horse Road, 1393, 1706, and 1745.

Moama and Deniliqnin Railway, Locomotives for-Questions by Mr. :Fincham, 144; re­turn ordered, on motion of Mr. Fincham, 144; produc.ed, :.103.

Monie, Mr. William-Case of-Motion by Mr. Laurens, for select committee, withdrawn, 1555.

Motions, "TT nopposed " - Statement by the Speaker that" it is not usual to debate an , unopposed' motion," 1288; discussion thereon, 1289 ; motions set down as "un­opposed" ordered to be placed in the ordinary list, 1291 and 1344.

LEGISLA.TIVE ASSEMBLY. 39

Moyston Post-office-Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. Bowman, 1555; produced, 1838.

Municipal Audits-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Barr, 589; produced, 1514; question by Mr. Laurens, 8'17. (See Fergusson, Mr. W.M.)

Municipal Endowment-Question by Mr. Barr, 796; by Mr. R. Clark (Wimmera), 2273.

Municipal Returns-Ordered, on motion of Mr. Carter, 753 ; produced, 1514; on motion of Mr. Cope, 1561 ; produced, 2426.

MUNRO, Mr. JnlEs (Carlton) Aboriginal Station at Coranderrk, 233. Administration of the Public-houses Act, 640,

946, and ·1512. Albert Park, 1490. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

465 and 466. " Cup" Day, 1286. Customs Duties Bill, 1924, 1930, 1932, and

1934. Dower Abolition Bill, 1436. Election of Chairman of Committees, 40, 45,

and 47. Election Petitions - South Gippsland, 368,

14i6, 1481, and 1870; Rodney, 1125 and 1144; Barwon, 1638 and 1726.

Electoral Act Amendment Bill, 120 and 948. Exports and Imports, 340. Fencing of Public Roads, 90. }'ree Libraries, 1826. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1411. Gippsland Railway-Melbourne and Oakleigh

Section, 298 and 302. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill; 1423. International Exhibitions Bill, 1481, 1482,

1485, 1486, and 1488. Land Tax Bill, 728, 731, and 736; Letter Carriers, 1169,1580,1919, and 2369. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 719, 798,

801, 806, 955, 956, 1266, 1268, 1270, 1336, 1341, 1343, 1344, 1435, and 1582.

Mr. Eaton, 1049. National Agricultural Show, 1146. National Insurance Company of Austral­

asia's Extension of Powers Bill, 463 and 553.

Parliament-"Unopposed Motions," 172; Dr. Macartney's Qualification, 395,403, 412, and 429 ; Motions for Returns, 977.

Payment of Members Vote, 1617. Payment of Membprs Bill, 1756 and 1758. Petition re " Outer Circle" Hailway, 2385. Political Situation-Hejection of the Appro-

priation Bill by the Legislative Council, 1944; Proposals for a Compromise, 2162 ; Mr. Berry's Motion re Charges Incidental to the Management of the Reveuue, 2233; Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2336 and 2353.

Prospecting, 1706 and 1748. Public Instruction-Education Vote, 1100 and

1177. Railway Bills Conference, 1837 and 2389. Railway Contracts - HemissiOl: of Fines,

2164. Railway Construction Bill, 125, 184, 229, 230,

245,261,262, and 289; Legislative Council's Amendments, 1032.

Royal-park Powder Magazine, 948 and 1515. Statue of the Queen, 1621. Stone for the New Law Courts, 183. Stony-creek Bridge, 1706.

MUNRO, Mr. JAlIIES (continued)-Tariff Hevision-Cornsacks and 'Voolpacks,

7t;4; Children's Boots and Shoes, 1381; Wooden Doors, 1383; Gold und bilver Leaf, 1385 alld 1386; Felt Hoods, &c., 1387; Dress Silks, 1417 ; Wattle Bark, 1459,1489, 1932, and 1934 ; Redgum Timber, 1468 and 1580; Maize, 1924 and 1930. .'

The Governor and the President of the Legis-lative Council, 1944 ..

Tolls Bill, 1859 Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 18n. Warrnambool Harbour Improvements, 1058,

1060, and 1062. War Telegrams, 824. West Melbourne Election, 2419. Yan Yean Water Supply, 1051.

National Agricultural Society-Return ordered, on motion of nil'. Nimmo, 2198.

National Bank of Issue-QueRtion by Mr. Barr, 2158; statt:ment by i\1r. Berry. 2158.

National Insurance Company of Australasia's Extension of Powers 13ill-Brought ill by Mr. Carter, and read first time, 463- 4 ; second reading. 553; Bill referred to select committee, 630; committee's report brought up, 742; amendments recommended by committee adopted, 798; Bill read third time, 957.

Nelson, The-Question by Mr. Zox, 1406 ; by Mr. Duffy, 1581.

Neutrality, Pl"Oclamation of-Question by Sir John O':;hanassy, 2i. (See War.)

Newspaper Comments on Proceedings in Par­liament-Quest.ion by Mr. Gaunson, 319; statement by Mr. Berry, 319; by Mr. Gillies, 320.

NIMlIIO, Mr'. JOHN (Emerald Hill) Albt'rt Park, 181, 1489, 1490, and 1701. Alcoholic Poisoning, 2427. Buflget, 603. "Cup" Day, 1287. Customs Department-'Weigher Fraser, 1703. Drainage of Low Lands at Emerald Hill, 181. Election Petitions-South Gippsland, 369 and

1480; Rodney, 1138. Fencing of Public Roads, 128. Gippsland Rail way - Drouin West Station,

1998. . Goulburn Valley Hailway Bill, 1419. Land Tax Bill, 711, i32, and 734. Liquor Inspectors, 916 and l~a9. Metropolitan Gas Cumpany's Bill, 719, 799,

955, and \340. Mr. Eaton, 1050. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1557. Opium Dutil·s, 1-\05. National Agricultural Society, 2198. Patent Fees, 560. Police. 643. Political Situation-Address to the Queen,

2052 ; Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2346. Postal Department, 992. Privileges of the Legislative Assembly, 1369. Public Instruction - Singing and Drawing,

2158. Public Works Department - Accountant's

Salary, ]046. Qualification of l\lembers - Dr. Macartney,

447. Railway Construction Bill, 210 and S15;

Le?,i:::lative Cuuncil's ~meu~mep.t~1 1919.

40 INDEX.

NIMM-<>, Mr. JOHN (continued)-Ra.ilwa.y C;ontracts-RemisRion of Fines. 1865. Hailway ')epartmenr,-"\lres between Yarra­

viiI!· ann ~Ie:holll"lle, i:lO.J..

Regulation alld Insrection of Mines Bill, 133, 135, 140, 160, and 162.

Salt-water Baths at. Emerald Hill, 38. Tax on Imported Stock, 987. Tolls Bill. 1804, 18119, and 1835. Warrllambool Harbour Improvements, 1056. White Hon~e Road, 1393. Yarra Ifloolis, 237i and 2426.

North- Eastem Railway - Question by Mr. Sha.rpe, re statio" aecommoc1at.ion, 995; by Mr. Hunt. 1004; suhjeet diseussed in con­nexion with "ote for Railwav department, 1704. (See Railway Department.)

Notice Paper-I{ulings by the t-\peaker, re anti· cipation of questions on the notice-paper, IoO-l; qneslion rais<'n by Mr. Gaunson as to the frallling' of the notice-paper, 1254. (See Ses~ioliaL ArranYPluenls.)

Oal<lpigh and Melbourne Railway. (See Gipps­land Rai/wall.)

Oakleigh and Mulgl"R\·e Roads-Question by Mr. .Ferg'u:;Ron. 293; statement by Mr. Woods, 293; discusRion thereon, 29-1.

Officials in Pardalllcnr Act Alliendment Bill­Brough t in by :VI r. Bent, alld re(~d tirst time, 15-l1-2; sP('ond reading, 216:'.

Ogier, Mr.-Police Magistrate-Question by Mr. Dow, 11;0.

O'REA, Mr. W. J. (Polwarth and South Gren-'L.i/le.) I

Colac Railwny-Midday Trains, 1673. Defence of the Colony-Sir William Jervois'

Report, 107:i. Lalld Tax Bill, 681 and 762. Vine Diseases EradlCation Bill, 1847, 1851,

1853, and 1855.

O'LOGHLEN, Sir BRYAN (W. Melbourne)-Intro­dnced and sworn, 1997.

The Political Situation - Address to the Queen, 2100; Mr. Berry's Motion re Charges Inciilental to the Managelllent of the Reve­nue, 2189.

Opium Duties-Question by Mr. Nimmo,1405.

OnR, Mr. JOliN (Moira) Attorneys, ~olicitors, and Proctors Admission

Bill, 235 and 237. Charitahle Institulions, 2333. Chevalier Bruno, 1 :i60. Ele(~tion Petitions-South Gippsland, 1479;

Barwon, 164:', 1649, H nd Ii -l0. Electoral Act Amendment Bill, 120. Fn'e Lihraries, 1827. Gippsland Hailway, 242'L Gllulburn Valley Railway Bill, l·n8. 1 nternational Exhibitions Bill, H85. Land Tax Bill. 728. Mining on Private Property Bill, 970. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1558. ]\1 r. Purves and Mr. Lalor, 1 i40. Parlialnent Hefreshment Rooms, 1543. PaY'llent of Members Bill, li:J8. l'olice, 64L

ORR, Mr. JOHN (continued)-Political ~ituation - Customs Duties Bill,

18~i; Puh1ic Payments on Votes of the Assembly, 2030.

Public Insl ruction-Education Vote, 1223; Professor Pearson's Report, 2307.

Railway Bills Conference, 2391. Railway Construction Bill, 173,174,180,230,

2(10, and 281 ; Legislative Council's Amend­ments, 1035.

Railway Contracts-Remission of Fines, 1868. Rail way Department-Secretary for Railways,

993; Hefreshment Rlloms, 994; Station Accommodation on the North-Eastern Hail­way, 994; Express Trains, 1920 and 2380.

Parliament Refreshment Hooms, 1543. Rosstown .Junction Railway Hill, 127 and 2372. Springs and Wahgunyah Railway, 2050. Tariff Hevision-Cornsacks and Woolpacks,

769; Live Stock, 983 and 985;. Maize, 1924 and 19:26; Iron Pipes, 1930.

Telegraph }Jxtensiou to Shepparton, 993. Tolls Bill, 1859. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1840, 1848,

1853, and 1854.

O'SHANASSY, Sir JOHN (Belfast) Budget, 523. _ Charges of Corruption, 33. Criminal Cases Appeal Bill, 1045. "Crown" Colonies, 2167 and 2188. Customs Duties Bill, 1925,1928, and 1931. Defence of the Colony-Amendment of the

Volunteer Act, 940 and 941; The Cerberus, 912 ; Vote for Defence Works, 1073.

Dower Abolition Bill, 143.7. Election Pe litions-Sandlmrst, 102; South

Gippsland,363and366; llodney,1l32; Bar­won, 1636. 1638, 1658, 1659, 1710, and 1713.

Export of Victorian Products, 38 and 61. Fencing of Public l{oads, 89. Free Libraries, 1827. Forts and Armaments Bill, 152l. Gippsland Haihvay Completion Bill, 1412. Gippsland Hailway-l\1elbourne and Oakleigh

Section, 298. Governor's ~peech, 27. Imports, 523. International Exhibitions Bill, 1483, 1484,

1486, and 1488. Land Tax Bill, 657, 682, 697, 837, and 839. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 805. Mining on Private Property Bill, 385, 659,

663, 664.666, 669, 756, 965, 966, 969, 970, and 10U7.

Mr. Casey and Sir John O'Shanassy, 1316. Mr. Dow and Sir John O'Shanassy, 1928.· Mr. Eaton. 1454. New HailwayR, 81. Parliament-Practice re "Calling Attention,"

58; Hours of Sitting, 61 and 67; The ~peaker's Warrant appointing the Elections Committee, 7i; !Jr. Macartney's Qllalifiea­tion, 414; Laying Papers on the Table, 1289; Hepllrt from Committees Appointed by Statute, 1710,1713, and 1726.

Payment of MemberR, 1688 and 1697. ]-'enal Establishments, 6-l8. Political Situation-P II blic Payments on Votes

of the Assembly, 2017; Address tothe Queen, 2oi6, :20:-;2, and :l125; Mr. Herry's Motion, re Charges Incidental to the Management of the He\'enue, 2184 ; Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2341: .

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 41

O'SUANASSY, Sir JOHN (continued)-Privileges of the Legislative Assembly, 1314. l'ublic Instruction-School Attendance, 294,

388, and 424; Training Schools, 977; Peti·· tions from Homan Catholics, lU46 ; Educa­tion Vote, 1078, 1112, and 1226.

Railway Construction Bill, 124, 126, 157, 158, 187, 193,201, 229, 230, 248, 259, 279, 313, 341, and 347; Legislative Council's Amend­ments, 1019 and 1020.

Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1251 and 1256.

Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1553 and 1763.

Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 133, 141, and 162.

Steam Communication with Europe-The Cape Route,818.

Tariff Revision-Cornsacks and W oolpacks, 765; Live Stock, 978 and 983; Wattle Bark, 145S; Maize, 1925; Potatoes, 1931.

The Speaker and Mr. Purves, 30a. The Spe!1ker and Mr. G. Paton Smith, 1251,

1252, i253, and 1256. Tolls Continuation Bills, 50, 1805, IS14, and

IS34. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, IS39 and 1850. War in Europe-Proclamation of Neutrality,

27.

"Outer Circle" Railway-Proposal by Mr. Munro for construction of "outer circle" line discussed in committee on Railway Construction Bill, IS4 and 204; withdrawn, 230; proposal by Mr. Cook discussed, 314; withdrawn, 318.

Paris Exhibiti011-Qllestion by Mr. Dow, 1'e ac­climatisation of South European industries, 1077; by Mr. Langridge, re specimens of latest inventions and improvements in ma­chinery and manufactures, 1170; by Mr. L. L. Smith, re exhibition of quartz crushing, &c., 1580.

Parks and Gardens-Return re distribution of vote for IS76-7 ordered, on motion of Dr. Madden, 173; questions by Dr. Madden, 389 and 2163; return produced, 461; subject of the admission of vehicles to the public parks, discussed in Committee of Supply, 14S9; question by Mr. Dixon, 1·e holidays to em­ployes, 1917; by Mr. Bosisto, 1999; by Mr. L. L. Smith, 23S0.

Parliament-Opening of, by commission, 2; by the Governor, 17; prorogation, 2427. (~ee Legislation of the Session.)

Parliament Buildings-Committee appointed, 6S; question by Mr. Barr, re acoustics of the Assembly chamber, 1581.

Parlip.ment, Practice of. (See Notice Paper j also Motions" Unopposed," and Questions.

Parliamentary Costs Bill-Brought in by Mr. Grant, and read first time, 390; second read­ing. 669; considered in committee, 670 and 763; third reading, 964; the Speaker an­nounces preparation of list of churges which parliamentary agents, &c., are'authorized to make, 1998. (See 'Ta2:ing Officer.)

Parliamentary Papers-Question by Mr. Mirams, re supply of parliamentary papers to all fee public libraries, 81; by Mr. Kernot, re distribution to Members of Parliament, 1580.

Pa.rliamentary Qualification. (See Members.)

Parliamentary Reports. (See Debates in Parlia-, 1IIent.) Passengers, Harbours, and Navigation Statute

Amendment Bill-Brought ill by Mr. Lalor, and read first time, lS3t!; ~econd reading, 1873; considered in cOlllmittee, 1873; third reading-, 1921.

Patents Statute, Fees nnder-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Nimmo, 560; produced, 679.

PATTERSON, Mr. J. B., ·Minister of Public Works (Castlernaine)

City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill, 465.

Clearing the Goulburn, 1059 and 1702. C:ontracts for Public Works, 462. Crown Lands Bailiff for South. Gippsland,

IS21. Differential Rating Bill, 1077, 1513, 1514, and

1534. Ex-employes of the Dredging Department,

162-1. Expenditure under Loans- Water Supply,

307. Fencing of Public Roads, 1919. Geelong Water Supply, 1054. Gippsland Lakes-Sir John Coode, 1999,2146,

and 2197. Gippsland Railway, lS31, 1862, and 1995. Gippslanrl Hoads and Bridges, 2148. Government House Contract, 1998. Grantville, 1703. Graving-dock, IS4. Irrigation, 16~5. Lands Department, 1920. Mining on Private Property Bill, 480 and

662. Mount Abrupt Freestone, 143 and 204. Mr. Eaton, 9a2, 1047, 1049, 1440, and 1446. Municipal Rates and VaLuations, 1561. New Law Courts, 182. New Public Offices, 742, 846, and 2384. Political Situation- Customs Duties Bill,

1879; Mr. Berry's Motion 7'e Charges Inci­dental to the Management of the Uevenue, 21S0.

Prospecting, 1748. Publ ic Works Department - Accountant's

Salary, 1046; Measuring of Works, 1051. Public Works Loan Account Application

Bill, 183 and 204. Railway Construction Bill, 274. . Hegulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 328. Road Works and Bridges, 679 and 1706;

Damaged by Floods, 2805. Sandhurst Powder Magazine, 630. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of Sitting, 66. Sir James McCulloch and Mr. Service, 2183

and 2197. Stony-creek Bridge, 1706. Talbotville Bridge, 622. Tolls Bill, 1548,1775. IS04, ISI5, ISI7, ISIS,

1833, 1834, 1836, 1859, and 1895. Tramways, 1170. Warrnambool Harbour Improvements, 1060

aud 2198. ·We.st Melbourne Swamp, 1072,1831, and 2291. White Horse Hoad, 1390. Yan Yean Tramway, 2384. Yau Yean Water Rates, 59, 1054, and 1336. Yan Yean Water Supply, 147, 1051, 1052,1241,

2269, 2270, and 2:.191. Yarra Floods, 2377 and 2426.

42 INDEX.

Payment of Members-Questions by Mr. Purves, 619; by Mr. Hunt, 1434; by Mr. Guunson, 1547; vote discussed ill ComJ'nittee of Supply, 15DO; 011 consideration of report, 1674; in committee on the Appropriation Bill, 1826; questions by Mr. Cope, 1673 and 2000; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Cope, 1803-4; question by Mr. Laurens, 2376.

Payment of Members Bill-Governor's message brought down, 1742; considered in com­mittee, 1742; motion by Mr. Berry, de­claring that" it is expedient to reimburse members of the Legislative Council and of the Legislative Assembly their expenses in relation to their attendance in Parliament, that such reimbursement be at the rate of £300 per annum, and that a Bill be brought in to carry out the object," 1743 j debated, 1743; carried, 1744; resolutions adopt,ed, ) 744; Bill brought in and read first time, 17,.1:4 j second reading, 1 i 54; considered in committee, 1754; third reading, 175!). (See Appropriation Bill; also Crisis.)

Penal Establishments-Question by Mr. L. L. Smith, re gratuities to prisoners. 522 and 622 ; vote for penal establishments discussed in Committee of Supply, 646; statement by Mr. G. Paton Smilh, re Weechurch, 650; by the Speaker, 658; return re prison-made bags ordered, on motion of Mr. Zox, 727 j

produced, 796. (8ee Prisoners, Life-sen­tence.)

Personal Explanations-By Mr. Levien, 19; by Mr. L. L. Smith, 233; by Mr. TyLherleigh, 375 and 389; by Mr. Casey, 589; by the Speaker, 658; by Mr. Graves, 796; by Mr. Munro, 1582 j by Mr. Langridge, 1753.

Petitions-Question by Mr. Casey, re inter­lineations in the body of a petition, 339 ; complaint by Mr. Munro of a petition con­taining a statement that was "absolutely untrue," 2385.

Petitions presented - For railway extension from Branxholme to Casterton, 84; for creation of new tribunal in lieu of Victorian Steam Navigation Board, 98 j 1'e Mining on Private Property Bill, 121 and 421 ; re title agents under the Land Act, 142; for rail­way extension to Heathcote, 142 j re Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admis­sion Bill, 164; re railway extension to St. Arnaud, 204 and 232; re State educational system and the Roman Catholics, 263, 388, 162, 522, 553, 586, 622, 629, 657, 678, 752, 796,838,932,976, 1004, 1170, and 1200; 1'e

Goulburn Valley Railway, 264; re Mel­bourne and Oakleigh Hailway, 264, 1004, and 1405; for separation of Jolimont from Richmond electorate, 357; re National In­surance Company of Australasia's Ex tension of Powers Bill, 388; re decision of Elections Committee in the case of Dr. Macartney, 388 ; re Samuel Fieldhouse, 388; re Beechworth Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 489; 7'e selectors in Rod~ ney and Mandurang, 489; against proposed import duty on live stock, 586 and 622; re Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 629; re Mrs. Jane Hent.y and the land tax, 678; re Chevalier Bruno, 679; for the amend­ment of the Impounding, Fencing, and Dog Acts, 752 j re Brighton Land Vesting BiB, 796 i ;!.~a!n~t !mpor~ 9ut;y on gunn!-ba~s!

Petitions presented (continued)-838; for reduction of import duty on maize, 932,955, 1004, 1036,and 1231; re annexa­tion of the New Hebrides,932 ; 1e Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company's Bill, 976; for amendment of section 520 of Local Government Act, 1076 ; ·for opening of closed roads, 1200; re Legislative Council's amendments in Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 1265 and 1288; re T. A. Eaton, 1288; for the" Outer Circle" Rail­way, 1405 and 2385; for continuance of Flemington and Macauley-road tolls, 1548; for abolition of St. Kilda-road toll, 1580; against payment of members, 1744, 1802, and 1821; for continuance of White Horse-road toll, 1802; against export duty on wattle bark, 1821; re Boroondara and South Bourke electorates, 2083; re railway crossing at Swan-street, Richmond, 2144; for production at the Melbourne General Sessions of documents relating to the West Melbourne election, 2144,2159, and 2368; for abolition of mining boards, 2368; re Beechworth Hate Validating Bill, 236'8.

Plt!Jlloxcra Vastatrix. (See Vine Diseases Eradi­cation Bill.)

Plantations. (See Tree Planting.) , Poisons Act, Amendment of-Question ·by Mr.

Bowman, 588. (See Alcoholic Poisoning.) Police Magistrates - Vote' discussed in' Com­

mittee of Supply, 936; question by Mr. McIntyre, 1753; by Mr. Richardson, 1918; return re South· Gippsland ordered, on motion of Dr, Macartney, 2198; produced, 2381. (See Magistrates; also Ogier, Mr.)

Police Offences Statute Amendment Bill-Re­ceived from Legislative Council, and read first time, ] 207; discharged from ,the paper, 1533.

Police, The -Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 640; question by Mr. Langridge, re helmets, 976; by Mr. D. M. Davies, re extension of franchise to the police, 1037 ; 'by Mr. Williams, re sexagenarian officers, 1472.

Political Situation. (See Crisis; also Customs Duties Bill.)

Port Albert - Question by Dr. Macartney, re mails, 2159; re Messrs. Thomas and Hocking, 2]98.

Port Campbell, Improvement of-Questions by Mr. Bayles, 932 and 945; by Mr. Dwyer, 2380.

Posta.ge, Reduction of-Question by Mr. L. L. Smith, 38; motion by Mr. L. L. Smith in favour of a penny postage for letters, and the carriage of newspapers post free, 1492 and 1543; debated by Mr. Berry, 1545; Mr. Purves, 1545; Mr. G. Paton Smith, 1546; Mr. Lyell, 1546; Mr. A. K. Smith, 1546; debate adjourned, 1547.

Postal Department -Votes discussed in Com­mittee of Supply, 991 and 1703; question by Dr. Macartney, re Gippsland mails, 1077 and 1287; questions by Mr. Munro, re Saturday half-holiday to letter carriers,116!), 1580, and 23G9 ; question byMr. Tytherleigh, re landing of English mails at Portland, 1862; by Mr. Dwyer, re money order office at Lake Bolac, 19:10; by Dr, Macartney, 1'e

daily mail between Port Albert and Sale, 2159.

Pounds, Dr.-Case of- Question bY' Mr. McIn· tyre, 1623,

LEGISLA.TIVE A.SSEMBLY. 43

Powder Magazines-Question by Mr. R. Clark, re Sandhl),rst, 629; by :Mr: Zox, re Boyal Park, 9:32; by i'lr. Jiunro, H-lS.

Preambles to Bills-Objection taken to form of preamble to Land Tax BiH, 679 and 758; to Custo·ms Duties Bill, 18i3.

Previous Question - Moved and Carried- On :Mr. Gaunson's motion, 1'e Dr. Macartney, 374; on Mr. Bent's motion, re South Gipps­land election petition (No.2), 1481.

Prison Discipline - Subject discusseJ in COll­mixioll with vote for penal establishments, 647.

Prisoners, Life-sentence -Questions by Mr. L. L. Smith, 7, 588, 838, lU37, 1432, 1803, and 1921; return ordered, on motion of Mr. L. L. Smith, 95; produced, 121 ; statement by Mr. Berry, 588; by Mr. Grant, 19:H; question by Mr. Hamsay, 2163. (~ee Penal Establishments.)

Prison-made Bags. (See Penal Establishments) Privileges of the Legislative Assembly-Select

committee appointed, on motion of Mr. Berry, "to draw up specifically the grounds upon which the amendments made by the Legislative Council in the Railway Con­struction Bill were disagreed with by the Assembly, 1246; committee's report brought up, 1246; motion by Mr. Berry for adoption of report, li49; debated by Mr. Service, 1292; debate continued by Mr. Berry, 1305 ; Sir John O'8hanassy, 1314; debate ad­journed, 1322; resumed by Mr. Casey, 1344; continued by Mr. Kerferd, 1359; Mr. Hichardson, 1364; Mr. Levien, 1368 ; Mr. Nimmo, 1369; Mr. Lyell, 1371; Mr. Mackay, 1371 ; Mr. F. L. Smyth, 1372; re­port adopted, 1372; message from Legisla­tive Council transmitting reasons why they could not agree with the ., grounds" set forth hy the Assembly, 15S1; motion by Mr. Berry for adoption of statement in reply, ] 746; debated, 1746; debate adjourned, 1748; resnmed, 1934; statemen t adopted, 1934. (See Waterwurlls Act Amendment Bill; also OOllference.)

Prospecting-Question by Mr. Barr, 204; vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 1706; complaint by Mr. Munro, 174S; statement by Major Smith, 1748 ; discussion thereon, 1748 ; vote discussed in committee on the Appropriation Bill, 1S27 ; question by Mr. McIntyre, 22i2; by Mr. Gaunson, 2334.

Public Health Act, Amendment of-Question by Mr. Laurens, 233.

Public-houses Act, Administration of-Ques­tion by Mr. Mirams, 60; by Mr. Kernot" 387; subject discussed in connexion with police vote, 640; in connexion with vote for liquor inspectors, 946 and 1236; q ues­tion by Mr. Hichardson, re sly-grog selling, 1512 j by M :. Munro, re powers of the police, 1!H2; jyMr. Carter, re renewal of publicans' lie<IDces; 1674.

Public Instruction-Compulsory Clause, Enforcement of-Ques-.

tiun uy Mr. Cooper, 2050. Drawing and Singing - Question by Mr.

Nimmo,215S. Drowning and Snakebite, Cases of-Question

by Mr. Bird, 1'e printing of directions as to steps to be taken, 954.

Public Instruction (continucd)-Education Act, Operation of the-Discussed

on motion for address in reply to Governor's speech, 24 and 2~ ; in connexion with the education vote, lUi8, 1171, and 120i ; return of receipts and disbursements ordered, on motion of Mr. Mirams, 340; produced, 340 ; petitions from Homan Catholics presented to the Assembly, ordered to be printed, 1040.

Education Votes-Discussed in Committee of Supply, lOiS, 1171,1207, and 1622.

Exhibitiolls-Question by Mr. Levien, 1242. Insectivorous Birds, Charts of-Questions by

MI'. F. L. Smyth, 181 and 421 ; by Mr. R M. Smith, 2292 ; by Mr. Bird, 2292.

Pearson, Professor-Question uy Mr. Kerferd, re commission, 34; by Mr. Bird, re report, 1999 j by Mr. Orr, re consideration of re­port, 2307.

Report, Annual-Question by Mr. Mimms, 264.

School Attendance - Heturns ordered, on motion of Mr. Mimms, 61, 375, and 1076 j

produced, 421, 1076, and 1169; questiolls by Sir John O'Sbanassy, 294 and 388 ; return ordered, on motion of Sir J uhn O'l::lhanassy, 424 j produced, 1076.

School Hequisites-Question by Mr. Levien, 38; motion by Mr. Zox, for report on "the suitability or otherwise of the books now in use in the State schools," agreed to, 121 j

report produced, 22i3; question by Mr. L. L. Smith, re payment for school requisites, 123; by Mr. Hamsay, re Nelson series of reading books, 181; by Mr. Bird, re charge for requisites, 795.

Schools-Heturn re Benana shire, &c., ordered, on motion of Mr. Sharpe, 69; produced; 164 and 1~01; papers re Rotlnyell school ordered, on motion of Mr. Rees, SO j ques­tion by Mr. Zox, re Carlton, 1674; by Dr. Macartney, re BuIn-Buln, 1802; by Mr. l\lacBilin, re the Wimmera, 2367.

Swimming-Question by Mr. Carter, 1753. Teachers-Question by Mr. Service, re pay­

ment of salaries, 146; by Mr. TImson, 1'e

occupations of teachers, 294 ; by Mr. McIn­tyre, re claims for compensation, 1336; motion by Mr. Mackay for return, set down as " unopposed," ordered to be placed in the ordinary list, 1344 ; motion agreed to, 1492; question by Mr. McIntyre, 1'e Mr .• Tohn Hae, 1919 and 23S1 j by Mr. ;Vlacgregor, re Professor Pearson's recommendations as to salaries, 2367.

Training Schools-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Macgregor, 977; question by Mr. Hamsay, 1169.

Tree Planting-Question by Mr. R. Clark (Sandhul'st), 1375.

Truant Officers-Motion by Mr. Kernot for copy of instructions, agreed to, 8:i; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Dell, 1376; pro­duced, 1376.

Public Library, Museums, and National Gallery -Vote discussed in Committee of ~u pply, 746.

Public Offices, New-Question by :Mr. B. G. Davies, 742 ; statement by Mr. Patterson, 742 ; question by .Mr. Zox, 846; by Mr. A. K. Smith, 238-.1. (See Loans, E:rpenditure under.)

44 INDEX.

Public Service. (See Civil Servants.) Public "Vorks, Contracts for-Question by Mr.

Tucker, 461 ; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Tucker, 679 j producecl, 1336.

Public Works Department-Votes discussed in Committee of Supply, 1046, 1054, and 1065. (See Eaton, Mr.) .

Public Works Loan Account Application Bill -Brought in by Mr. Patterson, and read first and second time, 183 ; passed through remaining stages, 204.

Public Works Loan Expenditure Validating Bill-Brought in by Majur Smith, and read first time, 639; passed through remaining stages, 669.

PURVES, Mr. J. L. (Mo1'1lington) Administration of the Land Act, 16) 9 and

1620. Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admission

Bill, 84, 235, 237, and 238. Election Petitions-South Gippsland, 154] ;

Barwon, 1667 and 1738. . Ex-employes of the Dredging Department,

1590 and 1624. Gipp!;land Railway-Melbourne and Oakleigh

Section, 300 and 2333. Grantville, 1702. LandTax Bill, 737, 739, and 740. Mining on Private Property Bill, 668 and

1012. Mr. T. H. Budden, 1625. Mr. J. Richardson, :\1. P. (The late), 1626. Payment of :.vJembers Vote, 1606 and 1608. Payment of Members Bill, 1757. Political Situation-Public Payments on Votes

of the Assembly, 2040; Address to the Queen, 2059.

Postage, 1545. Railway Bills Conference, 2392. Railway Constl'Uction Bill, 198,231, 247,282,

and 314. Sea Hand Encroachment, 1702. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of Sitting, 66. Statue of the Queen, 1621. Tariff H.evision-Cornsacks and Woolpacks,

765 and 772. The Speaker and Mr. Purves, 303, 1739,1740,

and 2041. Tolls Continuation Bills, 48, 50, 55, 56, and

1812. Use of the term" Political Corruption," 32. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1841 and 1855. West Melbourne Election, 2419. Woods' Continuous Railway Brake, 2062.

Queen, The-Statue of-Vote discussed in Com­mittee of Supply, 1621 ; in committee on the Appropriation Bill, 1825.

Questions, Asking-Statement by the Speaker, re parliamentary. practice, 57; discussion thereon, 58 ; question by Mr. L. L. Smith, 145 ; statement by the Speaker, 145.

Rae, Mr. John-Case of. (See Pliblic Inst1'uc­tion.)

Railway Accidents. (See Railway Department.) Railway Construction Bill-Question by Sir

John O'Shanassy, 81; Bill brought in by Mr. "Voods, and read first time, 98; ques­tion by Mr. Levien, 124 j statement by Mr. Berry, 124; discussion thereon, 125; second reading of Bill moved by Mr. Woods, 147 ;

Railway Construction Bill (continued)­debated, 157; Bill read second time, 1.58; considered in committee, 173, 184,204, 239, 252, 26-!, and 309; Goulburn Valley Rail­way, 173 and 264; DUl1011y and St. Arnaud Hail way, 174 and 239; Melbourne and Oak­leigh Uailway, 184 and 204; Geelong and Queenscliff Railway, 245, 252, and 292; Warrenheip and Gordons Hailway, 246,252, 292, and 309; proposal by Mr. Berry, that the termin us of the Melbourne and Oakleigh Railway should be on the north insteadof the south side of the Yarra, 340; debated, 341; embodied in Bill, 350; Bill read third time, 35\); returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 957; amendments dealt with, 1012 j amendment re Melbourne and Oakleigh Railway disagreed with" because it is an infraction of the privileges of this Chamber," 1012-18; amendment re Goul­burn Valley Rail way disagreed with "be­cause it is an infraction of the privileges of the Legislative Assembly, inasmuch as it will, in its consequences, lay a charge upon the people," 1018-36; other amendments dis­agreed with, 1036; message from Legis­lative Council insisting on their amend­ments for certain reasons, 1202; motion by Mr. Berry that the Bill be laid aside, 1242; debated, 1243; carried, 1246. (See Gipps­land Railway Completion Bill; also Goulbllrn Valley Railway Bill, Privileges of the Lpgis­lative Assembly, and ., Outer Circle" Rail­way.)

Railway Construction Bill (No. 2)-Brought in by Mr. Berry, and read first time, 1249; second reading, 1249 and 1266; passed through remaining stages, 1266. (See llail­ways authorized b,/I the Act of 1877-8.)

Railway Contracts-Doran's and Noonan's­Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. Bent, 320; pI'oduced, 1037 and 1064; select com­mittee appointed, on motion of Mr. Bent, 1322; committee's report brought up, 1635; considered in committee of the whole House, 1862; motion by Mr. Bent, declaring that "the fines inflicted on Mr. Doran by the Engineer-in-Chief should be remitted," 1862; debated, 1863; debate adjourned, 1869; questions by Mr. Bent, 1918 and 2000; subject further considered in com­mittee, 21 64.

Railway Department-Question by Mr. John­stone, re new railway station at Geelong, 37; return re special trains ordered, on motion of Mr. King, 6.8; produced, 656; question by Mr. ::Sharpe, re Sunday traffic, 82; by Mr. Hunt, 1803; by Mr. Bird, 1820; by Mr. King, re lighting' of carriages with gas, 121; by Mr. Hunt, re acci­dent at Broadford, 124; return re work­shop employes ordered, on motion of Mr. McIntyre, 145; produced, 203; question by Mr. Bell, re additional workshops at Balla­rat, 318; by Mr. Johnstone, re signals in railway carriages, 356; by Mr. Young, re sheep traffic rates, 462; by Mr. Ker­ferd, re statistics of earnings per ton per train mile, 463; by Mr. D. M. Davies, re conveyance of horses, 490; by Mr. McIntyre, re traffic arrangements on Box­ing-day, 6'22; return re officers in traffic branch ordered, on motion of Mr. Sharpe, 623; produced, 846; return I'e station

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 45

Railway Department (continued)-receipts and expenditure ordered, on motion of Mr. McIntyre, 679; produced, l!H8; question by Mr. L. L. Smith, re Bourke­street parcels office, 679; by Mr. Levien, re Mount Moriac station, 846; by Mr. Fincham, re express trains, 846; by l\1r. Barr, re fares paid by clergymen, 846; by Mr. Sharpe, 1635; by Mr. Richardson, re Creswick sta­tion, 954; by Mr. Cooper, 1703 and 2380; votes for department discussed in Com­mittee of :Supply, 993 and 1703; ques­tion by Mr. King, re fares for volunteers, 1265 ; by :Mr. Bowman, re return tickets, 1287; by Mr. Hunt, re Tallarook sta­tion, 1406; by Mr. Sharpe, re accident at Barnawartba, 1432; by Mr. Bird, re use of weighbridges and tarpaulins, 1472; by Mr. Williams, re parcel rates, 1472; by Mr. D. M. Davies, re Lal Lal station, 1540 and 1802; by Mr. R. Clark (Sandhurst), 7'e free pass to a blind teacher, 1579; by Mr. Cooper, re reduced traffic rates and land taxation, 1579; hy Mr. McIntyre, re rail. way returns, 1580; by Mr. 0' Hea, re mid­day train between Geelong and Colac, 1673; by Mr. Bini, re Saturday excursion tickets, 1673; by Mr. Gillies, 1673; by Mr. Duffy, re :Sflcretary for Railways, 1704; by Mr. Brophy, re wood traffic at Ballarat East, 1704; by Mr. Mackay, re gates at level­crossings, 1704; by Mr. Williams, re Sand­hurst station, and sidings on the Inglewood line, 1704; by Mr. Gaunson, re wants at Ararat and Kiora, 1704; statement by Mr. Woods, re roIling-stock, 1705; question by Mr. Tucker, 1'e departmental management, 1753; by Mr. D. M. Davies, re payment of salaries, 1820; by Mr. Brophy, re express trains, 1919; hy Mr. Orr, 1920 and 2:380; by Mr. Bent, re new railway brake, 1920; by Mr. Graves, re cattle-yards at Euroa, 1921; by Mr. Sharpe, re rolling-stock, 1921; by Mr. Brophy, re medical examination of applicants for employment, 2000;. by Mr. Langridge, re passes to ex-Members of Parliament, 2147 and 2272; statements by Mr. Woods, 2147 and 2272; question by Mr. A. K. Smith, 1'e examination of em­ployes for colour blindness, 2304; by Mr. Nimmo,1'e passenger fares between Yarra­ville and Melbourne, 2304; by Mr. Brophy, re conveyance of children to the Juvenile Industrial Exhibition at Ballarat, 2304; by Mr. Hunt, 1'e trains to Seymour, 2366; re gatekeepers' wages, 2366; by Mr. Cooper, re gatekeepers' cottages, 2366; by Mr. Dwyer, re removal of guards, 2367; by Mr. James, re Woods' brake, 2367; motion by Mr. Bird for returns, proposed and witb­drawn, 2372; motion by Mr. McIntyre, for statement of "expenditure incurred by the Government in connexion with Woods' con­tin uous brake," 2422; de bated, 24i3; agreed to,2424. (See Moama and Deniliquin Rail­way; also North-Eastern Raiiway and Tree Planting.)

Railway Extension-Question by Mr. Bowman, re St. Arnaud, 181; statement by Sir J. O'Shanassy, re extension to Wentworth, 187; by Mr Service, 250 and 254; question by Mr. Williams, re Kerang, 1200; by Mr. D. M. Davies, re Smythesdale, 1512; by Mr. Barr, re Wentworth, 1579 and 2050.

Railway Loan Account Application Bill-Go­vernor's message brought down, 1472; re­solution for an appropria.tion passed in committee,' 1516; adopted, 1551; Bill brought in and read first and second time, 1551; considered in committee, 155\ ; third reading moved by Mr. Berry, 1759; debated by Mr. Service, 1759; Sir.J ames McCu Iloch, 1761; Mr. Berry, 1761; Mr. Hamsay, 1762; Sir John O'Shanassy, 1763; Mr. Mac Bain, 1763; Mr. Mirams, 1764; Mr. Kerferd, 1764; Mr. Duffy, 17ti5; Mr. F. L. Smytb, 1766; lHr. Laurens, 1767; Mr. Lyell, 1767; Mr. Zox, 1768; Major Smith, 1768; Mr. Mackay, 1770; Mr. Richardson, 1772; Mr. Dwyer, Ii 73; Mr. Gaunson, 1774; Bill read third time, 1774.

Railway Reserves. (Ree Land Selections.) Railways authorized by the Acts of 1871,1873,

&c.-Estimate of expenditure under Act No. 531 passed in committee, 56; resolu­tion reported and adopted, 56; motion by Mr. Berry for considering estimate of ex­penditure, re railway construction, agreed to in committee, 390; esthnate passed in committee, 490; resolution reported and adopted, 490. (See Loans, Expenditure under.) .

Railways authorized by the Act of 1877-8-Eg­timate of expenditure passed in committee, 1376; resolution reported and adopted, 1407.

Railway Surveys Bill-Estimate of expendi­ture passed in committee, 1699; resolution adopted, 1699; Bill brought in by Mr. Woods, and passed through all its stages, 1699.

RAMSAY, Mr. ROBERT (E. Bourke) Administration of the Land Tax Act, 1620. Amendment of the Impounding J~aws, 6.58. Appropriation Bill, 1825 and 1826. Barwon Eledion Petition, 1650 and 1734. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

465 and 466. Customs Duties Bill, 1893. Dr. Pounds, 1623. Free Libraries, 1827. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1412. Governor's Speech-Education Department,

27. Insolvency Statute Amendment Bill, 1550. International Exhibitions Bill, 1515. Justices of the l'eace Act Amendnient Bill,

165, 555, and 556. Land Tax Bill-Adjournment of the House,

837. Life-sentence Prisoners, 2163. Mail Communication with Europe, 822. Mr. Gaunson, 1254 and 1255. Mr. Bryant Waymouth, 1625. Officials in Parliament Act Amendment Bill,

1542. Payment of Members Bill, 1757 and 1758. Eayment of Members Vote, 1825 and 1826. Political Situation-Public Payments on Votes

of the Assembly, 2028. Prospecting, 17U7 and 1748. Public Instruction-Administration of the

Education Department, 27; School Books, 181; Education Vote, 1\ 01 and 1177; Train­ing School, 1169.

Railway Construction Bill, 215, 252,260,292, and 314.

46 tNi>EX.

RAMSAY, Mr. ROBERT (continued)-Railway Constrnction Bill (No.2), 125ft Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1762. Tariff Revision-Children's Boots and Shoes,

1379 and 1893. Tolls Bill, 1805, 1859, 1860, 2084, 2368, and

2377. Weather Telegrams, 746.

Rates. (See D!iferential Rating Bill.) Redgum Timber, Export Duty on- Question by

Mr. Munro, 158u. (See l'ar~ff.)

REES, Mr .• JOHN (Grant) Customs Duties Bill-Maize, 1926. Order of Business, 39. Railway Construction Bill, 316. Rothwell State School, 80. Tax on Imported Stock, 983.

Refreshment Rooms, The Parliament- Com­mittee appointed, 68; report brought up, 1472; motion by Mr. L. L. Smith in favour of addition to contractor's allowance, passed in committee, 1543.

Registrar of Probates-Vote discussed in Com­mittee of Supply, 934.

Registration of liirths, Deaths, and Marriages "":"Question by Mr. Langridge, re Colling­wood and Fitzroy, 143.

Regulation and Inspection of Mines BilI­Brought in by Major Smith, and read first time, 69; second reading moved by Major Smith, III ; debated by Mr. McIntyre; 113 ; Mr. F. L. ~myth, Il4; Mr.·R. Clark (Sand­hurst), 114; Mr. 'Wright, 116; Mr. Brophy, 116; Mr. Cooper, 117; Mr. Fincham, 118 ; Bill read second time, 119; considered in committee, 132, 158, 263, and 320; adoption of report, 351-2; Bill read third time, 375 ; returned from Leghdative Council with amendments, 124l ; amendments dealt with, 14~9; message from Legislative Council, insisting on certain of their amendments, 15:33; disagreement with such amendments not insisted on, 1533; question by :Mr. R. Clark, 1998.

Richardson, Mr. John (M.P.)-The late-Vote for Mr. Hichardson's widow discussed in Committee of Supply, 1625.

RICHARDSON, Mr. RICHARDS (Creswick) Agent· General's Department, 825. Budget, 546. Charitable Institutions, 943. Copper Coinage, 264. Creswick Hailway Station, 954. "Cup" Day, 1287. Election .Petitions-Rodney, 1259; South

Bourke, 1635; Barwon, 1647 and 1734. Expenditure under Loans - Water Supply

308. Fencing of Public Roads, 88. Free Libraries, 1827. Friendly Societies Laws Amendment Bill,

1284. Horticultural Societies, 945 and 1701. Land Tax Bill, 729 and 738. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 720. Mining on Private Property Bill, 484, 626,

972, and 1008. Mr. Eaton, 1048, 1448, and 1452. Mr. G. Paton Smith and Mr. Gaunson, 1259. Mr. W. H. Wright (The late), 1626.

RICHARDSO~, Mr. RICIIARDS (continued)­Parliamentary Reports, 948. Police Magistrates, 1918. Political t-lituntion-Customs Duties Bill, 1886;

Negotiations for a Compromise between the Two Houses, 2306; Appropriation Bill (No 2), 23.J0.

Prison Discipline, 648. Privileges of the Legislative Assembly, 1364. Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney,

411 and 435. Railway Bills Conference, 2397 and 2398. Railway Construction Bill, 179, 225, and 290. Hailway Contracts-Remission of Fines, 1868. Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1772. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 133,

138, 324, and 327. Road Works and Bridges, 1705. School of Design-Pictures and Models, 340. Sly-grog Selling, 1512. Statue of the Queen, 1621. Telegraph Extension to Trentham, 993. rfolls Continuation Bills, 54 and 1804. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1854. Volunteer Force, 940. War Telegrams, 825. 'Warrnambool Harbour Improvements, 1063. Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 333. West Melbourne Election, 2420. White Horse Road, l394. Woodend and Daylesford Railway, 2305. . .

Roads, Public-Closing of-Motion by Mr. Tucker, declaring that "the fencing. in of any public road is unlawful, and an infringe­ment upon the rights of the people, and that steps should at once be taken to com­pel the opening through of every public road in Victoria," 85 ; debated by 1\lr. Berry, 86; Mr Gillies, 87; Mr.' Longmore; 88; Mr, Hichardson, 88; Sir John O'Shanassy, 89; Mr. Munro, 90; Mr. Barr, 90; Mr. l\lacBain, 91 ; Mr. Dwyer, 92; Mr. A. T. Clark, 93; Mr. Dow, 93; :VIr. Gaunson, 94 ; debate adjourned, 95; amendment by Mr. Nimmo, for the omission of the words" un­lawful, and," 128; debate continued by Mr. Carter, 129 ; Mr. Young, 130; Mr. Will,iams, 130; Mr. Lyell, 131 ; debate adjourned, 132; resumed by Mr. Mirams. 168 ; continued by Mr. Sharpe, 171; debate adjourned. 172; resumed by Mr. Andrew, 556; continued by Mr. Macgregor, 557 ; Mr. Graves, 558 ; Mr: McIntyre, 558 ; Mr. Billson, 559 ; Mr. Longmore, 559; Mr. Gaunson, 559; Mr. Kerierd, 560; debate adjourned, 560; state­ment by Mr. Casey, 589 ; debate resumed by Mr. MacBain, 633 ; continued by Mr. A. K. Smith,6:J3 ; Mr. D. M. Davie!!, 635; Mr. Cooper, 636 ; Mr. Laurens, 637 ; Mr. Levien, 637; debate adjourned, 638; resumed by Mr. F. L. Smyth, 721; continued by Mr. Bayles, 722; Mr. Tucker,' 723; Mr. Nimmo's amendment negatived, 723; amendment by Mr. F. L. Smyth, in favour of the introduction of a Bill providing" that such classes of public roads as this House shall consider necessary shall be opened and continue permanently open for public use in future," 724; debated by Mr. Service, 724; Mr. Berry, 724; Mr. Gaunson, 725 ; Mr. Dwyer, 7~6; debate adjourned, 727 ; personal explanation by Mr. Graves, 796 ; Mr. F. L. Smyth's amendment negatived

LEGISLATIVE ASSEl\1BLY. 47

Roads, Closing of Public (continued)-and .Mr. Tucker's motion carried, 1438; question by Mr. Tucker, re return ordered in· .1875, 143; statement by Mr. Long­more;,144 ; further question by Mr. Tucker, ] 919; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Mimms, 17~; ·question by Mr. F. L.

. Smyth, re swing-gates, 847; by Mr. Dwyer, re appointment 0f persons to remove fences, 2050; by Mr. Cope, re enforcement of open­ing of roads. 2273.

Road Tolls - Question by Mr. Fergusson. 7; by Mr. Levien, 619; by Mr. Carter, 1170 ; by Mr. Bill son, 143';' ; by Mr. L. L. Smith, 1512; by Mr. Ramsay, 2368 and 2377; statement by Mr. Berry, 2377. (See Tolls Continuation Bill; also Tolls Bill.)

Road Works and Bridges - Question by Mr. Hunt, re works outside municipalities, 679 ; votes discussed in Committee of Supply, 1705 and 1708; question by Mr. H.unt-, re road works damaged by floods, 2305.

Rodney, Representation of-Petition against Mr. Gillies' return presented, 18; referred to Elections Committee, III ; question by Mr. Gauns6n, 587 and 718; committee's report, declaring "the election for Rodney to be wholly void," brought up, 1114; Mr. Gaun­son intimates his intention to move that the committee ought to have declared the petitioner (Mr. Shackell) a member of the House, Ill4; the Speaker notifies that he will issue a writ for a new election unless the House otherwise directs, 1114; motion submitted that the report lie on the table and be printed, I1l5 ; amendment by Mr. Kerferd for referring report back to com­mittee for reconsideration, 1116; debated by Mr. Dwyer, 1116; motion by Mr. G. Paton Smith, for' adjournment of debate, II] 7-9; debated by Mr. Gaunson, 1119; Mr. Berry, 1120; Mr. tservice, 1120;· Mr. Mackay. 1121 ; Mr. Lalor, 1122; Mr. Zox, ] ] 23; Mr. Langridge, 1124; Mr. Kerferd, 1125; Mr. Munro, 1125; Mr. Cooper. 1125 ; Mr. Carter, 1126 ; Mr. Dow, 1127; motion for adjournment of debate negatived, 1128 ; debate continued by Mr. Kerferd, 1128; Mr. Berry, 1130; Sir 'John O'Shanassy, 1132; Mr. Gaunson, 1133; Mr. Dwyer, 1134 ; Mr. Nimmo, 1 ]38; further amendment by Mr. MacPherson, ll39; debate continued by Sir Charles Mac Mahon, 1139; Mr. G. Paton Smith, 1140; Mr. McIntyre, 1143; Mr. Gaunson, 1144; Mr. Dwyer, 1145; amendment negatived, and report ordered to lie on the table -and to be printed, 1146 ; Mr. Gaunson's motion re the seating of Mr. Shackell, proposed and negatived, 1146· Mr. Gillies're-election announced, 1336 and 1405; Mr. Gillies introduced and sworn, 1336.

Rosstown Junction Railway Bill-Order ~f leave to introduce, passed· the previous session, read, 126; Hill read first 8;nd second time, and referred to select commIttee, 127 ; com­mittee's report brought up, 389; amend­men.ts made by committee adopted, 2372 ; motIOn by Mr. Zox for standing orders to enable promoters to go on with the Bill in the follow:i,ng session without commencing de n(lvo, 2416.; adopted, 2416 ; Governor's approv~l of standing orders announced, 2426. .

Ryan, Mr .• Jeremiah-Case or.-Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. Dwyer, 848 ; produced, 933.

SAINSBURY, Mr. H. H. (Cl'eSwic/l) Public Works Department-Mr. Eaton, 1440.

Sandhurst Powder Magazine. (See Powder Magazines.)

Sandhurst, Representation of-Petition against Mr. VV. G. Blackham's return, presented, 18; Speaker announces receipt of letter from Mr. Blackham resigning his seat, 96 ; motion for referring petition against Mr. Blackham's return to Elections Committee, proposed, 98; debated, 98; negatived, 109; motion by Mr. Berry for the immediate issue of a writ for a new election, agreed to, III ; Mr. Mackay's return announced, 263 ; Mr. Mackay introduced and sworn, 263.

Sandhurst School of Mines-Question by Mr. R. Clark, re mining in California, 656.

Sandridge Bend, Fencing of-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 1702.

Scab Prevention and Diseases in Stock-Ques­tion by Mr. Gaunson, re importation of sheep from Tasmania, 933 and 1202 ; motion by Mr. Lyell, for papers re admission of Victorian sheep into New South Wales, agreed to, 1555; papers produced, 1672. (See Stock, Department of.)

School of Design-Question by Mr. Richardson, re pictures and models, 340.

Schools. (See Public Instruction.) Seamen and Shipping Laws-Select committee

. appointed, on motion of Mr. A. T. Clark, to inquire into the laws relating to seamen and shipping,234. (See Ships, Unseaworthy.)

Sea Sand, Encroachment of-Subject discussed in connexion with vote for fencing Sand­ridge Bend, 1702.

SERVICE, Mr. JAMES (Maldon) Administration of the Lands Department,

1540. Appropriation Bill, 1821, 1823, and 1824. Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admis­

sion Bill, 238. Beechworth Waterworks Act Amendment

Bill, 553, 554, and 631. Budget, 567; Supplementary Statement, 1584

and 1588. Chairman of Committees, 40. Charitahle Institutions, 2305. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating BilJ,

234 and 464. Coliban Water Scheme, 306. Communication with Europe-The Cape Route,

422, 462, 806, and 1233. " Cup" Day, 1286. Customs Department-The Stevenson Case

and Weigher Fraser, 1235. Dismissed Civil Servants, 2378. Election Petitions-South Gippsland, 357,363,

375,440, and 1582; Rouney, 1120, 1122, and 1131; Barwon, 1636, 1639, 1642, 1654, 1658, and 1733.

Explosive Substances Bill, 1514. Fencing of Public Roads, 724. Finance-Sir James McCulloch and Mr. Ser~

vice, 568,617, and 619. Gippsland Railway-Melbourne and Oakleigh

Section, 295. Government Appointments, 68.

48 INDEX.

SERVICE, Mr. JAl\IES (coniinued)-Government Contracts, 2376. . Insol \'ency Statute Amendment Bill, 1514 and

1549. International Exhibitions Bill, 1481,1483, and

1-18 ... Justices of. the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

165, 554, and 556. Land Selectors and the Banks, 2270 and 2272. Legislative Assembly, 1590. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 956. Mining on Private Property Bill, 1006, 1010,

and 1012. Mr. Berry and :\fr. Service, 1642. Mr. Casey, 2165. Mr. Eaton, 1443, 1449, 1450, 1453, 1454, and

1457. Mr. Samuel Fieldhouse, 15!i4. Mr. Service and the Ministry, 1645. National Bank of Issue, 2159. Officials in Parliament Act Amendment Bill,

1543. Payment of Members, l!i47. Political Situation-Puhlic Payments on Votes

of the Assembly, 2022; Address to the Queen, 20!i9 and 2105; Charges Incidental to the Management of the l{,evenue, 2152 ; Appropriation Bill p~o. 2),2338.

Privileges of the Legislative Assembly, 1292 and 1365.

Public-houses Act, 642. Public Instruction-Teachers' Salaries. 146. Public Works Loan Expenditure Validating

Bill. 639. Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney,

391,431, and 432. Railway Bills Conference, 2388. Railway Construction Bill, 158, 174, 176. 219,

249,253,259. 2fiO, 283, 315, and 316 ; Legis­lative Council's Amennments, 1244 and 1249.

Railway Construction Bill (No.2) 1249 and 1251.

Railway Loan ACcolint Application Bill, 1516, 1551. 1552, 1759, and 1769.

Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 321. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of Sitting,

67; Order of Business, 375 and 955; Close of the Session, 1406.

Sheriff's Department, 935. Speaker, The-Election of, 4; Salary, 639. Supreme Court Procedure Simplification Bill,

20no. Tariff Revision-Cornsacks and Wool packs,

76-1 ann 767; Children's Boots and Shoes, 1378; Wooden Doors, 1383; Linseed Meal, 1384; Corks, 1386; Matches and Vestas, 1387; Wattle Bark, 1458; Delay in Passing Tariff, 1821. .

Tolls Continuation Bill, 49 aud 55. " Unopposed" Motions, 1290. Warrnamb001 Harbour Improvements, 1069,

1071, and 2198. West Melbourne Election, 2416 and 2418.

Sessional Arrangements-Appointment of days . of sitting, 61-7; motion by Sir John O'Shan­

assy in favour of the hour of meeting being two o'clock p.m., 61; debated. 63; negatived, 66; motion hy Mr. Levien, that the hour of meeting on Thursday be two o'clock p.m., 66; . negatived, 67; resolution re precedence to Go\'ernment business, 67-8; appointment of standing committees, 68 ; discussion raised by Mr. Gillies re hour of meeting, 81 ; motion

Sessional Arrangements (couiinued)-by Mr. Berry," That so IDllCh of the sessional order as prohibits new Government husiness being called on after eleven o'clock p.m. be rescinded," 1406 ; debated, 1406 ; agreed to, 1407. (See Business, Order of.)

Sharks-Question by Mr. Fergusson, 932 ; by Mr. Levien, 13:J6 ; vote for capture of sharks discussed in Committee of Supply, 1703.

SHARPE, Mr. GEORGE (Moira) Administration of the Land Law-Mortgag­

ing of Selections, 294 and 717 ; Selectors' Grievances - Land Needed for Railways, 100-l and 1036; The Five-mile Regulation, 1232.

Chevalier Bruno, 1559 and 1560. Customs Duties Bill, 1924. Differential Rating Bill, 1535. Fencing of Public Roads, 171. Forts and Armaments Bill, 1522. Goulburn Valley Hailway Bill, 1416 and 1747. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

165 and 554. Juvenile Labour in Factories, 1512. Lands Department-Peter McArthur's Case,

1532. Land Tax Bill, 687, 738, and 741. Liquor Inspectors, 1238. New Land Bill, 718. Penal Establishments, 647 and 648. Police, 640. Privileges of the Legislative Assembly, 1747. Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney, 446. H.ailway Accident at Barnawartha, 1432. Railway Bills Conference, 2387. Railway Construction Bill, 173, 174,280, 283,

and 317. Railway Department-Sunday Traffic, 82;

Traffic-branch Officers, 623; Station Ac­commodation on the North-Eastern Rail­way, 995 and 170-l ; Fares of Clergymen, 1635; Holling-stock, 1921.

Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1553 Sheep Illspectors, 826 and 16:34. South Gippsland Election Petition, 1474. State Schools in Benal\a-shire, &c., 69. Tariff Hevision-Live Stock, 979 and 984 ;

Children's Boots and Shoes, 1379; Maize, 1924.

Tarrawingee Sludge Channel, 69. Telegraph Extension to Yarrawonga, 993. Tree Planting along Railways, 1705. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1847. Wahgunyah Bridge, 977 and 2146.

Sheriff's Department-Vote discussed in Com-mittee of Supply, 935. .

Ships, Unseaworthy-Motion by Mr. L. L_ SmIth for leave to introduce a Bill to make pro­vision for stopping unseaworthy ships, pro­posed and withdrawn, 234; statement by Mr. Lalor, 251. (See Seamen and Shipping Laws.)

Sly-grog Selling-Question by Mr. Richardson, 1512.

SlIIITH, Major W. C., Minister of Mines and Minis­ter of Public Instruction (Ballarat IV est)

Amendment of the Mining Statute. 461. Beech worth Waterworks Act Amendment Bill,

632.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 49

SMITH, Major W. C. (continued)­Business Licences, 1202 and 2143. Chevalier Bruno, 1560. Customs Duties Bill-Wattle Bark, 1933. Expenditure under Loans - Water Supply,

305, 306, and 308. Explosive Substances Bill, 490, 669,1492,1514,

and 1759. Geological Survey, 1000. Gold-saving Machine, 796. Mines Drainage Law Amendment Bill, 1171

and 1833. Mining Boards, 1000. Mining Leases, 718, 1169, 1512, and 2377. Mining on Private Property Bill, 68, 375, 624, 62~ 628,659,66~662,664,667,66~ 75~756, 758, 964, 970, 976, 1005, 1007, 1008, and 1010.

Mining Shafts, 2380. Mr. Thomas Bury, 796. Mr. Wilson Gray (The lat.e), 1559 Mr. Mackay and Major Smith, 1769. Paris Exhibition-Quartz Crushing, &c., 1580. Political Situation-Rejection of the Appro-

priation Bill by the Legislative Council, 1!l42.

Prospecting, 204, 1707, 1708, 1748, and 2344. Public Instruction -Administration of the

Education Department, 29; Professor Pear­son, 34, 1999,2307, and 2367 ; School Requi­sites, 38, 123, and 795; School Attendance, 61, 294, 388, and 424; Schools in Echuca­shire, 69; School Books, 121 and 181; Charts of Insectiyorous Birds, 181, 422, and 2292; Annual Report, 264; Teachers, 294, 13.36, 1344, and :!367; Drowning and Snakebite, 954 ; Education Vote, 1094 and 1230; Training School, 1169; Exhibitions, 1242; Tree Planting, 1375; Payments to Officers in the Law Department, 1375 and 1434; Temporary Clerical Assistance, 1622; School Accommodation at Carlton, 1674; Swimming, 1753; ~chool at-Buln-Buln, 1802; Mr. John Rae, 1919 and 2381; University Examinations, 2049; Enforcement of the Compulsory Clause, 2050; Drawing and Singing, 2158; Schools in the Wimmera District, 2367.

Public Works Loan Expenditure Validating Bill, 639 and 669.

Rail way Construction Bill, 343. Railway Department-Excursion Trains, 622. Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1768. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Hill, 69,

111, 132, 134, ~36, 138, 140, 158, 160, 162, 263,325,326,328,351,352,375, 1429, 1430, 1533, and 1998.

Sandhurst School of Mines-Mining in Cali-fornia, 656.

School of Design-Pictures and Models, 340. Secretary for Mines, 1000. Signalling in Mines, 145. Timber Cutting, 588. Tolls Bill, 1859. Volunteer Jj'orce, 940. Water Supply-Geelong, 97; Sandhurst and

Eaglehawk, 977; Completion of the Coliban 8cheme, 1064; Country Districts, 2084.

Waterworks Act Amendment Bill, 98, 332, 352, 355,356, 1284, and 1548.

Waterworks Act Amendment Bill (No.2), 1548.

White Horse, Road, 1706. Workmen's Lien Bill, 629,

:p

SMITH, Mr. A. K. (E. Melbourne) Albert-park Lake, 1491 and 1701. Customs Duties Bill, 1926 and 1932. Defence of the Colony-Torpedoes, 942, 1233,

and 1522; Volunteers on Garrison Duty, 2383.

Electors' Rights-Blind Men, 2377. Ex-employes of the Dredging Department,

1624. Fencing of Public Roads, 633 and 637. Forts and Armaments Bill, 1522. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1407. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1421. Industrial Schools, 1072. Land Tax Bill, 736. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 332. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 800, 802

and 1339. Mrs. Wintle (The late)~ 1635. New Public Offices, 2384. Payment of ~Iembers Bill, 1757. Police, MG. Postage, 1546. Public 'Yorks Department-Accountant's

Salary, 1046. Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney, 413. Uailway Bills Conference, 2390. Railway Construction Bill, 196,221,260,281,

343 and 344. ' Railway Department-Locking of Carringes,

996 ; Victorian-made Locomotives, 096 and 998 ; Railway Workshops, 996 ; Tree Plant­ing in Railway Hesel'Ves, 1704; Rolling Stock, 17 1'5; Examination of Employes for Colour Blindness, 2304.

Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 135, 1:36, 140, :325, anel 326.

Sandridge Bend, 170~. Secretary for ~ines, 999. Statue of the Quecn, 1826. Tariff Hevision-Glassware, 1428; Maize,

1926 ; Cast-steel Drills, 1932 ; tlcrap Iron, 1932.

Tolls Bill, 1804, 1806, anel 1834. vYarrnamhool Harbour Improvements, 1059,

1062, and 1071. Yan Yean 'Water Snpply, 1052, 1240,und 2270.

SlIIITH, Mr. G. PATON (Boroonrlara) Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admission

Bill, 235. Collingwood Gas Company's Extension of

.Powers Bill-Taxation of Costs, 39. Conduct of a Magistrate at Rochester, 586. Coroners' Inquests, 937 and 938; Election of Chairman of Committees, 45 and .t6. Election Petitions-Fitzroy, 109; South

Gippsland, 358;365,and 1541; Hodney, 1117 and 1140.

Gippsland Hailway Completion Bill, 1411. International Exhibitions Bill, 1-186. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

166. Kew Lunatic Asylum, 144. Land Tax Bill, 679. Liquor Inspectors, 1236. Parliament - Hours of Sitting, 65 ; Asking

Questions, 97; "Unopposed" Motions, 1288 and 1291 ; Order of Business, 1547.

Penal Establishments, 650 and 654. Police, 642 and 646. Postage, 1546. Railway Construction Bill-Legislative Coun ..

cil's Amendments, 1025, 1030, and 124~.

50 INDEX.

SMITH, Mr. G. PATON (contz'nued)-Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1249, 1253,

and 1260. ." Railway Department-Station Arrangements,

995. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 161 , and 102.

Tariff Revision-Cornsacks and Woolpacks, 767; Wattle Bark, 1461.

The Speaker and Mr. G. Paton Smith, 1028, 1:251,1:.153, and 1260.

(Death announced, and adjournment of the House in consequence, 1779,)

SMITH, Mr. J. T. (W. Bourke) City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

234, 464, 466, 554, and 633. "Cup" Day, 1 ~86. Diphtheria-Mr. Greathead's Specific, 1472. Election Petitions-Sandhurst, 108; South

Gippsland, 374. International Exhibitions Bill, 1486. Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

165. . Mayor of Melbourne's Ball, 623. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 331. Night Signals for the Harbour, 2292. Railway Bills Conference, 2401. Railway Construction Bill, 212, 251, ~17, 318,

and ;~50. Secretary for Mines, 999. Sessional Arrangements -Hours of Sitting, 63. Tolls Continuation Bill, 56 and 1805. West Melbourne Election, 2420. Woods' Continuous Railway Brake, 2424.

SMITH, Mr. L. L. (Richrnond)­Arlulleration of Food and Drink, 1539. Agent·General's Department, 823 and 825. Agricultural College, 1701. Botanic Gardens, 1489. Coroners' Inquests, 936, 939, and 1233. Criminal Cases Appeal Bm, 720 and 1038. "Cup" Day, 1287. Death of Viscount Canterbury, 36. Ddence of the Colony-Single-gun Boats,

1838. Election Petitions-South Gippsland, 358;

Barwon, 1645. Electoral Act Amendment Bill, 949. Expiring Law (Diseases in Stock) Continua-

tion Bill, 1518. Fencing and Planting of Sandridge Bend, 1702. Gippsland Railway, 320. Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1408

and 1413. Gold-saving Machine, 796. Government Botanist, 822. Government Contracts- Victorian Manufac-

tures,2376. Hawthorn-bridge Toll, 1512. Irrigation, 1635. Land Tax Bill, 745. Liqnor Inspectors, 946, 1236, and 1539. Mr. T. H. Budden, 1625. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1558. Mr. J. Richardson, M.P. (The late), 1626. Mr. Thomas t:::iunderland, 659. Officials in l'arliament Act Amendment Bill,

1542. Paris Exhibition-Quartz Crushing, &c., 1580. Parks and Gardens-Holidays tQ ~mployes, ~~~ ,

SMITH, Mr. L. L. (continued)- , Parliament-Practice re Askin'g Questions and

" Calling Attention," 145; Pri vate Members' Business, 305; Dr. Macartney's Qualifica­tion, 424; Seconding of Motions, 1257.

Payment of Members, 1605., Penal Department-Life-sentence ):>risoners,

7,95, 588, 838, 1037, ]432, 1803, and 1921; Gratuities to Prisoners, 522 and 622; Prison Discipline, 648 a1)d 653 ..

Personal Explanation, 233. Police, 646. Political Situation-Appropriation Bill (No.2),

233ft Postage, 38, 1492, and 1543. ' Promotions in the Postal Department, 1703. Prospecting, 1749. . Public Instruetion-Scho01 Requisit~s', 123. Public Library, &c.-Opening on Sunday, 746. Railway Construction Bill, 200, 230, 232, 253,

and 310. Railway Parcels Office, 679. Refreshment Rooms, 1543. Rosstown Junction Railway Bill, 127. Secretary for Mines, 999. I

Statue of the Queen, 1621. . Stock Department, 252, 825, and 933; Cum-

berland Disease, 252 and 826. , Tariff Revision-Leather, 1426; Wattle Bark,

1460 and 1489. Tolls Cont.inuation Bills, 49, 18M, and 1818. Unseaworthy Ships, 234. ..' , . Vehicles in Public Parks, 1490. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1841 and 1857. War Telegrams, 143 and 823. White Horse Hoad, 1395. Yarra Floods, 2377.

SlIUTH, Mr. R. MURRAY (Boroondara)-Intro­duced and sworn, 1997.

Dismissed Civil Servants, 2084. Political Situation-Public Payments onVotes

of the Assembly, 2031; Mr. Berry's Motion re Charges Incidental to the Management of the Revenue, 2211 and 2217.

Public Instruction-Charts of I1)sectivorolls Birds, 2:292.

The Governor and Sir William Mitchell, 2405.

SlIIYTH, Mr. F, L. (N. Gippsland) A pplication for Land..,.-J ohn Schutt, 679. Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admission

Bill, 107, 235, and 236. Budget, 597. Carlton Gardens, 1635. City of Melbourne Corporation' Rating Bill,

465 and 467. Coroners' Inquests, 1233. Criminal Cases Appeal Bill, 1046 and 1202. Differential Rating Bill, 1535. Dog Act Amendment Bill, 164. Dower Abolition Bill, 1436. ]'encing of Public Roads, 172,721,724, and

847. Gippsland Lakes, 993, 1076, 1433, 1999,2146,

and 2197. Gippsland Railway, 38, 301, 489, 490" 1169,

1433, 1820, 1831, 1862,1998,2269,2381, and 2421. ,

Insolvency Statute Amendment Bill, 1514. International Exhibitions Bill, 1482,1484,1486,

1488, and 1551. ' Justices of the Peace Act Amendment Bill,

128, 166, and 554.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 51

SMYl'H, Mr. F. L. (continlled)­Land Tax Bill, 687,735, and 743. Liquor Im'pectors. 1240. Magistrates - Previous Conviction of Pri-

soners, 2 158. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 1270. Mining Leases, 1512 and 2377. Mining on Private Property Bill, 468, 625, 664,

754, and 758. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1558. Officials in Parliament Act Amendment Bill,

1542. Parliament-Hours of Sitting, 64; Members'

Places, 468; Order of Business on Wednes­days, 1273; "Unopposed" Motions, 1290 ; Call of the House, 1.'548.

Parliamentary Costs Bill, 670. Pa.yment of Members Vote, 1596; Payment . of Members Bill, 1i58.

Political Situation, 227;;; Appropriation Bill (~o. 2), 2313.

Postage, 1493 and 1547. Privill-'ges of the Legislative Assembly, 1372. Prospecting. 18:l8. Protection of Insectivorous Birds, 181 and 421. Public Library, &c.-Opening on Sunday, 746. Puhlic Works in Gippsland, 2148. Railway Bills Conference, 2368. 2385, and 2391. Rai I way Construction Bill, 200 and 350; Legis-

lative Council's Amendments, 1246. Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1249. Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1766. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 114,

159,161, ]62,327, and 328. Sandhurst Election Petition, 108. Speaker's Salary, 639. Stone for the New Law Courts, 183. Supreme Court Procedure Simplification Bill,

2000. Talbotville Bridge, 622. Telegraph Department Employes, 1232. Tolls Bill, 1859. . Unseaworthy Ships. 234. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1843, 1854,

and 1856. . . Waterworks Act Amepdment Bill, 332. Yan Yean Water Supply, 2291.

Sorr~nto, Government Expenditure at-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Gaunson, 2334 ; produced, 2383. . .

Speaker, ElectiQn. 6f'-:-Motion by Mr. Grflnt that Sir Gavan Duffy be elected Speaker, 3; seconded by Mr. Service, 4; statement by Sir Charles Mac Mahon, 4; by Mr. Gillies, 6; Sir Gavan Duffy .elected, 6; presented to the Govemor, 6; congratulated on his election by Mr. Berry and Mr. MacPherson, 18; on being created a KC.M.G.,1923. .

SPEAKER, Hon. the (Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, K.C M.G.)-Hulings of-

Acceptance of an honorable member's state­ment, 1255.

Allegations by honorable members that" they have been knowingly misrepresented," 303 and ~04.

Appropriation Bill-Inclusion in Appropria­tion Bill of matters of State policy, 1697.

Appropriation Bill (~o. 2), 2354. Asking qllestions and" calling attention"­

parliamentary practice-57, 58, 59, 97, 145, and 586. .

SPEAKER, The-Rulings of (continlled)­Attacks on absent persons, 1255 and 1644. Beechworth Waterworks Act Amendment Bill,

553. Bills, Proceedings on-First reading, 720;

second reading, 1745 j consideration of .re­port, 167 and 344 j Bills of an urgent nature, 49, 5.4, and 55 ; amendments after third reading, 1009; revival of a Dill laid aside, 2354. -

Charges of corrnption, 33. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

464. Committees - Constitution of Priva.te Bill

committees, 955 ; motions for select. com-mittees, 120.l. .

Debate - When there is no qUE'stion before the chair, 320 and 2156 ; praetke when two members ri'e together, 442 ; reference to a debate on another s1lhject, 444; reference ill full House to proceedings in committE'e, 234; repelling attacks, 1770; preserration of order, 2061; proposals for adjournment, 2165 ; interrupting an honorable member, 2274; proprieties of debate, 34 and 1644.

Defiance of the chair, 2062. Disoruerly language, 1739, 2061, 2063, 2224,

and 2394. Disrespectful allusion to a decision of the

Honse, 1476 and 1763. Divisions-Methods of calling for, 710. Dog Act Amendment Bill, 164. Elections Committee-The Speaker's warrant,

72,78, 79,and 1654; refiectionson members, 1642, 1645, and 1716 ; reports, 1658, 1666, 17 I 1, 1714, 1725, and 1726; award of costs, 1636 and 1653; attendance of members, ]819 and 187l.

Election Petitions - South Gippslflnd, 358, 359, 362, 374, 1476, 1581, ]819, 1~69, and 2422 ; Rodney, 1114, 1116. 1139, and 1146; Barwon, 1636, 1658, 1666, 17 10, ] i 25, 1726, and 1738'; return of election petition depo­sits, 1869 and 18iO.

Estimates after the passage of the Appropri­ation Bill. 24~2.

Improper Imputations, 1118, 1255, 1257, 1740 and 2400.

Interpretation of Acts of Parliament by the Speaker, :162.

Land Tax Bill-Mode of initiating-the pre­am ble, 683 and 763; di dsion on second reading, 718.

Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 955, 956 and 1271.

Ministerial Statements, 2156 ; statements in reply to questions, 2387.

Motions-To disagree with the Speaker's ruling, 40 and 1251 ; in anticipation of an order of the day, 96 ; "unopposed" 1Il0tions, 172,375.1288,1289, 1291,and 1344; motions for the adjonrnment of the HOllS', 295, 1254, 1291, and 1918 ; motions in volving- an expenditure of public money, 18ill and 24"2; proposing ana seconding of motions, 753, 848, 1257, and 2165 ; amE'ndments on mo­tions, 722 and 1476 ; time for giving notices of motion, 3i4 ; insertion of "&c." in mo­tions for returns, 1514.

Money Bills, 234. Notiee Paper-Framing, 1254 and 1274;

postponement of business, 40; flnticipation of notices on the. paper, 1004, J250, and 1292. .

52 INDEX.

SPEAKER, The-Rulings of (colltinued)­Offensive langnap:e with respect to another

brandl of the Legisl!ttu re, 1880 and 2072. Ordt'r of husiness on Werlnesdays, 305, 374,

1271, 1272, 1274, and 2l6-l. Payment of members vote, 1697. Personal explanations, 19, 20, anrI 233. Petitions·-A~king for expenditure of public

money, 8~, 142, and 288 ; for the production of papers, 2144 and 2146; rontaining mis­representations, 2385 ; printing of petitions, 2385 ; interlineation of petitions, 340.

Points of order, 1317; debating points of order decided upon by the chair, 1251.

Presentation of papers, 329. . Printing of returns-Breach of customs laws,

2371. Private Bills-Taxation of costs, 39; compli­

ance with standing orders, 127l. Privilege-Time for submitting questions of

privilege.3i5. Privilege, Waiving of, 1019 and lO28. Proceedings connected with the seating and

unseating of members, 1476. Proposals for a conference between the two

Houses, 2164. Railway Construction Bill (No.2), 1249, 1250,

1252, and 1260. Recommittal of resolutions passed in Com­

mittee of Supply, 1748. Referen('e to an honorable member as a " per­

son," 2399. Reference to an honorable member in the

third person, 76 ; by his name, 2011,2062, 2069, and 2 181.

Rerving a subpoona on the Speaker, 2146. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of meeting,

67 and 81. Statement imputed to an honorable member

and denied, 2195. Sta.tement that an "honorable member has

occupied a position in this House utterly unworthy of him," 16~5.

Statement that an "honorable member is acting like a lunatic," 1644

Taxation proposals, 553. Use of the term ., disingenuous," 1316. Words of heat, 1316.

Speaker, Ralary of-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 6:19.

Spear in, Frank-Case of-Question by Mr. Zox, 11164; statement by Mr. Grant, 1064.

Springs and Wahgunyah Hailway-Question by Mr. Orr, 2050; by Mr. BiUson, 2:305.

Standing Orders Committee-Appointed, 68; reports brought up, 586 anrl 175:3; question by Mr. Casey as to reco"Inmendation of com­mittee. re Supply, 630. (See Taxing Officer.)

Standing Orders (New) -Governor's approval announced, 18:31 and 2426.

State Forests -Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Cooper, 181 ; question by Mr. Laurens, 14i2., (See Timber Gutting.)

Staughton Vale Distillery-Heturn oruered. on motion of Mr. King, 753; produced, 933.

Stawell and Horsham Railway -Question· by Mr. R. Clark (Wimmel'a), 1999; by Mr. Dow, 2292.

Steam Communication with Europe. (See Mail Communication. )

Stevenson aud Sons. Messrs.-Case of-Dis­cussed, 1234 and 1872.

Stock, Charge on-Question by Mr. Graves, 422.

Stock, Department of-Vote discussed in COlll­mittee of Supply, 825 ; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Dow, 848; produced, 93:, ; question by Mr. L. L. Smith, re Government veterinary surgeon, 933 ; by Mr. Sharpe, re inspectors' salaries, 1634. (See Cumberland Disease; also Scab Prevention.)

Stock, Imported-Tax on. (See Tariff.) Stony Creek Bridge-Vote discussed in Com­

mittee of Supply, 1706.

STORY, Mr. JOSEPH (N. Melbourne) Administration of the Public-houses Act,

644; Liquor Inspectors, 948 and 1238. Albert-park Lake, 1701. Chevalier Bruno, 1560. City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

465. Customs Duties Bill, 1924. Electoral Act Amendment Bill, 120. Gippsland Hailway Completion Bill, 1412. Goulburn Valley Hailway Bill, 1423. International Exhibitions Bill, 1485 and 1516. Melbourne Market Site Bill, 330. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 800, 955,

1270, 13~1, and·1342. Mining on Private Property Bill, 486, 625, and

668. Nuisance at Hotham, 1702. Payment of Members Vote, 1617; Payment

of Members Bill, 1754. Political Situation-Appropriation Bill (No.

2),2354. Railway Construction Bill, 186, 230,260, and

313. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 160. Roya.l-park Powder Magazine, 948 and 1515. Royal-park Road, 1491. South Gippsland Election Pet.ition, 1474. Tariff Revision-Cornsacks and Woolpacks,

771 ; Live Stock, 985 ; Substituted Duties, 1426; Bottled Beer, 1893 j Maize, 1924.

Tolls Bill, 1818. White Horse Road, 1745. Yan Yean Water Supply, 1053; Rating of

Unoccupied Buildings, 1336.

Sunday-Propriety of opening Puhlic Library, &c., on Sunday, discussed in Committee of f'upply, 746.

Sunderland, Mr. Thomas-Case of-Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. L. L. Smith, 659 ; produced, 752.

Supply-Preliminary resolution adopted, 35; votes on account passed, 145-7 and 623; voting of Estimates for 1877-8 proceeded with, 639; The Speaker, 639; The Police, 640; Penal Establishments, 646; Public Library, Museums, and National Gallery, 746; Government Botanist, 822 j The Agent-General, 823; Inspectors of Stock, 825 j The Aborigines, 933; Acclimatisation Societies, 933; Free Libraries, 933; Police Court Visitor, 934; Lunatic Asylums, 934 ; Law Department, 934; Registrar of Pro­bates, 934; Sheriff's Department, 935; County Courts, 935; Police Magistrates, 936; Coroners, 966 and 1233; Curator of Estates of Deceased Persons, 939 and 945 ; Defence of the Colony, 939, 1073, and 1233; The Cerberus, 942; Charitable In­stitutions, 943; Gratuities to Families of Deceased Public Servants, 944; Horticul­tural Societies, 945; Ports and Harbours,

LEGISLATIVE ASSEl\IHLY. 5S

Supply (continued)-945; Liquor Inspectors, 946 aud 1236; Powder Magazines, 948; Postal Depart­ment, 991; Telegraph Extension, 992; Railway Department, 993; Mining Depart­ment, 999; Public ",Yorks Department, 1046; Yan Yean vVater Supply, 1051 and 1240; Geelong Water Supply, 1054; Warr­nambool Harbour Improvements, 1054, 1065, and 1068; International Exhibition, '1066; West Melbourne Swamp, 1072; Education Vote, ]078, 1171, and 1207; Industrial Schools, 1072; Customs Department, 1234; Botanic and Domain Gardens, 1489; De­partment of Agriculture, 1489; Parks and Gardens, 1489; voting of Additional Esti­mates proceeded with, ] 590; Legislative Assembly, 1590; Payment of Members, 1590 and 16i 4; Administration of the Land Tax Act, 1619; Statue of the Queen, 1621 ; Commissions and Boards of Inquiry, 1622 ; Special Allowances, 1622; Public Instruc­tion, 1622; Compensation and Gratuities, 1622; Harbour Trust Employes, 1624; Mr. Budden, J.P., 1625 ; Mr. Bryant Waymouth, 1625; The late Mr. J. Richardson, M.P., 1625; The late Mr. W. H. Wright, 1626; Lands Department, 1699; Horticultural Societies, 1701; Albert-park Lake, 1701; Sandridge Bend, 1702; Clearing the Goul­burn, 1702; Sharks, 1703; Postal Depart­ment, 1703; Railway Department, 1703; Roads and Bridges, 1705 ; Prospecting, 1706.

Supreme and County Courts Procedure Bill­Brought in by Mr. Dwyer, and read first time, 1038; discharged from the paper, 1435.

Supreme Court Judges (Retil'ed), Titular dis­tinction of-Governor's message transmit­ting despatch from Secretary of State, 1710.

Supreme Court Jurisdiction and Procedure Bill -Received from Legislative Council, and read first time, 622; discharged from the paper, 1471.

Supreme Court Procedure Simplification Bill­Brought in by Mr. F. L. l:;ruyth, and read first time, 2000.

Supreme (New) Court, Erection of-Estimates of expendi ture considered in committee, 182 and 183; return re selection of stone ordered, on motion of Mr. Bayles, 320; produced,421. (See Freestone from Mount Abrupt.)

Survey Fees-Question by Mr. Levien, 294; by Mr. D. M. Davies, 1231; by Mr, Bird,2426.

Sutherland, Mr.-Case of, (See Law Depart­ment.)

Talbotville (Crooked River), Bridge at-Ques­tion by Mr. F. L. Smyth, 622.

Tank Reserve, Eastern Hill-Return re grants of land ordered, on motion of Mr, Lang­ridge, 2334.

Tariff, Revision of the-Question by Mr. McIntyre, 97; proposals for revising the Tariff submitted by Mr. Berry, 503; reso­lution passed for the protection of the revenue, 509; Mr. Berry's proposals con­sidered in committee, 763; cornsacks and woolpacks, 763-72; Ii ve stock, 977-91; in­creased duties, 1377; children's boots and shoes, 1377; wooden doors, 1382; drugs, 1384; earthenware, 1384; gold and silver

Tariff, Revision of the (continued)-leaf, 1385; corks, 1386 ; matches and vestas, 1387 and 1832; new duties, 1387; substituted duties, 1425; leather, 1425; silks-ribbons, 1427; glassware, 1427 and 1832; umbrellas, 1428; hats, 1428; export duties-wattle bark, 1457; redgum timber, 1466, 1580, and 1832; scrap iron, 1470; proposals con­sidered in committee on Customs Duties Bill, 1893; dried fruit and gloves, ]893; bottled beer, 1893; children's boots and shoes, 1893; wooden doors, 1893; corks, 1894; drugs, 1894; earthenware, 1894; glass bottles, 1894; maize, 1894 and 1923; iron pipes, 1930; salt, 1931; cast-steel drills, 1931, carpeting, &c., and watches, 1932 and 1933 ; scrap iron, 1932; wattle bark, 1932 ; redgum timber,1933; question byMr. MacBain, 1232; by Mr. Zox, 1821; discussion re delay in passing of Tariff in committee on the Ap­propriation Bill, 1821; resolutions passed in committee adopted, 1832. (See Customs Duties BiLL.)

Tarrawingee Sludge Channel-Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. Sharpe, 69.

Taxation, New-Proposals. submitted by Mr. Berry, 502 and 508; statement by the Speaker,553. (See Land Tax; also Tariff.)

Taxing Officer of the Legislative Assembly­Resolution brought up from Standing Orders Committee, re fees for taxation of costs by taxing officer, 1753; resolution adopted as a standing order of the Legis­lative Assembly, 1753; Governor's approval of standing order announced, 1831. (See Parliamentary Costs Bill.)

Teachers. (See Public Instruction.) Telegrams re War in Europe. (See War.) Telegraph Department-Question by Mr. F. L.

Smyth, re employes, 1232; by Mr. Barr, re delay in transmission of messages. 2379.

Telegraph Extension-Questions by Mr. Levien, re Drysdale, 83 and 146;· vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 992; questions by Mr. F. L. Smyth, re Gippsland lakes, 993 and 1076; by Mr. Hunt, re railway stations, 1232; re Yea, 1232.

Timber Cutting-Question by Mr. Bird, f'e con­viction of unlicensed persons, 142; by Mr. Barr, re new regulations, 588. (See State Forests.)

Tolls Continuation Bill-Brought in by Mr. Woods, and read first time, 48; second reading, 48-55; considered in committee, 55; third reading, 56.

Tolls Bill-Brought in by Mr. Patterson, and read first time, 1548; second reading, 1775-7; considered in committee, 1777, 1804, 1833, and 1859; third reading, 1895; debate on remaining stages of the Bill, 1895 and 1921 ; Bill returned from Legislative Council with amendment.s, 2083; Mr. Berry intimates his intention to take no action in regard to the Bill on the ground that the amendments are a breach of privilege, 2083; question by Mr. Ramsay, 2084. (See Road Tolls.)

Toorak, Fever at-Question by Mr. Dwyer, 2379. Torpedoes. (See Defence of the Colony.) Tracks in South Gippsland - Motion by Dr.

Macartney, 1513. Tramways, Construction of, by Local Bodies­

Question by Mr. Bent, 1170. Traralgon and Walhalla Road-Question by Dr,

Macartney, 232.

54 INDEX.

Tree Planting-Question by Mr. R. Clark (Sand­hurst), re tree planting around State schools, l::li5; subject of tree planting along rail­ways, and in railway reserves, discussed in cOllnexion with vote for the Railway depart­ment, 1704.

TUCKER, Mr. A. L. (Fitzroy) Absence o.f Judges, 2198. Breach of Customs Laws, 523 and 2370. Contracts for Public Works, 461 and 679; for

Clothing-Victorian Manufactures, 2376. Customs I>uties Bill, 1894 and 1928. Fencing of Public Hoads, 85, 143, 7~3, and 1919. Friendly Societies' Reserves, 1481. Metropolitan Gas Company's Bill, 1269. Payment of Members, 1698. Qualification of Jurors, 59.

. Railway Department, 1753. Tariff ReviSion-Maize, 1894 and 1928. Tolls Bill, 1816 and 1818. .

TYTHERLEIGH, Mr. WILUAl\I (Normanb.7J) Adlllinistration of the Land Law-Selectors

Engagecl in Trade, 339 and 14::J4; Mahage­ment of the Lands Department, 1920.

English Mails-Landing at Portland, 1862. Mr. Raton, 1443. , , . Mr. Samuel Fieldhouse, 1553 and 1555: Privilege-Misrepresentations by the Press,

375 and 389. Prospecting for Coal, 1708. Rail way Construction Bill, 262.

University Act Amendment Bill-Brought in by Mr. Duffy, and read first time, 80; dis­charged from the paper, 1437.

University Examinations - Question by Mr. Fincham, 2049.

Victorian Year Boo/i, Preparation of-Question by Mr. Mirams, 1622.

Victoria, The-Question by Mr. A. T. Clark, re orphans of men lost at sea, 59.

Vine J >iseases Eradication Bill-Brought in by Mr. Berry, and read first time, 1832 ; second reading moved by Mr. Berry, 1838; de.bated by Mr. Bosisto, 1839; Mr. Orr, 1840; Mr. Purves, 1841 ; Mr. L. L. Smith, 1841 ; Mr. Duffy, 1842 ; Mr. Kerferd, 1843; Mr. F. L. Smyth, 1843; Mr. Dwyer, 1843; Mr. H. Clark (Sandh1lrst), 1844; Mr. Billson; 1844 ; Mr. Gaunson, 1844; Mr. Carter, 1845 ; Mr. Barr, 1846; Mr. McIntyre, 1846; Mr. Grant, 18-16; Mr. O'Hea, 1847; !VIr. Williams, 1847; motion by Mr. Sharpe for the adjournment of the debate, 1847; debate continued by Mr.Berry,1848; Mr. Orr, 1~4H; Mr.Gaun­son, 1849; t,irJohn O'Shanassy, 1850; Mr. O'Hea, 1851 ; Mr. Gillies, 1852; Mr. Mac­Pherson, 1852; Mr. Dow, 1852; motion for adjournment negath;ed, 1852 ; Bill read second timE', 1852; considered in committee, 1852; third reading, 1872; amendment to clause 4, proposed by Mr. Graves, 1872; withdrawn, 1873; Bill passed, 18i3.

Visitors-Accommodated with seats 011 the floor of ·the House-Governor Sir William Robin­son, 837; Chief Justice Way, 1413.

Volunteer Force-Question by Mr. Levien, re land grants for service, 718·; vote for defences discussed in Committee of Supply, 939; question b! l\'1f: ~~nt, 1'~ Re!1d-

Volunteer Force (continued)-quarters band, 942 ; by Mr. King, re railway 1~tJ;es, 1265 ; by Mr. Fincham; re Captain Greenfield, 1918 ; by Mr. A. K. Smith, re volunteers detailed for garriso~ duty,. 2383. (See Defence of the Colony.) ....

Votes on Account-Granted in Committee of Supply, 145-7 and 623. '

Wahgunyah 'Bridge-Questions by Mr: Sharpe, 9.71 and 2146.'

WangarattlL General Sessions. (See' 'General .sessions.)

War between Russia and Turkey-Telegrams read' by the Chief Secretary, '27 anq, 639 ; question by Sir James McCulloch,38 ; by Mr. Duffy, 82 j by Mr. Gaunson, 82; by Mr. L. L. Smith, 143 ; by Mr. Cooper ::l89 and 423 j discussion re cost, '&c., of telegrams, on vote for Agent-General's department,

'823. (See Neufra.it.1l.) Warrnambool Harbour, Improvemeht·, of-Sub­

ject discussed in Committee of Supply, 1054, 1065 and 1068 ; question by Mr. Service, re inspection by Sir-John Coode, 2198.

Water Supplj...!..Question by Mr:Johnstone, re Geeloilg, . 97 ; estimate· of. expenditure for completing Coli ban and· Geelong. schemes, also estimate re 101(ns to local bodies; passed in committee, 305~9; question 'by Mr. Wil­liams, re' reticulation of Sandhurst and Eaglehawk, 976 jby Mr. Kernot, re Geelong, 1054'; by Mr. R. Clark (Sandlwrst), re completion of Coliban scheme, 1064; by Mr. Cooper, re eountrydistricts, 1998; by Mr. R. Clark (Wimmera), 2084. See ,Loans, Expenditure under; also Yan Yeqn.}

Waterworks Act Amendment Bill-Brought in by Major Smith, and read first time, 98 ; second reading, 332 and 352 j consif,lered in committee, 355 j Bill read third thlle, 375 ; returned from Legislative Cduncil with amendments, 1169 ; one amendment adopted with an amendment, and the othel' amend­ments disagreed with "because they are infringements of the privileges of, the Assembly, inasmuch as they alter the pro­posed mode of collecting the rate," ;1285 ; message frum Legislative Council insisting on amendments, 1515; Bill·laid aside, 1548.

Waterworks Act Amendment Bill (No; 2)­~rought in by Major Smith, and passed through aU its stages, 1548.

Wattle Bark, Export of-Question .by Mr. Gaunso'n, 522; subject discussed in con­nexion with Mr. Berry's Tariff proposals, 1457 ; statement by Mr. L. L. Smith,1489 j by Mr. Munro, 1489; question by Mr. I~yell, 2291 j statement hy Mr. Dixon, re proceedihgs of Wattle Bark Commission, 2291. (See 7'ar~ff; also SIa.te FOl·ests.)

Wayrp.outh, Mr. Bryant-Vote for extra allow­ance, proposed and withdrawn, 1625.

Ways and Means, Committee of-Preliminary resolution adopted, 35 ; resolutions on which to fomld Consolidated Revenue Bills con­sidered and adopted, 147, 623, and 1241 j resolution on which to found, Appropria­tion Bill, considered and adopted, 1819 j resolution affirming the expediency of con­solida.ting the duties of customs in'one Act, considered and adopted, 1858.

Weather Telegrams-Question by Mr. Ramsay, 746.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

Weechurch, Case of, (See Penal Establish-mo~) ,

Wheat and Flour: (See Exports; also Imports.) White Horse Road - Motion, by Mr. E. H.

Cameron for addre~s to Governor, asking for the sum of £2,6-17 to be 'placed on the Estimates" to satisfy the claim of the con­tractor for the construction of the White Horse Road," 1388 ; debated by Mr. Patter­son, 1390; Mr. MacPherson, 1:391; Mr. Nimmo, 1393; Mr. Mirams, 1393; Mr. MacBain, 1393; Mr. Richardson, 1394; Mr. Williams) 1395; Mr. L. L. Smith, 1395 ; Mr. Berry, 1395; Mr. Gillies, 1397; Mr. Woods, 1397; motion withdrawn, 1398; vote discussed in Committee of ,Supply, 1706; on consideration of report, 1745.

WILLIAl\IS, Mr. H. R. (Ma~du~ang) Customs Duties Bill, 1932.. ' Fencing of Public Roads, 130. Mining Boards, 1000., .. Mining Leases, 1169. Police, 1472. , Political Situation - Public Payments on

Votes of the Assembly, 2043; Address to the Queen, 2080; Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2345.

Railway Department-Parcels Rates, 1472; Sidings on the Inglewood Line, &c., 1704.

Railway Extension to Kerang, J 200. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 136

and 1,430. , , " Tariff Revision-Wattle Bark, 1464; Cast­

steel Drills, 1932. Vine Diseases Eradication Bill, 1847. Water Supply to Sand hurst and Eaglehawk,

976. White Horse Road, 1,395 and 1745. .

Wimmera Electio~' Petition-Petition against Mr. MacBain's return presented, 18; re­ferred to Elections Committee, J II; com­mittee's report-declaring Mr. MacBain '" duly elected "-bronght up, 264.

Wintle, Mrs.-Tbe late-Question by Mr. A. K. Smith, 1635.

Witnesses, Payment of-Vote discussed in Com-mittee of Supply, 935. ,

Wodonga Road-Question by Mr. Billson, 264. Woodend a.nd Daylesford Railway-Q,uestion by

Mr. Richardson, .230~.

WOODS, Mr. JOlIN, Minister of Rail ways (Stawell) Civil Service Dismissals, 2057 and 2274. Customs Duties Bill, 1932. ))unoily and St. Arnaud Railway, 2292. Engineer-in-Chie~ and the Chief Secretary,

329. Export Duties- Wattle Bark, 1465; Redgum

Timber, 1469 j Scrap Iron, 1932. Geelong and Colac Railway, 232. Gippsland Rail way-Oakleigh Section, 38,295.

299, 300, and 305; Bunyip and Morwell Sections, 143; Oakleigh Station, 320, 2269, and 233a; Morwell and Moe, 489, 1169, 1433, and 1579; Oa~leigh and Bunyip Sec­tion, 796; Bnnyip Station, 1037; Engineer­ing Staff at Moe, 1065; Conveyance of Mails, 1077 j Goods Stations, 1169 ; Track from Gippsland Main Road to Noonan's S,ection, 1820; Opening Ceremony, 1999.

Gippsland Railway Completion Bill, 1407 and J40~.

WOODS, Mr. JOHN (continued)-. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1422 and 1424. Government Appointl1leuts, 68. Harriet"ille and Omeo Hoad, 264. Land Tax Bill, 730. Locomoti ves for the Moama and Deniliquin

Hailway, 144. Mining on Private Property Bill, 967, 968, and

970. Mr. Kerferd and Mr. Berry, 1644. Mr. G. Paton Smith and Mr., G,mnson, 1262. Mr. Sutherland and the Railway Department,

1265. Oakleigh and Mnlgrave Roads, 293. , Political Situation-Rejection of the Appro­

priation Bill by the Legislative Coullcil, 1946. Railway Bills Conference, 2370, 2385, and 2398. Railmty Construction-Estimates of Expendi.

ture, 56 and 490. Railway Construction Bill, 98, 124, 126, 147,

174, 177, 179,. 193, 249, 25:l, 260, 262, 264, 292, 294, 315, 3.42, 349, and 350.

Railway Construction Bill (No. 2),.1262. Railway Contracts-Remission of Fines, 1863,

1866, 1918, and 2000. Railway Department - Geelong, Station, 37;

Sunday Traffic, 82, 1803, and 1820; Gas in Carriages, 122 ; Accident at Broadford, 124 ; Railway Workshops, 318 and 997; Signals ill Carriages, 356 and 997; Sheep Hates, 462; Traffic Earnings. 463; Conveyance of Horses, 490; Parcels, 679 and 1472; ,Mount Moriac Station, 846; Express Trains, 846, 998, 1919, 19:W, and 2380; Fares Paid by Clergymen, 846 ; Creswick Stl1tiOll, 954. 999, 1704, and 2:~80; Secretary for Railways, 99~ and 1704; Refreshment Rooms, 993 and 997; Carriage Construction, 997; Sta­tions on the North-Eastern Line, 997, 1004, 1406, 1704, and 1921; Ballarat-made Loco· motives, 998; Locking of Carriages, ,998; Locomotive Branch, 999; Rolling-stock, 999, 1705, and 1921 ; Maryborougb, Station, 999; Fal'es for Volunteers, 1265; Return Tickets, 1287; Use of Weighbridges and Tarpaulins, 1472; Lal Lal Station, 1540 and 1802; Free Pass to a Blilld Teacher, 1579 ; Reduced Traffic Rates and Land Taxation, 1580; Station Returns, 1580; Mid-day Trains on the Colac Line, 1673; Saturday Excursion Tickets, 1673; Wood Traffic at Ballarat East, 1704 ; Gates at Level Cross­ings, J 704; Sidings on the Inglewood Line, 1704; Sandhurst Station, 1704; Sheep­yards at Arara't, 1704; Tree Planting along Railways, 1705 ; Departmental Man­agement, 1753; Payment of Salaries, 1820 ; Woods' Continuous Rail way Brake, 1920, 2367, and 2423; Medical Ex­amination of Applicants for Employinent, 2000 and 2304; lfree Passes to ex-Members of Parliament, 2J47 and 2272; Examination of Employes for Colour Blindness, 2304 ; Fares between Yarraville and Melbourne, 2304; Children attending the Juvenile Industrial Exhibition at Ballarat, 2304; Trains to Seymour, 2366; Gatekeepers, 2366; Re­moval of Guards, 2367.

Hailway Extension, 81; St. Arnaud, 181; Kerang, 1201 ; Smythesdale, 1512; Went. worth, 1579 and 2050.

Railway Surveys Bill, 1699. Regulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 138

and 323.

56 INDEX.

Woo~s, Mr. JOHN (continued)-Roads at Brandy Creek, 119. Rosstown Junction Hailwa.y Bill, 127. Springs and Wahgunyah Railway, 2050 and

2305. . Stawell and Horsham Railway, 1999 and 2292. Telegraph Extension to Railway Stations, 1232. Tolls Continuation Bill, 48, 55, and 56. Traralgon and Walhalla Road, 232. White Horse Road, 1397. W odonga Road, 264. Woodend and Daylesford Railway, 2305.

Woods' Railway Brake. (See Railway Depart­ment.)

W oolpacks. (See 1'ariJf.) Workmen's Lien Bill-Question by Mr .. R. f:lark

.(Sltndltur~,t), 629.

WRIGHT, Mr. PETER (Benambra) Friendly tiocieties Laws Amendment Bill, 1282. Goulburn Valley Railway Bill, 1424. Payment of Members, 1611. Reguiation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 116,

140, 160, and 325. Tariff Revision-Live Stock, 984 ; Earthen-

ware, &c., 1385 ; Wattle Bark, 1465. . Vine Diseases Emdication Bill, 1854. West Melbourne Swamp, 1072.

Wright, Mr. W. H. (The late)-Vote for widow and child, proposed and rejected, 1626.

Yan Yean Tramway-Question by Mr. Lang­ridge, 2384.

Yan Yean Water Rates-Question 'by Mr. Lang­ridge, 59; by Mr. Story, 1336.

Yan Yean Water Supply-Estimate of expend­iture under Act No. 531, agreed to in committee, 147; resolution adopted, 173; vote for department discussed in Committee of Supply, 1051; on consideration of report, 1240; question by Mr. Zox, re accident to the works, 2269; statement by Mr. Patterson, 2269; question by Mr. A. K. Smith, 2270; by Mr. F. L. Smyth, 2291.

Yarra Floods-Questions by Mr. Nimmo, 2377 and 2426.

YOUNG, Mr. CHARLES (Kyneton Boroughs) Amendment of the Impounding Laws, 1266. Election Petitions-Barwon, 1638, 1639, and

1733; South (iippsland, 1870. Fencing of Public Roads, 130 .. Gratuities to Families of Deceased Public

Servants, 945. John McMahon's Selection, Milewa, 1514. Land Tax Bill, 733 and 7.'35. Mr. J. Richardson, M.P. (The late), 1625. Payment of Members Vote, 1618; Payment

of Members Bill, 1744 and 1758. Rail way Charges for Conveyance of Sheep, 462. Road Works aml Bridges, 1706. Sessional Arrangements-Hours of Sitting, 66. Tariff Revision-Cornsacks and W oolpacks,

770. Tolls Bill, 1834.

Zox, Mr. E. L. (E. Melbourne) Adjournments of the House, 1548. Appropriation Bill, 1824. . Attorneys, Solicitors, and Proctors Admission

Bill, 239. Charitable Institutions, 943 and 1513 . City of Melbourne Corporation Rating Bill,

467. Customs Department-Weigher Fraser, 1234 i

Breach of Customs Laws, 2371. Defence of the Colony-Sir William Jervois'

Report, 320; Volunteer Force, 940. Dismissed Civil Servants, 2147. Drawback on the Export of Children's Boots,

2333. Frank Spearin, 1064. Frienrlly Hocieties Laws Amendment Bill,

128~ 12S2, and 143~ Friendly Societies' Reserves, 1700. Government Advertising, 1837. Imports-Watches and Clocks, 659. Land Selectors and the Banks,. 2277. Land Tax Bill,657 and 735 i Administration

of the Land Tax Act, 1620. Larrikinism, 2366. Melbourne Gaol, 2159. Mr. Eaton, 1455. Mr. Gaunson, 1255. Mr. Wilson Gray (The late), 1557. Mr. J. Richardson, M,P. (The late), 1626. New Land Bill, 339. New Public Offices, 846. Payment of Members Vote, 1616; Payment

of Members Bill, 1758. Penal Establishments - Treatment of Pri­

soners, 654; Prison-made Bags, 727. Political Situation-Address to the Queen,

2063; Mr. Berry's Motion re Charges Inci­dental to the Management of the H.evenue, 2234 ; Appropriation Bill (No.2), 2348.

Prospect:ing, 1707 and 1749. Public-houses Act, 641. Public Instruction-School Books, 121 ; Edu­

cation Vote, 1195; School Accomm.odati<:ln at Carlton, 1674.

Qualification of Members-Dr. Macartney, 417.

Railway Construction Bill, 178, 227,230, and 318.

Railway Loan Account Application Bill, 1768. Railway Refreshment Rooms, 993. Hegulation and Inspection of Mines Bill, 163. Rodney Election Petition, 1123. Rosstown Junction Railway Bill, 2416. Royal-park Powder Magazine, 932. Sheep Inspectors, 827. Statue of the Queen, 1621. . Tariff Revision-Cornsacks and W oolpacks,

765 i Live Stock, 987; Preserved Meat, 990; Children's Boots and Shoes, 1378; Earthenware, &c., 1885 i Ribbons, 1427 i Glassware, 1427; Umbrellas, 1428; Wattle Bark, 1465; Redgum Timber, 1467; Delay in Passing Tariff, 1821 and 1824.

The Nelson, 1406. Vehicles in Public Parks, 1491. Warrnambool Harbour Improvements, 107I. Yan Yean Water Supp'Iy, 2269.

Melbourne: JOHN FERRE~nter.