LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. - Parliament of Victoria

682 l11inil1g on Private [ASSEMBLY.J Property Act.

confined myself to the lines on which I think the Bill should be modelled, and, like many other honorable members, I consider that my wishes should be met. Possibly a great many of our wishes will be met. I will vote cor­dially for the second reading of the Bill" but I will not feel bound to support its third reading if it passes through committee in a form that does not recommend itself to my judgment.

On the motion of Mr. HALL, the debate was adjourned until the following day.

ASSENT TO BILL.

Mr. KERFERD presented a message from the Governor, intimating that, at the Government Offices, on the lOth August, His Excellency gave his assent to the Act­ing J'udge of Supreme Court Bill.

The House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, August 12, 1885.

Flemington Cattle Yards-Mining on Private Property Act-Goulburn Valley Railway-Public Service: Ap· peals against Classification-Alphington Railway­Removal of the Law Department-Fire Brigades­Courts Martial - Charitable Institutions-Personal Explanation: Mr. GraveS-Municipal Elections: Ad· journment of the House-Defence Department: The Minister and the Commandant - Publicans' and G~ocers' Licences - Licensing (Public·houses) Law Amendment Bill: Second Reading: Sixth Night's Dobate-Stock Brands Registration Bill-Real Pro· perty Statute 1864 Amendment Bill-Bakers and Millers Law-Jetty for South Melbourne-Lunatic Asylums.

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

PETITIONS.

Petitions praying the House to pass the Licensing (Public-houses) Bill with certain amendments were presented by Mr. A. HARRIS, from members and adherents of the Wesleyan Methodist Church at Maffra; by Mr. C. YOUNG, from members and adherents of the Wesleyan Methodist Church at Malmsbury; by Mr. JAMES, from a public meeting of inhabitants or Ballarat; and by Mr. RUSSELL, from the" Excelsior" (Bal­larat) tent of Rechabites. A petition was presented by Mr. DERHAM, from the Port Melbourne Borough Council, against the provision in the Bill for the payment of licence-fees into a special fund. Petitions in favour of local option were presentoo. by

Mr. NIl\nIO, from members and adherents of the Ohurch of Engla.nd (St. Barnabas) at South Melbourne; and by Mr. FINK, from inhabitants of Maryborough, Carisbrook, and Bowenvale. A petition was presented by Mr. C. YOUNG, from a public meeting of farmers and manufacturers in the shire of Kyneton, praying that no action should be taken with regard to the proposed treaty with Tasmania until the opinion of the country on the subject could be ascertained at a general election.

FLEMINGTON CATTLE YARDS.

Mr. STAUGHTON asked the Minister of Public Works whether the Government intended to include in the Bill to amend the Local Government Act a clause com­pelling the Corporation of Melbourne to contribute their fair share of money towards maintaining the roads leading to the Plem­ington cattle-yards? The Corporation of Melbourne derived a large revenue from the cattle-yards, and they paid nothing towards the maintenance of the roads, which were much cut up by stock that passed to and from those yards. The local municipal council were not very flush of money, and they considered they ought to be indemnified, to °a certain extent, by the Corporation of Melbourne.

Mr. DEAKIN stated that personally he quite agreed with his honorable colleague in the representation of West Bourke. The Government had not yet had the opportu­nity of considering the matter referred to. When it was capable of being considered by the Government, he wonld be glad to bring it before them.

MINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ACT.

Mr. PATTERSON asked the Attorney­General if his attention had been drawn to the report in the Mount Alexander Mail of the 6th August, of a case tried the previous day before the Court of Mines at Castle­maine, and to the remarks of the presiding Judge as to the unsatisfactory working of the Mining on Private Property Act?

Mr. KERFERD observed that the de­partmental answer to the question was as follows:-

"The report of the proceedings in the case mentioned is not accurate, and His Honour Judge Quinlan denies having made the remarks attributed to him. Further, His Honour points out that he has not given any decision, has not stated that the Act is unworkable, and has merely adjourned it pending the determination of certain matters upon which the Chief Judge of the Court of Mines is asked to express itD

GO'ltlbw'n Valley Railway. [AUGUST 12.] Law Department. G8S

opinion. The whole matter is, in fact, sub Judice, and no decision has been given in any direction." He had read the newspaper reports of the case, and it appeared to him that the learned counsel for the claimant misunderstood a provision which was inserted in the Mining on Private Property Act in the express in­terests of the owner of the land. That pro­vision was that, before any lease was granted, the Minister of Mines should be seised of the fact that there was a certain claim for com pensa tion, and the learned counsel seemed to interpret this as a requirement that, in order to obtain compensation, a suit must be instituted at the instance of the Queen. Section 18 of the Act provided as follows:-

"In case the amount of purchase money or compensation be not ascertained by agreement within one month from the date of entry by the mining surveyol' to survey such land, then the owner or occupier respectively may procee(i be­fore n. warden or in the Court of Mines of the mining district in which the land taken posses­sion of is situate, and in manner provided by the Mining 8tatute 1865 (but without assessors) to ascertain the amount of compensation to which he may be entitled under the provisions of this Act."

This provision set forth as clearly as language could that the Court of Mines was to sit without assessors. The section further provided-

" A nd such owner or occupier respectively shall lodge with the warden or the clerk of the said court, as the case may be, two copies of his claim in the form preseribed in the Brd schedule hereto or to the like effect."

One of these copies was for the use of the Court of Mines, and the other was for­warded to the Minister of Mines, the whole object of the proceeding being to prevent any person going upon land to mine until the claim of the landowner had been satisfied and paid. No doubt it would be recollected that the Mining on Private Property Act was placed on the statute-book after a long contention between the two Houses of Par­liament with the statement made by him (Mr. Kerferd) that in all probability itwould have to be amended; but so anxious were the public to have the question settled that he believed a much more imperfect measure would have been accepted. How­ever, he was glad to say that so far no defect in the Act had been discovered, and a number of cases of compensation had been determined by the wardens without any trouble.

GOULBURN VALLEY RAILWAY. Mr. HALL asked the Minister of Rail­

ways whether he was aware that the time occupied by the train in going from Seymour

to Numurkah, a distance of only 72 miles, was over four hours, and whether arrange­ments could not be made to reduce the time?

Mr. GILLIES said he had brought the matter under the notice of the Railwny Commissioners, and they would endeavour to make some alteration in the time-table on the North-Eastern Railwa.y with a view to secure the object desired by the honorable member for Moira (Mr. Hall).

Mr. LANGDON remarked that a num­berof country lines were in the same position, with regard to slow travelling, as the Goul­burn Valley line.

PUBLIC SERVICE. ApPEA.LS.

Dr. QUICK asked the Attorney-General when the Public Service Board would be in a position to announce the results of appeals against their classification lodged some time ago by a number of officers in the Law department?

Mr. KERFERD said the statement which had been furnished to him, in reply to the question, was to the effect that all the Law department appeals which had been allowed had been announced in the Al'g~t8 newspaper. The up-country appeals had not yet been considered. The balance of the town appeals would be dealt with in about a week.

ALPHINGTON RAIL WAY.

Mr. MIRAMS inquired of the Minister of Railways when he thought the depart­ment would be in a position to call for ten­ders for the continuation of the Alphington Railway from Clifton Hill to Johnston­street?

Mr. GILLIES said he hoped the Rail­way Commissioners would be in a position to call for tenders in a few weeks.

LAW DEPARTMENT.

Mr. D. M. DAVIES asked the Attorney­General whether it was the intention of the Government to remove the Law department from the Government-offices to the Law Courts? It was currently rumoured that this change was about to take place to suit the convenience of the lawyers, but he be­lieved it would be a great inconvenience to members of the Assembly.

Mr. KERFERD said it was intended to remove the Law department not to the Law Courts but to the Titles-office. The chief work under the Law department-the busi­ness connected with titles, the Prothonotary,

G84 J.lfttnicipal Elections. [ ASSEMBLY.] P~tbli,c-Jwuses.

and the Sheriffs-was done at the west end or the city, while the Crown Law-offices were at the east. The large business at the Titles-office was at present almost without supervision, owing to the fact of the per­manent head of the department having his offices at the other end of the city.

FIRE l3RIGADES. Mr. LANGRIDGE brought up a pro­

gress report from the select committee on the fire brigade system.

The report was ordered to be printed.

OOURTS MARTIAL. Mr. O. YOUNG asked the Ohief Secre­

tary whether the sentence passed by the first court martial, of six months' imprison­ment with hard labour and dismissal from the service, had been approved by the Go­vernor in Oouncil and was being carried out?

Mr. BERRY replied that the sentence had been approved, and was being carried out.

CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS. Mr. GRAHAM asked the Ohief Secre­

tary on what basis the vote for charitable institutions was at present distributed, and whether it was proposed to alter the method of distribution?

Mr. BE RR Y said he had not been able to see the Treasurer on the subject, but he had communicated with the Under-Trea­surer, and had ascertained that a proposal to alter the distribution of the vote was under consideration.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Mr. GRAVES observed that, in his ab­

sence, through a severe cold, from his place the previous evening, the honorable mem­ber for East Bourke alleged that he (Mr. Graves) in quoting from the article on " Maine," in the Encyclopredia B1'itannica, the previous Thursday, did not quote fairly. As a matter of fact, a passage which he quoted was as follows:-

,( The Maine liquor law has not entirely sup­pressed drunkenness or even liquor selling, but It has had a decided influence in that directlOn."

He read this passage from notes, which he afterwards handed to the reporters, but, somehow or other, all the words after " liquor selling" were omitted from the reports.

MUNIOIPAL ELEOTIONS. Mr. PATTERSON asked the Ohief Sec­

retary whether it was understood that the Honse, on rising, would adjourn until the

following Tuesday, so that honorable mem­bers who wished to attend the municipal elections in their districts, next day, would be able to do so?

Mr. BERRY said the understanding was as stated by the honorable memberfor Castle­maine (Mr. Patterson), and he was informed that it was the general wish that the House should adjourn at the refreshment hour. He begged to move that the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, August 18.

The motion was agreed to.

DEFENOE DEPARTMENT. Mr. BENT moved-

"That there be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence and memoranda which have passed between the Minister of Defence and the Military Commandant, with reference to the relative positions of the Minister and Commandant, their powers and duties, and also in connexion with, or relating to, the subjects dealt with in the military regUlations published in June last."

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

PUBLIO-HOUSES. Mr. MASON moved-

"That there be laid before this House a return showing-I. How many licensed public-houses were there in the city of Melbourne and suburbs at the time of the passing of the Licensing Act in 1876. 2. How many licensed houses are there at the present time. 3. How many licensed houses have been closed by licensing benches in these localities during the same period. 4. How many new licences have been granted in these localities during the same period. 5. How many grocers' licences were there in the city of Melbourne and suburbs in the year 1876, and how many are there at the present time."

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

LIOENSING (PUBLIO-HOUSES) LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

SIXTH NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry's motion for the second reading of this Bill, and on Mr. Bent's amendment that the Bill be read a second time "this day six months" (ad­journed from the previous evening), was resumed.

Mr. HALL.-Mr. Speaker, some honor­able members who have taken part in this debate have stated that the Licensing Bill has excited only a limited amount of in­terest throtlghout the country; but I think that statement is hardly correct. At all events, I can say that in those parts of the' country which I have been able to visit re-' cently, a very strong feeling prevails with· reference to the measure, which is looked·

Licensing (Public-ho~tses) [AUGUST 12.J Law Amendment Bill. 685

upon generally with considerable favour. Certainly the public meetings which have been held, and the petitions which have been presented to this House, prove conclusively that a large amount of interest is taken in the question. I believe that many of the arguments used by honorable members who oppose the Bill may be used with equal force in support of the measure. Last night, the honorable member for N ormallby quoted largely from some book with a view to show the results of the operation of a prohibition law in the state of Maine; but I hold ill my hand a complete rep1.v to the case which the honorable member sought to make out. It is a description of Johnsbury, Vermont, by Mr. Hepworth Di~on, which I will read for the information of honorable members:-

"It is a garden. Yet the physical beauty of the place is less engaging than the moral order. No loa.fer hangs about the kerbstones. Not a beggar can be seen. No drunkard reels alon~ the streets. You find no dirty nooks, and smell no hidden filth. There seem to be no poor. I have not seen, in two days wandering up and down, one child in rags, one woman looking likc a slut. . . . What are the secrets of this artisans' paradise? 'Vlly is the place so clean, the people so well housed and fed? Why are the little folks so hale in face. so smart in person, and so neat in dress? All voices, I am bound to say, reply to me that these unusual, yet desir­able, conditions in a workman's village spring from a strict enforcement of the law prohibitillg the sale of any species of intoxica.ting drink. The men of Vermont, like those of other northern states, have adopted that public Act which is known to the English jesters and good fellows under the opprobrious tWe of the Maine liquor law. . . . The Maine liquor law is a string·cnt Act, and it is carried out in parts of the New England states with the unflinching rigour of an Arctic frost. . . Are there no protests? None, or next to none; as year and year goes by, more persons come to see the benefits of our rule. The lOen who formerly drank most are now the staunchest friends of our reform. These men, who used to dress in rags, are growing rich. Many of them live in their own houses. They attend their churches, and their children go to school. These facts are not to be suppressed by shrugs and sneers."

I consider this a piece of valuable testi­mony as to the efficacy of the Maine liquor law. I repeat that I believe the Bill has excited a great amount of interest among large sections of the community. I ha\'e no doubt that many of those who have spoken against the measure have done so without anthority, while others have spoken without a knowledge of the measure, and with a recklessness which is not creditable to them. The honorable member for Brighton, when referring to the special licensing dis­tricts which have been proclaimed under the existing law, made particular mention of Wunghu, which is in the electorate of Moira, as though I had been concerned in

making that place a special licensing dis­trict. As a matter of fact, I had nothing whatever to do with it; I knew nothing about it. I may mention further, for the information of the honorable member fo1" Brighton, that the district was proclaimed by the Government to which he belonged. I would be very glad if we could agree to n. Licensing Bill which would give satisfaction to .0.11 persons in the community; but that is a thing scarcely to be expected. The licensed victuallers are taking up the cudgels in the matter, as is shown by the following extract from an article which appeared in a recent number of the Licensed Victuallers.' Advocate :-

" A fair field and no favour is the motto of the oppo~ition, when the Licensing Bill comes on. We will bend our best energies to take it out. of the field of hot and cold, and thick and thin, and try t.o put it upon such a basis that we will have good houses occupied by respectable people selling good grog."

If this is what is really desired by the licensed victuallers, I don't think teetotallers would be disposed to offer much objection; but I find that what I have read is not upheld at the meetings in connexion with the Licensed Victuallers' Association. In fact, I believe that the licensed yictuallers are not altogether a unanimous body as to the way in which the licensing law should be amended. I have noticed that the licensed victuallers have stated that they do not in­tend to petition Parliament on the subject of the Bill, on the ground that petitions from them would be regarded as valueless. I take that to be simply an excuse for not petitioning at all. The licensed victuallers find that they cannot get up petitions backed by anything like the force or numbers that marks the petitions presentecl by other bodies. Petitions relating to the Bill have been received from various religious de­nominations, but I don't think there has been one petition from the Roman Catholic body. And yet the heads of that com­munion interest themselves greatly in the question of liquor legislation in other parts of the world. For examplE', I have a pam­phlet on The Liq~t01' Question, by " Joseph Cook," which contains this statement:-

"Father O'Connor, of New York, says that in that city there are 10,000 liquor shops, 7,000 of which pay lL licence for carrying on their ne­farious traffic, and that, 01' these 7,000 licensed s[tlo·on-kecperR, 6,500 are Irish and German Catho­lics. The Catholic priests in the diocese of Bos­ton are askillg our Legislature for a law prevellt­ing the sale of liquor withiu·four hundred yards of a church. Bishop Ireland, of ~t. Paul, has lately refused to admit to the Cat.holic cOnlmu­niou any liquor seller in his parish."

686 Licensing (P'ltblic-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

In the same pamphlet, I find the follow­ing:-

"I beg you to remember the position la.tely as­sumed on the topic of temperance'by the Catholic 1:'lenal'Y Council at Baltimore. Its la,nguage, I hope, will become historic. In its pastoral letter, sent out to the clergy, it says-' We not only direct the attention of all pastors to the repres­sion of this abuse, but we also cal 1 upon them to induce all theil' flocks that may be engaged in ihe sale of liquors to abandon, as soon as they can, the dangerous traffic, and to em brace a more becoming way of making a living.' "

I am very glad to know that the clergymen of the Roman Oatholic persuasion are fully ali\Te to the evils of the drink traffic. vVith regard to the question of local option, what is chiofly desired by those who have peti­tioned the House on that subject is that the Bill should contain a clause similar to that which appears in the existing Act, enabling the inhabitants of a district to say how many, or how few, or if any public-houses-apart altogether from the question of statutory number-shall be in that district. vVith regard to the clause abolishing barmaids, that has been made a great handle of by the opponents or the Bill. The members of the Shops Oommission have been roundly abused for submitting the report they did. As a member of the Shops Oommission, I can say that no one belonging to that body had any desire to injure barmaids or any other class. It was only because or the evidence produeed before them that the Shops Oom­mission saw the necessity for making the recommendation the v did. It has also been said that we ought to ha\re made some re­commendation in the direction of having the 110urs of labour of barmaids reduced, instead of recommending the extinction of the class. As a matter or fact, we did take evidence on that point, and I submit the following as a sample. The witness is Mr. G. B. Hill, visitor at the Oity Police Oourt:-

" Do you think that prohibiting barmaids at­tendin~~ after eight would be sufficient for every purpose ?-No,

"You think the evil would still exist ?-Yes, and then a bar would be just a sort of assigna­tion place. A young fellow would go there- he would be off his work at four o'clock, say a Go­vcrnm€!nt clerk-and he would be able to make his arrangements with a young barmaid to go to some house of accommodation after eight, and she would be then able to go home to her lodg­ings in good time, and appear to be a very respectable young woman."

Mr. O. YOUNG.-I think that is most disgraceful.

Mr. HALL.-I am merely quoting evi. dence given before the Shops Oommission. If honorable members consider it bears an immoral construction, that is not my fault. The same witness, in reply to the question

-" I suppose the publicans endeavour to get the most attractive girls?" said-

"Yes, the best-looking girls. As soon as a girl goets rather faded in one house, she goes to a house of lower grade, and down and down till no pUblican will have her, and next time you find her knocking about Lonsdale or Little Bourke streets, and then she goes down amongst the Chinamen, then to the hospital, and then into the grave."

The witness admitted that there were re­spectable barmaids, but he considered that their minds got corrupted

., Because they hear conversation in the bars that they must not say a. word against, and it enters into their minds, and takes away all that modest feeling that a woman should have, or that anyone like ourselves would like our families to have." It was this class of evidence that caused the Shops Oommission to bring up the report they did. No doubt a large number of the barmaids are well-conducted, modest, n.nd respectable women-women that no man need be ashamed of-but the evils connected with the occupation are undoubted. It is the fact that too many of those who follow the occupation go to their ruin. Then, again, the hours are very injurious. Some barmaids have to be attending to theil' duties for fully eighteen hours at a stretch. Girls have come from the country to the occupation, fresh and blooming, and in nine or ten months they begin to wear an old, decrepit, and feeble look, simply because of the long hours and the perpetual inhalation of the fumes of drink and tobacco. The recom­mendations of the Shops Oommission were made in all humanity and considera­tion, and not from any desire to do any damage to a class of persons, many of whom are, no doubt, highly respectable. The Bill provides that all existing barmaids may continue in their employment, but that no Ilew ones are to be taken on. I would have rather seen a provision simply that after a specified time no girls should be allowed to serve in bars. I approve of such a prohibi­tion, not only because I think it is for the benefit of the public generally, but also more especially for the sake of the girls them­selves. Astocompensation,I have never been one of those who were strongly in favour of compensation to publicans. I have always thought that publicans have no legal right to compensation, and I was under the im­pression that compensation would not be granted unless there was some compromise under which the teetotal party would get something in exchange. I think that what the Government propose in the way of com­pensation must be conceded to be more a matter of kindne~& tha11 the granting of

Second Reading. [AUGUST 12.] Bixtl/' Night's Debate. 687

what is a right. The Chief Justice, Sir William Stawell, has publicly expressed his opinion against compensation, from a. legal point of view, and I am given to understand that Mr. Justice Higinbotham holds similar views. 'Vhen we have gentlemen of such high standing expressing such opinions, I think they must be accepted as correct. vVhile I do not agree to the granting of compensation as a right, at the same time I think that "we teetotallers and temperance people might agree to a compromise by which compensation would be granted in return for increased local option. The Bill therefore should go a little further, and give the people the power of saying what number of public-houses is required in the various localities. It has been said by some hon­orable members that the publicans are strongly opposed to this Bill. Now I have had conversations with publicans, and I can inform the House that I have met some publicans who are not opposed to the Bill at all. Indeed, I am inclined to think, from the information I have received, that if the publicans were polled to-morrow, indepen­dent of all outside influence, 20 per cent. of them, at all events, would vote in favour of the Bill. There is great opposition to the Bill, no doubt, but where does it come from? It comes chiefly from the brewers, and reasonably enough. If I were a brewer, I would oppose the Bill, tooth and nail, more especially if the statements we hear are correct. I am informed-I cannot say positively whether the statement is true-that the proprietors of the Carlton Brewery own half of the hotels in Carl­ton. If that be the fact, and no doubt the same state of things, to a more limited extent, exists in other parts of the country, it is no wonder that the brewers are opposed to the Bill. I. have also been credibly in­formed that many of the brewers and the brewers' travellers have agreed to appoint certain persons f1"Om among themselves to attend the meetings of the teetotal party to endeavour to carry an amendment against this Bill. This statement is supported by the newspaper reports, in which we see that the same persons appear at meetings in dif­ferent localities, and propose amendments.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Itisthe same on the other side.

Mr. HALL.-I do not think that the other side need to do that. As this Bill provides that brewers shall not hold an in­terest in public-houses, it is a matter of great interest to them that it should not be passed, ~nd therefor~ their op1?osition to it

is only what might be expected. It is equally reasonable that many of the publi­cans should approve of the Bill, because they see that by it a number of public-houses must easily fall into their hands. I think the Bill will be a good thing for the publi-

. cans, and when they come to see that more clearly no doubt a larger percenta.ge of them will support it. I am inclined to think that the main opposition to the Bill on the part of the publicans is due to the fact that it does not allow Sunday trading, and does not abolish the grocers' licence. That is, I believe, the secret of the whole affair, be­cause these are the two things which the publicans have always advocated. I was rather amused to hear some of the objections raised to the Bill, especially by the honor­able member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaun­son). Some of the honorable' member's arguments were yery illogical, and others very logical. Those which were illogical were against the Bill, and those which were logical told in favour of it. In the first place, he objected to the course taken by the Chief Secreta.ry in making a speech on in­itiating the Bill, on the ground that it would prejudice the people. But how would it prejudice the people? The honorable mem­ber has not alleged that the Chief Secretary went outside the Bill, or misled anybody in the explanation he gave of it.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Oh! didn't he? Mr. HALL.-He gave a true version of

the Bill in a very precise and correct form, and therefore how could anyone be misled? In opposition to the opinion of the honor­able member fur Emerald Hill, the honor­able member for East Bourke last night took exception to the action of the Chief Secretary for just the opposite reason, namely that the speech would have no effect. Thus we have the one honorable member object­ing to the speech on t·he ground that it would prejudice the minds of the people, and the other on the ground that it would have no effect on the people at all. These are two Ycry conflicting opinions, and I take it that neither is very correct. Again, the honorable member for Emerald Hill blamed the Government for not bringing in a mea­sure to suppress the manufacture of drink. What would have become of such a measure if it had been introduced? How much sup­port would the honorable member himself have given it? Would he not have looked upon it as a more tyrannical measure than that we have before us, ::md have objected to it still more? The honorable member posed as the champ,ion of the publicans? but I think

688 Licensing (P~tblic-lwuses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

he was a very poor one, because he maligned them. He said that the forfeiture of their licences meant ruin for life to these men, im­plying that a publican was fit for nothing else than to hand a pint of beer over a bar. I say that is a libel upon the publicans. I know many respectable men who are publicans, and who would gain a good living outside 110tels if they felt disposed. Moreover, I know more than one who has given up the public-house and is now making a good living in another direction. The publicans may well say-" Save us from our friends," when they have such champions as the ]lOnorable member for Emerald Hill. 'Ve were also told by the honorable member that we ought to respect the rights of the publican. I think we ought to respect the rights of every man, but we ought first to respect the rights of those who have the greatest demand upon us and the greatest rights. vVhat are the rights which the l10110rable member refers to? vVe know that the honorable member has wanted the country to respect and defend the rights of some persons who were the greatest aggressors or society-men who would go behind a hedge and shoot others. It is necessary for the honorable member to ex­plain what rights he wants us to respect. vVhat would he considflr the rights of that peaceable man at 'Varrnambool the other day, who was nearly shot down by a drunkard who rushed out or an hotel with a double­barrelled gun and levelled it at the first person he saw? Portunately there wa.s no cap on the nipple, or a peacflable inoffensive man would have been killed. Are we not to respect the rights of peaceable inoffensive men against drunken men? The argument of the honorable member cuts both ways, and there are a large class whose rights must be respected besides the class so weakly championed by the honorable member for Emerald Hill. vVith regard to the Sunday trading question, I may state, as a member of the Police Commission, that the majority of the evidence from publicans themselves was to the effcct tlmt they were willing and desirous of closing their houses on Sunday, provided that their neighbours were com­pelled to do the same. Strict Sunday closing was actually askeel for-courted-by the witnesses giving evidence on the matter, but they said that they could notclosetheir houses on Sunday while neighbouring publicans kept thcirs open, because if people were sup­plied on the Sunday they would come to the ]lOuse that supplied them on the Monday. If, then, publicans are willing to close their

Mr. Hall.

houses on Sunday, provided that all are treated alike, what hardship is there in the proposal to prohibit Sunday trading? I think it would be a very good thing for the country if the law were strictly carried out in that respect. The honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Patterson) asks what guarantee there is that the prohibition of Sunday trading will be any better carried out under this Bill than it is under the existing law. I think that question is very easily answered. The administration will be different, because this measure will be administered by men who are indepen­dent and disinterested. At present we find that, in lots of cases in which publicans are brought up for breaches of the law, the bench is packed for the occasion by interested men. Under the Bill these cases will be heard by the licensing courts, which cannot be packed by men having an interest in public-houses. If the existing law were to be continued, I think we should amend it in this direction-that no justice should be allowed to sit on the bench during the hearing of a case affecting a publican, unless he could take an oath that he had no interest whatever in any public-house. The licensing courts under the Bill, consisting of disinterested men, will deal very differently with offences by publicans from the way in which they are dealt with now. Therefore the answer to 'the question of the honorable member for Castlemaine is that we shall have a wholly different administration of the law.

Mr. PATTERSON.-But the licensing courts will not administer the law; they will only administer certain portions of it.

Mr. HALL.-I think they will admin­ister it to a sufficient extent to give satis­faction to the community generally. The Bill will also remove the difficulties at pre­sent experienced in securing convictions for Sunday trading. Under the existing Act a constable brings a publican before the police court for Sunday trading. The latter has a lawyer to defend him-perhaps one of the reasons why the lawyers do not like this Bill is that under it their occupation will be gone-and what ha.ppens? The constable is cross-examined by the lawyer, and has to admit that he did not taste the liquor sold, and did not see any money pass. The lawyer then submits to the bench that they must dismiss the case, as the constable cannot swear that the liquor was intoxi­cating liquor, or that any money was paid for it. These legal quibbles, which so fre­quently prevent justice being done under the present Act, will be done away with by

Second Reading. [AUGUST 12.J Sixth lVight's Debate .. 689

the Bill. Altering the hour of closing from twelve o'clock to half-past- eleven is, cer­tainly, n very small modification, and I would have preferred that the hour should have been made eleven, as in Sydney. At the same time I accept this " small mercy," but I may tell honorable members that the law will not be carried out in this respect under the new measure, any more than it is under the existing Act, unless we have very vigilant men to watch over the matter, and bring offending publicans before the court. Evidence was given before the Police Com­mission that there was one hotel in Bourke­street at that time which never closed its bar from one Monday morning to another. In the face of this state of things, of which, no doubt, this was not a solitary example, it is necessary to have some legislation which can be effectually carried out, to bring about an improvement. We are told that the breaches of the law are as much due to the drunkards as to the publicans; but who makes the drunkards? The honorable member for Emerald Rill is not a drunkard, but how does he know how soon he may be one of them? As the drunkards fall off, others must take their places. Their ranks are not recruited from the total abstainers, and therefore the new drunkards must come from the class of the moderate drinkers. If the honorable member for Emerald Hill has any sympathy for the poor drunkards, why does he not help, by making this Bill effec­tual, to assist those poor fellows and also their wives and families? He must have seen in his own district how families suffer from the drunkenness of the husband and father. The honorable member also gave us extensive quotations from some ancient mouldy books with regard to laws passed in years gone by, but what did he thus prove? Simply that in all ages the evils of intem­perance have been ever before the minds of social and moral reformers, and that their efforts have always been directed towards alleviating and diminishing the evil as much as possible. That was the whole effect of the argument to be derived from the honor­able member's quotations from musty old volumes; and I thank l1im for it: The honorable member also stated that reducing the number of public-houses would not stop drinking, yet almost in the same breath he said that we were robbing the poor working man of his beer. How can we be robbing the poor man of his beer if, as the honor­able member argues, notwithstanding the reduction in the number of public-houses, he will drink just as much?

SES. 1'885.-3 ])

Mr. GAUNSON.-I never used that expression.

Mr. HALL.-The honorable member ari­swered his own argument. Now, if this Bill is not what it ought to be, what does the honorable member for Emerald Hill offer us in its place? All that he has offered us is a certain amount of abuse, which I regretted to hear, because, generally speaking, the Bill has been discussed in a moderate tone. The honorable member speaks very well, but he is at times extremely abusive; and I may say that, with all his abuse, he never influences a single vote in this House. We saw the other night that, when he called for a division, he could not get a single other member to support him. The honorable member referred in a sneering way to the teetotallers as "miserable tea-drinkers," and I am sorry to see· that kind of thing springing up in the House. We are used to' it outside. For instance, not long ago, the other honorable member for Emerald Hill heard some gentlemen discussing himself, and one of them stated that "he had seen Mr. Nimmo carried home drunk in a cab." I think the "miserable tea-drinkers " will compare very favorably with the brandy and whisky drinkers. The honorable mem­ber also referred to the teetotallers as most intemperate in their language, and most violent and wild. I think the boot is on the other leg, as the honorable member himself showed when he referred to James I as a "beast "-an expression I have never heard anyone in the House use except the honor­able member. He repeated the expression time after time ns though he was rolling a. sweet morsel in his mouth.

Mr. GAUNSON.-So he was a beast. If you were not grossly ignorant of history, you would know it.

Mr. RALL.-Of course James I is dead, and so the honorable member has nothing to fear from him. The honorable member is not alone in l1is libels and insinuations upon the teetotal party and those WllO are in

'favour of this Bill, but he is a member of this House, and should set an example to the outside public. yv e can excuse a good many of the outside public fo'r their Ian .. guage-for instance, the member of the City Council who said that Members of Parliament were not fit to clean his boots.

Mr. G A UNSON.-He did not say t11at. I

He said that some of the Ministers were not fit to clean his boots.

Mr. RALL.-Itis pretty much the same. We can make allowances for the utterances of a man like thnt-perhaps he was a little

690 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

bit " off his chump" -but members of this House should set an example with regard to the language they use. The honorable mem­ber also said that nine out of every ten public-houses in the colony carried on more or less trade on Sunday, and he asked-I' If it is right to drink on Saturday, how can it be wrong to drink on Sunday?" That is most extraordinary logic to come from a lawyer. However, I let it pass, because it carries its absurdity on the face of it. The honorable member went on to say that in the country districts Sunday is the great day for drinking. As a representative of a country district, I deny that. It is a most undeserved libel on the people of the country districts to say that Sunday is the day on which they are in the habit of getting drunk.

Mr. ,GAUNSON.-I did not say for " getting drunk."

Mr. HALL.-The honorable member said that" in the country districts Sunday is the great day for drinking."

Mr. GAUNSON.-That is not "for getting drunk."

Mr. HALL.-If the honorable member means for drinking water, I will accept his explanation.

Mr. GAUNSON.-No. Mr. HALL.-There is no doubt that

what the honorable member meant was thai; Sunday was the day on which the people in the country districts are in the habit of getting drunk. I say that is false. The people in the country do not make Sun.day the day for getting drunk, but the day for going to church, and I believe that a larger percentage of the people in the country go to church on Sunday than of the people in Melbourne. I have often seen people attending the churches and chapels in the country who came, on horseback or in traps, a distance of ten or twelve miles for the purpose. Referring again to the ques­tion of Sunday trading, it will be in the recollection of honorable members that not very long ago the publicans themselves attempted to close all the hotels strictly on the Sunday, and the closing was very generally carried out for two or three Sun­days. And what was the object of doing this? The object was to create an agitation in the minds of the people and make them come to Parliament and say-" We must have our Sunday beer; we must have a law passed allowing the public-houses to be open for a couple of hours on Sunday." But what was the result? The result was that QP. *e Mond~y mornings follo~in~ thes~

Sundays the police courts showed very few drunkards, if any, while there was no com­plaint whatever from the working classes that they could not get their Sunday beer. There were no petitions from the working classes to this' House praying to be allowed their Sunday beer, and there were no public meetings held in any part of the colony to assert that it was an injustice that the pub­lic-houses should be closed on Sunday. In fact, the pUblicans themselves, by their own act, showed very clearly that the people do not care about their Sunday beer-that they can do without it, and are quite willing to give the publicans their Sunday holiday. The honorable member for Emerald Hill, not content with traducing the publicans and sneering at the people in the country districts, must also attack the courage of the British soldier.

Mr. GAUNSON.-What! Mr. HALL.-The honorable member

charged him practically with Dutch courage. He said-

"The people of England showed themselves to be great men on the battle-fields of Europein the old beer-drinking days, and now they drank as much as ever, and the more they drank the better they seemed to be." Implying thereby that WIthout beer they were nowhere-that it was only beer which made them courageous. If that is the hon­orable member's idea of British soldiers, I only wish he had seen a few of them. I believe he has never been to the old coun­try; if he took a trip there perhaps he would come back with more enlightened views. According to the honorable member, men must be stuffed with beer or they are no good. Does he recollect an old saying about men putting an enemy into their mouths to steal away their brains? I am afraid that in many cases the enemy goes in so often that there are no brains left to steal. The honorable member went on to say that this Bill "is tyrannical, and will create more immorality." That is impossible. A mea­sure which restricts the liquor traffic cannot create more immorality. It is well known that the community have been clamouring for a considerable time past for an improve­ment iIi the morals of the country, and I think this measure is a step in that direc­tion. The honorable member says the Bill cannot do much good, but I would ask him what he would propose in order to do more good? He must admit that the existing Act does not meet the case, and he, as one of the objectors to the Bill, ought to be prepared with, some proposal in place of it. If he shows me son~ething better, I will gq

Second Reading. [AUGUST 12.J Sixth Night's Debate. 691

with him, but I am not going to cast away this Bill merely to fall back on the existing law, which has proved unworkable, unsatis­factory, and altogether behind the time. The honorable member says he hates drunken­ness, and I hope he is in earnest in that statement. But how does he show he hates it? By affording facilities to a man to become a drunkard. I cannot llave much belief in the sincerity of a man who talks in this strain while adopting the attitude the honorable member does with regard to the licensing question. What is the honorable member doing for the drunkard? What I would do-and I think it would be a fair thing to do- would be to punish the men who make drunkards. And who are the class who make drunkards? Why the class oE publicans we want to get rid of­the class who will cram a man with drink when he is already reeling. In my opinion, when a publican was found to give a man drink who had already had more than he could stand, he should be compelled to take that drunkard into his house, to provide a bed for him, to provide attendants to wait upon him, to keep him until he got thoroughly sober, and then to send him home in a cab, and pay all the doctor's ex­penses. If a publican had to do all that, he would not be so ready to supply drunkards with more drink. If the honorable member for Emerald Hill wants to stamp out drun­kenness, let him assist in passing this Bill. If he can insert any clauses in the Bill which will go further in that direction, I will go with him. If he hates drunkenness, let him show his sympathy for the drunkard, and especially for his poor wife and family, by supporting a measure which will lessen the evil. It is not by example only that the drunkard is to be improved, and certainly not by the example which is sometimes set by the honorable member lor Emerald Hill of intemperance in manners and speech, and I am afraid in other things too. I cannot forget that, when he was abusing the Shops Commission, he said that he knew more than the Shops Commission and the Police Com­mission put together. As the honorable member has not served on any commission, and thus gained the knowledge of which he speaks by going round these places to as­certain the evils which exist, the question is how did he gain it? He could only have gained it in a private way, and, if that be the case, he must be a far greater rake than ever I gave him credit for. With reference to local option, the honorable member said that the power of voting should not be.

confined to the ratepayers, but that the manhood suffrage basis should be adopted. I have no objection to that; in fact, I would go further than the honorable member, and support womanhood suffrage. I would allow every woman above sixteen years of age to vote on this question, because women are really more interested in the matter, and feel the sad effects of drun­kenness more than men. I believe that in lliany cases women would show far greater sense and discretion in voting than men do. I believe that, if the women of the colony were polled to-morrow, 90 per cent. of them would vote for this Bill. For my own part, I would even go the length of giving women votes for the election of Members of Parliament, to which the Legislative Assembly in South Australia have agreed, and I think that, if they had the power of voting, we might have an improvement on some of our mem­bers. I believe that the effect of the Bill would be to close the bad houses in Mel­bourne, which every speaker has admitted are a disgrace to the community, and ought to be closed. The licensed victuallers them­selves admit the existence of such houses. One of the leading members of the Licensed Victuallers' Association, at a meeting re­cently, stated that there were places in Mel­bourne" in which not 5s. per day is taken legitimately, yet such houses are permitted to flourish." That is a state of things which surely the respectable publicans themselves will join in putting an end to by assist­ing to pass this measure. How do the owners of these places live and pay their rent and licence.fee, when they only take 5s. a day legitimately? Every honorable member can answer the question for him­self, and will say, if he has any desire for the good of the community, that this class of public-houses must be put down. Local option will deal with this class of houses, and therefore, from their own statements, the licensed victuallers sllOuld give us their support in passing this portion of the Bill into law. I do not see what objection there can be to the offences of publicans being posted in their houses, for the information of the public. In France, when a publican commits any breach of the law, the authori­ties have the power of posting a notice in the bar of his hotel, specifying the nature of his offence and the penalty inflicted. The Bill only proposes that this shall be done when a publican has been guilty of adul­terating liquor, and it is certainly desirable that the public should be cautioned in sllch

692 Licensing (P'ltblic-houses) [ASS~MBLY.J Law A. mendment 13i ll.

a ca.se. The honest pUblican has nothing to fear from such a provision, or indeed from any of the provisions of this Bill, while the measure contains a great deal calculated to protect him. The oniy class who have anything to fear are those whom the pub­licans them scI ves admit to be a disgrace to their trade. A licensed victualler said at a meeting recently-

"Nothing is said, I believe, about punishing persons who ask the publican to break the law. I hold that the buyer as well as the seller should be equally liable." I agree in that. I think the purchaser is as bad as the seller, for if there were no purchasers there would be no sellers. I hold to the maxim that "the receiver is as bad. as the thief," and therefore I would punish both. In this case the purchaser is the receiver and the publican is the thief, and both should be punished alike. The ,kind of argument used by some honorable members who oppose this Bill is certainly very rich. It is just on a par with the novel defence of drinking put forward by a Dr. Troth, of Perth, who, in a recent lecture, ad vanced the following highly original pro­positions :-

"The drinking of alcoholic beverages is a necessary evil, and is not likely to be ever dis­continued. It is like cholera, the plague, or war -one of the wise dispensations of Providence for preventing an undue increase of mankind. It prevents the accumulation of all the property of the nation in the hands of a few. By its means the son scatters the savings of his father's life-time in a few months, enabling another man to fill his position, creating a class of drunken tradesmen who neglect their business, so that energetic men may succeed where they fail. In short, it benefits directly or indirectly everybody but those who drink it, and if they are fools enongh to sacrifice themselves and their families' for the good of the sober and industrious, why should we interfere with them?" I nm showing what nice arguments are used by some of the leading opponents of the Bill. Another licensed victualler made the following slanderous statement:-

l'It was to please Mr. Booth and Mr. Glover, and the Salvation Army, that Mr. Berryat­tempted to introduce such legislation; but he would find that they were not so strong as he thought. It was infamous that these Yankee adventurers, who brought nothing to the country but a portmanteau and a pair of socks, should be able to boast that they would do more harm to the vignerons of this country than ever the phylloxera did." A third member of the Licensed Victuallers' Association stated that-

"The Licensing Bill had been introduced at the instigation of the Salvation Army. Those were the kind of people-the kind of hypocrites-who had got the Government to introduce this Bill." I don't think that it lies in the mouth of anybody to charge the Salvation Army, as

Mr. Halt.

a body, with being hypocrites. Every right­minded man must admit that they are doing a great deal of good. I will read an ex­tract from a speech by another gentleman, who must be an elder in the Mormon Church or hold some ecclesiastical position in con­nexion with the licensed victuallers. He says-

"I would rather be a drunkard, and die in a gutter, than lead the immoral life of some of the promoters of the measure." .

What a Simon Pure he must be! and what a sacrifice he would make! He is evidently one of those who say-" Thank God, I am not as other men are." vVhen Pharisees do show their colours, it is only right that we should expose them. Another gentleman, formerly a member of this House, and a prominent member of the Licensed Victual. leI'S' Association, says-

"Teetotalism is an admission of weakness."

I think we have heard this statement before. But if teetotalism is an admission of weak­ness, drunkenness is undoubtedly a proof of weakness. Do we not often see the poor drunkard so very weak that he has to lean against a lamp-post? Is he not often so weak that he cannot find his way to the watch.house without being assisted by two policemen ? We do not find a teetotaller in that position. We do not find a teetotal. leI' so weak that he does not know on which side of the road he wants to walk; but the poor drunkard rolls about in all directions, and takes up a large share of the footpath, though he only pays rates for one man. The gentleman who alleges that" teetotalism is an admission of weakness," goes on to state that-

II It is a confession that the person is unable to resist temptation; that he has eitper a weak stomach, or a weak head, or both."

I will speak about the "weak stomach" first. I have sometimes seen men who have been drinking so weak that when they have walked along the streets they have amused themselves by distributing all over the footpaths the beer which they had drunk. Their stomachs were so weak that they could not retain the liquor they had swallowed. This shows that weakness of the stomach is on the side of the drunkard, and not of the teetotaller. As to weakness of the head, it is very well known that after some persons have drunk a few glasses of whisky their heads become so weak that they cannot hold them up. A man under the influence of liquor sometimes lies down because he has not strength enough to hold

Second Reading. [AUGUST 12.J Sixtlt Night's ])ebate. 693

his head up. The weak stomach and the wcak l1cad belong to the class who take too much intoxicating drink-not. to the tee to ... taller. Teetotalism, instead of being an ad­mission of weakness, is a proof of strength. It shows that a teetotaller has the firmness to say-" I will not take drink which will injure me, or set an example which may do injury to my fellow men." The weakness is on the part of the man who cannot pass a public-house without first going into it and taking a drink to his own injury, and that of his family, if he has one. The libels and defamations to which teetotallers are subjected are too frequent to render it neces­sary that serious notice should be taken of them. I have to thank some member of this House-I don't know who-for being kind enough to go to the refreshment-room at the Spencer-street railway station and misrepre­sent me. It will be remembered that, a few weeks ago, I called the attention or the Minis­tel' of Railways to a practice which prevailed of overcharging customers at that refresh­ment-room in certain case~. I mentioned that 9d. had been charged for a cup of coffee and a roll, instead of 6d., and the Minister pro­mised that he would inquire into the matter. About a week or so afterwards, I and my honorablc colleague in the representation of Moira, with four or five gentlemen from that district, went together to the same refreshment-room, and each ordered a cup of coffee and a roll. 'Ve were each charged the usual 9d., instead of 6d. One of the gentle­men afterwards asked the waitress-" vVhat do you charge for a cup of coffee?" The reply was-" 3d." He then asked-" And what for a roll ?" The answer was-" 3d." He then inquired how it was that he had been charged 9d. for a cup of coffee and a roll, and the waitress replied-" Oh, I beg your pardon, it was a mistake," and gave him back 3d. Each of the other gentle­men made a similar complaint, and in each case 3d. was returned. The poor barmaid looked a little bit nonplussed~ and said,­"iI. suppose you have asked in consequence of the statement made by Mr. Hall, in the House, about being overcharged." She added-" I think it was very mean of Mr. Hall to make any such statement."

Mr. GAUNSON.-Hear, hear. . Mr. HALL.-I ask who was the meanest

-the person who made the overcharge, or I, 'who brought the matter under the notice of this House, ancI called the attention of the proper authority to it, in order that in future the' public might not be victimized by over­c1llarges? I don't see where the meanness on

my part comes in. This, however, is not the point. What I now desire to mention is that the barmaid said-" Mr. Hall did not refer to tea or coffee; he does not come here for breakfast or lunch; 'what he complained of was that he was charged too much for his beer." As a teetotaller, and never having tasted a drop of beer in my life, I could not Rtand this remark. I accord­ingly said to the girl.-" You make a great mistake; Mr. Hall does not drink beer" ; but she replied-" A Member of Parliament came down here, and told me that he heard Mr. Hall say in the House that he was over­charged for his beer." I have to thank the honorable member for making a statement which has not the least truth in it. Mis­representation is not the only thing which honorable members who are supporting the Bill have to complain of. Threats are being used against them. The Victoria Liberty and Property Defence League has issued a manifesto announcing th~t-

"The actions of the various representatives will be closely watched when the measure is be­fore the House; and, as many clauses in the Bill mean confiscation, the member who assists in bringing about this deplorable end may expect· much opposition when next he seeks re-elec­tion."

This kind of thing should not be tolerated. I deprecate such an attempt to coerce members, though, personally, I do not care a snap of the fingers for such threats. I will do what I consider my duty in regard to the Bill, and I know that the great bulk of my constituency, whether teetotallers or otherwise, will approve of the measure, with, perhaps, some slight amendments. A great deal has been said about the impos­sibility of making people sober by A.ct of Parliament. That is an old stock argu­ment. The answer to it is that, if you cannot make a man sober by Act of Parlia­ment, you can prevent a man from getting drink by Act of Parliament; and, if a man cannot get drink, he cannot get drunk. The honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Ooppin) said that the present Licens­ing Act is all that is required. If that is the case, how is it that for years past there have' been so many complaints about it ? If the' existing Act is as good as the honorable member, and those who think with him, re­present it to be, why did they not endeavour two years ago to get it effectually carried out? Why did they wait until a new Bill was introduced, completely revolutionizing the present law, before they expressed the opinion that the existing Act will do all that is necessary if it is stringently enforced? I

G94 Licensing (P1lblic-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

desire to say a word or two to the temper­ance party. I am very glad to see that many teetotallers are alive to the necessity for get­ting as much as they can, but at the same time recognise the importance or not being too grasping. I would say to the teetotal members of the House-Accept this Bill, with what amendments you can get, but do not be guided by two or three great agitators, who argue that the Bill is worth nothing, and that it is a sham and a fraud. Those men are misleading the temperance party and all persons who wish to see a good measure passed. As to the Victoria Libert.y and Property Defence League, can any honorable member tell me of whom it con­sists ? Is the league composed of the same men who do the wire-pulling arrangement in Melbourne in connexion with the licensed victuallers? The league has sent a circular to the various municipal councils asking them to oppose the Bill on the ground that, if it is passed, it will decrease the local revenue. The N umurkah Shire Council, I am glad io say, would not take any action in the direction desired by the league. The mem­bers of the council practically said-" We want the Bill; we will not oppose it; if it does take revenue away from the shire, we will try and make up the loss in another way." I hope that all other municipal coun­cils will deal with the circular of the league in H, similar manner. We are told that the drink traffic will suffer if the Bill becomes law. If it does suffer, I shall not be sorry for it. It cannot be denied that we have too many public-houses and too much drunkenness; and, therefore, would it not be well to pass a law to lessen the evil? I cannot find out who are the people that want a larger distribution of liquor. It is not the teetotallers, not the religious bodies, and not the community as a whole. The simple fact is that it is those who are engaged in the trade who are howling, whilst our hos­pitals and gaols are groaning, whilst our lunatics are shrieking, and the very devils in hell are, with fiendish delight, looking on to see how far the drink traffic can be ex­tended throughout the length and breadth of the colony. I say we ought to look to tIle future. We ought to look after those who are unable to govern themselves. We ought to guard the interests of women and children. I trust that it will not be long before the Bill is passed through this House. I hope that the Government will not allow its progress to be delayed by any other mea­sure. I believe that the community gene­mlly will, in years to come, if not at present,

Mr. Hall.

thank the Government for bringing forward the Bill, and thank this House if it passes it almost in its present shape.

Mr. MACKAY.-Mr. Speaker, in ad­dressing the House on a question of this character, I think it is of the utmost im­portance that we should divest ourselves of prejudice either on one side or the other. Although when the Bill was first brought before the House I felt somewhat indignant at many of its provisions, and very much inclmed to condemn it absolutely, I find that, if it is properly looked into, it is not without some features deserving of con­sideration. It is desirable, however, that we should avoid falling into the error of countenancing either the teetotal side or the publicans' side. We should remember that the great mass of the public have to be con­sidered-that the public convenience is what we have to look to. If we discuss the sub­ject in this spirit, we shall most likely arrive at a correct conclusion. It seems to me that the argument which llas been advanced by several honorable members, namely, tlmt the present law, with very few amendments, is all that is required, if it were properly enforced, has not yet been replied to. I assert, not as an antagonist of this Bill, that the present law, though it has never been properly enforced, has effected a vast amount of good. It is well known that the number of hotels has decreased and that drunkenness has decreased since the existing Act was placed on the statute-book. If there has been any failure in connexion with it, it has really been a failure in the adminis­tration of the law. With a certain improve­ment in regard to local option and in the licensing courts, I believe that the present law would be perfectly satisfactory. If that had been accomplished, we would have avoided all the annoyance and irritation which have been caused by a measure that proposes to interfere with a large amount of vested interests, not only those of publicans but also those of municipalities­a measure that proposes to interfere with private rights and liberty, and that has caused a great amount of heart-burning, which will exist for a long time to come. In 1877-the year after the passing of the present Licensing Act-the population of the Sandhurst district was 25,725, and the number of licensed public-houses was 199. At the present time the population has in­creased to 28,000, and the number of public­houses has diminished to 174. A diminu­tion of the number of public-houses since the present licensing law was passed is not

Second Reading. [AUGUST 12. ] Sixth Night's Debate. 695

confined to Sandhurst, but it has occurred generally throughout the colony except in those places which have been proclaimed special licensing districts. It is admitted by everybody who has noted the manners and customs of the people of Victoria that there has been a marked decrease of drunken­ness during the last few years. If that is the case, why is it that a new Licensing Bill is brought in to change the law? This question has been frequently asked, but I don't think that it has been fairly answered. I don't think that any honorable member on the Ministerial side of the House has justified the action of the Government in introducing this measure. We find from the police reports that out of upwards of 4:000 public-houses there are only about 280 to which the slightest exception is taken, either on the ground that the buildings are not very good or that they are not kept in proper repair. This is a very small propor­tion. If there are a number of public-houses of an indifferent character, what does that fact tend to show but that the present surveillance is imperfect, and that the administration of the law is not what it should be? Instead of improving on the present condition of things by properly administering the pro .. visions of a moderate law, we are asked to pass an excessive measure and see whether we cannot administer that better than the existing law has been administered. Now what does excessive restriction result in? The honorable member who preceded me read a quotation about prohibition in Ame­rica and the excellent results which are said to have been achieved by it, but he did not give us the date to which his quotation applies. I would remind that honorable member and those who think with him that in the past history of this country we had experience of what prohibition means. The Attorney-General stated the other night, almost in tones of anger, that what he aimed at was doing away with public-houses alto­gether-that he would be glad to see the day when there will beno public-houses at all in the land. I may therefore fairly conclude that the honorable gentleman goes in for prohibition. I would like to ask what his honorable colleague, the Treasurer, thinks of that? What sort of feeling must he have in regard to prohibition, seeing that a large portion of his own business consists of the circulation of spirituous liquors, when he hears the Attorney-General say that he hopes to see the day when there will be no public-houses?

;Mr. KEE,FERD:-Not by prohibition, .. • .• I ! I

Mr. MACKAY.-The honorable gentle­man went in for' abolishing public-houses.

Mr. KERFERD.-I said I hoped that public opinion would go in that direction.

Mr. MACKAY.-At all events, my in­terpretation of what the honorable gentle­man said is pretty near the mark. Now what did prohibition cause in this country in the old gold-field days?

Mr. BERRY.-Society was quite different then.

Mr. MACKAY.-I know wlmt society was in those days. I went into the roughest of it. I was on the Ovens at the time of the agitation in 1853. I was at Bendigo, and at the Tarrengower, Dunolly, Ingle­wood, and other rushes; and I tell the Chief Secretary that society on the gold-fields in those days was anything but what he thinks it was. A respectable man could live respected, and a man could keep out of bad company, or rough company, if he wished to do so. Women were respected on the gold­fields, even in those days, if they were re­spectable. Idon't understand the talk about the state of society on the gold-fields in the early days. There were rough characters on the gold-fields in those days, but by the action of magistra.tes like the late Mr. McLachlan, who died the other day, they were com­pelled to take themselves away to other places, or to behave themselves where they were. In the Ovens district especially I saw that the result of prohibition was that the most in­famous liquors were circulated among the diggers. When I have gone to see a friend and been asked to take brandy-which was the common drink in those days-the very smell of it, or just the taste of it, was quite enough. The diggers, in fact, were poisoned by the kind of drink which was sold, and they had to pay a large price for it. N ever­theless liquor was obtainable in any quan­tity. To my knowledge, some of the most respectable firms in Melbourne sent 20 or 30 dray-loads of liquor to Bendigo, the bottles being concealed in drapery cases, and covered with drapery. Why was that done? Because the people rebelled against a law which prohibited them from obtaining what some of them thought they had a right to have. The law was broken in every direc­tion. There was even an instance in which a dentist would sell any person a nobbler who went to his place and represented that he had a bad toothache and desired some­thing to take it away. Human ingenuity finds various ways of evading all laws which are of a prohibitive or too restric­tive character. l was surprised to heal'

696 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

the honorable member for Normanby say, last night, that it would be a good thing if the Almighty would cause tIle art of making alcoholic liquor to be lost. That is a most extraordinary statement. It is a sort of as­sertion that the Almighty has done wrong in allowing strong drink to be produced in the world. What conceivable thing-what passion, propensity, affection, or virtue-is there which cannot be abused? Is it not mons trollS to say that because there are fools, silly people, who are led away and de­base themselves with drink, therefore we must prohibit its use, and must utterly abolish alcohol? Are we wiser than the Omniscient? The tendency towards prohi­bition is utterly absurd, unphilosophical, and, I think, irreverent. What we ought to do is to try and check all the abuses of the liquor traffic-to check them in a proper manner. I believe in a reasonable measure, and in punishing all violations of the law, but I do not agree with those wild enthusiasts who desire to do away totally with alcoholic liquor because some 'few people choose to abuse it. I beg to inform the House that I, for one, am in favour of local option, and I have always been in favour of it. I think that in a community which lives

. under representative government, which as­sumes to govern itself, there should always be conceded to the people themselves the right to regulate a matter of this kind, and to determine for themselves-I don't know that I have ever gone so far as to say by a bare majority-the number of public-houses which they will have in their midst. I re­peat that I have always been in favour of local option, and I am sorry that anybody should be against it. But let it be under­stood that, in my opinion, local option ought to be properly carried out, and not in the way that my honorable friend, the coming Treasurer, would carry it out.

Mr. MIRAMS.-How would you carry it out?

Mr. MACKAY.-I have no objection to the provision that one-fifth of the ratepayers in any district shall be entitled to demand a poll. That provision, I think,is taken from the Canadian Act. But I object to being bound by a bare majority of those who vote. Is it fair that an important trade, in which a large number of families are concerned, and a large amount of vested interests are involved, shall be subjected to the possibly destructive influence of a chance vote?

Mr. MIRAMS.-Yes; it is just as fair as onr own elections. Weare elected by a majority of those who vote.

Mr. MACKA Y.-I will deal with thLit point presently, and show the fallacy of the honorable member's argument. He is com­paring things which are essentially different. The Bill proposes that a mere majority shall determine that the number of public-houses must be reduced, whereas in Canada a two­thirds majority is required.

Mr. BERRY.-That is for total pro~ hibition.· .

Mr. MIRAMS.-Give us total prohi­bition, and we will accept the same terms.

Mr. MACKAY.-What is total prohi­bition?

Mr. BERRY.-The abolition of all pub­lic-houses in the district.

Mr. MACKAY.-No doubt that maybe a reason for requiring the majority to be a high one; but, apart from total prohibition, I ask honorable members whether they would prefer a system which would fairly represent the feeling of the communitY~'or such a system as might possibly allow. a small minority of the inhabitants OI· a district to abolish public-houses, and deal with vested interests in a destructive manner ?We know very well that when a band of enthusiasts are in favour of any reform they are exceedingly zealous, but the mass of the community are quiescent, and consequently they may find themselves sad­dled with a state of affairs to which they wholly object. The honorable member for Collingwood (Mr. Mirams) asks why . the question of local option should not be de­termined in the same way as the election of a Member of Parliament. I am prepared to agree that a clear majority of the electors shall decide the issue, but the honorable member wishes it to be decided in the same way that our own elections are determined.

Mr. MIRAMS.-I am willing to accept a majority of three-fifths of those who vote.

Mr. MACKAY.-Let me point out the absurdity of the attempted analogy betw~en voting on the local option question and vot­ing for the election of a member of tHis House. If there is a vacancy for a seat in Parliament there must be a member chosen to fill it, but there is no necessity whatever that there shall be any decision given as to, the number of public-houses that there ought to' be in any particular district unless a ceF'" tain proportion of persons desire that there shitll be a poll on the question. Moreover, a' man may be elected a Member of Parliament. without obtaining the votes of a clear roa-' jority of the electors of the constituency for which he is returned. I would be inclined: to.support a proposal that, where there are

Second Reading. [AUGUST 12.] Sixth Night's Debate. 697

only two candidates for a constituency, the successful one should not be entitled to take his seat unless he obtains the votes of a clear majority of the electors on the roll; but, as I have already shown, the attempt to establish an analogy between a poll on the local option question and a poll for the elec­tion of a Member of Parliament utterly fails. Next, with regard to the statutory number

. of public-houses for each licensing district, I quite admit that there is a great deal in the arguments of the honorable members who denounce the arrangement laid down in the Bill; but, nevertheless, I regard it as a highly conservative provision against the local optionists going too far. After all, the point is that we should treat each dis­trict according to its circumstances. I am quite willing to accept the rate of one public­house per every 250 inhabitants for the first 1,000, and one per every 500 inhabitants afterwards, as that which should, generally speaking, regulate the operation of the local option principle, but to propose to carry it out strictly in such' places as Melbourne and other sea-port towns-I may also say the same for Sandhurst-is very absurd. For example, such a rate would give far ·too many public-houses to South Yarra, and not half enough to the city of Melbourne. Therefore, I hope that in committee we shall adopt a statutory number suited to the re­quirements of each locality. With respect to the question of compensation for closen public-houses, I do not intend to say much. vVe have lleard arguments as to whether we ought to admit the existence of any legal claim whatever for compensation, but I ask honorable members to divest themselves wholly of any partisanship they may have in the matter, and to look at it in a practi­cal way. Would it be fair or honest to pass a Bill the effect of which would be to de­prive a large number of persons of valuable prpperty, in the shape of their vested in­t·el:ests in their licences, and so on, without, at the same time, providing them with com­pensation for their loss? I am sure no honorable member would like to see such a principle applied to himself under any cir­cumstances. Moreover, when we find such a statesman as Mr. John Bright, whom we all accept as a typical liberal, reading a dig­nified lecture to those who sought to gain his snpport to the non-compensation prin­ciple, we may rest assured that in arranging for compensation we are in the right traclt:. Then the question arises-Is the compen­sation offered in the Bill sufficient? Will a sum amounting to two years' profits make

SES. 1885.-3 E

up to a publican for the loss of his licence? In considering this point we mnst not be guided by exceptional cases, but have re­gard to the vast number of instances in which a publican simply gets a living for himself and family, and his actual income is very small. VV ould it be fair to offer such a man two years' profits as equivalent to the loss of his means of getting a living? Supposing, as is frequently the fact, that his income is only about £2 lOs. per week for himself and his family, how would he stand after he was compensated under the Bill as it is? But this subject, as well as that of compensating the owner of any public-house that may be closed, by giving him the difference made in its value by the change, calculated on a five years' basis, has been pretty well thrashed out, and I will not d well upon it. I would like to see some means by which it could be referred to some tribunal to assess the amount of compensa­tion. I do not quite know whether to appeal to the law courts, or to arbitration, would be the best plan. The Minister of Railways seems to think, from his experience, that in appeals to arbitration, where the State is concerned, the Government is too apt to be taken in. Well, that may be the case some­times, but I would rather see the Govern­ment pay too much than that private per­sons should be victimized. I have not much objection to the proposed licensing court, but I am amused to find that we are going to have another paid board composed of Go­vernment nominees. My chief dread in the matter is that such a body will be too amen­able to Government influence to be utterly impartial. Certainly it would scarcely secure impartiality to have either a teetotaller or a person connected with the publican interest a member of the board. However, I am quite willing that the experiment of having a licensing court should be tried, so that we may see how the plan will work. Then I come to the very important proposal in the Bill with respect to the municipalities. The Government propose to take the licence-fees from them, and, in compensation, to give them their present revenue from licences for five years longer as an endowment. I don't quite like that plan, because the result will be that in five years' time the municipalities will simply find themselves without a large portion of their income. At the same time, I don't defend the principle of allowing the local bodies to traffic in licences for public­houses. I quite admit that the effect of following that plan, in times past, has been that more licences were granted than would

698 Licensing (P1tblic-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

]mve been granted had the circumstances been different. But would it not be better for the Government to adopt a sliding scale -say,onegraduallydiminishingthe amount receivable by the municipalities from licences for some ten or twenty years? Take the ca.se of a' municipality now in receipt of several thousands a year from licences. To deprive it of that money entirely in five years would be sudden, but if it were reduced by 5 per cent. every year, for twenty years, the loss would hardly be felt. Each muni­cipality would learn year hy year how to ac­commodate itself to the new state of things. In the case of Echuca, which has been a good deal referred to, and I may also men­tion Sandhurst, it would be a good thing if the local bodies were let down gently. Be­sides, many of them have large loans on the market, and, whenever they have looked at their means of repaying them, their receipts from licence-fees have unquestionably been largely taken into account. Can it be a propel' thing, from a business point of view, to injure the financial credit of a number of our local bodies? It Reems to me that, in the ease of such of them as have loans out, their licence-fee endowment should be con-

. tinued until their loans are paid off. There can be no doubt that the Government must stand behind them in one way or another. I will next say a word or two on the bar­maid question. I am really astonished to find a Ministry including the Chief Secre­tary making the proposal on the subject that is now before us. Surely, of all men, he ought to be the last to be found in the ranks of those who desire to curtail the means of employment open to females. It is truly amazing to find him, with his knowledge of society in general, led away by such absurd nonsense as that embodied in the report of the Shops Commission. It almost appears as though this portion of the Bill was drafted by some one with no knowledge of the facts of the matter at all, but ready to lay down important principles upon a basis furnished solely by his imagination. Is it a fact that barmaids are less virtuous than any other portion of the community?

Mr. BERRY.-Who says they are? Mr. MACKA Y.-Something like that

has been said by supporters of the barmaids clause. Why should a large number of young women be prevented from earning a living by such a provision as that? Are not the avenues of employment for women limited enough in this country?

Mi. BERRY .-1 have always done all I could to extend them.

Mr. MACKAY.-I give the honorable gentleman credit for having done so. I quite recognise that', in all the extremes to which he has gone from time to time, he bas always aimed at expanding the area of employment. That is why I am so surprised to finel him, instead of endeavouring to re­gulate the barmaids' hours of labour, and to afford them proper protection, simply trying to annihilate their business. People who travel and go about know something of barmaids; so it is monstrous for honorable members to be led away by fanciful stories. I ask any man of tbe world whether he is not perfectly conscious that a barmaid can hold her own in the community better than almost any other young woman of her own age? Let honorable members look round at the young women in the country who earn their living, and say whether those employed in public-house bars are not better able to protect themselves from the dangers that beset girls than almost any other class of female employes. On what ground are young women to be prevented from serving in bars, and not prevented from working in factories and the like?

Mr. ORKNEY.-Or in telegraph offices and post-offices?

Mr. MACKAY .-Precisely so. What practical difference is there? I am tho­roughly disgusted with the report of the Shops Commission. It might just as well be said that the young ladies w bo" do the block" have in view the same purpose as that which appears to be imputed in some quarters to barmaids. To my mind, a most unwarranted stigma has been cast upon these young women. Of course there are some bad in every class, but there can be no doubt tbat a young woman of loose character in any decent hotel would soon ruin its reputation. Such females are only to be found in houses the continuance in existence of which is a disgrace and shame to all of us. I sincerely trust that, when we are in committee, we shall approach this barmaid question in a proper spirit. Considering the number of young women now in bars who contribute largely to the support of their families-of their mothers, younger brothers and sisters, and so on-surely we should hesitate long before we drive them to look elsewhere for employment. If we pass the barmaids clause, shall we not in effect do more to recruit the ranks of prostitution than is done by the means to that end at present in exist. ence? I might say a great deal more on this subject, but I think I have sufficiently expressed myself. I pass (m to another

Second Reading. [AUGUST 12.] Sixtlt Night's Deliate. 699

extravagant proposal in the Bill, namely, that relating to brewers, and wine and spirit merchants. How can any commercial man, or ordinary man of the world, think of doing such a stupid thing as to interfere with the relations between wholesale and retail houses ? ' No doubt there is something pecJ].liar in the relations between some hotels and the brewers and wine and spirit merchants, and perhaps it will be well to keep an eye over them, but the 'method adopted in the Bill, which the poorer sort of publicans will feel most oppressively, seems more, suited for Utopia than a practical country like Vic­toria. Besides, it appears to me that a brewer, or wine and spirit merchant, holding hotel security for money advanced must necessarily have an interest in making the house or houses he is concerned in as good as possible. We have heard a great deal about brewers forcing the publicans indebted to them to sell bad liquor, but, does not every such story bear nonsense and ab­surdity on its face? This attempt to inter­fere with the business relations of two classes of tradespeople, in a meddlesome and officious style, cannot be too strongly deprecated. It is simply a counterpart of what Mr. Longmore, when he was one of the colleagues of the present Chief Secre­tary, and at the head of the Lands depart­ment, formerly attempted. He refused to let the selectors borrow money on their holdings, and we all know the miserable consequences that ensued. Another speci­men of want of wisdom on the part 'of the compiler of the Bill is his discovery that each public-house ought to have only one bar. Why every country member who has ever had to stop in an hotel in town must know that such an arrangement is bound to be intolerable. If I were to meet the Chief Secretary in the street, and to ask him to join me in a glass of wine, am I to have no option but to invite him to a bar where, perhaps, half-a-dozen drunken fellows are hanging about, or, at all events, where there are persons with whom neither of us would wish to be brought into contact?

Mr. BERRY.-Youcould go into a pri­vate room.

Mr. MAOKA Y.-Into a room to which the liquor would be brought-would not that room be in practice another bar? Why should a man who wants a cup of coffee-a thing often supplied by publicans-have to go to the one bar of an hotel where all the customers of the place are assembled? I do not think this House will allow the one bar proposal to be carried out. I cannot

quite understand the democratic enthusiasm that led to it being made. Then there is the plan of forcing the public-houses to shut IIp half-an-hour earlier than they do now. I can hardly imagine anything more petty, and, at the same time, more inconvenient. Why should the people coming out of the theatres, or arrivirig in town by the late trains, be disabled from finding a public­house open just at the time they most'want the accommodation it wowd afford? I have some experience of the way a similar rule works in Sydney. Last January I hap­pened to reach that city late in the evening, and I had the utmost difficulty in getting into an hotel. I knocked at the doors of four or five of the leading hotels before I could get a lodging. And, in each case, when my knock was answered, I found my measure most carefully taken...:...I suppose that it might be discovered what sort of character I was. In Sydney the houses have to close at eleven o'clock.

Mr. ZOX.-How does it answer? Mr. MAOKA Y.-It does not answer at

all. It is simply an inconvenience. How would we like, when we visit a theatre, to see the people there moving out just before the fall of the curtain, to make SUl'e that they could get some refreshment before they went home? Another provision I hope to see eliminated from the Bill is the one re­quiring a new hotel to have 60 bed-rooms. I think too much accommodation is de­manded. To require 30 bed-rooms, as is done under the present Act, would be ample for every purpose. Then the proposed in­crease of the licence-fees, with respect to the better class of houses, is altogether wrong. The licence is simply for liquor-selling, ,and the cost of it should be uniform. It ought not to be a charge upon the house ac­commodation afforded, because that should always be proportionate to the ne.eds of the locality in which the house is situated. In short, provisions of the kind I am alluding to will only lead to evasion of the law, and we know what an evil that is. Who can hope to extinguish human nature by means of a prohibitory enact­ment? What strikes me as very remark­able is the contrast between the severe treatment to be accorded to the publicans and the tenderness exhibited towards the holders of grocers' licences. It is proposed to exempt the licensed grocers from many of the conditions to which the existing law subjects them. Why not have local option with respect to licensed grocers as -well as with respect to the "licensed victuallers,"

700 Licensing (P1thlic-hou,ses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill .

. as the publicans are now to be called? Why should not an increase of licensed grocers be regarded as equally injurious' with an increase of licensed victuallers? Why stop up one end of the mischief and leave the other open? I have heard a good deal of profane scoffing to the effect that because the Premier is a wine and spirit merchant, therefore are the grocers' licences so gently dealt with. At all events, there is an obvious injustice somewhere, and I hope the House will rectify it, and regulate the grOCf'!r quite as much as the licensed victualler. To my thinking, there is more danger in connexion with the licensed grocers than there is, generally speaking, in connexion with public-houses. We know, from our own experience, how sometimes whole families have been corrupted by the facilities afforded them for obtaining various kinds of liquor. The only other point of the Bill I will touch upon is that relating to Sunday trading. I quite admit that in recent· legislation in England the principle of throwing the burthen of proof on the party accused is sometimes recognised; . but how can it be applied to the case of a pub­lican charged with selling liquor on Sunday to a man who was not what he professed to be, namely, a traveller? How, in the name of all that is wonderful, can you hold a publican responsible for the circumstance that somebody told him a falsehood? "\Vhat sense or justice can there be in punishing a publican because a man described himself as a traveller when he was not really one? Such an arrangement would not be com­monly fair as between man and man, and I am astonished to find its adoption seriously proposed. In conclusion, I will not pledge myself to oppose tIle second reading of the Bill, because I think honorable members generally are disposed to go into committee upon it, and there expunge from it what they regard as objectionable. I, too, will endeavour to make the measure as good a one as possible, by endeavouring to purge it of its many gross defects. I would cer­tainly like to see a proper system of local option carried into effect. If the faults of the Bill are not remedied, I shall feel my­self at full liberty to vote against its third reading.

Mr. WALKER moved the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. BERRY remarked that he had no objection to the debate being adjourned, but it was time some date was fixed for bringing it to a close. Would the leader of the Opposition consent to the division on the

second reading being taken, say, on Thurs­day week-the 20th August?

Mr. BENT said he had consulted the honorable members on his (the opposition) side of the House, and he found them will­ing that the division should be taken on Tuesday week-the 25th August.

Mr. BERRY stated tllat he was ready to agree that the division should take place on the date just named.

Mr. ZOX observed that he intended to speak on the Bill before it was read a second time, and he would insist on doing so, in­dependently of any arrangement between the Government and the Opposition. At the same time, he desired to expedite business.

Mr. MASON remarked that he also in­tended to speak on the Bill before it reached another stage, but he could not do so until certain information he had asked for with respect to it was furnished.

Mr. BERRY said the papers the honor­able member for South Gippsland referred to would be laid on the table on Tuesday.

Mr. GAUNSON stated that, upon his motion, the House had ordered certain re­turns relating to the Bill, and the House could hardly divide upon it until they were supplied.

Mr. BERRY said he had endeavoured to expedite the preparation of the returns re­ferred to, and he had been promised by the three departments charged with their preparation that they would be ready by Tuesday.

Mr. GRAVES remarked that he had more than once asked that the latest re­ports of the inspectors under the existing Licensing Act should be laid on the table.

Mr. LANGRIDGE stated that he would have a synopsis of the latest reports with respect to distilleries furnished on an early day.

Dr. QUICK begged to remind the Chief Secretary that no return had yet been made to the order of the House calling for infor­mation as to how the proposed system of local option would operate in each electoral district.

Mr. BERRY said the return would be furnished early next week-probably on Tuesda.y.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was adjourned until Tuesday, August 18.

STOCK BRANDS REGISTRATION BILL.

Mr. McLEAN moved for leave to intro­duce a Bill to provide for the registra.tion of brands of stock.

.south Melbo'l£l'he Jetty. [AUGUST 12.] IAmacy 0 Cmmm·ssion . 701

00 Mr. ZOX seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

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

REAL PROPERTY STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. DUFFY moved for leave to intro­duce a Bill to amend the Real Property Statute 1864.

Dr. QUICK seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

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

BAKERS AND MILLERS LAW.

Mr. DUFFY moved-"That this House will, on Wednesday next,

resolve itself into a committee of the whole, to consider the law relating to bakers and millers."

Dr. QUICK seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

SOUTH MELBOURNE JETTY.

Mr. GAUNSON moved-"That this House will, on Wednesday next,

resolve itself into a committee of the whole, to eon sider the propriety of presenting an address to His Excellency the Governor, requesting that he will be pleased to place upon the Additional Estimates a SUIll of £2,000 for the purpose of providing a jetty for the city of South Mel­bourne."

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

ADJOURNMENT. The remaining business on the notice­

paper having been postponed, Mr. BERRY moved that the House do

now adjourn. Mr. LAURENS said he must enter his

protest against the House adjourning so early. He quite understood that honorable members would meet after the refreshment hour that evening, and he was especially in­terested in their doing so inasmuch as he wished to move the second reading of the Hotham Town Lands Bill.

Mr. BERRY remarked that the honor­able member could not have taken notice when the question of postponing the busi­ness, including the order of the day he par­ticularly referred to, was put from the chair. It was generally agreed among honorable members that the House should not sit after the refreshment hour that evening, in order that the country members desirous of return­ing to their respective districts in time for the municipal elections of the following day might be enabled to catch the evening trains.

SESe 1885.-3 F

Mr. LAURENS observed that, unless business was more strictly attended to, it would be almost ~possible to carry a pri­vate member's Blll through during the present session.

LUNACY COMMISSION.

Mr. ZOX asked the Chief Se~retary if he had seen 0 the newspaper reports of the evidence recently given before the Lunacy Commission by Dr. Tucker, of Sydney, a gentleman of considerable experience in connexion with lunatic asylums in England and on the Continent? He recently visited the Yarra Bend and Kew asyl~ms, and his testimony to the commission with respect to their condition reflected most severely upon the officers intrusted with their manage­ment. The members of the commission were deeply struck by the important as well as startling nature of the statements made, but they did not like to move in the matter without consulting the Ministerial head of the Lunatic Asylums department. Still they considered it absolutely necessary that stP,ps should be taken to ascertain whether Dr. Tucker's evidence was founded on fact, and also that before he left Melbourne, which he would do shortly, not only should he be asked to substantiate what he had said, but the officers implicated should be afforded an opportunity of refuting his charges. The matter could hardly be allowed to pass without some notice being taken of it. (Mr. Gaunson-"Was Dr. Dick present when Dr. Tucker gave his evidence ?") He was not present, but it was Dr. Dick who showed him round the asylums.

Mr. BERRY said he had read the evi­dence which the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) referred to, and he could not help thinking it very extraordin­ary. His feeling was that it was to a large extent exaggerated. He had received, that day, a telegram from the Kew asylum, stating that the officers had held an indig­nation meeting, and inviting him to attend and inspect matters for himself. He was too busy, having deputations to attend to, to respond at once to that invitation; but he pro­posed to go to Kew, and have a look round, the following morning. He considered that the honorable member for East Melbourne, as chairman of the Lunacy Commission, should visit the asylums, either by himself or in company with some of his colleagues, and test, by personal obserYation, the value of Dr. Tucker's evidence.

Mr. BENT observed that he understood Dr. Dick was present when Dr. Tucker

702 Trart8fer of Lartd [COUNCIL.] Statute Amendment Bill.

went round the institutions, and therefore it was only right that Dr. Dick should be heard about this matter before the Lunacy Commission. In fact, he was inclined to think it would be well for Dr. Dick to be present whenever the commission took evidence.

The subject then dropped. The House adjourned at twenty-eight

minutes to seven o'clock, until Tuesday, August 18.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, August 18, 1885.

Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill-Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill: Second Reading: Second Night's Debate.

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

BILLS OF LADING LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

The amendments made in this Bill, in committee, were considered and adopted.

On the motion of the Hon. F. T. SAR­GOOD, the Bill was then read a third time and passed.

TRANSFER OF LAND STATUTE AMENDMENT BILL.

SECOND NIGHT's DEBATE. The debate on the Hon. N. Thornley's

motion for the second reading of this Bill (a,djourned from August 11) was resumed.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN.-Mr. Presi­dent, it will, I think, be admitted that there is a considerable difference in the practice with relation to the occupation of land in this colony and that in older countries. Not only in England, but all over the continent of Europe, and to some extent in America also, the system followed may be described as first settlement and then survey. With ns, on the contrary, the practice has been first survey and then settlement. This dis­similarity is by no means merely formal, because there seems to be a very material and important distinction between the two processes. In the former case the plan has been that a man went into possession, and afterwards-perhaps in a generation or so -some description of survey was made, and some kind of a map was drawn up. Of (:loufse i~ l:ta~ heen open f9r surve!s of that

kind to develop in comse of time into sur­veys such as those familiar to the continent of Europe, or those carried out under the ordnance survey system of the mother coun­try. The point is, however, that they all represent the existing facts of settlement. They involve descriptions not of land on which settlement has ultimately to take place, but of land already settled upon, and their lines are lines following existing occupation. Another point is one upon which I need bring no evidence, namely, that in all communities, and among every people, boundary marks relating to land have, from time immemorial, been held peculiarly sacred. Thus, in other countries, in the first place, the land was actually occupied, and sub­sequently the occupation was regulated by metes and bounds. But with us the process has always been quite contrary. Here an area is defined as vested in Her Majesty, and when Her Majesty proceeds to distri­bute the territory among her subjects, the mode adopted is that a survey takes place, a map is prepared, certain dimensions are indicated, and then, when a man buys an allotment, he proceeds as soon as he can to find it out and to settle UpOl'). it. It is a material point that he is not actually put into occnpation or possession of the land, but that he is handed a map in which cer­tain boundaries are described, and from which he has to discover the allotment he hns bought. I have often wondered at the easy way in which the buyers of land in certain difficult parts of the country have identified their purchases. Naturally it is done not solely by means of a map, but also by the help of marks placed in the ground, which, of course, are perishable, and not likely to last very long. Without them, however, purchasers could l1ardly get into actual possession. Thus the great difference is between taking possession of land, and subsequently surveying and making a map of it, and constructing a map first, and let­ting men go into possession afterwards. I will mention a peculiar illustration of our own principle. The Act of Parliament passed to establish the colony of South Australia provided that its eastern boundary-the one separating it from New South Wales­should be the 141st meridian. Nothing could be more precise, and no one could possibly be injured or complain so long as they confined themselves to the four corners of the Stntute; but, when people began to look for the 141st meridian, and to dis­cover what was meant by it on the earth, certain difficultie~ arose, To Illeet the~~

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.J Second Night's Debate. 703

. difficulties, an arrangement was made be­tween South Australia and its eastern neigh­bour according to which a boundary line was marked on the ground, and adopted as the line of the 141st meridian. But, years afterwards, the surveyors of the period dis­covered that the base line delineated was not that of the 141st meridian at all, and the result has been that ever since our good friends of South Australia have been agitated by a sense of wrong-by the belief that a line of country about a couple of miles wide has been wrongly taken from them. This state of t.hings affords us one or two instructive lessons. In the first place, it shows clearly that we cannot be guided by a mere imaginary line, drawn upon a map according to certain scientific principles, but that we require a distinct mark on the ground itself. Another lesson is that, according to the surveyors of to-day, the surveyors of 40 years ago made mistakes which are not made now, and also that it is not unlikely that in 40 years from hence a. similar state of things will be found to exist with respect to the surveyors on whom we place reliance at the present time. Thus the question concerning the exactness of our surveys may be said to rest not so much with ourselves as with our grandchildren, and their grand­children after us, and so on. As Mr. Thornley has so well told us, there is no absolute finality with regard to surveys, be­cause they largely depend upon the instru­ments used, and the scientific knowledge possessed by surveyors. At the same time, we know that the former are continually improving, and that the latter is con­tinually advancing. I remember, in con­nexion with the South Australian boundary question, asking the late Professor Wilson, a good many years ago, what was the state of scientific knowledge with respect to laying down such a line, and that he replied that at the Cambridge Observatory the great ambition of the observers was to find out exactly where the observatory stood, and their inability to do so satisfactorily made the lives of those distinguished men a com­parative bnrthen to them. No doubt that sort of thing is a disaster in some way, just as it was a disaster to the John Jones men­tioned by Mr. Thornley to feel at sea as to his own identity in the eyes of the community generally. I have heard of the case of an unhappy gentleman-a large land dealer­who, finding that a person of the same name had become insolvent, actually proposed, in conversation with his solicitor, to pay the insolvent's debts, ill order by tha~ meaqs ~q

3F~ ,

get the register cleared and his own name back again. If, with all the scientific ap­pliances we have now, there can be no finality with respect to the site of the Cambridge Observatory, . or of the South Australian boundary line, what can we expect to be the case with regard to the rough and ready sur­veys made in this country 40 or 50years ago? Another point connected with our experience of the South Australian boundary difficulty is that it is wonderful, when a man suddenly discovers that a piece of land ought to be his, how extremely sharp he instantly gets about it. In such cases, land which pre­viously he would hardly have as a gift im­mediately beconies of vast interest to him. Thus the people of South Australia, after being for many years perfectly content with their boundary, directly they thought it was not quite in their favour, became convinced that they were being very hardly treated. A good many years ago a distinguished man in this country came to me in great trouble. Some twenty years before he acquired a piece of land and fenced it, and his neighbour adopted the dividing fence as correct, and built a house almost right up to it. All at once, however, certain railway surveys proved that the fence was slightly wrongly placed, so that my friend was the loser by a certain space. I never saw a man more excited on such a subject than he was. My advice was, "Oh! come to terms with your neighbour':; but he objected to do so, because-to use his own words-he felt "so cramped." For years and years he was perfectly satisfied, but the moment he believed himself entitled to a little more land than he had got, he began to feel miserable. That shows one difficulty connected with the present ques­tion, namely, that as soon as you excite a man's cupidity he becomes awkward to deal with. And who is now exciting people's cupidity or the other thing? Mr. Thornley and his surveyors' fine measurements. We used to think lawyers the common enemy of mankind; but now, it seems, we must come to the conclusion that the surveyors are worse. Look at the angry feelings they pro­voke in a man when they tell him that his neighbour has taken half-an-inch of land from him. And then, at the back of that, we are informed that absolute accuracy of measurement is impossible of attainment. Under these circumstances, we find that we have two classes of land to deal with. First, there is the land the State has not alienated, which can be comparatively easily dealt with, and, secondly, there is ~4e l~Ild sold alld in actual posse~~ion,

\, ~ "t . .

704 ·Transfer of Land [COUNCIL.] Stat~£te Amendment Bill.

Wha.t are we to do with the latter? What can we do but accept the actual facts con­nected with its alienation, and go by them as best we may? Still, the difficulties in the way are serious. There can be no doubt that the old surveys were ab z'nitio bad sur­veys. We know that with the best surveys we have to make allowances, but the old surveys I allude to are very far removed from that description. How strange, and yet how interesting, it was to hear Mr. Thornley describe the way in which Mel­bourne was first laid out. How different the story was from the descriptions we have read of the foundation of certain ancient ~ities. On the one hand is the picture of a grand procession, the founders of the city in gorgeous pontifical robes, priests chanting sacred litanies, and a plough, drawn by n white bull and a white heifer, marking a furrow along the sacred boundary; while on the other we see-w hat? Simply a sur­veyor with an old chain, considerably too long, going with his assistant down to what is now Spencer-street, and then and there, in apparently a perfectly promiscuous fashion, chaining off the township. Why was that chain too long? vVe have not yet been told. It was known at the time to be too long, but the reason for tbe extra length has not yet come out. Perhaps it was something like the reas·on a certain bigh official had for regularly keeping his clock a quarter of an hour too slow. The result is t.hat we have whole blocks out of measure­ment, for one allotment being one or two inches astray will naturally affect tbe lines of the other allotments in connexion with it. For example, a bank in Melbourne, with which I have had something to do, has a building on an allotment which is about an inch and a half out of its right lines, and, as the proprietors of the adjoining allot­ments will not come to terms, the land can­not be sold. I sincerely hope that, under the Bill, that difficulty 1"ill be got rid of. Another case wns mentioned by one of the witnesses before the Titles Commis­sion. The late Mr. J. G. Francis had pro­perty in King-street, on each side of which were buildings owned by persons who had eaoh measured their land. They were quite content and had got all they wanted. There were 6 feet over out of 5 chains, and those 6 feet were going a-begging. The gentle­man who married Mr. Francis' daughter, and who represented Mr. Francis, being a smart solicitor, thought it a great pity that those 6 feet should be going a-begging, and he quietly annexed them. Of course he was

Bon. W. E. Hearn.

quite right, but it was fortunate for him that the surveys went in the particular way they did. Had they gone straight on end, con­secutively, I do not suppose he could have got the 6 feet; but inasmuch as, owing to the way the surveys ran, each of the other owners got all he claimed, and there was then an intervening space unclaimed, there was nothing to prevent him taking it. It is a very remarkable thing that in an area of 5 chains there should be 6 feet astmy; those 6 feet were, in fact, a present given by the Crown to the purchaser. Dealing with these erroi's of surveying is no doubt a formidable question, and various proposi­tions were made by witnesses who gave evidence before the commission. It strikes me, after thinking over the matter as well as I could, that the question is really not a question of surveying at all. I do not think that any amount or skilled surveying will be of the slightest service in the matter. What is wanted is, in the first place, to validate what is on the ground as far as possible, and primarily, I presume, the streets. I dare say that none of the streets are right-at least, a great many of them are probably wrong-but, nevertheless, I think no person would desire to alter the streets. Let them be crooked or straight, they ought to be distinctly. validated as they run. This, then, would give a starting point from which to work. In the next place, where you have these blocks with streets on all sides the difficulty is that the original survey is more or less wrong, and the error for the most part runs through the w bole of the allotments in the block. Now what are yon to do in such a case? No amount of surveying will get over the difficulty, because you cannot go back upon the original sur­vey now. I think, however, there is one course which the Government might pur­sue, and for which there is a very distinct precedent. There is a proceeding in the Court of Chancery called issuing a commis­sion for boundaries .. This is an authority which the court has not of late years cared to exercise very much, but it has at various periods exercised it, and, without going into detail, what is done is substantially this:­'Vhere there has been a confusion of bound­aries by reason of mistake or any simibr cause, the court issues a commission which inquires into the matter, and the people are required to haye their boundaries properly set out, and, if need be, to pay moneys as between the parties. That is the course which the Court of Chancery has taken in cases of difficulty as between individuals-

Second ileaciing. tAUGUST 18.J Second Nzgl~t'8 Debate. 106

namely, to interfere and rectify the evil­and I think we might do something very much of the same kind here on a larger scale where there are a great number of interests concerned. If there was a com­mission issued for the purpose of rectifying these boundaries, dealing with one block at a time, I think that persons familiar with dealings in land might fairly settle all the difficulties between the parties. It is a ridiculous thing to say that people are to resort to litigation for eighteen inches of land or sometimes even, as I have already men­tioned, br an inch and a half. And if you do not choose to litigate you are in a still worse position, because you cannot sell your property at all. I think, therefore, there should be some distinct interference to re­medy this wrong, which wrong, remember, has arisen by reason of the action of the Government or its servants, and the cost of remedying which should therefore be borne by the Government. If the Govern-. ment has by its mistake in surveying sold these lands in such a way as to cause damage to the purchasers, the least it can do is to set out the boundaries properly for them. I think that this view, although I worked it out for myself, is confirmed by the opinion expressed by the commission. The commission make the following recom­mendation :-

"That an Act should be passed in this colony declaring that the boundaries, as originally set out on the ground, and that are represented by the original marks, buildings, fences, or other improvements, are the true boundaries of allot­ments, notwithstanding any discrepancies in the ' measurements that may be found to exist between the boundaries so marked and the de­scription of same in the titles; and so to validate the boundaries as they exist on the ground and are recognised by adJoining owners, and enable the titles to be brought into harmony there­with."

That expresses very much better than I have been able to do what I have been en­deavouring to point out. The commission further recommend-

IC That, in order to ensure that the surveys made by the licensed surveyors for the public in connexion with Titles-office business shall be properly and accurately made and marked on the ground, an inspecting surveyor should be appointed to inspect and check such surveys from time to time."

That only relates to matters connected with the Titles-office, but it has struck me that provision might also be made that all future sales should be made by tlle marks upon the ground, and not by the dimensions, and, fur­ther, that there should be some proper provi­sion, whether by inspection or otherwise, with the view of obtaining the utmost possible

accuracy with regard to the marking on the ground. I do not know in the least what the practice at present is. All I know is that, when land is to be sold, maps are issued, and when you go on the ground you find the ground marked'. Whether any pains are taken to see that the marks on the ground correctly correspond with the maps I do not know. I lmow that great pains are taken to correct the surveys in the maps. Whether equal pains are taken to correct the surveys on the ground I have never heard, but I dare say that the department does its best. At all events, the course I have suggested is, I think, well worthy of consideration, and would avoid a great deal of trouble hereafter. In coming to the Bill we have before us, the first remark I have to make is that' it does not seem to me to carry out the recommendations made in the report of the commission. That report I entirely agree with, but I think that the Bill in several instances does not carry out the views expressed in it. In the first place, I do not see any provision in the Bill for carrying out that very fundamental sugges­tion which I have just read respecting the marking out upon the ground of those lands that are to be sold hereafter, and, so far as it can be done, also with respect to lands sold at the present time. In the next place, a notable point is that this is only a Bill to alter and amend the Transfer of Land Sta­tute. It only deals with land under that Statute, and consequently it does not touch some of the largest and most complicated part of the property held in this city, namely, property under the old Act.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY.-That will be dealt with in the second Bill-the Validating Bill.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN.-I do not think the honorable gentleman told us about the Validating Bill. I am very pleased to hear that there is also a Validating Bill to be brought in, and that the present measure, I understand, is only part of the entire scheme.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY.-That is so.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN.-Then that is a complete answer, and a very satisfac .. tory answer, to my remark. Now ,in the 3rd clause it is provided that the Commis­sioner of Titles "may require any such survey to be tied on "-I suppose that is a technical phrase-Ie to any general or local survey of the colony, or of. any district, city, or town, at such permanent datum or other points of connexion." I hope it is not to

706 Transfer of Land [COUNCIL.] Statute Amendment Bill.

be "tied on " to Mr. Hoddle's old surveys. It seems a very odd thing that the com­missioner may require that the survey shall be "tied on " to something or other which is not very definite. If we are to have a fixed point, it should be a fixed point and not a vanishing point. The clause reminds me of the story of the unfortunate militia officer who was leading out his men as well as he could, but got into terrible trouble with them. The adjutant came down in his grandeur, and swearing heartily at him,as was fit, asked him where was his" object" -the " object" being a technical term for some­thing that he was to draw his line in rela­tion to. "Sir," was the officer's reply, " it was a crow." "And where is the crow? " "It flew away, sir." I imagine that the Commissioner of Titles would, under this clause, be somewhat in the position of the militia officer; his datum would be equally evanescent. Two m08t important provisions are clauses 7 and 8, with which is con­nected clause 14. Clauses 7 and 8 are as follows:-

"A proprietor may apply to have his certifi­cate of title amended in any case in which the boundaries, area, or po!ition of the land therein described differ from the boundaries, area, or position of the land actually and bona fide occu­pied by him under the title in respect of which the certificate issued, or in any case in which the description in the certificate is erroneous or im­perfect on the face of it.

" A proprietor may apply for the rectification of the original and duplicate certificate of any other proprietor or proprietors in any case in which the land described in the applicant's cer­tificate and actually and bona· fide occupied by him comprises land which by reason of any error in surveyor other misdescription is in­cluded in the land described in any other certifi­cate or certificates."

These are the two most important clauses in the earlier part of the Bill, and in relation to them we have clause 14, which provides that-

"On any application under sections 7 or 8 of this Act or to bring land under the Act, the commissioner may grant the same, although the certificate to be issued, or the rectification of the register to be made upon such applica.tion, may affect land comprised in any other certifi­cate, if it shall appear that the land so affected has been included in such other certificate by reason of some error in surveyor other misde­scription, unless the title to the land so affected has been theretofore determined in a contested proceeding under the Act or in any court of competent jurisdiction in which the right to the possession of such land was in question."

It will be seen that this relates only to cases where the adjoining land is under the Trans­fer of Land Statute, but suppose the ad­joining land is not under that Statute?

The Hon. N. THORNLEY.-Clause 17 deals with that.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN.-No, it only provides that land ma.y be brought under the Statute by a different description from that in the title, on special application. But suppose this case:-Allotment A is under the Statute, and the owner makes application to have it altered. The error consists in allotment B, which is next to it, and which is not under the Statute.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY.-It can be brought under the Statute.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN.-But sup­pose the owner does not want to bring it under the Statute. A is under the Statute; B, which is next to it, is not; while C, which is next to B, and is overrun by B in the same way, is under the Statute. In this case B is out of the jurisdiction altogether, and there is no authority to deal with it. If A was next to C, both being under the Statute, there would be no difficulty, but when between A and C there exists B, which is under the old law, I do not see how it is possible to rectify in such a case. This Bill, I think, does not attempt to do so. The matter may be dealt with in the Vali. dating Bill-it certainly must be dealt with in one of the two Bills-and, of course, equal objection might be made from the point of view of the Validating Bill as there would be from the present point of view. No doubt it is only a matter which requires consideration, but it does require considera­tion. Again, clause 14 provides that on the granting of an application other certificates may be rectified and substituted certificates issued, and, further, that-

"The registrar shall make the requisite altera­tion in the duplicate certificate when brought to him for that purpose, or when the same shall be lodged in or brought to the office for the pur­pose of any dealing with the land comprised therein, and may detain the duplicate until the rectification thereof shall be completed; and the registrar may refuse to register any dealing with the land or any estate or interest therein, until the duplicate shall have been brought in for rectification."

But suppose a man does not want to llave any dealings with his land, and is content to leave things as they are until 15 years have elapsed, what i~ to be done in such a case? U uder this clause the registrar recti­fies the register-that is, the document in his own office-but that is of little use until he has dealt with the duplicate which is in the hands of the owner.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY.-He can call in the duplicate.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN.-You may "call up spirits from the vasty deep, but will they come?"

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Second Night's Debate. 707

The Hon. N. THORNLEY.-A dupli­cate will be issued in accordance with the alteration.

The Hon. VV. E. HEARN.-But the old duplicate-there is the difficulty. The registrar makes the alteration in his own register, and he calls for the original dupli­cate, if I may use the term, but he cannot get it.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY.-There is provision for punishing persons refusing to bring in duplicates.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN.-The hon­orable gentleman refers to clause 62, but that does not meet this case. It only refers to clause 61, by which the registrar" may call in duplicate certificate on sale by sheriff or mortgagee, or when required for cancel­lation, rectification, or inspection." It is only the person refusing to comply" with any such requisition as aforesaid "-that is under clause 61-who is to be punished. I think, therefore, clause 62 will have to be "tied on" in some way to clause 14. An­other clause which requires consideration is clause 18, which is as follows:-

"On any application to bring land under the Act by a description different from that in the muniments of title or for the issue of an amended certificate, the commissioner may grant the same as to the land in the occupation of the applicant if the discrepancy between the land as occupied and as described in the muniments or certificate of title shall appear to be due to the inaccuracy of any surveyor plan or description on the sale of the land by the Crown, or on any subse­quent dealing therewith, or to any discrepancy between the actual measurements or bearings at any time made or marked on the ground, and those represented or mentioned in any plan or descriptIOn," "

Now it is right enough that the commis­sioner should deal with mistakes that were made in the original survey-in anything coming from the Crown-but this clause goes a long way further, and enables him to deal in a summary way with any mistakes which may have arisen in any subsequent dealing with the land. Surely that is giv­ing the commissioner too great power, and the more especially as the clause does not enable him to do justice between the parties. It simply enables him to deal between the Crown and the parties. But where the mis­take has arisen between party and party­not by the error of the Crown, but by an error of one of the parties-it is another matter altogether. Again, observe that clause 21 provides that any person" sustain­ing any loss or damage by any rectification of a certificate, if the rectification or the issue of the certificate by which such loss or dam­age was occasioned was in consequence of or

justified by any inaccuracy in any surveyor plan or description of the land used upon any sale of land by the Crown," may take proceedings against the registrar. That relates to Crown' cases, not to a case of "any subsequent dealing" with the land under clause 18. By clause 19 a title may be given to excess of land occupied under Crown grant over the laud described in the grant. That, of course, is very proper. Then in connexion with clauses 20, 22, and 23 a question of very considerable practical importance arises. It is a matter which, I believe, is still under the consideration of the lawyers, but I do not 'think there can be any reason for the provision which appears in the Bill. The case is this :-A man may have a certificate of title and yet may not 'be the owner of the land referred to in that certificate, inasmuch as another man may hold the land by virtue of his long-continued possession. It -is quite possible that one man may have a certificate of title which declares him to be the absolute owner of the land, and yet, when he endeavours to enforce that certificate against the man actually in possession, it is found that the holder of the certificate has no interest in the land what­ever. That is to say, there are two quite distinct sources of title, one arising from the grant of the Crown, or certificate of title, and the other from the fact of possession. These are quite distinct, and the old Act, I do not know why, did not make any men­tion of the latter class of cases, though they are spoken of in this Bill. The term " continuous possession" is used here, and it is provided that a man must be in actual possession himself for fifteen years before he attains any right to the land. Now I conceive that that is an erroneous state­ment of the law. As I understand it, the law is this-that the man who is in actual possession acquires no right whatever. It is not his new right that is gained, but the right which the previous owner had which is lost. In other words, possession is a sufficient title against the whole world ex­cept the true owner. When the true owner has been out of possession for fifteen years, his title is extinguished, and consequently the man in possession holds that possession as against the whole world, without any exception or qualification. The practical consequence of that view is that, instead of a man being required to be in full possession for fifteen years without any disturbance in order to be able to obtain a title, if he has been in possession for fifteen months he may get that title, provided only that the

708 Transfer of Land [COUNCIL.] Stat~£te Amendment .Etll.

previous owner has been out of possession for the remainder of the fifteen years. That is to say, suppose a man has been in pos­session for twelve years, he gains nothing by that; but suppose another man then comes into possession and continues in it for the remaining three years, he obtains a title ~t the end of that time, provided the original owner has been fifteen years out of possession. The mere fact of possession, as I have said, gives a man no new right, but the fact of the original owner having been out of possession so long destroys his right, and hence the man in possession can hold the land. That view was held by Mr. Justice Williams, the other day, and I believe it has caused a good deal of dis­cussion in professional circles, but I desire to state that it appears to me that that very learned Judge's judgment was dis­tinctly right. At all events, it can be, I thi.nk, upheld on fairly reasonable grounds. Now, if this be so, I think it would be a very undesirable thing for us, as it were, to prejudge the case by introducing such words as " continuous possession " in the Bill, and I hope ·the honorable gentleman in charge of the measure will considerthe matter. Again, in relation to the same case, the following might happen:-A might be the registered proprietor of a certain allotment, while B might be what we may call the possessive owner. That is to say, Amight have been out of possession for fifteen years and B in pos­session. A subsequently becomes insolvent, and the sheriff sells the allotment to C. C buys whatever interest A has in the land, but, that interest being nothing~ C conse­quently is simply done out of his money. But suppose that, when C buys, he under this measure calls upon A to produce the original certificate; that certificate is then brought in and a new certificate is issued. What is the result? That C has got a fresh certifi­cate of title, and nevertheless the ownership is in B. What is the relation now of C and B? A is gone, and consequently B holds by virtue of possession; but C, notwith­standing B's possession and subsequently to his possession, comes in and gets a new certificate of title. Whose is the land under these circumstances? Does the new certi­ficate of title override the title of possession? ~rhis is a case which is very likely to arise, and would cause a good deal of awkwardness, to say the least of it. I don't know who woula. ultimately succeed, but I dare say some one would have to be indemnified out of the assurance fund, which seems to be the great thing to fall back upon whenever

Hon. W. E. Hearn.

anything goes wrong. There are only one or two other points to which I need refer at present. In clauses 66 and 67 there is pro­vision made for tenancies in tail. Tenancy in tail depends altogether upon the position of the heir, and the heir is a person whom we have altogether got rid of, so that it is questionable whether any, or at least more than a very few, tenancies in tail exist here. At all events I see a difficulty in maintaining tenancy in tail, and I am quite sure that it is an extremely useless and inconvenient thing, because it has now for many years been capable of being uestroyed by the exe­cution of a common deed. I think, there­fore, this would be a good opportunity to provide that, wherever there was a case of tenancy in tail, the man might be registered at once as tenant in fee. 'Ve would thus free ourselves from a useless incumbrance. In practice you do not often meet with these cases, as all the necessary arrangements of the kind are now made through the medium of trustees, but still I would be glad to see a provision simply that any tenant in tail could, on application, be registered at once as tenant in fee. A provision which is perhaps of more practical interest and importance is clause 68, which gives a list of other persons, in addition to those men­tioned in the principal Act, who may attest instruments. I never could understand why, when in connexion with private pro­perty instruments can be attested by any one, when the Government has anything to do with the matter you must get a parti­cular class of witnesses. Of course this clause will considerably relieve the difficulty, but what is the use of the limitation at all ?

~ The only reason I can see is that, as in these cases the Government guarantee the property, they require a certain class of wit­nesses; but, seeing that in other cases where very much larger properties are involved,any man is competent to come forward and sign his name subject to the ordinary penalties, I cannot see why in these particular cases all this trouble should be necessary. I know that in practice the provision in the princi­pal Act is found extremely inconvenient. Witnesses of the requisite description are not to be found in every corner, and there is a deal of trouble caused in connexion with the matter. Only last summer I myself had experience of this. It so happens that I am Chancellor of the diocese of Mel­bourne, and in that capacity I am one of the official trustees of the Church of Eng­land. There are great numbers of con­veyances of one kind or another always

Second ReadhzrJ. [AUGUST 18.] Second Night's Debate. 709

being required in connexion with sman blocks of land, and last summer,while I was living in the country, I used to get sheaves of these papers for my signature. I had to sign them before a magistrate, and, with one exception, the nearest magistrate lived twenty miles off. The exception was the principal storekeeper of the place, and as he had his own business to attend to he was often away, and I had a good deal of tram ping to do to and from his house. At another time he was putting a roof to his house, and I am sorry to say that I had to trouble the unfortunate gentleman very much, because I used frequently to have to bring 11im down from the roof to attest my signature. That occurred perhaps four or five times a week, and I do not think either of us liked it. The difficulty would be met to some extent by this clause, which provides that postmasters - I hope Mr. Thornley will not object to include post­mistresses-head teachers of State schools, and certain other persons will be com­petent as attesting witnesses. The list, I think, should be extended by the addition of secretaries of building societies, in connexion with which there is always a great deal of work going on involving the signing of documents of this class, and bank managers. I am quite sure that this would facilitate the transaction of business to a very great extent, but for my own part I would much prefer to see the whole clause struck out, and the matter left simply to the operation of the general law. In conclusion, I desire to say that, if I have at all criticised this measure harshly, it has merely been because I desire to see the Bill made as perfect as possible. I very heartily admire, and w~sh to express my strong admiration of, the very valuable ser­vice which Mr. Thornley and the other members of the commission have rendered in their excellent report. I read it with the greatest interest-evidence and all-and I think there are many things in it which de­serve very grave attention. I heartily con­gratulate my friend, Mr. Thornley, on the very valuable addition he has made to Vic­torian literature on this subject, and I think also his Bill, or I should rather say his Bills, will be very highly beneficial to the country. I trust that after they have been dealt with in committee they will emerge from it in the condition in which I am sure he desires to see them, namely, of being in all respects salutary to the public.

The Hon. C. J. JENNER.-Sir, I rise to support the second reading of this Bill.

I concur with the last speaker that Mr. Thornley deserves great credit for his labours as a member of the Royal commission ap­pointed to inquire into the working of the Transfer of Land Statute, and for introduc­ing a rp.easure which I believe to be a step in the tight direction. The present Act has been in existence for about twenty years, and it has been a success, especially according to the experience of those who have had numerous transactions in landed property_ The only fault that I have to find in con­nexion with the Act is in its administration -in the delay which takes place in getting transfers passed through the Titles-office. If I were to purchase a property from a person who has a clear certificate of title, in­stead of being able to get my certificate within a couple of days, or three days at the most, in many cases I would not obtain it for two or three weeks. I think there should not be so much delay in cases in which there has been no incumbrance on the property. Again, if I purchase a property the title to which is under the old law, and I wish to bring it under what is called the new Act, a great many delays take place before that can be done, even in cases where there has not been any dispute in regard to boundaries or anything else. I know of one case in which it took a person over six months to obtain a certificate of title, and cost about £30, when there was no dispute as to the title. I think that such things should not be. The Government ought to see that the work, as far as the Titles-office is concerned, is done in a thoroughly practical, business, and straightforward way. I admit that within the last six months, since the Royal com­mission was appointed, there has been a. great improvement in the Titles-office­that there has not been so much delay as there previously was. It appears to me, however, that the Commissioner of Titles requires more assistance in the office, and more power given him. Clause 20 is a very important one, and will give the commis­sioner more power to a considerable extent, and that is one reason why I think the Bill should receive the support of honorable members. The clause reminds me of a case within my own experience. Some years ago I purchased a property at the corner of King-street and Latrobe-street, in the city of Melbourne, and I had the old build. ings upon it, which had been in existence 30 years, pulled down and a new one erected on the exact spot formerly occupied by the old ones. Recently I sold the property, and the purchaser had the land surveyed, and

710 Transfer of Land [COUNCIL.] Statute Amendment 13ill.

found tl1at the building occupies nine inches more than I have a title for. In conse­quence of this discovery I employed sur­veyors, who surveyed the whole of the block from King-street to Spencer-street, along Lonsdale-street, and they prepared a report with plans, specifications, and all particulars, showing that there are two feet of land in that block in excess of what there should be according to the original Crown grant. The whole of the frontages are occupied, and therefore the owner of each of the properties has two or three inches more land, as the case may be, than he is entitled to, 'but no one else can claim the excess. Clause 20 will assist the Commissioner of Titles very much indeed, by enabling him to give a certificate where the land is in excess of what the owner has a title to. As no one else can claim the excess, there ought to be no difficulty or delay in the transfer of land in sueh cases. I wish to call special atten­tion to clause 44, which provides that-

"A mortgage under the Act shall not entitle the mortgagee to receive or retain the duplicate certificate of title of the mortgagor, or the dupli­cate grant, and any covenant or contract between the mortgagee and mortgagor under which the mortgagee shall be entitled to possession of the. duplicate certificate of title of the mortgagor, or the duplicate grant, shall, after the regis­tration of the mortgage, be void at law and in equity." I think that this clause is a mistake, and that it ought to be struck out when the Bill is in committee. A property may be mort­gaged for pretty nearly its full value, and, if the mortgagor leaves the colony, or becomes insolvent, the mortgagee may have very great difficulty in getting a title to the property unless he holds the deeds. When a mortgage is executed the deeds certainly ought to go to the mortgagee, he being re­sponsible for them, and bound to produce them when required. With the exception of cllLuse 44, the Bill is no doubt a good one, and I sincerely hope that it will become law very shortly.

The Ron. D. MEL VILLE.-Mr. Presi. dent, in rising to make a few remarks on this Bill, I recall to mind that, 22 or 23 years ago, what is known as Torrens' Act was introduced to the Legislature of Victoria, and that one of the principal persons who advocated the adoption of that Act in this country was the present Premier. The hon­orable gentleman was told by all lawyers that l;he Act would prove a failure, but he very wisely took no heed of their warnings. No doubt the lawyers felt that that Act would depri ve them of their hunting grounds, for at that time the expense of obtaining a

transfer of title even of the simplest descrip­tion was very costly. In some cases, where the land was worth comparatively little, the cost of a transfer of title amounted to four or five times, or even ten times, the value of the property. Aft.er upwards of 20 years' expe­rience, none of the predictions or the lawyers as to the terrible consequences which were to befall us if we adopted Torrens' Act have been realized; on the contrary, there is scarcely a fault to be found in the whole Act, and throughout Victoria we hear the highest praise of the energy and deter­mination of those reformers who introduced the measure here and gave this colony the benefit of it. The Premier's present asso­ciates ought to be proud of him for his energetic action in pushing forward Torrens' Act upwards of 20 years ago. In mo'\"ing the second reading of the Bill now before us, the honorable member in charge or the measure alluded somewhat disparagingly to Mr. RoddIe, but I feel bound to assert that Mr. RoddIe did a great work in his day. Re laid out the city of Melbourne in a splendid manner, with fine broad streets. 'Vhile I admire Mr. RoddIe and the way in which he did his work, what can I think of the work of those gentlemen who have succeeded Mr. RoddIe as surveyors, and who sneer at him and allege that he used a sur­vey chain which was elastic-which would give and take? Mr. RoddIe laid out Collins-street, Bourke-street, Lonsdale­street, and Latrobe-street-aU fine broad streets-but the surveyors of the present day, instead of following his splendid ex­ample, have done something of quite the opposite order. What are our surveyors doing now? Why every paltry cabbage­garden is capable of being made into a city in their imagination. Streets of the most miserable description are planned-33 feet, 25 feet, or even only 20 feet wide­with rights-of-way of a most unhealthy kind. Paddocks are cut up into building allotments without any regard to drainage, and in a few years they will become nests of unhealthiness and disease. Are we to stand quietly by, and make no attempt to avert some of these terrible calamities? The in­convenience arising from there being a trum­pery bit of extra m~asurement in connexion with old surveys is nothing compared to the evil of what is now going on in the suburbs of Melbourne. For instance, a man divides a 10-acre paddock into building allotments, and he goes round the block and finds that it will be convenient if he can get his neigh­bour, who has also ten acres of land, to join

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Second Night's Debate. 711

11im in making a street. His neighbour is not prepared to do so, and what happens then? To begin with, he makes It bar of 3 feet, or perhaps 2 feet-in many cases only 18 inches-and he runs this bar all round. The Registrar of Titles accepts the maps with the bars; and, as this system is going on everywhere in the vicinity of Mel­bourne, it will cause a nice confusion for the surveyors in time to come. I don't find a single suggestion in the report of the Royal commission as to how these bars should be dealt with. Are the municipal councils to buy them out? The whole of the suburbs of Melbourne are becoming one mass of crowded streets, and streets which will not dovetail with one another, and the drainage of which cannot escape without· going through people's houses. What are the Government doing at such a juncture? If a man owns a paddock of 10, 20, 30, or 40 acres he should not be interfered with so long as he devotes it to his own use; but as soon as he converts it into building allotments, there ought to be a power over him to su­pervise the subdivision, to see that the allot­ments are big enough to erect habitable dwellings upon, that the streets are wide

, enough, that they are provided with proper rights-of-way, and above all that the drain­age can get away. If a man cuts up a paddock into small allotments, he should not be enabled to convey the allotments by certificate of title until a board of health or some other competent authority has cer­tified that they are quite suitable for people to live on. I expected that the Bill would contain provision to give effect to these suggestions, which are not mine, but have been made by the Municipal Association, who have implored the Government to come to their assistance, and compel men who are subdividing what I may call the "Greater Melbourne" to layout their allotments in such a way that sanitary requirements will be duly regarded. There may be difficulties in the way of accomplishing this, but I am satisfied that they are not insuperable, and

. not greater than the difficulties which stood in the way of the passing of the Torrens Act in this country. I do not see why a man who proposes to convert a large paddock into building allotments should not be com­pelled to make the allotments of a respect­able and proper size for people to live upon. Look at what was done in regard to the allotments fronting Royal-park. If those frontages had been left to be divided any­how, they would have presented a very dif­ferent appearance from what they do now.

It is quite time that something was done to regulate the subdivision of land in the suburbs of Melbourne for building purposes. This is a matter of far more importance than anything that is contained in the Bill for facilitating the transfer of land. I say that the present Act has answered its pur­pose admirably. I put the matter to the test a few weeks ago. It was promised by Mr. Service, upwards of twenty years since, that, if the measure became law, It man would be able to sell whatever property he had, and get the money, in one day, without the assistance of the lawyers. Well, he can do that at any time.

The Hon. W. E. HEARN.-He is a fortunate man if he can.

The Hon. D. MELVILLE.-The other day I sold five acres of land for £500, and within two hours the title was investigated and the whole thing settled. In order to test the speed with which this could be done, I said to the purchaser-" Here are the cer­tificates; you can investigate the title at once; and, if you do not pay tlle money some time to-day, the bargain will be at an end." He went to llis solicitor, and the purchase was completed in a very short time.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY.-When did the purchaser get his certificate?

The Hon. D. MEL VILLE.-I don't know. That is a matter which rests with the Titles department. If the working of the department is inefficient, that is no fault of the Act. I think that the certifi­cate might have been issued to the purchaser the same day. Mr. Balfour can go to a bonded store and get a certificate fot £10,000 worth of tea in half-an-hour, and I don't see why a certificate for an allotment of land should not be obtained from the Titles­office with equal promptitude. Probably, however, it would take nine or ten days, or a fortnight, before a certificate was issued from the Titles-office; but what I desire to point out is that the delay in effecting trans­fers of land under the present Act is llot the fault of the lawyers. Where there is great delay it is generally in consequence of erro­neous surveying. The surveyors nowadays, it would seem, are a blundering lot of fellows. A case occurred recently of two surveyors differing as to the measurement of a piece of land, and they had to call in a third sur­veyor to decide between them. All dispute:! as to measurement might be obviated by the Titles-office itself. I cannot understand why the same streets should be surveyed a thousand times over. . When a survey has

712 Transfe1' of Land [COUNCIL.] Statute .A mehdnient Bilt.

once been made, why should there not be a minimum below which there should be no subdivision? I desire now to refer to a new theory which is laid down in the Bill. If a man leaves his hat or his coat behind him in a railway carriage, the law does not say that it shall belong to the three or four persons who may happen to be his fellow passengers. On the contrary, the law pro­vides a receptacle to which the article shall be taken, and where the owner mayafter­wards get it. If a man happens, as he may do through various causes, to lose the run of a piece of land, why should it belong to anybody but the Crown? If there is a surplus of land in certain sections, owing to ineffi.cient measurement, why should two owners of land in that section divide the surplus between them? Does it not belong to the State? What right has anyone to it but the State? In some instances the surplus in some parts of the country amounts to acres. If a man who owns a certain piece of land leaves the colony, or falls into the Yarra, why should his neighbour be allowed to fence in that land? When we take precautions against anybody obtaining possession of a man's hat or coat, why should we not adopt precautions against a man~'s real property being taken possession of by another person? The State ought to have possession of aU land where the owner cannot be found; and, if we sanction an opposite principle, I believe the time will come when we will look back upon what we have done as an act of most profound folly. In conclusion, I desire to say that any at­tempt to engraft on the Bill, in committee, a phLin common-sense method of fixing the width of all new streets and rights-of-way will have my hearty approval.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR.-Sir, I cor­dially support the Bill as a whole. I think that it contains some excellent provisions. In giving a digest of the measure, Mr. Thornley explained that in cases in which the real measurements of an allotment do not exactly correspond with the measure­ments set out in the title the land actually occu pied shall be taken as defining the

-boundaries of the allotment. I quite agree with that proposal; it seems to me to be the simplest way of dealing with the matter. There is a clause in the Bill to simplify the 'Conditions of sale in regard to the sale of any land under the Transfer of Land Statute. That, I think, will be an exceedingly useful provision. Dr. Hearn has suggested that various other persons should be added to those who are to be made competent, by the·

68th clause, to attest the execution of in­struments and powers of attorney under the Transfer of Land Statute. I am not quite sure of the propriety of adopting the sug­gestion. The clause is a great improvement on the corresponding provision in the exist­ing Act, but it might be dangerous to make any further extension. With respect to the assnrance fund, Dr. Hearn alluded to it as if it were available for paying compensation in any cases in which loss is caused by the action of the Titles-office, but, as far as I have seen, the fund, although it is constantly accumulating, is never applied to the pur­pose for which it was intended. If com­pensation has to be paid for a mistake made by the Titles-office, instead of the money being easily available, the assurance fund seems to be locked and doubly locked, and a special Act of Parliament has to be passed in order to get the money paid. I certainly take exception to the alteration proposed to be made in the law by clause 44.

The Hon.N. THORNLEY.-The clause is not an alteration of the law.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR.-I do not find any suggestion in the report of the Royal commission for the adoption of such a pro­vision as that contained in clause 44.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY.-It is not recommended in the commission's report.

The Hon. J. BALFOUR.-Then there will be a better chance, I presume, of get­ting the honorable gentleman to consent to an amendment of the clause. I think, how­ever, that it does propose an alteration of the existing law. As the law at present stands, a mortgagor has the right to retain possession of his title deeds, but as a matter 6f fact in almost every case-in 99 out of 100, if not in 999 out of 1,000-the mortgagee takes care to make a bargain that he shall have possession of the deeds. The altera­tion which the clause proposes to effect in' the law is to take away the power to make a voluntary bargain of that kind. It says-

H Any covenant or contract between the mort­gagee and mortgagor under which the mortgagee shall be entitled to the possession of the dupli­cate certificate of title of the mortgagor, or the duplicate grant, shall, after the registration of the mortgage, be void at law and in equity."

It may be said that the matter is one of small importance, as the possession of the deeds does not give the power to dispose of the property-that the mortgagor may hold the title, and yet the mortgagee may be per­fectly safe. The difficulty, however, will arise if the mortgagor fails to pay interest or to comply with other conditions of the mortgage, and the mortgagee wants to deal

SeccYnd Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Second Night's ])ebate. 713

with the land. Before he can give notice of sale, the mortgagee will have to search the title, and find out whether the land has been otherwise dealt with. Even then there may be some . dealing with the property between the time of giving notice of sale and the time appointed for the sale, so that the register must be searched at least twice. The mortgagor, of course, has eventually to pay all the expense which this involves. No injury is really done to the mortgagor under the present practice, but, iE clause 44 becomes law, the result will be that in all cases, instead of mortgage deeds being drawn as they usually now are, there will be an absolute transfer of the property to the mortgagee, as there is when properties are mortgaged to building societies, with a cove­nant to reconvey when the mortgage is paid off. A building society is a corporation, and people do not run much risk in making an absolute transfer to such a body; but there is not the same guarantee as to the honesty of a mortgagee, or that he will be found when a transfer has to be executed, in the case of a private individual as there is where the mortgagee is a building society. The inconvenience and risk to which mort­gagors will be exposed will be far greater under the clause than under the present practice. The report of the Royal commission contains the following recommendation:-

"The registrar to have power to compel a mortgagor or mortgagee, lessor or lessee, to pro­duce any Crown grant, Crown or other lease, duplicate certificate of title, or duplicate or tri­plicate of the mortgage or lease, for the pu rpose of registering any dealing. In case of neglect or refusal, the Registrar may register such deal­ing without such production."

I don't think there could be any objection to a provision or this kind. I hope that, if the law is not to be left as it is, at all events there will be no alteration which will prevent a bargain being made between a mortgagor and a mortgagee that the latter shall have possession or the title deeds. I repeat that, if any such alteration is made, the inconvenience to mortgagors will be far greater than under the present system.

The Hon. F. S. DOBSON.-Sir, I don't like such an important Bill as this-a mea­sure which is or a very technical nature­to pass its second reading without saying a word or two about it. I must express my gratification at the mode in which the Bill was brought before the House by Mr. Thornley, who has unquestionably made himself master of a very difficult subject­a subject which few but lawyers take the trouble to understand. The House has

been reminded to-night that the Transfer of Land Statute has been in force some twenty years, and that during that time only one short Act has been passed to amend it-a. . fact which proves that the Statute originally must have been very well drawn. Oertainly very few disputes have arisen as to the in­terpretation of its various provisions. As Mr. Melville has pointed out, there were. all sorts of misgivings, at the time the Act was passed, with regard to the new system of dealing with real property which was in­augurated under it, and not unnaturally, because, as a learned Judge remarked, how­ever feloniously inclined a person might be, he could not steal an acre of land. To quiet all apprehensions as to the security of titles brought under the Statute, an assur­ance fund was created, and that assurance fund has been accumulating during the last twenty years-practically no claims having been made upon it-until it amounts to a very large sum indeed.

The Hon. N. THORNLEY. - To £90,000.

The Hon. F. S. DOBSON.-The Bill does not attempt to deal with the internal administration of the Titles-office, and I think Wisely. If you get a good man in the position of Oommissioner of Titles, I think it desirable to leave him untrammelled with the management of his own depart­ment and those who are under him. Of course he will take care to see that the de­lays which have been the cause of a reason­able outcry on the part of the public shall be minimized as much as possible. I don't propose to go through the Bill in detail, but there are one or two points, about which I think some misapprehension prevails, which I would like to refer to. First of all, it seems to me that Dr. Hearn labours under a slight misapprehension as to the effect of 15 years' adverse possession of land. The law, as I understand it, is that if a man chooses to remain out of poss.ession of his own property for 15 years his right of entry is barred. That is the provision contained in our Real Property Act, which is based on the Imperial Statute of Limitations, 3rd and 4th William IV, c. 27. A man may bring his action of ejectment, but he cannot succeed if there has been ad verse possession for 15 years, although there may have been any number of different occupations during that period. In England the time was originally 20 years, but that has been thought too long. We thought so from the first, and fixed the limit at 15 years. But now England has gone ahead of us,

714 Transfer of Land [COUNCIL.] Statute Amendment Bill.

and has fixed the limit at 12 years. In this colony a man who is in adverse pos­session of land at the expiration of 15 years is entitled, under the 17th section of the Transfer of Land Statute, to the fee­simple. He may not have paid sixpence for the land; he may have" jumped " it, to use a colonial term; he may have been simply a trespasser; or he may have purchased from somebody who himself bought out a trespasser; but, however that may be­whatever the chain of possession, as distin­gnished from title, may be-the man who is in possession when the 15 years expires has the right, under the Transfer of Land Sta­tute, to demand the certificate of title. The man who was the owner, if he thinks fit, may enter a caveat under the 120th section, and the question may be discussed, but if there is an unbroken chain of possession against himself, he loses his property simply by his own carelessness. It may occnr to some that this is rather a hardship, but the theory is hardly worth discussing nowadays. Objection was taken, the other night, by Mr. Bell to clanse 47 of the Bill, which provides that-

"It shall not be necessary to mention the area of any parcel of land included in a certificate where the area of such parcel is less than one acre, and the omission to refer to the area of the land eomprised in a certificate shall not in any case invalidate the certificate."

It seems to me that this is a very wise and im­pOl·tant provision. The clause simply con­templates that in the case of small pieces of land, of less area than an acre, the area need not he specified. Imagine the case of an allotment which was originally supposed to be under one acre, and was found by sub­sequent measurement to be a little over one acre, and the certificate for which had issued without mentioning the area; in such a case, but for this provision, the certificate might be held to be absolutely void on it being proved, by a subsequent and more accurate survey, that the area was upwards of one acre. Surely it was never the intention of the Legislature that a certificate should be rendered insecure by reason of the area of the land referred to in it not being mentioned. A small bit of land in some places-Collins­street for example-might represent an ex­tremely large sum of money; and yet, but for clause 47, the certificate relating to that land might be invalidated if it were shown, by subsequent measurement, to contain. a trifle over an acre. Under the existing law, it is the duty of the Commissioner or Titles to satisfy. himself that 'the area is as men­tioned in the certificate; but clause 1=7 will

ppn. F, S~ J)ob~fm.

relieve him of that duty in all cases in which there is information before him to show that the area is less than one acre; and suppos­ing that information to be incorrect, never­theless, under the clause, the certificate will be good. Therefore, I think honorable members will agree with me not only that the clause is a very proper clause, but that without it the Bill would be manifestly improper and unsafe. I now come to the objections which have been raised to clause 44. Honorable members must bear in ~ind that the system inaugurated twenty years ago under the Transfer of Land Statute works upon very different lines from the system under which property not brought under the Statute is dealt with. Of course the lender of money always likes to have some security upon which he can realize, if necessary, and so protect himself; and with regard to all land not brought under the Transfer of Land Statute, not only does the mortgagee obtain possession of the title deeds, but the mortgage deed is an absolute conveyance, worded in the same way as a deed purporting to convey land, with the exception that it contains a proviso for re­payment. If the money be repaid, with interest, according to the conditions of the mortgage deed, one of two courses is pur­sued. Either the mortgage becomes void, and the land thereupon reverts to the mort­gagor, or there is a reconveyance of the land. The latter course is the one usually followed. But in all these cases the lender or the money gets the title deeds into his hands. It would appear that Mr. Balfour wants to apply this principle to the new system of legislation; and there, I think, he makes a mistake. The system of mort­gaging under the Transfer of Land Statute is extremely simple. It is provided for by the 83rd and following sections. Under this system, the legal estate does not pass to the lender of the money; it remains in the borrower. The incumbrance is regis­tered, and no further dealing can t.ake place with regard to the land without information being given to the lender of the money. Some people possibly may feel that, under such an arrangement, they are not so secure as if they had the certifica,te of title locked up in their own safe. I own it is a natural idea; but to encourage that idea may be to do a great deal of harm to the borrower. The effect of giving the mortgagee pos­session of the certificate of title would absolutely be to prevent a second mort­gage, although, in the lapse of time, the pro­perty mieht iIwrease ~norll}oq.~ly in y~l1.le,

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Second Night's Debate. 715

If the Government do not adhere to clause 44, but yield to the repr~sentations of those gentlemen who argue with a great deal of plausibility for its omission-though its omission would be of no real benefit to the capitalist who lends money on real estate­they will leave a serious gap in the Bill. With regard to the difficulty raised by Dr. Hearn about overlapping titles-the one being under a certificate, and the other under the old system-I may mention that it is the policy or this country to insist upon all property being brought on the register of titles as soon as possible. No Crown grant has issued, for the last twenty years, except under the new system; and I say that when a man comes forward and represents that his certificate does not correspond with the land in his occupation, and that he wants it put right, he is the man who ought to be favoured in preference to the man whose title depends upon a chain of deeds from the Crown downwards, through twenty or thirty removes. With regard to the difficulty apprehended by Mr. Jenner that the provision to prevent a mortgagee de­priving a mortgagor of the possession of his certificate of title would operate detri­mentally to the mortgagee in the event of his wanting to sell by reason of the interest on the mortgage being in arrear, I see no ground for the apprehension, because it must be recollected that what passes the title is not the handing over the deed, as under the old system, but the registration on the register. Although the title remains in the mortgagor subject to incumbrances, the incumbrancer or mortgagee can give notice to the proper officer, when the mort­gagor is in arrear, that he intends to pro­ceed to sell, and whatever then takes place becomes the subject of registration at the Titles-office. Of course,.if anybody is fool enough to part with his money merely in ex­change for a certificate of title, without any reference to the Titles-office, he must pay the penalty of his folly. The law cannot provide for the protection of such lunatics. I have one word to say with reference to clauses 64 and 65, which enable the official assignee of an insolvent estate to attach land of which the insolvent is proprietor. I would make it an offence for an official assignee to omit to do this within a certain time, because, in the case of a large insolvency, it might be worth the while of the assignee and the insolvent to enter into a conspiracy whereby the insolvent would be able, a.fter the sequestration of his estate, to lllake, gontrary to ~pe provisioq~ of the

Insolvency Statute, a valid transfer of pro­perty actually belonging to his creditors. Under the Bill an insolvent will be afforded the chance of giving a good title to a bona fide purchaser, and all you do to check him is to say that the official assignee may give notice. To my mind the proper course is to make it imperative upon the official assignee to give notice, and, therefore, I would render him subject to a considerable penalty for failing to do so, which could only arise from culpable negligence or fraud. I would not, however, make the offence either a misdemeanor or a felony. The addition to the Bill of the provision I re­commend would give it a valuable finishing touch. I intended to refer to one or two other points, but I think I have said enough. I have gone through the measure with great care, and my conclusion, being somewhat familiar with the practice under the old system, is that we are about to take an exceedingly good step in the right direction, and that the means it is proposed to adopt will work well. Evidently the Bill has been most carefully drawn, for I have wholly failed to come across the contradictions and dubious features that generally strike me in looking over a new enactment. It seems to me that anyone can read the various clauses and understand them perfectly as he goes along. I heartily support the second reading.

The Hon. J. BUCHANAN.-Sir, with the subject-matter of the Bill generally I am not very familiar, but it strikes me 'very forcibly that some of its provisions will not work very well. For example, all that we llave heard about clauses 22 and 23 fail to make them acceptable to me. They pro­vide that when a man has been in possession of land for fifteen years, he will become en­titled to it as against the registered owner, and ab1e to get a certificate for it. Well, looking at that arrangement from a layman's point of view, it appears most unfair. The Local Government Act already provides that when the rates due upon an unoccupied piece of land remain unpaid for five years, the municipal body concerned may take it and let it, and, at the end of 30 years, sell it; but the proposal under the Bill is very dif­ferent. For my part, I think the law as it stands is quite sufficient for the purpose. Why should the fact of a man being out of the country, or dying suddenly and leav­ing only young children to inherit his pro­perty, or a number of other accidents, operate to permit his property to be stolen? It seem~ W me a shame th~t~ 8upPQ~in~ the

716 Petitions. [ASSEMBLY.] Regulation of Mines Act.

heir tio turn up after fifteen years, he should find t,hat, in spite of a Crown grant in his favour, a thief, perhaps in the shape of a next-door neighbour, has taken his land. If it is necessary to allow the thief a chance, at all events it should not be an easy chance. I would like to see both the clauses cut out of the Bill, and cases of the kind left as formerly to the operation of the Local Government Act. I would rather the Crown should get back the land than that it should go to a mere robber. With respect, how· ever, to the Bill as a whole, I greatly approve of it.

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

and committed pro forma. The House adjourned at nineteen minutes

to nine o'clock, until Tuesday, August 25.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Tuesday, Aug·ust 18, .1885.

Regula.tion of lIIines Act-Fish Creek Selections-Courts l\Iartial: Insubordination in the Permanent Artillery -Land lIIaps-Public Instruction: Qualification for Tea.chers-Licensing (Public·houses) Law Amendment Bill : Second Reading: Seventh Night's Debate-Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill.

The SPEAKER took the chair at half-past four o'clock p.m.

PETITIONS.

Petitions in favour of the Licensing (Public-houses) Bill with certain amend­ments were presented by Mr. PATTERSON, from inhabitants of Chewton; by Mr. A. T. CLARK, from members and adherents of the ·Wesleyan Methodist Church at Wil­liamstown; by Mr. REES, from members and adherents of the Primitive Methodist Church of Victoria; by Mr. \VOODS, from members and adherents of the United Methodist Church, Stawell; by Mr. M. H. DAVIES, from the Executive Committee of the Baptist Association of Victoria; by Mr. BELL, from members and adherents of the Dawson-street Congregational Church, Bal­larat; by Mr. WALKER, from members and adherents of the Kew Congregational Church; by Mr. TUCKER, from members and adherents of the Wesleyan Methodist Church at Nicholson-street, North Fitzroy; by Mr. ANDERSON, from the Moderator of the Mortlake Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria; and by Mr. HIGHETT,

from members and adherents of the Wes .. leyan Methodist Church at Bridgewater and Yarraberb. Petitions in favour of local option were presented by Mr. BENT, from members and adherents of the Presbyterian congregation of Brighton; by Mr. M. H. DAVIES, from members and adherents of the Westbury-street Congregational Church, St. Kilda; by Mr. GARDINER, from a public meeting of inhabitants of Carlton; by Mr. W. M. CLARK, from a public meeting of inhabitants of Footscray and from other residents of that place; by Mr. NIlIIMO, from a public meeting of members and sup­porters of the Victorian Alliance; by Mr. BURROWES, from inhabitants of Sandhurst; and by Mr. Zox, from a public meeting held in the Gospel Hall, Melhourne. Peti. tions against the provisions in the Licensing Bill relating to the appropriation of licence­fees were presented by Mr. LAURENS, from the Hotham Town Council, and by Mr. BENT, from the Brighton Borough Council.

REGULATION OF MINES ACT.

Mr. FINCHAM asked the Minister of Mines if he would bring in a Bill this ses­sion to effect certain amendments in the Regulation of Mines Statute, with the view to make it compulsory on all persons holding or taking the office of mining manager to possess or obtain a certificate of competency from some properly constituted authority?

Mr. LEVIEN said it was quite possible that some amendment of the Regulation of Mines Statute would be necessarv for other purposes than those mentioned by·the honor­able member. It was not very likely, how­ever, that a measure would be introduced this session, but he was unable to speak positively on that point. He would be glad to learn from the honorable member the exact stan­dard which, in his opinion, should be set up as necessary to be attained before a man should be permitted to follow the occupation of a mining manager.

FISH CREEK SELECTIONS.

Mr. WRIXON asked the Minister of Lands what steps he intended to take with regard to such Fish Creek selections as had not been selected according to the require­ments and conditions of the law? In ex­planation of his reason for asking the ques­tion, he would rend t,he following extract from the report of the board appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with Mr .• John Carnegie's application and declaration relating to land at Fish Creek:-

Fish Cl'eel.; Selections. [AUGUST 18.] Fish Creel.; Selections. 717

Ce A large number of the declarations and ap­plications shown to us were either informld, contradictory, untruthful (no doubt unintention­ally so) or incomplete, but all were, apparently in obedience to custom, passed by the land officer concerned."

Mr. TUCKER stated that the applica­tions for land in the Fish Creek country numbered 90. He had had the applications carefully looked into since the report of the board referred to by the honorable member for Belfast was presented, and he found that the special land board, which preceded the other board, recommended 24 of the 90 ap­plications for approval as absolutely correct, the applicants having complied in every way with the law-that was to say, the pegging out was done personally, and the declarations were all in due form. The board also re­commended for approval 24 applications in which the pegging was done by proxy-by agents-after getting a written permit from the permanent head of the Lands depart­ment, in accordance with the custom which had been in operation for many years past. On the face or the application in each of those cases, it was indicated that that per­mission had. been given, aud that the pegging 11ad been done by an agent named thereon. There were five applications in which the pegging was done by agents under permit from the department, as was shown by evidence before the board, hut it was not stated on the applications that the pegging was done by proxy. The board re­commended that those applications should also be gra.nted. There were two other ap­plications where the land was pegged by agents, as disclosed on the applications, and they were likewise recommended by the board, but those applications were withdrawn by the applicants themselves. Four other applications were withdrawn before the hear­ing, and nine applicants did not appear when called upon by the board. Twenty applica­tions were refused on the ground that each of the allotments pegged out was within the strip reserved for the Great Southern Rail. way, and therefore not available for selection. One application was recommended by the board on a statement that the pegging was done by one person acting in conjunction with al~othcr, the latter having a permit, [1,11(1 bemg presellt at the pegging; and one application was refused because the evidence showed that there was no proof that the land had been pegged out. The following was a summary of how the 90 aPJ~lications were dealt with :-Total appli­c~tlO.ns recommended, 54; refused, being Wltllln the reserve, 20; withdrawn, or not

SES. 1885.-3 G

present at the hearing, 13; recommended, but afterwards withdl'awli,2; refused, there being no pegging, 1. There were at the present time 36 allotments left in the pos­session of the department. He had con­sulted with the chairman of the board on the matter, and he had also gone to the trouble to ascertain from the applications the vocations of all the persons whose appli­cations were recommended by the board. They represented nearly all classes of society, but particularly that class which it had always been the policy of Parliament and the country to get upon the land. The successful applicants included one iron­monger, one butcher,one trainer, one banker, one warehouseman, one teacher, one mining investor, one stationer, one valuer, two auctioneers, three graziers, nine ladies-de­scribed as "spinsters," but who were rela­tions of oth,er bonafide selectors-12 farm and other labourers, and 21 farmers. With respect to the 24 applicants whose pegging was done by agents under permits from the department, he might state that not one of the permits was granted by himself person­ally. The applicants applied to the depart­ment in good faith. They sent letters, as a matter of official routine, to the permanent head or other officer of the department, and obtained permission in the same way that it had been granted for years past. Under these circumstances, he did not propose to deal differentJy with those 24 persons from what other persons who had applied for land pegged out for them by proxy had been dealt with by the department in years gone by. He proposed to allow the selections in those cases to proceed along with the other applications recommended by the board which were in every respect in proper form. As to the application recommended by the board upon a statement that the pegging was done by one person acting in conjunc­tion with another who held a permit, some doubt had been thrown on that statement since the inquiry, and he proposed to remit that application, and possibly one or two others, to the board for further considera­tion. He had received a report in which the chairman or the board pointed out that until lately there was very little knowledge in the department about the Fish Creek country. The district surveyor, Mr. Callanan, said that he knew nothing about the country at the time of the rush, and the Surveyor­General, Mr. Skene~ said that he knew nothing about it. On questioning both those officers, he (Mr. Tucker) ascertained the curious fact that not one of the applicants

718 C OU1'tS Martial. [ ASSEMBL Y. ] Permanent Artillery.

for land at Fish Creek had ~ver been to either of them to ask for information as to the character of the land. He inquired of the district surveyor what was the value of the land, and that officer replied that it was valueless-that it was worth nothing. He meant by that, no doubt, that it would take so much money to clear that in its present condition it was worth nothing. The district surveyor had since expressed the following opinion in writing:-

"It is heavily timbered land, covered with a dense scrub, and not worth more than £1 per acre in its present condition." Considering the whole of the circumstances, he (Mr. Tucker) proposed that the selections should all go through in the usual way in those cases where the customary course had been followed, but an inquiry would be in­stituted in one or two cases in which some doubt had been raised as to whether the pegging was done at all, either personally or by agent.

COURTS MARTIAL.

Lt.-Col. SMITH.-Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, in the absence of the Premier, whether the Government have come to a decision with regard to the result of the second court martial held on members of the penpanent artillery charged with insubordina.tion; and, if so, is there any reason why it should not be made known? I may remind the honorable gen­tleman that it is more than a week since the finding of the second court martial was sent to the Government. .

Mr. BERRY .-Sir, the Government have come to a decision, and there is not the slightest reason why it should not be made known. As honorable members are aware, the Government postponed dealing with the ma,tter until the board appointed by the Colonel-Commandant had completed its in­quiry with reference to complaints made by certain members of the permanent artillery. That inquiry was rather a protracted one, but the report, together with the evidence, reached the Government, and then they felt in a position to deal with the verdict and the sentence of the second court martial. That sentence slightly differed from the sentence inflicted on the men who were tried by the first court martial. The sentence wo,s four months' imprisonment, with hard labour, instead of six months'. But there was also a recommendation to mercy on the part of. the court, for which certain reasons were given, and that is why it was necessary for the Government to aw~it the

report of the board of inquiry before finally dealing with the finding of the court martial. The Government have now resolved, after consultation, to reduce the term of imprison­ment from four months to two months.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Will the Chief Secre­tary tell honorable members in what place the Government have decided to carry out the sentence so far as these men are concerned?

Mr. BERRY.-The sentence will be carried out in the Melbourne Gaol. I may state that there is really no other place under the control of the Government where the sentence could be carried out.

Lt.-Col. SMITH.-There are the mili­tary barracks.

Mr. BERRY.-There are only four cells at the barracks. The accommodation there is insufficient, and, moreover, a question might arise whether tha.t would be a proper

, place for the incarceration of these men. I may, however, inform the House that steps have been taken, and were taken from the first, to have the men sentenced by court martial isolated from the other prisoners in the Melbourne Gaol. They are treated exactly as delinquents in the navy are treated when confined under similar circumstances. The Inspector-General of Penal Establish­ments and the Governor of the Melbourne Gaol have reported that the men are kept by themselves, both in their cells, and in the yard.

Mr. GRAVES.-When does the sen­tence commence-from the present time, or from the finding of the court martial?

Mr. BERRY.-The sentence will take effect from the time that the verdict was given.

Mr. PEARSON.-Will the Chief Sec­retary be good enough to tell us what was the finding of the board of inquiry?

Mr. BERRY.-I intended to mention that the purport of the finding of the board is that there was no sufficient cause for the action of the men. The inquiry, in fact, has practically resulted in a verdict that there was no cause of sufficient magnitude to in any way justify or palliate the action of the men.

Mr. MASON.-I understand that the sentence on the second batch of prisoners has been reduced from' four months' impri­sonment to two months'; but what has been done in regard to the first batch, who were sentenced to six months' imprisonment?

Mr. KERFERD.-I have furnished the origina.l papers to the Supreme Court, in ob~dience to a writ of certi01'ari, and, until

Licensing (P~tblic-lwuses) [AUGUST 18.] Law Amendment Bill. 719

the Supreme Court has dealt with the case, the Government will be powerless to take any action in the matter.

The subject then dropped.

LAND MAPS. Mr. LANGDON asked the Minister of

Lands when the balance of the county maps under the Land Act 1884 would be avail­able to the public, and up to what date ap­plications for lands under the various parts of the Act would be received by the Lands, department?

Mr. TUCKER, in reply, read the follow­ing memorandum from the Secretary for Lands :-

"Applications for leases and licences of land shown on the maps under the Land Act 1884 of the counties of Anglesey, Dundas, Hampden, Heytesbury, Mornington, Normallby, and Pol­warth, published on the 1st June. 1885, will be received up to the 1st :5eptember next. Appli­cations for land shown on the maps of the coun­ties of EvelYll, Follett, Villiers, and W ollnangatta, published on the 16th Jnne, 1885. will be received up to the 1st September next. Applications for land shown on the ma1?s of the counties of Ben­digo, Bourke, Dalhous1e, Grenville, Ripon, Rod­ney, and Talbot, published on the 12th August, 1885, will be received up to the 2nd November, 1885. The next set. comprising the counties of BOl'ung, Croajingolong, Dargo, Delatite. Gun­bower, and Lowan, will be published early in October. The remaining counties, Benamhra, Bogong, Buln Buln, Gladstone, Kara I{ara, Kar­karooc, Millewa, Moira, 'rambo. TangH. and Tatchera, in November and December next. The above, with Weeah (which is leased under the Manee Act), make up the 37 counties into which the colony is divided. Applications for leases and licences will be received for about two months after the publication of the maps. The exact dates will be notified with each publica­tion."

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. Mr. J. J. MADDEN asked the Minister

of Public Instruction whether, under the regulations of the Education Act 1872, a candidate who had fully passed the literary portion or the examination for a certificate of competency was not required to conduct a State school for a certain period, in a satisfactory manner, in order to complete his classification and obtain his certificate; also whether, under the Public Service Act 1883, such candidate was precluded from obtaining employment in a State school until he had completed his classification, although to complete the classification such employment was indispensable; and, if so precluded, would the Minister take into consideration the advisabiHty of framing a regulation to remedy the anomaly?

Mr. GILLIES intimated that a regula­tion had been framed to remedy the anomaly referred to by the honorable member, and it would be publisJIecl next week,

3 G 2· .

SELECTION IN SOUTH GIPPSLAND.

Mr. TUCKER, pursuant to order of the House (dated July 7), laid on the table a return relating to applications for land in South Gippsla~d.

LICENSING (PUBLIC.HOUSES) ACT.

Mr. BERRY, in compliance with orders of the House (dated respectively July 23 and 30, and August 11 and 12), presented returns relating to the operation of the Licensing (Public-houses) Act 1876, the population or each electoral district in the colony, and the number of hotels in each electoral district, &c.

CONVICTIONS. Mr. BERRY presented a return to orders

of the House (dated July 28 and August 6), showing the number of convictions for drunkenness and other offences in 1884.

LICENSING (PUBLIO-HOUSES) LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

SEVENTH NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry's motion for the second reading of this Bill, and on Mr. Bent's amendment that the Bill be read a second time "this day six months" (ad-

. journed from Wednesday, August 12), was resumed.

Mr. W ALKER.-Mr. Speaker, I have listened to most or the speeches that have been delivered during this debate, and it appears to me that they resolve themselves very much into this-on the one hand, a few honorable members seem to think that the liquor trade is one which requires no restriction and no supervision, while, on the contrary, a large number of members assert that it if! a trade requiring very strict super­vision on the part of the State. It is scarcely necessary to say that I agree with the latter view. I hold very strongly that the liquor trade is a trade of such a peculiar character t,hat it requires to be supervised, restricted, and governed by the State; and this appears to be the position taken up in regard to it by nearly all civilized countries, and certainly by all English-speaking com. munities. I regard this position as abso­lutely unassailable. Such being the ca.se­if it is the fact that the trade requires restriction-the restriction which should be imposed becomes simply a question of degree. To what extent, or how far, is it wise to carry the restriction? A cry has been rai~ed during t~~~ liebate that there i1? no

720 Lic"ensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

need to amend the present Act. It seems to me, however, that an amendment of the Act has been shown to be absolutely neces­sary. An amendment or it was promised in the Governor's speech at the opening of this session, and also at the opening of last session, and the fact that the reference in those speeches to the necessity for amending the Act passed unchallenged seems to prove that, in the opinion of the majority of honorable members, the Act does require amendment. There is also the undoubted fact that, notwithstanding what are as­serted to be the very stringent provisions of the present law, there are a number of bad public-houses in existence-houses whi.ch require to be done away with. It seems to me that the existing Act has failed to meet the public demand for the abolition of these houses. Then we are told by the stipendiary magistrates that their hands require to be strengthened by in­creased powers to enable them to deal effec­tively with houses which it is not desirable, in the public interest, to retain. The prin­cipal evil in connexion with the administra­tion of the present Act appears to me to be the constitution of the licensing benches. Each licensing bench consists of the stipen­diary magistrate and two honorary magis­tmtes who are elected by the magistrates re!3iding in the district. Now the qualifica­tion of these electors is of the most curious kind; and there is no guarantee as to the opinions or even as to the character of the gentlemen who may be elected. There may be, in one licensing dIstrict, a large majority of the magistrates of one extreme opinion with regard to the liquor question; and there may be, in another district, a large majority of the magistrates holding a very opposite opinion. Thus the constitution of the licensing benches in the past seems to have been very much a matter of chance; and to that circumstance, I think, may be attri­buted, to a great extent, the failure of the present Act to deal with the evils which ha.ve undoubtedly arisen under it. It has been alleged by some that the fact of the Act not having been properly administered is the fault of the Ministry of the day; but it is difficult to believe that every Ministry that have been in office since 1876 have been inefficient or imbecile, or mal-administrators. Therefore we are driven to the condusion that the Act has failed, and requires amend­ment. One question raised by the Bill is as to the limitation of the uumber of hotels. I think honora ble members who are supposed to represent the pUblican interest will admit

Mr. Walker.

that the hotels in certain districts require to be limited-that, at present, they are too numerous. The question then arises how they should be limited, and to what extent. I have not heard any honorable member who ha.s taken part in this debate suggest that the proposition of the Govern­ment to give one hotel to every 500 inhabi­tants is an unreasonable one. I have heard several honorable members complain that it is unwise and unfair to give all districts the same number of hotels in proportion to population; but I have not heard one de­clare that the proportion of population to hotels fixed by the Bill is a wrong one. It seems to me that four hotels to the first 1,000 inhabitants, with one additional for every other 500 inhabitants, is amply suffi­cient for any portion of this colony-even for Melbourne itself. That being the case, I cannot see the force of the objection that it is unwise and unfair to deal equally with all districts in regard to this matter. If it is sufficient for a city like Melbourne. it is surely sufficient for all the rest of the co­lony. vVhile it is quite true that a large number of visitors are" constantly arriving at, and departing from Melbourne, yet the large majority of the ratepayers of Mel­bourne do not reside in the city; they are there simply during business hours; and that circumstance should be taken into ac­count as a set-off against the visitors. It has been stated that if vou restrict the liquor traffic unduly, or, il;deed, if you re­strict it at all, you immediately help to create a secret trade-what is called sly grog-selling. I admit that this is to a cer­tain extent true; but tIle same objection applies to every restrictive measure which Parliament may pass. It might as well be argued that custom duties should not be imposed because the imposition of those duties leads to smuggling; but I don't think any Legislature would consider such an argument a sufficient reason for not impos­ing customs duties. I freely admit that the restriction of the drink traffic may lead to sly grog-selling; but the evils connected with sly grog-selling are infinitely smaller than the evils or an unrestricted traffic in drink. A considerable amount of sneering has been indulged in at the expense or that respectable and high-principled bodyof men, the teetotallers. The honorable member for Brighton, in narrating his experiences as a publican, said it was customary for teeto­tallers to sneak in at the back door.

Mr. BENT .-1 never said anything of tho sort,

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Seventh Nig'ht~8 Debate. 721

i\ir. W ALKER.-I thought the honor­able member stated sufficient to create the impression that it was customary for men who were supposed to be teetotallers to drink on the sly.

Mr. BENT.-I did not. Mr. W ALKER.-I am glad to hear the

honorable member did not, because I believe teetotallers, as a rule, to be highly respect­able, and true to their principles. At all events, the honorable member for South Gippsland stated distinctly that he had heard that teetotallers were in the habit of covering up their badges with pocket handkerchiefs, and then going into a public­house, and getting a drink.

Mr. MASON.-I did not. I referred to " blue-ribbon" men.

Mr. W ALKER.-I cannot for the life of me sec what motive" blue-ribbon" men or teetotallers have for doing anything of the kind. I know it is customary, on the stage, to represent those who endeavour to do what they believe to be right as hypo­crites; but, from what I know of teetotallers, they are persons who refrain from intoxicat­jng drinks for the sake of example, and for the benefit of others as well as themselves; and I repeat tl1at I know of no higher principled body of men in the country. It js well to note the difference between the two classes who chiefly interest themselves jn the liquor question. On the one hand, we have a class who are no doubt pecuni­arily interested-with whom the question is one of pounds, shillings, and pence. I do not say they have not a perfect right to stand up for their own interests; but I say that when you come to estimate the motives of two. parties, you must take into con­sideration the fact that the one class are pecuniarily interested, while the other­embracing, I believe, an immense majority of the people of this country-are ani­mated only by a desire to do what they believe is for the benefit of themselves and the public generally. They may be wrong, and it is quite open to any honorable member to argue in that direction, but no one can deny that in taking the stand they are taking they are acting on principle, and that they are not interested pecuniarily in the matter in the slightest degree. I think it as well to keep this fact in view; and, there­fore, I hope that during the remainder of this debate there will be no more sneers either from the one side or the other. While admitting that the publicans and their advocates are perfectly right in using every legitimate means they can to carry

out their objects and conserve their own in­terests, I say that the other side should have perfect freedom to express their opinions without charges of hypocrisy and want of consistency being levelled against them­charges which utterly fail when any at­tempt is made to prove them. It has also be'en urged that the Bill interferes with the liberty of the subject. Undoubtedly it does. All laws interfere, more or less, with the liberty of the subject. And if we could not interfere with the liberty of the subject we might as well abandon our position here; we might as well close this House. I am not fond of quoting, I seldom do quote, the opinions of gentlemen; but I wish to call attention to the opinion on this subject of a gentleman who will be at once admitted by members of this House to be as good an authority upon the question as any man who ever wrote or spoke upon it. I allude to the ·late J olm Stuart Mill, who, writing on this particular question, said-

"The interest of the dealers in intoxicating drinks in promoting intemperance is a real evil, and justifies the State in Imposing restrictions and requiring guarantees which, but for the justification, would be an' infringement of legitimate lib~rty." In other words, the liquor trade is an ex­ceptional business which requires to be dealt with in an exceptional manner; and what would be an interference with the liberty of the subject, in an ordinary case, is not so in this particular case because of the justifica­tion. It has passed into a maxim that in legislating for the people you must legislate in such a way as to give the greatest good to the greatest number, and while, in so doing, harm may be done to a minority, it is our duty, as a Legislature, to see that that harm is of the smallest possible description consistent with the rights of the majority. I may point out that all trades which may affect the health of the people are inter­fered with by the Legislature. It has been asked, both inside and outside this House, why should the publican be dealt with any more than the butcher or the baker? I say, in reply, that both the butcher and the baker are dealt with when they interfere with the rights of the majority of the people. In the early days of the colony, every butcher in Melbourne had a slaughter-yard attached to his own shop. That arrangement was abolished, and every butcher, at great in­convenience and considerable expense to himself, had to do his slaughtering else­where. I mention this to show that when the butchering business began to interfere with the health and comfort of the majority

722 Licensing (Public-hmtses) . [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

of the people, the Legislature stepped in and caused thai business to be removed to a distance. So, with regard to this q ues­tion, the only right the Legislature has for dealing with the publican's business is its duty to the people at large. Our only justification for subjecting a particular trade to restriction is that we are doing great good to the large majority. If we had not thaij justification, I would not get up and defend the proceeding for one moment. Take the case of the pawnbroker. The State interferes with the pawnbroker not only by putting h~m under strict surveil­lance with regard to the police, but by fixing the amount of interest he is to charge. In all trades where restriction is required in the interests of the public, that restriction has been legislated for, and never, as far as I know, has any objection being raised on the score of it being an interference with the liberty of the subject. It is also said that the State has encouraged the liquor traffic. No doubt it has, to some extent; but I deny altogether that, in seeking to obtain revenue from intoxicating drinks, we encourage the liquor traffic. This House has always held the very opposite. Whenever an increase of the spirit duties has been proposed, the opponents of the increase have always in­cluded members who have been acting in, what is considered the publican interest. I know that members of the present Govern­ment were ejected from office in 1875 be­cause they proposed an increase in the duty on spirits. So that, instead of the revenue derived from spirits being an encouragement by the State to this traffic, it is just the op­posite. As a matter of fact, every increase of the spirit duty has tended to lessen con­sumption. This is shown by the revenue derived from spirits last year as compared with the previous year. So that the spirit duty, instead of being an encouragement, is really a penalty imposed by the State. I quite admit that it is the duty of the Legis­lature either to legalize Sunday trading·or to ta,ke measures to prevent it. At present we have a law which is not only ignored but is absolutely laughed at. To have such a law is an injury to the whole community, beca,use it teaches the people not only to ignore the law but to despise it. Therefore I say it is our duty either to make Sunday trading legal, or to see that the law with regard to it is observed. The persistency with which the claim for the legalization of Sunday trading has been pressed is to me a matter of wonder. I cannot, for the life of me, understand what is the motive. It is

Mr. Walker.

said that the working classes require their Sunday beer; but the working classes can purchase colonial beer at 6d. or7d. per bottle; and am I to be told that the working classes in this country, who earn 50s. and 60s. per week, are unable to buy on Saturday suffici­ent bottled beer to last them over Sunday? The thing is absurd. As a matter of fact, it is not the working classes who use hotels on Sunday. I have always noticed that in this House-and the same remark applies to the House of Commons-the members who rise continually to speak about Sunday trading in the interests of the working classes are the very last to be regarded as representatives of the working classes. You don't find the members for the districts where the large mass of the working classes reside taking any steps whatever in the direction of ad\Tocating Sunday trading. But, last week, the honorable member for Normanby was very emphatic about the matter. He stated that when he was thirflty it was ne­cessary he should have a drink, and, there­fore, when he was out walking on Sunday, he habitually ignored the law, by taking a drink, if he was in the neighbourhood of an hotel, and could get one. The honorable member also stated that he would not, for one moment, a9k for the closing of hotels altogether on Sunday, but he would ask that they should be closed only during cer­tain hours; and the reason for the request was that, when he was out walking on Sun­day, he became thirsty and required a drink. The honorable member sneer.s and laughs about people being kept sober by Act of Parliament, and yet he seeks to regulate the hours fit which a man should get thirsty by Act of Parliament. But if it is right for a man to obtain a drink at a public-house between one and four o'clock on Sunday afternoon, why should it be wrong for him to get adrink between eleven and one o'clock ? Yet that is the position the honorable mem­ber for Norman by assumes. The reason why hotels should be open on Sunday, ac­cording to the honorable member, is that people become thirsty and must have a drink; and I ask-Is there any particular hour at which they should get thirsty?

Mr. SHIELS.-I never advocated Sun­day opening.

Mr. W ALKER.-Then, to sit here and to listen to debates is, as far as I am con­cerned, utterly useless.

Mr. SHIELS.-The honorable member has made two blunders already to-night.

Mr. W ALKER.-I heard the honor­able member for N ormanby say distinctly

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Seventh Night's Debate. 723

that it was necessary for people when they were out walking on Sunday, and became thirsty, to have a drink; and I think he mentioned that he and a friend had obtained drinks on Sunday.

Mr. SHIELS.-Once. Mr. WALKER.-If the necessity for

being able to obtain a drink when thirsty is a reason for opening public-houses for certain hours on Sunday, it is a reason for opening them all day, unless the time can be regulated for people to become thirsty.

Mr. SHIELS.-My argument went to show the absurdity of providing, in effect, that a man would get thirsty in travelling ten miles, but not in travelling nine miles and a half.

Mr. VV ALKER.-W e know that Sun­day is the day when the classes in receipt of wages have most money in their pockets; we know also it is the great leisure day of the classes who are engaged in occupations during the week. Do these circumstances furnish any explanation why the publican interest should be so persistent in seeking to get Sunday trading legalized? I admit that a wrong is sustained by men who desire to keep within the law if the law is of such a lax character that others can break it. It is our duty to see that the law is of such n character that it shall be observed. The example of England has been quoted with regard to this matter of Sunday trading. I was in England some six or seven years ago. For seven months I lived at Blackheath, which is two or three miles from Woohvich, where there is a garrison. Blackheath is a very respectable locality, but it is an abso­lute fact that decent people there cannot go to church on Sunday night without being annoyed, on passing public-houses, by sol­diers from Woolwich crowding out on the footpath with women of questionable charac­ter among them, and behaving in a most disgraceful manner. Glad as I am to follow the example of England in many respects, I would be very sorry indeed if we were to follow the example of England with regard to the Sunday opening of public-houses. We all know how that came about; that it was by a combination of political parties which is not likely to arise in a hurry again. In­stead of following the example of England in this respect, let us see what is done with regard to Sunday trading in countries similar to our own. There is no country more like ours than Canada. The population of Canada I believe to be very similar to the population of the Australian colonies. Their forefathers and founders, like our forefathers

and founders, were immigrants from Great Britain. Well, in Canada hotels are closed from seven o'clock on Saturday night until six o'clock on Monday morning. Experi­ence shows us that the closing of public­houses on Sunday lessens the amount of crime committed, and that, I say, is a thorough justification for the interference of the State. In the first year that the Forbes­Mackenzie Act was in operation in Scotland the cases of Sunday drunkenness were reduced from 11,471 to 4,299, or a decrease of 7,172. An experiment was made in Melbourne a few months ago with regard to Sunday closing. The hotel-keepers voluntarily closed on Sunday. What was the result with re­gard to Sunday arrests? Why that they fell from some 33 or 35 in the city of Mel­bourne down to none at all.

Mr. MASON.-Where do you get your facts from?

Mr. WALKER.-From the police re- . cords. The honorable member for South Gippsland knows them to be true. As to t.he operation of the Forbes-Mackenzie Act, I obtained my facts from official papers. I would not quote, them if I could not get them from a source thoroughly reliable. There is no doubt that the opening of public­hom;es on Sunday tends to crime. On that ground alone, the State is justified in closing such houses on Sunday. The Bill contains provision for the labelling and branding of intoxicating drinks before they go into con­sumption, but I consider that the provision, although it goes a long way, does not go far enough. It is undoubted that an enor­mous quantity of spirits goes into consump­tion without any brand.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-Poison. Mr. W ALKER.-I don't say that; but

if a man makes a good article he is only too glad to put his brand upon it. It has come to be an accepted fact that an article without a brand is worthless. It is now recognised asan absolute necessity that an article should be branded; and the better the article the better known the brand becomes. Yet it is the fact that 172,000 gallons of spirits are made in the colony every year, find nobody knows who makes the article. I am not here to say it is not possible to make in the colony as good spirits as can be made else­where; but that is not the point. The point is that, if any distiller is able to put his produce into the market without a brand, the temptation to him to make a bad article is irresistible. The factof his having to brand it is the best guarantee we can have that he will make the best article he can for his own

724 Lzce1l8zng (Public-Iw1lses) [ASSE:Mi3t Y.] Law Amendment BiU.

sake. I quit.e agree with the objections which have been raised to clubs being exempt from the operation of the present Act; and I say that if you are going to make one law for the rich and another for the poor, if you are going to deal out unequal justice, whereby people who are well off' and can afford to be members of clubs shall have all sorts of privileges with regard to this ques­tion of intoxicating drinks, while people who can't afford to use clubs shall be restricted in every possible way, you will be committing a wrong to begin with-you will lay the foundation for the violation of the law. For my part, I consider that unless clubs are supervised to the same extent and in the same way that ordinary hotels are to be supervised, we shall be locking the door and at the same time opening the window.

Mr. C. SMITH.-You might as well supervise private dwellings. A club is a private dwelling.

Mr. W ALKER.-Oannot a member of a club ta.ke twenty friends who are not members, on Sunday, to the bar of that club, and have them supplied with liquor?

Mr. O. SMITH.-Oertainly. Mr. VV ALKER.-If that is right, the

Sunday opening of public-houses is right. In other countries where restrictions have been placed on the opening of public-houses on Sunday, the result has been the founda­tion of innumerable clubs which have been simply drinking shops. What we have to guard against is not existing clubs, though I don't see why they should not be restricted as well as every other kind of public-house, but the formation by anum ber of people of companies or clubs to set the law at defiance. Precaution should be taken that this is not done. I entertain the same view with re­gard. to grocers' licences. I cannot under­stand why the holders' of grocers' licences should not be supervised and restricted in the same way as publicans. I am for assisting to mak~ matters equal in this respect. With regard to punishing cus­tomers as well as hotel-keepers, it appears to me a very proper thing to do. If a man deliberately goes into an hotel, knowing that he thereby breaks the law, and tempts another man to break the law, he himself is an accessory, and ought to be punished. The Bill provides for the creation of a licensing court which is to be an immensely powElrflll body. The only justification for conferring upon that body the immense powers contemplated by the measure is tIle peculiar natl1l'e of the business. I would have preferred tIle members of the court to

be elected by the ratepayers; because my experience of appointments by the Governor in Council has not been very satisfactory. The Governor in Oouncil, which means the Government of the day, may, under the Bill, use their powers in such a way as the ma­jorityof the people don't desire; and as the ratepayers will have to settle the number of hotels, it seems only a reasonable and proper thing that they should be invested with the power of electing the licensing benches. One feature of the Bill which I am rather surprised at is the proposition of the Go­vernment to take froUl municipalities, after five years, a large portion of their revenue. I believe it has been a wrong thing all through for municipalities to obtain any profit from the issue of publicans' licences. There­fore I think the proposal to take that par­ticular revenue from the municipalities, and allow it to go into a general fund, is a wise one; but certainly I don't think it a wise proposition on the part of the Government to deprive municipalities all over the coun­try of this large source of revenue after five years. It appears to me that the gentlemen who are members of municipal councils are second only to Members of Parliament; the municipal bodies are so many local Parlia­ments-they are somewhat like what the State Legislatures are in America; and I say it is of the utmost importance to the welfare of the country that the members of those bodies should be gentlemen of honour, probity, and good business talents. I believe that, if we go on harassing the municipal bodies as we have been doing lately, the result will be that not a single man worth having will stand for the position of muni­cipal councillor. The municipal bodies were deprived of the revenue from road tolls a few years ago, and no attempt has ever been made by any Government to make up that loss to them; and, in consequence, continual appeals are made to Parliament for grants here and grants there on account of that loss. It appears to me to be the duty of Parliament to do the best it can to keep the municipal bodies in funds sufficient to en­ab~e them to carry out the duties they have to perform in a legitimate and proper way. I think the best course will be to strike out the provision as to five years, and allow the Government to pay to the local bodies a sum equivalent to the present licensing re­venue without limitation as to time. And now I have a word to say with regard to the question of prohibition, which has turned up all through this debate. Proliibition is not intended by the Government. Therefore,

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Seventh ilight's Debate. 725

there is no need for the question to turn up, except to inform us in what way it has operated in those places where it has been tried. It is most interesting to study llOW the attempts in other countries to re­strict and prohibit the traffic in drink has resulted. Of course it is difficult to know what true history really is. It is for that reason that the teaching of history is kept out of our State schools. But here we are, within six weeks' sail of the country in which prohibition is in force, and. yet we have the most extraordinarily contradictory statements with regard to its operation. vVe are told, on the one lland, that it has been an utter failure; that it has resulted in any amount of sly grog-selling; and that people in the districts where it is in exist­ence are far more given to drink than they were before. On the other hand, we have had statements the very opposite. One honorable member felt himself so driven for information on the subject that he actually applied for it to a Ohristy minstrel.

An HONORA.BL]~ MF,lI,IBER.-Shocking ! Mr. W ALKEH.-It was nothing to

shock one, supposing no other sources of information were open to the honorable member. But when he asked us to rely upon such information, he forgot that of all persons a Ohristy minstrel would be about the most likely to know where whisky could be got if there was any about. Therefore, that his informant was able to discover whisky when other people could not is hardly to be wondered at. What I complain of is that honorable members should con­sider themselves compelled to be guided by nothing better than surmises-by what mere passing travellers have seen and not seen, done and not done. As a matter of fact, the information about a country afforded by a traveller who has merely passed through it is almost always likely to be untrustworthy. For example, the honorable member for Maldon, when he was speaking- upon the Bill, read out some extracts from a travel­ler's book, which made out that the' mem­bers of this House were a lot of drunkards, who had fights on the floor of the chamber, and so on. Was that a true picture? Some time ago also we had a nobleman who had travelled through the South Sea islands, and visited various missionary stations, telling the world that to be a mis­sionary was to be a wholly mercenary character-to be one of the worst class of men he had ever met with.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Is that not true in many instances?

Mr. \VALKER.-Can the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) believe in his own heart that a man would voluntarily undergo the severe punishment of exile to one or those islands during the whole of his natural life for the sake of what he could get there?

Mr. GAUNSON.-I believe itand know it. Of course there are missionaries and missionaries.

Mr. vVALKEH.-I do not think the honorable member's belief is shared by many other honorable members. If we are to go by information afforded by travellers, why should we not go by the best of the sort? For example, Mr. Thomas Hughes, for­merly a member of the House of Oommons, andtheauthor of :PomBTown's School Days., is surely as capable an observer as any man who ever travelled, and he has given it as his opinion that, in the United States, where a prohibitory law is in operation, it is of the utmost benefit, inasmuch as it almost completely suppresses open drunkenness. Then what evidence is there in the shape of statistics? We have it on record that in the state of Kansas, where a Permissive Act has been in operation for a short time,. the total number of criminal prosecutions­not arrests for drunkenness--during the ten months before the law came into force­was 264, and that during the ensuing ten months the number was only 148, or little more than one-half. That speaks to me more than volumes of mere travellers' tales.

Mr. GAUNSON.-It does not go far. Mr. WALKER.-I defy the honorable

member for Emerald Hill to take up a Mel-· bourne newspaper that does not contain an account of some crime committed under the influence of drink. That is something that cannot be laughed away. If what I men­tion cannot be denied, why should it be ignored? "\\Thy should it not be met and dealt with? There is no getting over the circumstance that the use of intoxicating liquors is a continual source of crime. Am I to believe that a prohibitory Act has failed when I can show that its operation has re .. dnced the number of criminal prosecutions by one-half? I regard such a result as a glorious success. I can also point to an­other fact in connexion with restriction in the matter of drink, namely, that the pro­portion of criminals to the general popula­tion is three times greater in the states of Oalifornia and New York, where there are no prohibitory Acts in force, than it is in the state of Maine. That is another fact

726 Licenszng (P'llblic-lw~tses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Law Amendment 13ill.

that cannot be laughed aWfty, and I will offer another at the back of it. It is stated that, long as the Maine liquor law has been sustained in operation, it has neverthe­less been a complete failure, but is that what the people of Maine themselves be­lieve? That particular law was lately, I think last year, put to the vote as part of the Oonstitution of the ,state-as sometl1ing which could only be agreed to upon a two­thirds vote of the people in its favour-and what was the result of the voting? That 40,000 votes beyond the two-thirds limit were recorded in favour of the law-in fa­vour of making prohibition a part or the Oonstitution. Then we have been informed that the liqaor law recently enacted in Oanada has been such a failure that the local Legislature are now seeking to amend it. But what is the exact state or the case? I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is uttorly impossible to get any information upon subjects of this sort from our own Library. I have repeatedly gone to both the Librarian and the Assistant Librarian for books and papers on matters like the one I am referring to, but always without success. I believe, however, that what has happened in Canada is that the Upper House there, which is not a representative but a nominee body, has tried to amend the Act, but the attempt has excited so much public indignation that there can be little

,doub'!; that when the amending measure comes before the Lower House it will be thrown out with the utmost possible speed. Therefore, to the action taken in the direc­tion of amending the Canadian liq uor law no weight whatever can be attached. With regard to the establishment of a system of local option, surely the proposals on the subject that have been made, and also those which we have heard or, need not come upon us as a surprise, because fourteen years ago this House, by a majority of over two to one, carried a Permissive Bill, which, although it required a two-thirds vote to be recorded, gave unlimited power with respect to the closing of public-houses. No statu­tory number whatever was provided in that measure. Moreover, for many years there has been a strong feeling in the House in favour of such an enactment, and for myself I cannot for the lire of me see what sound objection can be raised to a law of the kind being enacted. We are told that the tee­totallers are an insignificaut fraction of the community-that they are so small in num­bers as to be utterly powerless to stand up against the rest of the community-but if

Mr. Walker.

that is the case why need anyone be afraid of them at a local option vote? Why, par­ticularly, need anyone have any fears on that ground seeing that we are assured that the publican interest is so strong that it will actually be able at the next general election to turn out Members of Parliament opposed to it? By the way, I am one of those who have been mentioned as marked. men. The president of the publicans' association l1as intimated that, the next time I go to the poll, I shall be opposed and defeated. I am, however, by no means sure that that object will be gained. The publican interest has already more than once been employed to keep me out of the House, but it has failed to do so. If the publicans, I repeat, are so powerful, why are they so fearful of the teetotallers? Why do they dread to lei the electors generally, or the ratepayers -I don't care which constitute the voting body-exercise true local option in the matter of public-hou8es? The fact is, I think, that they believe that the temperance people will have, in addition to their own body, a large number of the drunkards behind them. It is well known that many of the men who, at the present time, cannot be kept out of public-houses will deliberately record their votes with the teetotallers­that they will do so from a consciousness of their own weakness and a desire on their part to be protected against themselves. If that is true with respect to the existing system of comparatively unlimited and un­restricted drinking, it seems to me that every representative of the taxpayers is in duty bound to try to reduce taxation, by re­ducing the public expense arising from our public-house system, as much as possible. That is a position from which there is no escape. That is the fundamental ground on which we are called upon tb interfere. The great blot on the Bill, I do not know whether it does or does not arise from an oversight on the part of the Government, is that it proposes to withdraw from the ratepayers a certain power with respect to public-houses which they now possess. We have in operation a system which, without touching on the vexed question of prohibi­tion, enables the population of a district to prevent any increase of the number of hotels in it; the arrangement works harmoniously and effectually, and even the publicans do not want it altered, for it is to their interest to keep it going; yet the Bill proposes to abolish it. Surely that cannot be what the Government intend. If they would say as much, and express their willingness to put

Second Reading. [AUGtJST 18.] Seventh Night' 8 Dehate. 727

the matter right in committee, I am con­vinced the debate would be much shortened. Will they consider this point? If they will make the concession I indicate, many honorable members who are now in doubt as to how they will vote on the Bill will give it their hearty support. If they will not make it, it will be felt in some quarters that we are asked to take a step backward s. For example, if the Bill is carried as it stands, the effect in Kew and Hawthorn will be to double the number of public­houses there. Yet the people there have repeatedly expressed by their vote that they are against any increase of the local hotels. The sooner the intentions of the Govern­ment in this matter are known the better. I believe that the unrestricted use of in­toxicating liquors is a great curse, for it destroys domestic happiness and home life, wherein lies tIle true foundation of the prosperity of a nation. Moreover, I regard it as injuring the general health and in­creasing the general taxation. There can be no doubt upon these points. Judges, magistrates, doctors, and indeed all who have any opportunity of observing, are agreed that the evil I am describing is a certain source of crime, misery, and suffer­ing, and in the opinion of the community generally the existing Licensing Act is in­sufficient to cope with it. Therefore, so far as the Bill goes in the direction of restrict­ing the use of such liquors, I will assist in every way I can to carry it into law.

Mr. WHEELER.-Sir, I think the Government wish to legitimately restrict the sale of intoxicating liquors, and I want it to be understood that I am desirous of giving them every possible assistance in achieving that object. Perhaps it may be fairly said that the question of the Bill has already been thrashed out; but so many petitions with respect to it have been presented that honorable members like myself are almost compelled to add their quota to the debate in order that their constituents may obtain a clear idea of the line their representatives intend to follow. In the first place, I think it will be well to trace down, to some extent, the history of our licensing system as afford­ing a groundwork on which to come to a decision on the proposals before us. Going back to the early days, when the publican's licence-fee was £100, I may mention, from my own personal experience, that at that time a great many sly grog-shops were in existence-that, in fact, wherever there was a licensed public-house the sly grog-shops within a stone's throw of it might be counted

by the dozen. And in connexion with this state of things it should be borne in mind that, although the licensed houses of that period were well under the control of the police, there was no police control whatever, at least of a legal kind, over the unlicensed houses. In 1864, however, a new Licensing Act was passed; and, with the view of putting down sly grog-selling, the issue of £5 beer licences was authorized. "\Vhat was the result? That, while the sly grog-shops disappeared, the beer-houses created be­came neither more nor less ·than ordinary hotels, the licensees selling wine and spirits as well as beer, just as a legitimate publican would. This was found to be a very great evil, and, besides, the cause of a great falling off in the revenue from licence-fees. These beer licences were continued in force, I be­lieve, up to 1870, when the whole system connected with them was abolished. The next legislation on the licensing question was the Actof 1876, which is nowonthe statute-book, and which authorizes the local magistrates to issue £10 and £25 licences. I bring for­ward these facts to show that the various licensing systems adopted by us have been simply so much experimental legislation, and that the Bill before us is to a great extent also an experiment. I will add that, if we go in several of the directions in which we are now asked to go, the effect will be that history will repeat itself. I am truly anxious to assist the Government in passing a licensing measure that will be good in itself and acceptable to the country, and I assure them that they shall not want my help so far as I can conscientiously afford it, but at the same time there are cer­tain things in the Bill with which I cannot agree, and I will proceed to point them out as concisely as I am able. To begin with, lligh licence-fees in the early days having proved the cause of much mischief, especially in the spread of sly grog-shops, what may we fairly expect to be the consequence of adopting another high licence-fee system? In my opinion the result will probably be to reproduce the old evils-that, for instance, a great many of the existing £10 licensees will not dream of taking out £25 licences, but will drop their licences altogether, and sell without any licence at all, in which case there will be no police supervision or control over them. This brings me to clause 14 of the Bill-the one in which the licence-fee tariff is proposed to be raised. I do not at all agree with that clause, not only for the reasons I have already given, but because it goes upon a basis or assessment which will

728 Licensing (P,ltblic-ho~tses) [ASSE-MBL Y.] Law Amendment Bill.

be to the bst degree discouraging to licen­sees. Take the case of licensed premises assessed at £100 a year; what likelihood is there .or the licensee, however much he may want to improye his premises and add to the :accommodation of his house, doing anything to carry out his wishes so long as he knows that t.he addition of £5 to the annual value of his property will cause his licence-fee to be doubled? The same rule will apply to licensed premises assessed at £200 a year. 'The licensee will know that improving his 110use to the extent of increasing its rateable value by £5 a year will result in requiring Jlim to pay a licence-fee of £100 instead of £50 :1 year. I trust the Government will greatly modify this clause, especially because it is obvious that the extra licence-fee to be imposed upon a publican will be a tax on the board and lodging portion of his house, and not on his bar trade. While he pays £25 a year he will be entitled to his bar, and when his lieence-fee runs up to £100 he will have no greater privilege. Moreover, every £25 lIOuse in his neighbourhood will be on equal terms with him so far as bar business is concerned. Therefore, it appears to me that the additional taxation the Govern­lllent intend to impose upon the publicans will be levied in just the wrong place. Another objection I have to clause 14 is that under it a fee of £5 will be c11arged for a temporary licence. That arrangement may answer very well for the metropolis, 1V here there are occasionally such large :gatherings of people that a publican putting up a booth or other place of refreshment for 'their accommodation can do such a tremen­'dous trade that it will pay him to spend £5 'On a temporary licence-fee; but the case is 'far different in many country districts. There the popnla tion is com para ti vely sparse, :and, at a friendly societies gathering, or hospital fete, or race meeting, the trade to be done by a temporary licensee is, generally :speaking, too small to repay him for a large ,outlay. How, in the course of six or seven hours' selling, could he recoup himself for not only a £5 licence-fee, but also the amount he must pay for the privilege of having a booth on the ground at all? My idea is that, in such instances, a £1 licence­fee would be ample; and I suggest to the Government that they should charge £1 pel' day. That would exactly meet the case of gatherings lasting only one day, as well as that of gatherings, like those at some agricultural shows, lasting several days. Another sub-section of the same clause pro­poses to charge £20 for a. billiard licence,

Mr. Whe6{er.

which, I think, will be most unfair. Bil­liard-playing appears to me as something that ought rather to be encouraged than not. It is decidedly favoured among our­selves, for honorable members are provided with tables, at which they can play without any charge being made to them; and they look upon the game as a great source of pleasure. Why, then, should billiards be discouraged among the general community? Would it not be well if our young men wer~ led to go to the billiard-table instead of to the card-table, gambling at billiards being, of course, strictly forbidden? A large number of the tobacconists in our country towns keep billiard-tables, but how could they afford to pay £20, a year for the priyi­lege? It would be absurd to expect them to do so. I repeat that imposing a £20 licence-fee for keeping a billiard-table will simply discourage what might well be en­couraged. Is it not better that, on a wet day, when a man has no business to attend to, he should pass his time at a billiard­table than that he should be in an hotel, drinking, and perhaps playing cards? Then let us take this view. Excessive drink­ing is no doubt a very great evil-we all admit it to be so-but no legislation is pro­posed against smoking. I am sure it would be highly interesting to obtain from the registry of deaths an accurate account, on the one hand, of the deaths hastened by deplorably hard drinking-I am sure the record would be very heavy-and, on the other, of the causes of death among the non-drinkers and the smokers. The truth is that there is vice in every man, and that it is bound to crop up in some shape or other. If it does not exhibit itself in drinking or smoking, it develops itself in another way. I am not a smoker myself, and I don't re-

. gard smoking as a very good habit, so I may fairly reflect upon the total absence of legislation with respect to it, as compared with the excessive legislation in other direc­tions we are asked to indulge in. Olause 15 provides that "each licensing district shall consist of one or more electoral dis­ttict or districts, or of one or more divisions of an electoral district." That may do very well so far as the jurisdiction of the licens­ing courts is concerned, but I will point out that a licensing district consisting of one or more electoral districts, or divisions of an electoral district, may comprise a very large territory, and that when a local option poll is taken it will hardly do to have persons vQting for the suppression of public-houses in~a locality 25 miles away from them, and

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.J Seventh Night's Debate. 729

with which they could have no connexion or concern. How could they be expected to know anything about them -whether they needed putting down because they were too numerous, or because their character was not good, or whether they needed no putting down at all? In such a case, what we may call local option will have very little that is really local about it. I am quite pre­pared to have local option, but let it be local option pure and simple. For instance, let every municipality have control over its own public-houses. That would be a thoroughly proper arrangement. Look at how it would be with some electoral districts if they were constituted licen$ing districts. How would it be with my own electorate, in which there are three towns? How would it answer for the people of Ciunes and Creswick to be voting with respect to the public-houses at Daylesford, or vice versa? Hence I am for each municipality controlling its own public-houses. That is what I would regard as true and propel' local option. I am satisfied that the results of the late municipal elections show clearly enough, not only that the country is not in favour of an increase of public-houses, but that public opinion generally is in favour of a decrease. According to my views, a greater evil in the country could scarcely exist than that arising from too many public-houses, and a large number of the existing public­houses ought to be put down. But let llS

go about putting them down in the proper way. Let those who feel the ntlisance, and have at present to bear it, be those em­powered to deal with the subject, and not those who know nothing about it, and are only concerned about it so far as their gene­ral ideas and wishes go. As to clause 16, which sets out the statutory number of public-houses for each locality, I would ask that it should be read in connexion with clause 131, which proposes to recoup the municipalities for the loss of the licence­fees by paying them an amount equal to the income they now derive from them until the year 1890, that is to say for fiye years longer. I am afraid that the eventual reduction of revenue which following this plan will occa­sion will be felt by some municipalities very severely. Indeed, the business should be looked upon with the utmost seriousness. I have no objection whatever to halE the pub­lic-houses of the country being swept away, which will probably be the effect or carrying clause 1G, but, considering the way in which many municipalities have been relying on their revenue fro111 licence-fees, it is difficult

to imagine how they will do without it. How will they be able to carryon at all ? Many of· them have borrowed money, some for 25 or 30 years, and naturally they have, in calculating their means of repaying their loans, taken into account every item of their comings-in. At the same time, how can they be expected to forego any of their ab­solutely necessary public works? My notion is that clause 131 should be amended by striking out all reference to 1890. I would not have the payment of the amounts in question limited to five years, or to five and

, twenty years, or to any fixed and uniform period at all. I am quite of opinion that a wrong principle was adopted when, in the first instance, the municipalities were allowed to have the licence-fees. Nevertheless, that arrangement having been established by law for many years past, it will be wrong to take the fees from them until, at all events, they have paid their debts, and are able to do without them. If the Government adopt any other plan, there is scarcely a municipality that will not rebel against their decision. In dealing with this question let me refer to the example set by New Zealand with respect to its distilleries. When the Government of that colony found that the continuance of distilleries greatly injured the revenue from imports, what did they do in order to abolish them? They got the Par­liament of the colony to pass a law enabling them, first, to prevent any new distilleries from coming into existence, and, secondly, to buy up all those that were in existence. That is how I would have our Government behave with regard to the municipalities. I would have them deal with the local bodies, in the matter of their respective revenues, just as they would deal with private individuals. There is no doubt that the local bodies will be placed in a very awkward position from loss of revenue if clause 131 is carried in its present form; but I think that, if the Government are desirous of improving the moral and social condition of the people of the country they should take care that they do not .demoralize the local bodies of the country by preventing them from meet­ing their engagements, and causing them to repudiate their just liabilities. I contend that, if the local bodies are deprived at the end of five years of the revenue from licence­fees, which they took into their calculations when incurring loans which are already floated, they will be quite unable to meet those engagements, and, therefore, I think the Government should agree to the sug­gestion which has been already made by

730 Licensing (Public-ho~lses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Law Amendment Bill.

llOnorable members, and strike out of the clause the date at which the amount given to the local bodies in lieu of licence-fees is to cease to be paid, leaving it an open question, until each local body that has borrowed is in a position to payoff its debt without being injured in doing so by the loss of its -revenue from licence-fees.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-Some of the loans are for twenty years.

Mr. ""VHEELER.-I am connected with a local body which, only a few months ago, floated a loan for 28 years, and the loan was raised, not only on the revenue from rates, but also on the revenue from licence­fees. The Government are desirous of miti­gating the evil of drink by sweeping away a large number of public-houses, and I am free to admit that the present number is far in excess of our requirements, but in doing this the Government can afford to be liberal, because, if they reduce the amount of drink­ing, they will make a saving in the cost of penal establishments and lunatic asylums, if it be true, as has been frequently stated, that fL large proportion of the crime and lunacy in the colony is due to drink. There­fore, I say, the Government can afford to be liberal to those local bodies which are likely to sustain a serious loss by the Bill. The municipalities throughout the colony have been taxing themselves very heavily indeed. for local requirements. Many muni­cipalities I know have had to strike a rate of Is. 6d., and in some cases 2s., in order to make their roads at all passable, and, at the sallle time, they have had to build bridges over rivers and creeks connecting Olle district with another, which really are not altogether local works, but works of a national character. No doubt, in many cases, the Government have given special grants to assist the local bodies in works of this kind, but it costs the Government far less to do this than to carry out the works themselves. I desire to mention that I have received three letters from local bodies in my district in connexion with this question. One is from the borough of Olunes, requesting me to oppose the pass­ing of clauses 130 and 131, and the second is from the borough of Creswick, requesting the amendment of those clauses. The borough council of Daylesford also yester­day passed a resolution asking the members for the district to oppose the clauses, and to see that the local bodies lost no revenue by being deprived of their licence-fees. This shows that the local bodies generally throughout the colony are t~king up the

question. Indeed we see by telegrams in the newspapers every morning that local bodies throughout the colony are passing similar resolutions. They are not opposing in any way the reduction of public-houses, but they decidedly object to a portion of their revenue being taken away, and if the Government are sincere in their desire to promote the moral and social welfare of the people they can, as I have said, afford to be liberal and recoup the local bodies for the loss they will sustain. Olause 21 makes special provision for granting licences for road-side houses in mountainous districts, but the Government seem to have omitted from consideration the dry hot parts of the country, where such provision is much more needed than in mountainous districts, where water can always be obtained. I would point out that on the Plains you may travel for twenty miles without being able to get a drop of water for yourself or your horse, and, with the temperature at 110°, a man would suffer almost next to death in travel­ling such a distance without being able to get a drink. At all the road-side houses water is kept specially for horses, and it would be a great hardship if a public-house was not to be allowed to be established within ten miles of another. I think the Government would do well to extend this clause so as to include the Plains, and to reduce the limit to five miles. Olause 30 requires that the walls of all rooms in pub­lic-houses shall be at least 9 feet high, with stone, brick, or plaster partitions. This applies to existing houses as well as future ones, and the Attorney-General, from his intimate knowledge of the country districts, must know that this provision would shut up more than half the public-houses in the country. I can see no good in the provi­sion, for really the accommodation afforded by the houses in the country is sufficient for all practical purposes.

Mr. KERFERD.-It is the existing law, and it has not shut them up.

Mr. WHEELER.-But it has never been enforced. That is exactly what I want to point out to the Attorney-General-that the present Act has never been properly ad­ministered. If it l1ad been properly admin­istered from the first, we wou1d not want an amending Bill now. Again, under the ex­isting Act, the licence-fee for these houses is £10, while by the Bill it is raised to £25. I would like to know how many of those country houses, apart from the requirements as to the height of the walls and the thick­ness of the :partitions, would be ~ble to

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Seventh Night's Debate. 731

continue under this increased licence-fee? As tothe height of the walls, I may point out that in many of these houses the walls are 8ft. 6in. or 8ft. 9in. high, and why should the houses be pulled down to the foundation because the walls are a few inches below the height required by this measure? That is perfectly unnecessary. You can shut up houses by local option, and why seek to shut them up by a side-wind, because that is really what this provision amounts to ?

Mr. NIMMO.-The height is the same as in the existing Act.

Mr. WHEELER.-But, if this Bill be­comes law, is it intended to be administered in the same slipshod way as the existing Act has been? As I understand it, the very best part of the Bill, and one which I thoroughly approve of, is that which pro­poses the creation of independent licensing courts; and is it likely that independent licensing magistrates, free from local influ­ences, will administer this measure in the same way as the present Act has been ad­ministered? With regard to the question of compensation to owners and licensees of public-houses which are abolished, I think the proposal to give the owner five years' compensation and the licensee two years' pro­fits is altogether inadequate compensation for the loss of property of this kind. It is well known that if a public-house is turned into a private house the rent will become comparatively small, and by the Bill the owner is only to receive for five years the difference between the rent he received for the house as a public-house, and the rent he receives for it as a private house. Sup­pose he had let it for £50 a year as a public­house, and that he lets it for £10 a year as a private house, the difference for five years would amount to £200, which is all the compensation he would receive under this Bill. Now £200 put out at interest at 7 per cent. would only bring in £14 per an­num, so that the owner wonId be at a dead loss of nearly £30 a year. That is not fair or adequate compensation to a man for the loss of his property. I maintain t.hat if the State takes away a man's property it should compensate him fairly for the loss he sus­tains. If a man's land is taken for railway purposes he receives not merely the value of the land taken, but probably half as much again, and why should we not be equally liberal with regard to this particular kind of property ? We are a rich community, and can afford to deal liberally with people whose property is taken away in the interests of the State. In mr opinion, those teetot~llers

who oppose the payment of compensation stand very much in their own light, because I believe they would do a great deal more towards achieving the object they have in view by agreeing to give fair and reasonable compensation to men whose trade they de­sire to take away. Another point which is deserving of consideration is that the house should be licensed as well as the publican. I think that would be an improvement on the present law. If a tenant commits him­self, his licence is liable to forfeiture, but it is not fair that for the fault of the tenant the owner of the house should suffer. By having separate licences you can punish the man who does the wrong, and prevent him from holding alicence again, without injuring an innocent man and depreciating the value of his property. There is another provision which I think should certainly be in the Bill, namely, a punishment for habitual drunkards. The State takes charge of lunatics, and why should it not also take charge of habitual drunkards who make themselves a nuisance to the community and a burthen to their families? Again, I think that in all cases of breach of the law the consumer should be punished as well as the vendor. It appears to me that that is only fair. Further, it: a man is found drinking in an unlicensed house, I think he should be dealt with in the same way as if he was found in a gambling-house. When the police make a raid on the Chinese gambling­houses they arrest all the persons found there and bring them before the bench and they are fined for gambling. Why should not a man who is found in an illicit grog-shop be taken in charge and punished in the same way? The offence against the law is as great in the one case as it is in the other. I am opposed altogether to Sunday trading. I belieV"e that what has made Victoria what it is-one of the most prosperous and one of the happiest places in the world-has been the sobriety and orderly behaviour of its people, and I am of opinion that it is distinctly to the benefit of the people of the colony that the public-houses should be kept closed on Sunday. In conclusion, I desire to say that I have not criticised the Bill in any hostile spirit. I believe it has defects, but I trust the Government will give me credit for desiring to assist them in every way possible to render the Bill acceptable to the people of the country. It is impossible to satisfy the two extreme sections, but if we can make the measure satisfy the moder­ate people of the country, I believe that we shall accomplish a great deal of good. I

732 Licensing (Public-ho~t8es) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendm~nt Bill.

shall endeavour, when the Bill is in com­mittee, to have the alterations made in it to which I have referred in my remarks. If some of those alterations are not carried out, I cannot promise to vote for the third reading of the measure; but I hope the Government will meet honorable members fairly, and, if they do, I believe the Bill will go through. It is desirable that it should go through, as there is no .doubt that the country is taking a deep interest in the question.

Lt.-Col. SMITH.-Mr. Speaker, I can­not ~Lllow this measure to go into commit­tee without making some observations with regard to it. I desire, in the first place, to calf the attention of honorable members to the state of things which led up to the passing of the existing Licensing Act of 187G, which was introduced by the present Minister of Railways and the present Attorney-General. It will be recollected that for many years attempts had been made by the total abstainers and others to modify to a large extent the liquor traffic of this colony, and I felt it my duty from time to time to assist those bodies in carry­ing that change into operation. Up to 18G4 we were virtually under the New Sout.h Wales system. In that year Mr. Michie introduced the Bill which became the Licensing Act 1864, but that measure contained no principles whatever in the direction in which we have been since going. In 1871 Mr. Casey introduced a Permissive Bill, which contained two principles. The first was that one-fifth, not of the rate­payers-I call the Chief Secretary's atten­tion to this-but of the electors ill any district, might set machinery in force to ascertain whether the people desired to stop the increase of public-houses in that district, and it required a three-fifths majority of those who voted in order to carry out that system of prohibition. This Bill was passed by the Assembly, but was shelved in the Council, and in 1872 and 1873 similar Bills were introduced by Mr. Casey without becoming law. In 1873 a debate took place in this House, which I think I may fairly say led up to the Act of 1876. In 187(; the present Minister of Railways and the present Attorney-General, both being members of the Goyernment of that day, brought in a Bill to carry out the principles that were largely enunciated during the dis­cussion of the Permissive Bill of Mr. Casey, and for the first time was placed upon the statute-book of this colony a system of re­preflsion, or rather of preventing the increase of public-houses. Now I think, if honorable

members look at the return which has been furnished at the instance of the honorable member for South Gippsland, they will see that the Act of 1876 has had the effect of diminishing the number of public-houses in Melbourne and the suburbs, notwithstand­ing the large increase of popula tion there has been in the meantime. I have not been able to ascertain exactly the increase of population in Melbourne and the suburbs since 1876, but certainly it has been at least 50,000.

Mr. MASON.-The increase has been 75,000, according to a return which I have had furnished.

Lt.-Col. SMITH.-Well, in 1876, the number of hotels in Melbourne and the suburbs was 1,049, while at the present time, although the population has increased by 75,000, the number is only 1,043, or an absolute decrease of six hotels during that period. I want honorable members to follow me in this, because, in my opinion, one of the fundamental defects in the present Bill is that it contains no power whereby the ratepayers can say that there shall be no further hotels in their district. They may vote for reducing the number of hotels to what is called the statutory number, but, if the number is already below the statutory number, there is no power for the ratepayers to say that there shall be no increase. From the figures I have just given, it will be seen that, as far as the increase of hotels is con­cerned, the present Act has worked exceed­ingly well. There has been no outcry with rega~'d to the working of that Act, and it has caused no undue pressure on any part of the commuuity. I am one of those who have always voted for the local option principle. I am still in favour of that prin­ciple, with some slight modifications, in connexion with which I am amply supported by the utterances of honorable members who represent the teetotal bodies. On the 26th July, 1882, Mr. Munro submitted a motion in this House in favour of local option. That motion was seconded by the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Nimmo), and I call the attention of honor­able members to the following portion of the honorable member's remarks. He said-

"The honorable member for St. Kiida (l\{r .. Carter) contended that we should compensate the pUblican whose house is closed under the operation of the local option principle, and for Illy pa.rt I alll prepared to Sil.y that, where any public-house is closed at the mandate of the in­ha.bitants f0r the benefit of the community, the pUblica.n should be COlli pen sated for allY loss he may sustain in cOllsequence."

Mr. NIMMO.-Quite right.

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.J Seventh J.Vight's lJl3bate .. 733·

Lt.-Col. Sl\UTH.-I find that view con­firmed by the honorable member for Col­lingwood (Mr. Mimms), and it was accepted by Mr. Munro. Sir Bryan O'Loghlen said-

" I quite agree with the opinion that our sys­tem of licensing and granting renewals of licences requires amendment. and also that the licensiug limit of every district ouO'ht to be completely within the control of the i';;habitants of the locality, but at the same time I think the motion is insufficiently worded. What I mean is that a majority of honorable members desire to express a particular thing, and the motion does not express it. Under these circumstances I propose an amendment, namely, the insertion, after the word 'system,' of the followiug' words :-' On payment by such inhabitants of reasonable compeusation to the owners and licensees of any premises in respect of which renewed licences may have been refused.'"

Mr. Munro then said-" I am perfectly willing to accept the amendment," and he was supported in doing so by several leading members representing the teetotallers. When we t~1US find the leading authorities repre­sentll1g t~mperance principles agreeing as a compromIse to a system of compensation, I think the ground is to a very large extent cleared. The principle of compensation beinO' admitted, I wish to deal with the financi:t part of this Bill from that point of view. I would call the especial attention of the Min­ister of Railways to my remarks, because I think that the many objections which have been urged to different parts of this Bill ought to be answered by a Minister, and I am desirous that if the Minister of Railways does speak he will answer the two or three financial queries I intend to put, and which I think it will puzzle llim to reply to. The system of compensation laid down is that, first of all, the landlord is to receive what is equal to five years' difference between the rent which he received for his house as an hotel, and the rent which it fetches for any other purpose to which it may be put. On the other hand, the tenant, who has really the most trouble and who has to incur tht') greatest responsibilitv and all the risks at­tending the carrying ~ on of the business, is only to receive two years' profits. Now 1. take it for granted that, if the principle of compensation is conceded, the compensation Iilhoulcl be fair compensation. Is it fair to the tenant that he should only receive two years' ne~ income. while the landlord, whose property IS not taken away, is compensated to the extent I have just mentioned? I cons!rler that that is a most unfair proposal. Aga1l1, look at clause 41, which provides as follows:-

"TJ:e owner, if the occupier, or the owner and occupier (as the case may be), of any licensed

SES. 1885.-3 H

victualler's premises which do not contain the accommodatiOll required by this Act may sur­render the licence thereof instead of bringing the accommodation of such premises into con­~orOlity with the requirements of this Act; and In such an event the owner, or the owner and occupier thereof, shall be entitled-to receive com­pensation in the same manner, to the same extent, and to be determined in the same way as if the licence had been taken away in con seq uence of a determination of. the ratepaying electors of the licensing district." Do honorable members realize what would be the result of that clause? I venture to say that there are hundreds of houses the owners of which will at once avail themselves of that provision.

Mr. BERRY.-Hear, hear. Lt.-Col. SMITH.-I am informed that

in some of the country districts not only will. they avail themselves of it, but that, having got compensation from the Government, they will immediately open a sly grog-shop. I am told that there are a number of houses in the country districts that can scarcely make both ends meet now under the £10 licence, and, if they cannot afford to pay £10 a year, how can they pay £25 ? I venture to say that clause 41, if it becomes law, will prove one of the greatest difficuties of the new measure, and one which, as I will SIlOW

presently, there is no provision whatever made to meet. Clause 130 provides for the establishment of what is called a "trust fund" from the fees for all licences, and the fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred under the measure. Let me ask, have the Govern­ment supplied any information as to the pro­bable effect of the changes proposed by this Bill and the amount of compensation which will require to be provided for? Are the Government aware that this trust fund will scarcely pay for the working of the Act itself, and will certainly not pay the local bodies the amounts they are to receive in lieu of licence-fees? Where, then, is the money to come from to pay the compensa­tion proposed? In the city of Ballarat alone, taking the municipal boundaries, there are 124 hotels, while under the Bill the population will only be entitled to 38 hotels. Thus 86 houses would have to be closed under the Bill, if the ratepayers voted for the adoption of the statutory number-and let me say at once that I believe that if the question is put to the vote there will he a majority for the statutory number. Then the difficulty arises of providing for the com­pensation to be paid in respect of the 86 houses which would be closed, and how do the Government propose to meet it? At n. very reasonable computation, the amount which would have to be paid to the owners and

734 Licensing (Public-hmtses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

licensees, in the city of Ballarat alone~ whose houses would be closed would be £43,000, that is to say at the rate of £500 per house for 86 houses. Where is the revenue to come from, as far as this district is concerned, to meet that amount? It appears to me that the Government have not considered the financial aspect or their Bill at all. I venture to tell them that they will have to provide hundreds of thousands of pounds in connexion with this proposal. If the Bill is to be carried out on the prin­ciples laid down, at lea.st half a million of money will be required, and the Govern­ment have made no provision for such an expenditure at all. It is to come from this "trust fund," forsooth, although, according to Mr. Hayter,the whole receipts from licence­fees last year amounted only to £92,000. And out or this amount the Government have not only to pay for five years to the local bodies the amounts they are now re­ceiving from licence-fees, but also to pay the compensation in respect of public-houses that are closed! In the absence of some explanation, such a thing is absurd. We have not even been told whether in the event of the trust fund, wl1ich is to be manufactured under clause 130, running short, it will be subsidized out of the gene­ral revenue. Last year the amount derived in t.he city of Ballarat from publicans and other licence-fees, under the Licensing Act, was £3,595. Under the Bill, allowing for the proposed increased fees, the amount which will be received for licences in that city will be £2,990, or a deficiency of £605 on the amount obtained last year. As I understand the Ballarat Oity Oouncil are to be paid every year for five years a sum equivalent to the amount which they re­ceived from licence-fees in 1884, the amount which the Government will obtain will be £605 a year less than they will have to pay to the local authorities, and a sum of nearly £50,000 will have to be paid in the shape of compensation. I would like to know where the money is to come from. I was much surprised that the Ohief Secretary, in moving for leave to introduce the Bill, followed the bad and pernicious example of making a long second-reading speech. I listened to his speech, and the impression which it produced on my mind was that the Bill proposed to create one licensing court, which would be composed of independent men, men who would occupy such a position that they would be utterly above suspicion, and that it would be the duty of that court to deal with all questions of compensation,

Lt.- Col. Smith.

and with all the paraphernalia brought into existence by the measure. I find, however, tha t,instead of that illea being carried out, the Bill provides for the establishment of a whole host of licensing courts. It virtually provides for the continuance of the same sort of ma­chinery that is at present in existence, with the exception that the licensing magistrates, instead or being elected by the general body of justices in each district, are to be ap­pointed by the Government of the day. That is not in accord with the principle adopted. in Oanada. By the Oanadian Act, as appears from a document which has been laid on the table of this House, a board of licence commissioners is appointed for each licensing district. The first commissioner is a Oounty Oourt Judge, or a judicial functionary of analogous rank; the second is a high municipal functionary, such as a warden, a mayor, or a town clerk; and only one commissioner-the third, who holds office for not more than a year at a time -is specially appointed by the Governor in Council. I contend that the ratepayers in each district for which a licensing court is to be appointed under the Bill ought to have the power of electing one of the three magistrates of which the court is to consist, instead of the whole three being appointed by the Goyernor in Oouncil.

Mr. GILLIES.-Will the r~tepayers pay the compensation?

Lt.-Ool. SMITH.-I would like to hear how the Government propose to find the money to pay the compensation. There is no provision in the Bill by which the money will be available. Let me ask the Govern­ment to consider what will be the effect of taking away the licence-fees from the local bodies where loans have been contracted, partly on the security of those fees. I will refer to the case of my own district as an illustration. We have been receiving be­tween £3,000 and £4,000 a year from various licence-fees, and during the last nine years we have borrowed between £30,000 and £40,000 on the security of our revenue, of which those fees formed a part at the time that the money was lent. Is it fair for the Government to take away from the debenture holders the security' which they had when they lent their money? This is one case. The honorable member for Oreswick (Mr. vVheeler) has mentioned a similar case in his own district, and, of course, there are many others of the kind. Though I intend to vote for the second read­ing of the Bill, I reserve to myself the right to vote against the third reading unless

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Seventh Nigllt's Debate. 735

!:lome of its defects are remedied and unless ample provision is made for the payment of reasonable compensation to persons who are injured by the operation or the measure. There appears to be no great necessity for a Bill of this description. Not only is the consumption of spirits not increasing, but last year the revenue from spirits was £26,000 less than the Treasurer anticipated, which shows that the consumption of spirits is de­creasing. I agree with the honorable mem­ber for Castlemaine (Mr. Patterson) that, as a rule, the Victorian-born portion of the population are not at all addicted to intem­perance in drinking; the tendency is quite in the opposite direction. "Vhile there was a decrease in the revenue derived from spirits last year there was an increase in the revenue obtained from necessaries of life, such as tea and sugar. The Government have dealt very gingerly with the question of the grocers' licence, and they have not at all touched what they ought to have dealt with, namely, the adulteration or alcoholic liquors. I dare say honorable members are aware that in certain vaults in Melbourne large quantities both of imported spirits and of Victorian-manufactured spirits are stored, and they undergo a sort of transformation there. One very extraordinary thing is that some of those vaults are on conse­crated ground. Imported spirits go inside those vaults, and so do colonial spirits, but, curiously enough, nothing but imported spirits come out-not a drop of colonial spirits. It will be very desirable, I think, when the Bill is in committee, to introduce a clause to provide that wholesale wine and spirit merchants shall be subject to similar supervision by liquor inspectors to what hotel-keepers are. A liquor inspector should not only be empowered to go into a public­house and take a bottle from the bar to ascertain whether the liquor which it con­tains is adulterated, but he should also be authorized to go into the cellar of the wine and spirit merchant, and see that he labels his bottles or casks of spirits in such a. way as to indicate whether the contents are im­ported or colonial spirits, or, if they are a mixture of the two, what,proportion is im­ported spirit and what proportion is colonial spirit. And if any label is affixed which does not correctly describe the character of the spirits the mercbant should be liable to a penalty. A transformation of spirits ought not to be allowed to take place inside any vaults, even if a certain religious sect does gain by it, without the public knowing what the transformation is. I am informed that

3H2

in some cases really good colonial spirit is spoilt by being mixed with imported rubbish. If the spirit is what is called blended, the merchant who makes the blend ought to be compelled by law, before he sells the spirit, to put a label on his casks or bottles, stat­ing that one-third is colonial spirit, and two-thirds imported, or vice versa, as the case may be. A large amount of supervision is very properly exercised over those who retail spirits, but there ought to be equal supervision at the fountain head. It is not fair to render the publican liable to penalties for selling adulterated or deleterious spirits unless we also at the same time adopt pre­cautions to prevent him being supplied with such spirits by the wholesale merchants. Ifwe make provision in the Bill of tbecharacterthat I suggest, we shall do a great deal towards preventing the distribution of a vast quantity of exceedingly injurious liquor. The House will pardon me if I now refer to a subject which llas been alluded to by almost every honorable member who has taken part in this debate, namely, the question of the employment of barmaids in hotels. The Sbops Oommission, of which I was chairman, recommended, in their first progress report, that if the employment of barmaids was allowed to be continued, their hours of labour should be limited-that it should be illegal for them to be employed after nine o'clock at night. As a member of the community, and a member of this House, I feel ex­tremely reluctant to say or do anything that will restrict the field of occupation for females in this country; hut the Shops Oommission had to perform the functions of a jury-we bad to deal with the evidence which was brought before us. Let me say at once that there are many virtuous, most respectable, and highly educated girls employed as bar­maids, and I know that many publicans treat their barmaids as members of their own family. But while this is the case-while many of the barmaids are employed at re­spectable public-bouses-the evidence taken before the Shops Commission showed that there are some public-houses in Melbourne which I would be ashamed to give any de­scription of. Girls are kept in those houses who have no wages whatever and whose hours are unlimited. They have to stand behind the bar as long as nature will permit them, and take what rest tbey can get. The members of the Shops Commission could not ignore the evidence which came before us, and we felt bound to make the recom­mendation which we did make in regard to barmaids. ~~~ ~lteration in the ItltW ,:,:l1ich

736 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

we suggested may appear a very sweeping one, but we had no alternative if we were to perform our duty according to the evidence which came before us. It would be well if honorable members examined the evidence given before the Shops Commission on some other matters with reference to public-houses. They will find that there are a considerable number of houses in Mel­bourne and the suburbs which it is alto­gether a misnomer to call hotels. They are certainly licensed as hotels, but they are a disgrace to the country. It is unjust to respeetable publicans, who desire to carry on a fair and legitimate trade, that such houses as I refer to should be allowed to exist. It is in those places that the inferior and deleterious liquors manufactured in consecrated vaults are consumed. Large fortunes are made by mixing colonial with imported spirits-taking advantage of the differential duty-and I venture to say that a vast proportion of the products of that trade, which is carried on by wealthy mer­chant.s in Melbourne, finds its way to some of the lowest dens in the city and suburbs. It is a disgrace to our civilization that any man holding the position of Chief Secretary, with the police at his beck and call, should have placidly allowed these so-called hotels, which are mere dens of infamy, to go on, year after year, without exercising the powers with which the law vests him to stamp them out. I concur with the suggestion of the trade that there should be two licences­one for the house and the other for the man who is to occupy the house and carry on the business of a publican. It is not only requisite that a house which is to be licensed as an hotel should contain certain accommodation: but it is also requisite that the man who is to keep the hotel should be of good character and likely to carryon the business of an hotel-keeper in a satis­factory manner. The Bill, however, does not propose that there shall be two licences, as the trade suggest. It proposes that there shall be new licensing courts, and that the magistrates constituting those courts shall be appointed by the G8vernor in Council; but is there any guarantee that those courts will be more efficient in remedy­ing the evils complained of in connexion with the liquor traffic than the tribunals elected under the pres en tAct have been? None whatever. vVhile I concur with some of the principles of the Bill, I say that the machinery has been prepared in such a way as to indicate that the measure was never intended to become law. Over haH a million

Lt.-Col. Smith.

or money will be required to pay the com­pensation for closing the public-houses which the Bill contemplates will be closed after it comes into operation. Has the Treasurer got the money to pay that compensation? I venture to say he has not. There is no provision in the Bill by which the money can be obtained. By the 41st clause the owner and occupier of an hotel may agree to surrender the licence, and they will be en­titled to compensation, if the premises do not contain the accommodation required by the measure. That clause will probably involve compensation to the amount or £200,000 or £300,000. I am surprised that the licensed victuallers do not go in for the Bill under these circumstances. Perhaps it is because they do not understand it. I have explained it to some of the licensed victuallers in my district, and they are willing to see the Bill passed, provided that they know where the money is to come from. If the Government will give satisfactory information on this matter, a large number of licensed victuallers in my district will hail the Bill with satisfaction. I presume that the Government do not intend to borrow money in the London market to compensate the publicans; but I am perfectly certain that, if the Bill passes in its present shape, there will be a yery large demand for COlll­

pensation soon after the measure becomes law. "Vherc is the money to come from? The whole Bill hinges upon this point. I trust that'the Minister of Railways, when he addresses the House, will give some satis­factory information on this matter and on two or three other points connected with the Bill.

Mr. DERHAM.-Mr. Speaker, I do not at all agree with the attack made on the GO\7ernment for introducing legislation of this kind; on the contrary, I think they de­serve the thanks of this House and the country for affording us the opportunity of arriving at a solution on the vexed question of the amendment of the law relating to the liquor traffic. But, while I congratulate the Ministry upon introducing a measure on this subject, 1 regret that I am unable to admire much of the machinery of the Bill, or some of its principles, as it is proposed to apply them. I don't intend to attempt to review all the manifold provisions of the­measure, but I will confine my remarks to a. few of the leading features of it. I suppose· it will go without sa.ying that the spirit in which legislation of t.his kind should he entered upon is a determined attempt to do all we cun to repress the hi<1eons vice of

Second Reaczil1g. [AUGUST is.] 737

drunkenness, and, at the same time, if it is necessary to close a number of public-houses, that it should only be done in a manner that can be recognised as honorable. I propose to subject the Bill to a little friendly criti~ cism, to see how far it fulfils our reasonable anticipations in regard to these two essen­tials. In the first place, what does the Bill propose to do in mitigation of intem­perance beyond what is already provided for in the existing Act? It proposes to close public-houses half-an-11Our earlier, to the great inconvenience of thousands of persons returning from places of amusement and to travellers by late trains; it proposes to fix a statutory number of public-houses in the various licensing districts, entirely ignoring the grouping of the populati9n in those districts, and also the peculiar circumstances or some or the districts in regard to visitors; and it I ikewise provides some summary prohibitions, not of a very important

. character, but chiefly giving the police and the licensing authorities a greater grasp over publicans. From my point of view, the great desideratum will not be achieved by such provisions to the same degree that it would be by more direct legislation, dealing with the drunkards themselves. The clauses relating to drunkards are sub­s~antially the same as the provisions con­tained in the existing Act. There is very little difference in the amount of the fines which can be imposed. The courts,' I think, should be empowered to inflict higher fines for drunkenness, more particularly in cases in which the offenders occupy a certain status in life. I would ad vocate the infliction of a fine as great as £50 in the case of per­sons WllO hold a high position in life who are guilty of the vice of drunkenness; and for incorrigible drunkards I would urge that a retreat should be provided where they could be properly taken care of until they were fit to be restored to society as sober citizens. It may be asked-At whose ex­pense should such an institution be main­tained ? I would say that, in the first place, the drunkards' means should be ex­hausted. I would not go so far as to say that any drunkard's means should be ex­hausted to the extent of turning his family into the street; but, short of that, his pro­perty, so far as it would go, should be made available for defraying the expense of his treatment in the inebriate institution. If the drunkards themselves had not sufficient funds to pay the cost of their maintenance there, licensed victuallers and temperance reformers might very well join hands to

support stich a philanthropic institutioil as an inebriate asylUlil, and the Governmel1t might also devote to the same purpose it portion of the revenue which they derive from the sale of intoxicating liquors. My attention has been directed to a Billlately introduced into the Tasmanian Legislature to make provision for the treatment, con­trol, and cure of inebriates. It provides for the establishment of inebriate retreats, to be supported by private contributions, but whether they are to be subsidized by the Government or not does not clearly appear. Each retreat is to be managed by a committee, elected by the contributors. Inmates who are unable to pay are to work for their board, and other inmates are to be paid for the labour they perform. Any jus­tice of the peace may enter and inspect a retreat at any hour of the day or night, and any other person may do so with an order from a justice of the peace. An habitual drunkard may be apprehended upon his own application, if sober at the time; and an in­corrigible drunkard-that is one who has been thrice convicted in six months-may be conveyed to a retreat on the order of a police magistrate, or two honorary justices, and kept there for any period not exceeding twelve mont11s. If we had some direct legislation of this kind in Victoria, dealing with the drunkards themselves, it would be far better than imposing harassing restric­tions on the great bulk of the population, who can and do exercise manly self-control over their appetite for strong drink. As this colony is frequently held up as a shock­ing example of a drinking community, I will, for the information of those birds of ill-omen who are never tired of fouling their own nest, compare the number of arrests for drunkenness in Victoria with the number in the other colonies. Of the six constitution­ally-governed colonies in the Australasian group, Victoria stood second on the list in this respect in 1876, third in 1877, second in 1878, first in 1879 and 1880, third in • 1881, and first in 1882 and 1883. Her average position during those eight years was Ii, showing that she is decidedly the most sober colony of the entire group. Vic-

. toria has four firsts during the eight years, while the other five colonies' have only four firsts amongst them. I regret that there is no provision in the Bill for limited Sunday trading. I yield to no man in my desire to resist all encroachments on the Day of Rest, but I believe that the sanctity of that day would be more effectually preserved with a system of limited. Sunday trading

738 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

than it is now. The great bulk or the popu­lation cannot afford to keep a stock of liquor in their own homes, and it is the great bulk of the population that we are called upon to legislate for. I would suggest that public­houses should be allowed to be open for a short time, sayan hour and a half, in the middle of the day on Sunday, and for an hour in the evening, so that people may obtain that moderate supply or liquor which I think they are thoroughly entitled to get. Such a law would be observed, and it would be sa.tisfactory both to the publican and to the rational temperance man; and the re­sult would be that persons who follow the business would be able to go to church in the morning, and to go out into the fresh air, with the rest of the population, in the afternoon, instead of being compelled, as they are now, to stand in their public-houses all day, serving their customers in a furtive and underhand manner. I feel sure that the absolute prohibition of Sunday trading cannot possibly be enforced, no matter how we may attempt to strengthen the hands of the police, because we are opposing a natural want, the gratification of which should be sought not with bated breath but with an erect air worthy of free citizens of a free country. As a hater of shams, I llOpe to have some support from honorable members on this point. With regard to local option, theplansnbmitted by the Government seems eminently unscientific and imperfect. I think a more equitable proceding would be to submit the matter to the electors-to ask those who want no public-houses to come to the poll on a certain day. Oertainly those who are content with the existing law ought not to be dragged from their occupations­with the loss probably of a day's work-to

. vote on a question in which they take little or no interest. The attacking party ought to be obliged to come forward and state that they want no public-houses, and in propor­tion to that vote would I have public-houses allotted in the district. I would not force public-houses upon an unwilling population; I would simply provide them for those who really want them. With regard to the ques­tion of compensation, some ink and breath have been wasted in an unjust and cruel at­tempt to show that licensed victuallers have no vested rights in their licences. But I think anyone who reads the 47th section of the existing Act with an unprejudiced mind must admit that the right of the licensed victualler to a renewal of his licence is as clear as the sun at noon-day. But supposing that there were no such distinct legislative

Mr. Derham.

enactment, is it to be assumed that Par­liament consists of so many Shylocks who will refuse to do justice because it is not " nominated in the bond" ? I hope not. I trust that, before the Bill leaves committee, compensation on a fair basis will be provided for. Otherwise, however perfect the Bill may be in other respects I shall feel conscientiously bound, when the measure comes up for third reading, to vote against it. A fair measure of compensation for the owners of public­houses is very easy to fix. Take the case of a public-house worth £3,000-a house which if applied to any other purpose would be worth only £2,500-the exact amount of compensation would be £500, neither more nor less. But there is a great difficulty in settling fairly the compensation to which a licensee is entitled, because the circum­stances of licensees vary so much-they vary possibly in thousands or ways. I believe it is beyond the power of this House to fix a proper scale. of compensation for licensees; and therefore I would suggest that the question should be referred either to arbi­tration, or to some competent board to settle each case on its own merits. Then, I think, before the Bill passes, the House ought to be informed of the personnel of the proposed licensing. courts. We ought to have some idea of the sort of men who will be appointed, in order that we may have confidence in committing to their charge such enormous powers as they will have. The Bill contains a clause referring to in­ferior liquor-.a clause which is merely a reproduction, with a slight verbal alteration, of a section of the existing Act; and I would like to know how it is that Government after Government have uniformly allowed that section to remain a dead-letter. It is well known by experts that colonial spirits are sold when they are far too new, when they are raw-in a state not fit for consumption; and I think this could be prevented by a very inexpensive provision. As honorable members are aware, each distillery has an excise officer attached to it, and it would be easy to instruct that officer that no spirits should be allowed to leave the distillery until they had attained the age of at least eighteen months. I think further that every parcel, before it leaves the distillery, should be examined by the excise officer with the view to ascertain whether it is fit for con­sumption.

Mr. WOODS.-What control is there over imported spirits?

Mr. DERHAM.-Every cask or every shipment is sampled on arrival; and I think

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Seventh Night's Debate. 739

the samples sllOuld be inspected as the spirits pass through the Customs, and in any case where the Customs officers have the least suspicion that the article is not fit for con­sumption, the samples should be made the subject of chemical examination. These chemical examinations, I may mention, if undertaken by contract, are very inexpen­sive; the cost not being more than a few shillings fOl' each test. I feel satisfied that our gaols and lunatic asylums have been very largely filled through the sale and con­sumption of unwholesome and bad spirits. I consider that where spirits are mixed the exact quantity of each ingredient, and the strength, should be stated on every package as sold. There are many other points which might be enlarged upon, but I prefer to postpone dealing with them until the Bill is in committee. With regard to the right of the measure to go into committee, I hold that it is quite clear, and for this intelligible reason: no Government that ever existed, and, I t.hink, no Government that ever will exist, could prepare, for submission to this House, a measure so perfect in all its parts as not only to please the two extreme sec­tions of the community, but also to satisfy the thousand and one opinions which may be entertained apart from and between those two sections. Then what use is there in calling upon the Government to undertake an impossibility? On these grounds, I say we ought to go into committee, and that honorable mem bel'S ought to be allowed the greatest latitude when considering the mea­sure there. With regard to the suggestion of the honorable memher for Maldon, as to the advisability of remitting the Bill to a select committee, with power to take evi­dence, I think that would be a very right course to pursue. I feel-and I say this without desiring to cast reflection upon any member of the Government-that we have not at our command the expert evidence which we should have to show us wha.t will be the real working of the intricate machin­ery of this Bill. If the Government approve of the idea of referring ihe Bill to a select committee, I shall warmly support it; be­cause I believe that at present we are legis­lating to a great extent in the dark. With the light which could be thrown on the Bill by a select committee we could look forward, with some degree of confidence, to the passage of a measure which future times would regard with some degree of pardonable pride as a complete reflection and embodi­ment of the sense of justice and wisdom of Parliament.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Sir, the question be­fore the House is that the Licensing Bill be now read a second time, to which an amend­ment has been moved that the second read. ing take place this day six months.' There is an old maxim that, of two evils, choose the least; and, as it seems to me that the Bill, in its major portions, is thoroughly evil, I will certainly vote that the measure be read a second time this day six months. If I had my way, the Bill would never be read at all. Before I conclude my remarks I hope to be able to make it plain that the Bill is founded partly on gross ignorance of the subject displayed by the Chief Secre­tary; that it will be tyrannical in its opera­tion, and disastrous to the general public; that, where it 'will not be disastrous in its effects, it will be purely inoperative; and that the Chief Secretary knows, and has said, it is a sham. I most warmly deprecate the suggestion of the Attorney-General that short speeches should be the order of the day in this debate. Why one-half the revenue of England-more than is sufficient to pay for the maintenance of the army and navy, the police and gaols, and all the establish. ments for the preservation of order-is derived, through the Custom.house and tIle Excise, from the duties upon spirits and beer. So, in this colony, nearly half of our Customs revenue is obtained from im­ported spirits, wine, and beer, and from duties on spirits manufactured in the colony. Under these circumstances, and seeing that there are as many as 50,000 souls whose living depends upon this traffic, I say that the making of short speeches is not to be thought of. I venture to assert that the Attorney-General has not that knowledge of the subject which he ought to have. So far from being in a position to make a short speech, I have at command sufficient food for argument on this subject to occupy me for a week.

Mr. MACKAY.-Say three or four hours.

Mr. GA UNSON.-It cannot be done in three or four hours. Let honorable mem­bers bear in mind the importance of the subject. Let them look at it, not from the publican's point of view, nor from the teetotaller's point of view, but from the point of view of the great lllass of the pub­lic outside who are no'& drunkards, although they take their drink in a moderate and reasonable way, and enjoy it. Surely if an appeal were made to honorable members to thoroughly sift this thing from begin­ning to end, they would say it is not an

'40 Licensing (Pttblic-!wuses) [ASS~:M13LY.J Law Amendment Bill.

impjlOlje1; tlppeal to make. Excluding the grocers, who are 422, the total number of persons who are licensed is 5,068-say

'5,000 in round numbers. Take the unit which the Government propose for the pur­poses of the local option vote as five, and we have at once 25,000 persons as the num­ber dependent upon the business. But of the licensed persons, 76 are brewers. How 'many men, with wivesand families depending upon them, do they employ? Then, again, take the vignerons and the farmers. I under­take to say that at least 50,000 80uls-1 believe I would not exaggerate if I were to say 100,000 souls-in this colony, directly or indirectly, immediately or mediately, are interested in the liquor trade. Nowwhatis that trade? It is simply the selling of liquor, the abuse of which has made people drunk from the tim~) recorded in Genesis until now. If I understand aright the moral of t.he story of Lot's drunkenness, it is that people who get drunk make terrible exhibitions of themselves, and that, there­fore, people ought not to get drunk. Having reference to the importance of the trade, and 'the number employed in connexion with it, and recollecting that after all it is simply the persons who use tIle liquor and do not abuse it that are the persons w 110 are now to be interfered with in the enjoyment of theil' natural rights by a small and, 1 say advisedly, an insignificant minority of the people, I submit that that proceeding is an intolerable tyranny-one which ought not to be borne. Having entered a slight plea for the absolute necessity of the House deal­ing with this important subject in a compre­hensive and not in a slipshod way-in a broad and philosophical spirit-1 will now proceed to allude to some of the surround­ings, to what may be called the fringe of the matter. A great deal of time lIas been taken up, within the last few weeks, by one honorable member after another rising in his place and saying-" Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in favour of the Licensing Bill with amendments"­always with amendments. Whole sheaves of petitions to this effect haye been pre­sented. Now what is the value of these l)etitions? vVhen the licensed publicans waited upon the Premier with the view to enlist his sympathy, especially with reference to Sunday opening, one of the speakers said he could get petitions innumerable in fayour of that course; whereon the honorable gentle­man. is report8cl to have replied that he did not care the snap of l1is fingers for any nUITlber of petitions. That statement well

Mr. Gaunson.

applies to the vast majority of the petitions which have been presented to this House with reference to the Licensing Bill. Those petitions were not prepared for this Bill ; they were signed before the Bill was ever printed.

Mr.MIRAMS.-That is not correct. Mr. GAUNSON.-Iassure the honorable

member it is correct. I know as a fact tbat many of the petitions were signed last year, and kept in stock. And what an idea for honorable members to allow their common sense to be beguiled by stupid statements contained in petitions signed by lads and lasses under tbe age of sixteen, who have no greater right than the teetotaller to ex­press an opinion on tIle subject of drink! It is tl'l1e that these little things were per­suaded, as they walked in and out of chapel, to sign the petitions.

Mr. M1RAMS.-No, it is not. You are quite mistaken.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Does the honorable member mean to say that these petitions have not heen signed by children?

Mr. M1RAMS.-Not as a rule. Mr. GA UNSON.-The exceptions are

so numerous that the rule is quite difficult to understand. I ask honorable members to give the petitions their clue weight, bui not to unduly value them. vVith regard to the shutting of public-houses on Sunday, and the beneficial results flowing from the spontaneous and voluntary action of the licensees some years ago, when it is alleged that the cases of drunkenness were 80 much fewer during the month when public-bouses were rigidly closed on Sunday than they were before, I may mention that I have been informed by a gentleman, who is prepared to support what he says by statistics, that the number of drunkards sentenced during the time 'Of the rigid closing up, as compared with the number sentenced during a period of corresponding length immediately pre­ceding, showed an increase of seven. How the honorable member for Oollingwood (Mr. Mirams) can get over that fact by shaking his head, I don't know. It will be recol­lected that the publicans rigidly closed their houses for the Sunday or two immediately preceding the last elections for the Upper l-Iouse, when Mr. Munro, the champion of teetotalism and local option without com­pensation, and Dr. Beaney, the champion of champagne, contested the scat for North Yarra. How did the representatives of the teetotal party fare during those elections? They invariably came to grief. I now desire to call attention to a statement made by the

Second }leading. [AUGUST 18.J Seventh lYight' 8 Debate. 741

Solicitor-General, at a meeting or the" Vic­torian Alliance," last year, to the effect that, as a member of the Legislative Assem­bly, he had on all occasions, and on many platforms., stated that it was his intention to vote for local option, and that, in the discharge of his Ministerial duties, he was determined to preserve and uphold the law by granting as few special licences as were possible in the colony. Now I have '11 ere a valuable return with reference to the num­ber of places which were proclaimed special licensing districts under the orthodox rule of the Solicitor-General. It appears that the honorable gentleman came into office in ' March, 1883.

Mr. DEAKIN.-That is incorrect to begin with. I did not become Solicitor-Gencml until December, 1883. I

MI'. GAUNSON.-I find that, between i the 3rd January, 1884, and the 28th April, , 1885, the following places were proclaimed special licensing districts: - Barrakee, ' Thoona, Mysia railway station, Glenloth railway station, Borung railway station" Koondrook, \Vunghnu, Glen Thompson, I

Ullina, Kamarooka.) Oope Cope, Slocomb's : Diggings, Lockart's Oreek, N arra.can West, Boolara, Great Eastern Diggings, vValhalla and Traralgon roads junction, Mount Oamel, part of Tambo, Oondah, Baddaginnie rail­way station, part of Wallup, Orbost, pali of Jeetho, Simmons Reef, Mologa railway sta­tion'; Eskdale, Merton, Benalla to Mansfield road, Oressy, Mitta Mitta, Nicholson River crossing, part of Broadmeadows, part of Howqua, Mirboo North, Donnybrook, Go­roke, and part of Darnum.

Mr. DEAKIN.-That includes the first four months of tllis year, when I was away from the colony.

Mr. GAUNSON.-At all events, the Ministry of which the hOllorable gentleman is a bright and shining member is respoll­sible for 56 of these proclamations, as against 53 made by the O'Loghlen Ministry, 4 by the first Service Ministry, and 101 by the Berry Ministry. The Ohief Secretary has been one of the greatest sinners in that respect. Next, while still dealing with only the fringe of my subject, let me return to the speech of the Solicitor-General at the Alliance anniversary meeting of July, 1884. Honorable members will perhaps be of opinion that, in a matter of the present kind, namely, the huge drink Bill now proposed with the view of affecting the business of a ,certain class, by taking it from them in order to hand it over to the distiller, the wine and spirit merchant, and the grocer-here let me

mention that the Bill difIers materially from the existing Act at the point where it en­ables an application for a grocers' licence to be opposed-it need not be wondered at if some of the Ministers answerable for the measure are made the subject of personal imputations. At the Alliance meeting I refer to, the Solicitor-General uttered the following :-

"In all cases where an appeal for mercy was made against the death sentence, it was his duty to investigate such, and he could distinctly state that the excessive use of drink had always bee:n one of the causes or accompaniments of the crimes committed."

Was the honorable gentleman able, I would like to know, io distinguish whether the drink that was the cause of crime came from the distillery of Mr. Hugh Junor Browne, on the banks of the Yarm, or was imported Dunville whisky? \Vill he say which class of liquor it was that in each case led to the crime that caused the death sentence against which an appeal for mercy was made? Is it astonishing to find the men whose means of livelihood is now at stake carrying the war raised against themselves into the camp of the Solicitor-General, or into that of the Premier, into whose hands passing the Bill will throw such a large additional amount of business? Tl1at such a result should be attained may not have been a motive with the Premier when he became a party to the introduction of the Bill, but the fact that passing the measure into law will1lave the effect of handing over to his firm almost the whole of the traffic connected with supply­ing the licensed grocers remains the same. Can any member of the Government deny that statement? I will now proceed to fulfil my promise to address myself to a few of the arguments offered by the Ohief Sec­retary, when he introduced the Bill, which have so deceived the outside public. I told honorable members plainly that I would show them out of the Ohief Secretary's own mouth that the Bill he brought in is a. sham, and especially that the local option proposed by him is a sham-that it has been proclaimed by himself to be a sham. It will be remembered that the local option vote is to be exercised by the ratepayers alone. But when the Ohief Secretary re­ferred to the ratepayers' vote in connexion with the constitution of the licensing court, the members of which are, according to the Bill in its present shape, to be appointed by the Governor in Oouncil, he used the follow .. ing language:-. "It is proposed that the magistrates compos­ing the court shall consist of t~ree, ~nd that they

742 Licensing (Pltblic-lw'l.tses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

shall be appointed by the Governor in Council. It has been suggested that they should be elected by the ratepayers. The reason why we think that appointment by the Governor in Coun­cil is preferable is that hy that means the Government will be responsible for the selection of men suitable and fit to carry out the provi­sions of the Act. If the men appointed are found not to be fit for their position, they can be removedj-

Why one of the chief dangers of the ar­rangement is that the members of the court will be removable whenever their conduct is not pleasing to their masters. " and thus the responsibility of having proper men to compose the licensing court will rest with the Government, whereas in a popular election, in which a wealthy and interested trade would have large influence, there would be no guarantee that the elections would result in fit and proper persons being appointed. This is the opinion of the Government, and I think it will commend itself to this House."

Now if it be true that a " wealthy and in­terested trade" can prevent the ratepayers from electing suitable members of thelicens­ing court, and that consequently the rate­payers are unfit to be intrusted with the power of election in that direction, how much more unfitted must they be to exercise the right of local option the Bill will confer upon them! The honorable gentleman then went on to show that the body which under the Bill is to have in effect the carrying out of its provisions is the identical body which has had the carrying out of the existing law, and which has, from his point of view, been guilty of the most monstrous evasions of it. Here are his own words:-

" There has been a growing evasion of the in­tentions of the Legislature in passing that Act. There have been renewals, and, what I consider to be another practical evasion of the intentions of Parliament, there have been what are known as' special areas' proclaimed, in which, notwith· standing any local option vote, and notwith­standing the provisions of the Act, licences could be granted."

There the honorable gentleman simply showed himself ignorant of the law. But the point is that, having practically said that the Governor in Council have been guilty in the past of evading the law, he proposes that the same body shall have the power of appointing and constituting the licensing courts of the future. Surely we could hardly have a stronger argument to the effp.ct that the Governor in Council are not the best body to confide great interests to, than the authoritative statement of the Chief Secre­tary that they have been in times past, and therefore can be in the future, rendered sub­ject to outside pressure. In any case, if we are inclined to go the length of allowing the Governor in Council to nominate the mem­bers of the licensing courts, we ought to be

Mr. Gaunson.

chary indeed of also giving that body tho right of removing such members. 'Vith respect to that part of the business we may well bear in mind the restrictions with which we have surrounded the removal from office of the Railway and Public Service Commis­sioners. The Chief Secretary also referred to the action or the magistrates in such a manner that I think honorable members may well ask for definite returns on the subject in order that they may understand who the offenders are, and, perhaps, deal with them. The honorable gentleman said-

"One of the chief objections to the present licensing system, and one of the most fertile sources of its failure in the opinion of the pub­lic, alld I think also of honorable members, bas been the way. in which courts of petty sessions have dealt with cases under the Licensing Act which are brought before them."

One would have thought, when the Chief Secretary made that assertion, that he was prepared with an accurate return of the cases in which the honorary magistrates had failed to perform their duties; but no such statistics have been forthcoming. Would it, however, be unreasonable on our part to ask for them? Surely even the honorable member for Portland will admit that infor­mation of the kind ought to be placed be­fore us if the Chief Secretary's statement is to be accepted. If it is cOlTe~t-I venture to believe that it is wholly incorrect-how have the Attorney .. :General and Solicitor­General exercised their functions? What has been done with the offenders in the matter? Then the police came in for their share of censure. Upon that point the honorable gentleman expressed himself as follows:-

" I may say also that I do not know whether we can thoroughly rely-although it is the only information we can have-on the reports of the police with respect to the condition of these houses."

Yet who but the police will have to adminis­ter a large portion of the provisions of the Bill? Is it to be expected that the inspec­tors will go about hunting out offences; such as Sunday trading and the like? Cer­tainly not. Therefore we are led to conclude that the Chief Secretary proposes to let the carrying out of the new Act largely rest with men upon whom he says he cannot "thoroughly rely." And aspersions of this sort were indulged in by him from the be­ginning to the end of his speech. At this stage I am reminded of an episode in con­nexion with the Age newspaper, which I dare say many honorable members have not forgotten. About July last year there ap­peared in the Age a leading article to the

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.J Seventh Night's Debate. 743

effect that many of the hotels in Melbourne were used for certain bad purposes. Upon this the licensed victuallers of the city held a public meeting, at which they denounced the newspaper for its wholesale accusation, and carried a resolution to the effect that it should not be allowed to appear in their bars, and that they would refrain from using it for advertisement purposes. What followed? Almost the next day the honor­able member for East Bourke Boroughs, who is known to be a paid writer for the Age, tabled a motion calling for a return of all bills of sale affecting licensed victuallers. Surely no more monstrous proposition-no more disgraceful attempt to publish the private affairs of private individuals-was ever made in this Chamber. At the same time the men at whom the honorable mem­ber aimed his motion did not care a snap of their fingers for the Age, or for what it could do. Next, having discredited the honorary magistrates sitting in petty ses­sions, and also the licensing bench, by charging them with neglect of their duty, the Chief Secretary proceeded to insult the municipal bodies, of whom he chose to speak in the following terms:-

"I would remind honorable members thnt some years before the Licensing Act 1876, the Legislature bad transferred the licence-fees to the local bodies, and the Act of 1876 left them in the same state. I tbink, and no doubt a good many honorable members will be of the same opinion, that that was a fertile source of tbe evils under the licensing system, because the local bodies were directly interested in the increase of the number of the licences, as thereby they increased their revenue."

But the honorable gentleman's ignorance of the law was instantly exposed by the hon­Ql'able member for South Gippsland, who interjected-

"They do not get the fees for new licences. In my district hundreds of licences have been granted, the fees arising from which have been taken by the Government."

Of course the Chief Secretary had to acknow­ledge himself corrected, which he did in these words:-

II Subsequently an enactment was made that new licence-fees should go into the Treasury. That stopped the increase of revenue by local bodies from new licence-fees, but this change has been comparativel, recent. The Act of 1876 did not do that, and III consequence there has been an unnecessary multiplication of houses."

But where did the multiplication of houses come in? I can tell the honorable gentle­man. It came in under the 44th section of the Act of 1876, which enables the Gover­nor in Council to create special licensing districts. And the same Act in providing, in its 11lth section, for the ~ees for licences

going to the municipalities, has this special suving provision-Ie except new licences." Truly, I may say of the honorable gentle­man and those who accepted his statement, chapter and verse, that they illustrate the case of the blind leading the blind, and both falling into the ditch. In order to place the point I mention beyond all doubt, I will quote a decision given by the Supreme Court on December 8, 1879, in the case of The Queen v. The llfayol' and Corporation of the City of J:felbourne. The action was one for the return of a licence-fee received by the defendants which it was contended OUgl1t to be paid into the Treasury, and the circumstances were as follows:-

"In 1878 Sheahan was holder of a grocer's licence, originally granted to him under the Li­censing Act 1876, for bis shop in Cardigan-street, Carlton. In November. 1878, Sheahan removed his business to Lygon-street, Carlton. In De­cem ber, 1878, a grocer's licence for 1879 was duly issued to Sheahan for his shop in Lygon­street, and a fee of £5 was paid by him to the defendants."

The decision of the court was-"The annual licence issued to Sheahan is a

new licence, and the defendants are liable to pay the amount relating to that licence into the consolidated revenue."

What then becomes of the misleading and insulting statements of the Chief Secretary, which were, I suppose, made merely to" split the ears of the groundlings"? Moreover, in reply to the interjection of the honorable member for South Gippsland, the honorable gentlema. said-" Subsequently an enact­ment was made," &c., whereas, as a matter of fact, there has been no subsequent enact­ment made. Again, according to a return moved for by me, and just laid 011 the table, the amounts received by the Treasury from licence-fees during the last seven years stand thus:-In 1878, £2,677; in 1879, £4,451; in 1880, £7,070; in 1881, £8,082; in 1882, £8,972; in 1883, £11,003; and in 1884, £11,695; the total revenue from licences throughout the colony for the last-mentioned year being £100,602 5s. 8d. I think it is not too much to say that it was grossly improper for a Cabinet Minister of the Chief Secretary's rank to attempt to befool the House and the country by making the incorrect, misleading, and utterly unfair assertions I have alluded to. He seemed anxious to discredit almost every class of the community in order to gain his point. Not content with discrediting the rate­payers as unfit to elect the licensing bench, because they would probably allow them­selves to be swamped by a "wealthy and interested trade," he must needs discredi tour

LicenSl11g (Public-houses) [ASSElvtBL Y.]

manhood suffrage electors as unqualified to exercise a local option vote. 011 what prin­ciple can such a contention be defended? For my part, I would not only allow every male contributor to the revenue in any shape to vote at a local option poll, but I would give the same privilege to the other sex. Every woman as well as every man in the country should have a vote, and I know how the polling would go. Every married wo­man would say-" I would greatly prefer my husband going to get his glass outside bis house to his bringing the dangerous temptation home with him." But I would not allow chits of boys or mere lasses a say -on the matter. I leave llOnorable members to imagine the disgust as well as astonish­ment I felt, the other day, at seeing, at the Hawthorn station, a young girl of fifteen or :sixteen ostentatiously displaying a. blue rib­Ibon on her breast. Imagine a child of that :age proclaiming herself as unable to take ]ler liquor decently. And my disgust was not any less when, quite recently, I saw a hopelessly intoxicated individual, with a blue ribbon in l1is coat button-hole, being helped along Collins-street by two police­men, their attention having been directed to his state by another "blue-ribbon" man. That; illustrates the mercilessness which usually characterizes those whose sole drink is water. They are, generally speaking, wretched and morose individuals, whose -only real pleasure is trying to prevent other people from enjoying themselves in their ,own way. I noticed that the constables, in <larrying off their man, took very good care that the bystanders should notice his blue ribbon, the sight of which occasioned fits of laughter. I undertake to assert that the repressive legislation we' find so much advocated is, after all,pressed upon us by only a very insignificant portion of the commu­nity. The teetotal body may be said to be made up of only two classes--first, of those who never drink and have never dr~nk, and who are therefore not entitled to speak of the pleasures arising from theuse of liquor; and, secondly, of those who wisely, being unable to use liquor at all, reject it altogether. Now the number of individuals belonging to these classes must necessarily be small, and, therefore, I say advisedly that they are no more, entitled to the special consideration at the hands of the Legislature which they ask :Eor than are the publicans entitled to be regarded over the heads of the general <lommunity. Possibly, however, this House, not caring greatly for the extremists on the teetotal side, or for the class specially

Mr. Gaunson.

interested in the liquor trade, will look chiefly to the great mass of the people at large, who are always literally horrified when they see an undue amount or drinking, but whose thinking faculties cause them to regret the theory of repression as a system that has failed in every country under the sun in which it has been tried. It has failed in Maine, because, as the honorable member for Delatite very properly pointed out the other night, the overdose of the teetotal system insisted upon there has led to demo­ralizing results. Have honorable members been duly impressed with onc statement the honorable member made with respect to the operation of the Maine liquor law-a state­ment that has never been challenged-that in Maine the divorce rate is higher, and less children are born there than elsew here? What does my teetotal colleague say to that? vVhat also does he say to the number of votes cast at the late American presidential election, for the local prohibition candidate? Mr. St. Jolm was put up to receive the teetotal votes, and it was fully expected that at least 2,000,000 would be recorded for him. What, however, was the result? That, out of upwards of 10,000,000 votes recorded for the candidates forthe presidency, he only received 46,000, that is to say one out of every 223 votes given. In fact, the Americans are sick of this nonsense. And what was the voting in Maine, the citadel of the party? Only 2,160 ballots were cast for Mr. St. John, or scarcely one in 50 of the entire number of votes recorded.

Mr. JAMES.-What is there in that? Mr. GAUNSON.-The gentlemen who

go in for prohibition are eternally deluging us with Maine. I have been speaking with a travelled American, and I am told that the people of Maine are known throughout the States as the most iuveterate corn­whisky drinkers. In fact,!. was informed, the citizens of Maine can drink a glassful of pure raw whisky, and they are called the Russians of America. We all know that the Russians drink to a terrible extent­that to get drunk is the delight of every Russian peasant.

Mr. MACKAY.-It is the climate. Mr. GAUNSON.-Of course it is due in

a large degree to the climate. Men must have access to excitement of some kind­the dull routine of life will not do. The honorable member for Ballarat East (Mr. James) and my honorable colleague in the representation of Emerald Hill seek their' excitement and find it in inordinate smok­ing, which I regard as a filthy beastly habit.

Second Reading. [AUGUST 18.] Seventh Night's Debate. 745

It is true my father never smoked, and I follow in his footsteps. l3ut smoking is purely and simply a species of excitement. The teetotallers are very anxious to refer to the bright and shining lights within their ranks, and my honorable colleague, the other night, read a list of very able men who were teetotallers. Among them, I think, he men­tioned Sir Henry Thompson. Now let me give a quotation from an article by Sir Henry Thompson in relation to diet which appeared in the Nineteenth Centw·.1J for May last. He says-

"Enough, and more than enough perhaps, has been uttered concel'lling the prejudicial effects on the body of habitually using alcoholic beverages. . . . . I have for ma.ny years past been compelled by £<tcts which Me con­stantly coming before me to accept the con­clusion that more mischief in the form of actual disease, of impaired vigour, and of shortened life accrues; to civilized man, so far as I have oh­served, in our own country and throughout Western and Central Europe, from erroneous habits of eating, than from thc habitual use of alcoholic drink. considerablc as I know the evil of that to be."

Here is an alarming and startling fact from a scientist. I hope now that we shall hear no more of this stupid nonsense on the part of those who would interfere with me and others who desire to enter public-houses for the purpose of taking in moderation and enjoying our liquor. I hope we shall have no more of this unrighteous, tyrannous, and unjustifiable interference from an insignifi­cant minority of the population. That the teetotallers are the greatest sham, the greatest delusion, that eyer existed is shown by the fact that they haye been in existence as a body for scores or years, and yet they have not lessened the consumption of drink by one single glass. The teetotallers who }uwe never drunk ]w.vc no more right to talk about the joys of drinking in moder­ation than a eunuch has to descant on the joys of married life for the purpose of denouncing them; and tho teetotallers who rightly refrain from drinking because they are naturally drnnkards, and wonld get drunk if they drank at all, have no right to infringe on Illy rights if I choose to go into a public-house to get a glass of liquor. I do not offend any law, moral ordi vine-or human for that matter-in doing so. Let members of this House take their own experience. vVhen any of us feel inclined, either alone OL'

in company, with a friend or constituent, to go into a public-house, do we not find the business carried on in a reasonable and proper manner? And are we any the worse for the drink we take? Are we not as moral as the teetotallers? I venture to say that,

if you take the cases coming before tIle police courts in which the question of morality is concerned, it will be found that. it is more frequently the teetotaller than the· drinking man who is brought up to answer' certain claims made upon him. Further, if" you go to the great middle class-the class: which is really the backbone of this anct every other country-and take 1,000 of those who drink in moderation and 1,000' of those who do not drink, I venture to say that those who drink will be found as good men-morally, socially, and politically-as. the teetotallers. In my opinion, they are­morally better. The Chief Secretary, ill his. speech on initiating this Bill, specially ap­pealed to the teetotallers by name to support. it, and thus absolutely discredited the whole common sense of the community. He did not appeal to the large body of the people, who are not interested either for or against the publican, but who simply go into an hotel when they want to and stay away when they choose-the body, in fact, to whom we must really look for the passing or rejection of this law. He did not make the slightest appeal to the common sense of the community. He said-

"The Bill proposes to give a much larger power to public opinion to express itself, both with regard to the granting and the reduction of licences,--

That is not correct. It is only partially correct. " and in centres of population a very wide mar­gin is allowed to the temperance bodies, which they can take full advantage of when the Bill is passed. If the measure is a Sllccess,--

Here, it will be seen, he discredits eyon the teetotallers by pointing out that they are not to be relied upon. "if the action taken under its provisions has a good effect, if the reduction of the number of licences diminishes the evils compla.ined of, H,nd if the temperance bodies are found to be justified in their opinions by the course of events, then the Legislature, I think, will at no distant day be ready to help them still further in ca.rrying out their views. I ask them to assist the Government in passing this measure into law."

So that the Chief Secretary has no faith in the general community; he has no faith in anybody; his motto simply is-" Keep your eye on your father, and he will pull you through." That appears to be the alpha and the omega of his political creed. TJutt 11e has no faith in the general sense of the community is shown by the fact that he did not appeal to them. He appealed only to that insignificant though loud­mouthed section of the community, the te'etotallers-a section wllich, in this House,

74G Licensing (Public-hmlses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

carries no weight. Of all the rabid tee­total members of this House there is only one who has ever held a portfolio. Every lUau in the Ministry is a drinking man, though none or them are drunkards. 'V ould any of the teetotal members venture to try to pnt a stop to our bar upstairs ? No; they become educated in the matter by being in the House, and in the same way, if we can only get our arguments fairly placed before the teetotal members of the commu­nity, I am SlIre that they must come to see that, in order to bring about the aim we all alike desire, they are advocating palpably wrong means. That is the whole point in dispute between us. The teetotallers, as I haye shown, are only a small portion of the COll1lll unity.

Mr. JAMES.-You have said it, but you have not proved it.

Mr. GAUNSON.-How many teetotal­lers are there, as a matter of fact, in this community? They number only a very few thousands. And of whom are they made up? They are made up of those who have never drunk, and those who dare not drink. That being so, what right have they to dic­tate to the hundreds of thousands who use drink in a reasonable way? Take the drinking nations of the world, and compare them with the non-drinking nations. Sta­tistics prove that in those nations that drink most there is the least crime, and in those nations that drink least the most crime, and especially crimes of violence against the person. Then the nations that drink most arc certainly the sturdiest, and the best fighters in the world. This was exemplified in the late war between France and Ger­many. France is a non-drinking nation, and, talking about the crimes of different nations, show me a criminal so bad as the French criminal. Moreover, according to recent information from home, those are the most expert burglars who are teeto­tallers. As I have said before, the teetotal­lers are a small body, insignificant in numbers, and insignificant in personnel in the affairs of the world, and, seeing that out of their own mouths I have proved that thero is more disease-and disease is a good proof of crime-and more shortening of life caused by eating than drinking, I am in­clined to place no faitl1 in them whatever. 'Ve are all agreed that the abuse of drink is intolerable, and not to be borne; but, being so agreed, we who drink in modera­tion are not to be deprived of our reasonable right to go into an hotel when we think pro­per and have whatever liquor we choose, so

long as we keep within the law. (Cries of "Adjourn.") I do not ask for an adjourn­ment of the debate; but I am entirely in the hands of the House. I have not vet come to the Bill, and will certainly not" reach it before one o'clock.

Mr. BURROWES asked the Attorney­General whether, in view of the lateness of the hour, the Government had any objection to the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. KERFERD stated that the Govern­ment desired to consult the convenience or the House. An arrangement was made by the honorable member representing the Op­position that this debate would be closed on the following Tuesday. (Mr. Gaunson­"'Ve will keep that arrangement.") It would be very unfair if the honorable mem­ber for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gallnson) was going to occupy so much time as to prevent other 11Onorable members from speaking. The Government had no objection to the adjournment of the debate if the House de­sired it, but he hoped honorable members would bear in mind the compaCt that was entered into.

On the motion of Mr. GAUNSON, the debate was adjourned until the following day.

BILLS OF LADING LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

This Bill was received from the Legisla­tive Council, and, on the motion of Mr. KERFERD, was read a first time.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Wednesday, August 19, 1885.

National Agricultural Show-Po,stal Department: Oakleigh Office: Letter Carriers: Saturday Half-holiday-Bal­larat West Electorate: Haddon-Lunatic Asylums­South Australian Boundary-The Police: Overcoats­Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill: Second Reading: Eighth Night's Debate-Expenditure under Loans-Australian Executors and Trustees Asso­ciation Bill-Union Trustees, Executors, and Adminis­trators Company's Bill-Public Service: Officers of Parliament-Naturalization-Exclusion of Strangers: Mr. Zox's Motion.

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

PETITIONS. Petitions praying the House to pass the

Licensing (Public-houses) Bill with cer­tain amendments were presented br Mr.

· Postal Department. [AUGUST 19.J The Police. 747

KERFERD, from inhabitants of Freeburgh, Bright, and Beechworth; by Mr. BELL, from male and female residents of Haddon; by Mr. A. T. CLARK, from members and adherents of the United Methodist Free Ohurch, vVilliamstown; by Mr. YEO, from inhabitants of Kerang; by Mr. LEVIEN, from members a.nd adherents of the Wes-1eyan Methodist Church at St. Albans, near Geelong; by Mr. McINTYRE, from a public meeting of the inhabitants of Mal­don; by Mr. ANDERSON, from inhabitants of Hexham; and by Mr. DERHAM, from in­habitants of Port Melbourne. Petitions against the provisions in the Bill relating to the appropriation of licence-fees were presented by Mr. A. T. CLARK, from the Williamstown Borough Council; by Mr. CONNOR, from the Geelong West Borough Council; and by Mr. J. HARRIS, from the St. Kilda Borough Oouncil. A petition was presented by Mr. J. HAUUIS, from Reginald Green, late superintendent in the police force, praying for inquiry into his case.

NATIONAL AGRIOULTURAL SHOW.

Mr. BERRY moved, by leave without notice, that the House, at its rising, ad­journ until half-past four o'clock next day. He submitted the motion because it was doubtful-owing to the holding of the National Agricultural Show-whether there would be a House at half-past three, the time appointed, by the sessional order, for commencing business.

The motion was agreed to.

POSTAL DEPARTMENT.

Mr. KEYS asked the Chief Secretary when it was proposed to call for tenders for the new post and telegraph office at Oak­leigh?

Mr. BERRY replied that tenders had been imTited, and would be received up to the lOth September.

Lt.-Ool. SMITH inquired of the Ohief Secretary whether he was aware that the boon of the Saturday half-holiday had not been extended to Ballamt, and that three, and sometimes four, of the junior letter carriers were retained on duty, every Satur­day afternoon, at the Ballarat Post-office?

Mr. BERRY, in reply, read the follow­ing memoralHium from the Postal depart­lllent:-

"It has been found necessary to keep an experienced letter-carrier on duty at the Post­office, Ballarat, on SlLturday afternoons, to de­liver letters to the public, but the letter-carrier

receives an equivalent half-day during the week. The junior letter-carriers do duty 011 alternate Saturdays, working two and a half hours each, viz., two from 2 to 4.30 p.m., and two from 4.30 to 7 p.m., this arrangement having been adopted as it was thought it would be much easier for them than if two or three were required to work the whole of the afternoon. The receipt, sort­ing, and despatch of . mails on Saturday after­noons absolutely necessitates the utilization of the services of the letter-carriers. It is not con­sidered that the junior letter-carriers have any rea.l grievance, as some of them have much shorter hours than sorters and other officers. When they reach the higher grade, they will have a~y privileges enjoyed by the seniors."

BALLARAT WEST ELEOTORATE.

Mr. D. M. DAVIES asked the Ohief Secretary whether he intended to comply with a request made to him by certain in­habitants of Haddon to have that part of Ballarat West attached t.o the Grenville electorate?

Mr. BERRY said he presumed the hon­orable member for Grenville (Mr. Davies) referred to the Electoral Bill which had been promised, and which would be sub­mitted to the House in due course. So far, the Government had not the slightest in­tention to alter the boundaries of the Bal­larat West electorate.

LUNATIO ASYLUMS.

Mr. BENT inquired of the Ohief Secre­tary whether Dr. Tucker had sent him a report as to the state of the Victorian lunatic asylums, and, if so, when?

Mr. BERRY said he had never received any report from Dr. Tucker. A letter marked" private," addressed by Dr. Tucker to the late Under-Secretary, Mr. Odgers, had been found in the department, and this he had forwarded, with a memo., to the Lunacy Oommission.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BOUNDARY. Mr. BENT asked the Chief Secretary

(in the absence of the Minister of Lands) whether the rents to be derived from the disputed territory on the South Australian border were to be divided-as stated in the ATg1tS newspaper of the 15th August­between South Australia and Victoria?

Mr. BERRY replied that the Govern­ment did not intend to divide with South Australia the money received as rent for land immediately east of the South Aus­tralian boundary line.

THE POLIOE. Mr. CONNOR asked the Chief Secretary

when the police would be provided with overcoats? Twelve months had elapsed

748 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

since overcoats were promised, and, con­sidering the cold winter, there was no doubt they ought to be issued, particularly to those members of the force who had to perform night duty. Mounted troopers in country districts also stood in need of them.

Mr. BERRY stated that 100 overcoats had been issued to the police, and 100 more were due from the contractors, and would be issued as soon as received.

LIOENSING (PUBLIC-HOUSES) LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

EWHTH NIGHT'S DEBATE.

The debate on Mr. Berry's motion for the second reading of this Bill, and on Mr. Bent's amendment that the Bill be read a second time "this day six months" (ad­journed from the previous evening), was resumed.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Mr. Speaker, wIlen the Chief Secretary initiated the discus­sion on this Bill, he informed the House that there wa.s occasion for the measure. I ask honorable members to look back on tbe history of the colony, and find, if they can, any evidence in support of that statement. What public outcry is there for any change in the existing law? The evidence is all the other way. In 1884, it being underst.ood that the Govern­ment were about to deal with the licensing law, deputations from various bodies­including the Back Slums Committee, re­presentatives of the Church of England, and the licensed victuallers-waited upon the Chief Secretary; and this is all that can be alleged in justification of the statement that there is a great public outcry in favour of thi!3 Bill. Not only is there no public outcry, but the public are indifferent, care­less, and altogether unconcerned as to the operation of the existing law; from which we may reasonably draw the inference that the people don't require any change, and that politicians alone have brought the sub­ject into unnecessary prominence. The first notable Act with reference to public-houses in Australia was the Act 3rd vVilliam IV, No.8, pa.ssed in 1833, and by that Act, for the first time, the accommodation of public­houses in Australia was defined. It was to consist of two sitting rooms and two sleeping rooms. VI{ e have got into the habit of using the nasty expression" bed-rooms," but from 1833 to 1864-a period of thirty years--the accommodation required was" two sitting rooms and two sleeping rooms." In 1870, the Legislature imposed the condition that there should be six rooms-without

stating how they should be classified­in addition to the accommodation required for the use of the family. The honorable member for Oreswick (Mr. Wheeler) re­ferred, last night, to the high licence-fees which were at one time imposed, but I think he fell into an error. The high licence-fees came into existence in 1854, but they were dropped in 1857. The results were found so dangerous to the community at large that the publican's liceuce-fee was reduced to £25 per annum, at which it has remained ever since, with the exception made in fa\rour of special areas within which the licence-fee is £10. The Attorney-General, when he addressed the House, submitted a very proper question-'Vhat is the state of the existing law? I \lndertake to say that many honorable members have not read the ex­isting Act carefully; and several honorable members have informed me that they have not read the Bill, and that they don't intend to do so. The Attorney-General said-

"'When I came to consider this question, with the other members of the Government, I read carefully over the existing law, and I pnt to my­self the question-' With the very comprehensive provisions which are now on our statute-book, what is the reason that this Act has failed' ?"

Here is an admission that the existing law is comprehensive. Then how comes it that the Government have not seen to the en­forcement of the law? Is the existing law to be enforced only by passing a more strin­gent law? Surely that is an absurdity on the very face of it. Who has to enforce the law relating to Sunday trading, and the selling of liquor arter hours? The police, of necessity, are the persons to lay informa­tion; but if, under the stringent conditions of the existing law, policemen will not allow themRelves to be turned into mere spies­to be degraded in their OWll esteem and that of their fellow men, by bringing ruin on people engaged in the liquor trade-does any sane man suppose that, under the new drast.ic provisions, constables will be found to bring up a publican for Sunday trading with the knowledge that a third conviction ipso facto forfeits the man's licence and ruins him and his familv? Neyer. You cannot compel them to ~do it. The real reason of the failure of the existing law is that it is too seyere. Therefore it follows that to attempt to make the law more severe is to ensure further failure. Under the old laws of England the punishment of death was illfliuted for a vcry tririal offence. For stealing 55. from the person, or for stealing property of the value of 408. from a house, the punishment was death. Alld

Second Reading. [AUGUST 19.J Eighth Night's Debate. 749

what WfiS the result? 'Vhy that persons who were really guilty of breaches of the law were never prosecuted, because the pe­nalty was so severe. Now the penalty to which this Bill will subject publicans is death in the sense that

"You take my life When you do take the means whereby I live."

How then can we escape from this definite conclusion that, in the nature of things, severe laws defeat themselves ? We find this the case in V\T ales, where public-houses have to be rigidly closed on Sunday, al­though in England they are open for certain hours on that day. According to the Law Times, the Sunday closing of public-houses in vVales has been a gigantic failure. Now I will take the Bill in my hand, and, contrasting it with the existing law, I will prove incontestably that the ex­isting law is better than the proposed law; that the existing law tends to prevent in­crease in the consumption of drink, whereas the Bill will help to increase it. I will prove to the satisfaction of every honorable member who takes the trouble to listen to the debate that the Bill is the hugest drinking Bill ever submitted to this House. Under the existing law, grocers' licences can be opposed; they have been opposed, and they have been refused; but under the Bill they cannot be opposed. All kinds of licences can be opposed under the existing law, but no kind of licence can be opposed under the Bill except the publican's. Under these circnmstances, I ask whether honor­able members consider this fair or reasonable legislation? I assert that the Bill is a Bill to aggrandize a.nd inordinately enrich those who sell by the cask and by the bottle, and to degrade and impoverish those who sell by the glass. The Attorney-General has taken the Bill on trust; I will not do him the in­justice to say he has not read the measure, but he has not read it carefully. Under the existing law, all persons who obtained licences prior to the passing of the Act of 1876 are entitled to the renewal of their licences in the ordinary way, subject to objections. This is shown most conclu­sively by the 2nd and 31st sections of the Act. Section 2 says-

"The AcLs mentioned in t.he 1st schedule shall be and t~e same are hereby repealed except as to anythlllg' duly done, any right acquired."

These tbree magical words "any riO'bt ac­quired" n,re dropped out of clause 2°of the Bill. Then, again, section 31 of the Act of 1876 provides as follows:-

" N othin g in the next preceding section­SES. 1885.-3 I

That is the section providing that the ac­commodation in each public-house shall be "not less than six rooms besides the rooms occupied by the family of the applicant." "shall affect any licence granted prior to the commencement of this Act or any renewal or transfer thereof if the accommodation afforded by the licensed premises be maintained at the standard heretofore required."

The " standard heretofore required" is men­tioned in section 19 of the Act of 1864, which is as follows:-

"N 0 certificate authorizing the issue of a pub­lican's licence shall be granted in favour of the holder of any house unless the same shall at the time of granting such certificate contain at least two sitting rooms and two sleeping rooms, each of which shall be ready and fit for public accom­modation, independent of the rooms occupied by the applicant and his family."

The Bill contains no provision correspond­ing to the 31st section of the Act of 1876. Under that section the" rights already ac­quired" were saved; but by this Bill every one of those rights is swept away.

Mr. KERFERD.-No. Read clause 41.

Mr. GAUNSON.-That clause says-"The owner, if the occupier, or the owner and

occupier (as the case may be), of any licensed victualler's premises which do not contain the accommodation required by this Act may sur­render the licence thereof."

But are theiL' rights kept alive? Mr. KERFERD.-Yes. Mr. GAUNSON.-No; they may be

surrendered, but they cannot be kept alive; whereas the Act of 1876 says that publicans shall be entitled to tl1eir renewals. Let me now call attention to clause 30, of which I must say that a more infamous piece of legislation was never attempted. A return which has been furnished to the House at my instance shows that the number of public-houses within ciHes, towns, and boroughs, containing less than six rooms licensed under the Act of 1864, which licences are preserved and kept alive by the Act of 1876, is 223. But clause 30 will sweep away everyone of those houses in­stanter. A more monstrous, a more unjust, or a more scandalous piece of attempted confiscation bas never yet been brought before Parliament. It is provided, by clause 40, that if an occupier chooses to bring up his house to the standard required by the inspectors of licensed premises, although the owner may object, the owner is to get no rent until the tenant is reimbursed, so that a tenant may be in possession for a life-time without paying further rent. Is not that brilliant? Is it not really magnificent? According to the Chief Secretary, there are

750 Licensing (Public-house8) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

1,108 public-houses which have less than six rooms.

Mr. MIRAMS.- Less than six bed­rooms?

Mr. GAUNSON.-Less than six rooms. It is only since 1870 that it has been requisite to have six rooms, and it has never been 8tn,ted what those rooms should consist of. Clause 30 provides as follows:-

" No victualler's licence shall be granted or renewed in respect of any house in any city, town, or borough unless such house has . . . for public accommodation not less than six bed­rooms besides the rooms occupied by the family and servants of the applicant . . . nor unless every room so required for public accommoda­tion contains at least 1,200 cubic feet, and be not less than nine feet in height, and so construe-ted as freely to admit light and air j nor unles~ such house be shown to be a well-appointed and sufficient eating-house."

Iii will be seen that the Government have changed the grand old word "publican" for "victualler," and that they have in­serted a little contemptible provision about eating apparently to meet the complaint, set forth in the papers which have been circulated, of Mr. John Phelan, who, it seems, went somewhere in the country dis­tricts and asked for food, and did not get it. That is the foundation for this drastic legis­lation. The clause also requires a house to be "substantially constructed of durable materials," and the rooms to be " furnished and divided by partitions of stone, brick, or plaster." Under this 'provision there would be hundreds of houses in Melbourne and the suburbs, and other places in the colony, that would instantly come in for compensa­tion, and the amount that would be required would be at least balf a million, and pro­bably a great deal more. To show some of the absurdities of this Bill, let me refer honorable members to the grocers' licence, as provided for under clause 8, and ask them to contrast it with the grocers' licence under the corresponding section of the existing Act. Having done so, they will see the ludicrous blunder into which the draftsman has fallen in giving the form of {L grocers' licence in the schedule. Before entering into this, however, I wish to say that I am not in favour of siding with the teetotallers to abolish the grocers' licence. I do not believe in that unholy alliance to pull down the grocers, in order that after­wards the grocers and the teetotallers may combine to pull down the publican. Take section 8 of the Act and compare it with clause 8 of the Bill. The Act says-

" A grocers' licence shall authorize the licensee, being also *" spirit merchant, to sell and dispose

of on the premises therein specified liquor in bottles containing not less than a reputed pint."

N ow mark that the following words are dropped out of the Bill:-" and in quautities not exceeding two gallons to be taken away in anyone day by anyone person."

Mr. BERRY.-What is the good of the words? The licences must be held by the same party.

Mr. GAUNSON.-The Chief Secretary need not attempt to throw dust in my eyes. For excise purposes the grocer must have a spirit merchant's licence, but he is not per­mitted to sell as a spirit merchant.

Mr. BERRY.-Yes. Mr. GAUNSON.-Then what is the

meaning of the section-and remember that the Bill which became the Act of 1876 was a mnch better considered Bill than this one. The Act of 1876 was drafted by Dr. Madden along with the Attorney-General.

Mr. GILLIES.-That is a mistake. Mr. GAUNSON.-All I can say is that,

if he did not draft it, the Government of the day had the advantage of his counsel and assistance.

Mr. KERFERD.--He never saw a line of it.

Mr. GAUNSON.-I do not know who drew this Bill, but I will show what a lovely Bill it is. The schedule giving the form of a grocers' licence under clause 8 follows the form of the existing Act, and contains the following:-

" Now I hereby declare that the said is licensed to sell and dispose of liquor in bottles on such premises, so that such liquor shall not be drunk in or near to such premises, and so that no less quantity than a bottle (such bottle to contain not less than a reputed pint) and no greater quantit, than two ~allons shall be sold or disposed of.'

N ow there is not a word in the 8th clause of the Bill limiting the maximum that a grocer may sell. He can sell 20 gallons or 200 gallons. The draftsman, by merely copying the form in the existing Act, has fallen into an absurd error. But this is not half so bad as what remains behind. Clause 74 of the Bill provides that where liquor is supplied to persons under the age of 16 years the seller is liable to a penalty, but in clause 114 the draftsman has copied the present age of 12 years. That is an­other illustration of the absurdity of this Bill. I will now show that the scope and design of the Bill is to prevent grocers, or anybody except licensed victuallers, being opposed in applying for licences, and to im­pose penalties on licensed victuallers f01'

Second Reading. [AUGUST 19.] Ez'ghth Night's Debate. 751

offences for-which no penalty is imposed on the licensed grocer. Under the existing law every licensed person who exposes for sale adulterated liquor is properly,punish­able, and that is continued by the Bill. But under the existing law a person who has once been so punished is liable to have a placard set up on his premises containing a statement of his offence, while under the Bill this provision is carefully made to apply only to publicans. Oan honorable members conceive anything more grotesque in its barbarity, or more grossly unfair in its favoritism ? Now for the proof of this, as these things can only be proved technically, and I challenge the Minister of Railways, who is going to follow me, to contradict me on this point if he can. Under the 99th clause of this Bill, "Every person who knowingly sells or keeps or exposes for sale any liquor mixed with any deleterious in­gredient" is liable to a penalty, but under the lOOth clause it is only where a "licensed victualler" has been convicted or an offence under the preceding clause that" the officer having the command of the police in the place or district shall cause a placard stating such conviction to be affixed to the pre­mises." Now what is the existing law? I confess I have been simply astounded when I have read the Act and the Bill side by side. The 82nd section of the Act provides that" every person" who sells adulterated liquor shall be liable to a penalty, and the 83rd section provides that where" a licensed person " is convicted of an offence under the preceding section a placard is to be affixed to his premises. The words" licensed per­son," of course, include the grocer and the wine and spirit merchant, but under the Bill it is only the publican who is to have this barbarous brutality practised on him. If we go through every clause of the Bill side by side with the Act, and note where, while the Act applies to all licensed persons, the Bill applies only to licensed victuallers, it will be clearly seen that the object of the Bill is an insidious design to aggrandize and en­rich inordinately the man who sells by the cask and the bottle, to the impoverishment and degradation of the man who sells retail by the glass. I venture to say that more tlian nine-tenths of the people who have been so loud in expressing their approval of this measure have neither read the Bill nor the existing Act. I say that especially of the Anglican Bishop of Melbourne, Dr. Moorhouse, because an honorable man like him would never have lent himself, know­ingly, to an act of such gross injustice as is

3 I 2 '

attempted on the licensed pUblican for the benefit of the wine and spirit merchant and the grocer. Let me give other illustrations of this. Under the existing law every man has to make application for a licence, and everyone, except the grocer, has to affix the application to his premises and to advertise it. The grocer is relieved of the former requirement, but not of the adver­tising. The 38th section of the Act pro­vides that every person can be opposed on asking for a new licence or for a renewal; but under the Bill the only person who can be opposed is the licensed victualler. What do honorable members think of that?

Mr. KERFERD.-By clause 34 of the Bill, the licensing court has exclusive juris­diction over "the granting or refusing of all licences authorized to be issued under the provisions of this Act."

Mr. GAUNSON.-But the court can't act. Under another clause of the Bill there is power of opposing licences, and the court cannot do anything of its own motion. Let us look at the difference between the Bill and the existing law. The existing law provides that the licensing bench may grant licences or refuse them, and shall renew licences subject to objections. Who are to make the objections? The 38th section of the Act provides for objections to the grant­ing of original licences and renewed licences. I will presently come to the clause of the Bill which is supposed to be a copy of the 38th section, and honorable members will at once see that I am not at all misleading them, but that, on the contrary, they have been misled by the Attorney-General. The 37th section of the Act provides that" every person" who may apply for a licence shall do certain things, while the 48th clause of the Bill says that "every person who desires to obtain a victualler's licence" shall do those things. The clauses of the Bill which .relate to the mode of applying for licences are the 48th, 49th, and 50th, so that the one section of the existing Act is jumbled into three clauses in the Bill. The 37th section of the Act applies to everybody, while the 48th clause of the Bill only applies to licensed victuallers. The 38th section of the Act provides that it shall be the right and privilege of any three ratepayers, or of anyone resident, to object to any applica­tion for a licence or for the renewal of a licence on certain grounds which are set out. The clause of the Bill referring to this is the 52nd, which says it shall be the right and privilege of any three ratepayers, or of anyone residel1t, to object to ~he gra~tipg

752 Licensing (Public.houses) [ASSEMBLY. J Law Amendment Bill.

or -renewal of a "victualler's" licence. So that whereas the 38th section gave the right to any three ratepayers or any single resi­dent--and also to any member of the police force-to oppose any licence, this Bill care­fully excludes all opposition, except with regard to a victualler's licence. 'Vhen I point these things out, surely the Attorney­General must, for his own reputation's sake, admit; that he has not read the Bill care­fully. If he says he has read the Bill carefully, and that all these things are de­signed, then I can only say that the in­tention must simply be to give the spirit merchant and the grocer all the business. If tha.t is the intention-and there is cer­tainly sufficient evidence to justify the con­clusion that it is-then I say the thing is monstrous, and the Bill is merely de­signed to throw dust in the eyes of the teetotallers. If the intention be to shut up half the public-houses, and to transfer the business done in the remaining half to the grocers and wine and spirit merchants, while the consumption of liquor is not redueed, what will the teetotallers gain? Why the Government themselves tell us that, whilst they are going to reduce the number of public-houses by local option, if it ever operates, it is their intention to get as much revenue from spirits and beer this year as they did last year. It follows, there­fore, ex necessitate that the amount of liquor consumed will be no less, and the only re­sult will be that those left in the trade will become inordinately rich. So that the tee­total element is really left out in the cold, deluded and befooled in a remarkable manner.

Mr. MIRAMS.-They have not deluded me.

Mr. GAUNSON.-I admit that the honorable member has always the ability to see things in their true light, and he has special ability in regard to this pa.rticular Bill to see through the gross and monstrous imposition that is attempted to be foisted upon Members of Parliament.. Let me give another illustration of the manner in which the licensed victualler is treated as com­pared with the licensed grocer or spirit merehant. It will be remembered that the information was given to honorahlemembers, and received with a considerable amount of astonishment, and I believe also with some pleasure, that these desperate characters the licensed publicans gave bills of sale, so that; the result might be, if a penalty was levied upon a publican, there would be no­thing upon which to levy. Therefore, it

was urged that the penalty should be made a first charge upon the publican's furniture, Of, in reality, on the furniture of the man who loaned the publican the money. That is carried out in the Bill, but what is done with regard to the grocer? If a penalty is levied upon a grocer, who may also have a bill of sale over him, the penalty is not made a first charge against the grocer's furniture. 'Vhat do honorable members think of that for favoritism? I am stating literal facts, which cannot be disproved, and the same principle runs through the whole Bill. I maintain, therefore, that any honorable member - I do not care who he is-who will allow his judgment fair play, must come to the conclusion that this Bill, instead of being a good Bill, is the most iniquitous measure that was ever presented for the acceptance of free men. Take another illustration. The 46th sec­tion of the existing Act provides that when the licensing magistrates refuse an applica­tion for a licence or a renewal they "shall, at the time of such refusal, make known the objection or objections causing such refusal." That is a very proper provision, which is a sort of beacon-light to magistrates not to exercise their discretion in an arbitrary manner-in a manner not bounded by law. 'Vhat will honorable members sav when I tell them that this provision is l;ft out of the Bill? Does not the w bole thing go to show that the design is to ruin the trade of the publican for the benefit of the wine and spirit merchant who supplies the grocer? The merchant who supplies the licensed victualler is a horse or an entirely dif­ferent colour. Another curious thing is that clauses 61 and 62 of the Bill re-enact sect.ion 50 of the existing Act only in part. Section 50 provides that, in case of the decease or in sol vency of a licensed person before the expiration of his licence, his executors or administrators, assignees, or trustees may carryon the business, and in the event of luuacy the business may be carried on undeI: c~rtain conditions. In the event of marriage by a female holding a licence, _the section provides that the licence shall be transferred to her husband. 'Vhat is done in the Bill? ,\lith respect to a licensed victualler's business the provision is much the same, but if a licensed wine merchant, or grocer, or colonial wine licensee becomes a lunatic there is no provision as to how his business is to be carried on. This is either a disabling 01' :1n enabling clause. If it is taken as a dis:1bling clause, tlieprovisions rela~ing toa licensed victualler

Second Reading. [AUGUST 19.] Eigi~dt Night's Debate. 753

are not extended to a licensed wine merchant or licensed grocer. If it is intended as an enabling clause-as something for the bene­fit of the publican-why do the Government not make it a.pplica.ble to the grocer and the wine mel'cha.nt a.lso ? This is only another instance of the imperfect and absurd way in which the Bill has been drafted all through. I desire now to call special attention to the 40th cla.use of the Bill, which deals with the rights of landlord and tenant. Before doing so, I may state my views about land­lords of public-houses. I hold that, as you interfere with the common-law right of an individual to sell anything he pleases by saying he shall not sell liquor without a licence, on the same principle you can and ought to interfere with the owners or licensed premises, place them under the dominion or the licensing court, and say to them-" You shall not ask too much rent for your houses." The exor­bitant rent charged comes out of the pockets of the people, because, on account of those rents, every time we go into an hotel we get either a less quantity or an inferior quality of liquor. Then a monstrous system exists with regard to the renewal of leases under which bonuses are exacted by the landlord. Those bonuses ma.y be illega.I, but hitherto tenants ha.ve put up with the exaction rather than fight it. Having thus cleared myself from any suspicion of speaking in the in­terests of the landlords, I have no hesitation in saying that the 40th clause of the Bill in a most monstrous way obliterates completely the rights of the landlord. The clause is as follows:-

"Where the occupier of any licensed victual­ler's premises is not the owner thereof,-

In other words, where he is only a tenant. "and is not under covenant or agreement wi.th the owner to do any or all of the matters which any s~ch inspector is authorized to require such occupIer to do under the provisions of this Act,-

Namely 1 to put up six bed-rooms-I don't know h6w many sitting-rooms. " in. that case the owner shall pay to such oc­cupIer any money expended by him in that be­half in doing matters which he had not cove­nanted or agreed with such owner to do and in default such occ:upier shall, in addition' to any other remedy WhICh he may have, be entitled to retain possession of the premises at the saIlle rental-

Although there are extra rooms put up at the expense of the landlord. "he was paying at the time the expenditure was incurr.ed, until the rent accruing is sufficient to repay hIm the mon.ey expended as aforesaid· and such rent may be retained by him, and th~

authority of this Act shall be an answer to any action by the owner for the recovery of the same."

Mr. MIRAMS.-It does not provide for an increase of the rent in proportion to the increased value of the premises.

Mr. GAUNSON.-I have just pointed that out. The clause provides that, if the occupier carries out the requirements of the inspector and erects say four extra bed­rooms, the owner is not to get any increased rental for the increased expenditure, and, if he does not pay the expenditure, the tenant may keep his property until the whole thing is worked out. A more monstrous, unjust, crude, and absurd piece of legislation I have never seen. And mark what an extraor­dinary result may follow from the local option vote in cases of this kind. Take the 223 houses within cities, towns, and boroughs which do not contain six Bed­rooms-not to speak of the many more which may have six bed-rooms, but not par­titions of the character required by this measure. Suppose that, in each of these 223 houses, four extra bed-rooms are put up, to comply with the measure, what may happen? The very next year the local option vote may wipe them out of existence, and the public treasury has to pay the whole of the increased expense for nothing. Did honorable members ever contemplate such an absurd result as that-the result of ill­considered, ill-digested, hasty legislation? Who is insisting that the present law shall be carried out? Where do you find the public outcry that it is not carried out, ex­cept from a very few? It is not by any means the biggest instruments that produce the greatest noise. We know that the shrill screeching fife will drown the music of the most harmonious band; and so my friends, the teetotallers, by reason of their howlings and diatribes, make a tremendous row. But the complaint does not come from the public, and what is the proof of this? The Attorney-General asks-" With such a comprehensive measure on the statute-book, how has it proved a failure?" The answer is very simple. The law has been so severe that the public will not put it in force. Have I not read the 38th section of the Act, which says that it shall be the right of anyone resident to object to the renewal of a licence, and, if these houses were badly conducted or not required in the neighbour­hood, I venture to say that that objection would be taken? The inference I draw is that, as the public do not move in the matter they are perfectly satisfied. The honorabl~

754 Licensing (P'ltblic-lwuseB) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amendment Bill.

member for Portland said he was astonished that the licensing benches had failed to put the law in force, and the Chief Secre­tary and the Attorney-General practically said the same thing. But what is the reason for that? The reason is simply this -that the bench cannot move of its own accord. Its hands are tied-it has no power to act 011 its own motion. Neither can it move under this Bill, unless the people put it in motion. Provision is made in the existing Act for objections to licences, and until those objections come before the licens­ing bench, so that the parties making the objections may be answerable for costs if the objections are frivolous, the bench can­not move hand or foot. It can do nothing, and righteously so too, because it would be a most improper thing in a British court of justice that the court should be the prosecutor. The honorable member for Portland cannot have read the Act, or he would not require that I should point this out to him. Seeing that these are the reasons why the existing law has not been put in force, surely it follows that you can­not expect anything better under this new measure. I have a great deal more matter in connexion with the Bill which I would like to touch, but I am anxious to conciliate the good opinion of my fellow members by not taking up more time than I can possibly help. l can assure honorable members that, if I were to continue going through the Bill in the way I have been doing, it would take me until Wednesday next to finish my re­marks. There is just one little matter I want to refer to, because I do not want to be accused of bringing forward anything I cannot substantiate. In my first observa­tions upon the speech of the Chief Secre­tary in initiating this Bill, I stated that this legislation reminded me of the legisla­tion oJ: the reign of James I, and I think all honornble members who took the trouble to understand me followed me in this respect -that, inasmuch as the same Parliament, under the same monarch, which passed legis­lation of this kind was also found passing Acts of Parliament to punish witchcraft­to impale and burn poor lunatic women under the name of witches-I suggested that we might gauge the ability of the legislators of those times, and that, as they llad failed, so we might expect to fail. I described James I as a beast, and, in order to show that I was not wrong in that state­ment-to which the honorable member for Moira (Mr. Hall) took exception-I will read two short extracts from a work called

Mr. Gaunson.

Sto1'iesfrom the State Papers, published in 1882, by Mr. Ewald, an employe in the Record Office, and a man of considerable repute. The extracts appear in a chapter headed-" The Perished Kernel," a fanciful title derived from the statement of Sir Francis Bacon, when prosecuting the Coun­tess of Somerset for the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury, that" there is no pome­granate so fair or sound but may have a perished kernel." Mr. Ewald says-

"1t was known that James, who piqued him­self upon being indifferent to the fair sex, was strangely susceptible to handsome looks and a graceful figure in young men." This statement is carefully veiled, but hon­orable members will have no difficulty in understanding what the writer means. He says, further on-

" The first Stuart on the English throne was a true son of the vicious beauty, his mother. He was a hard, cruel, weak, degraded creature. In the opinion of several of his sober contempo­raries, he was addicted to heathenish practices." vVhat those practices were, I need not ex­plain further than to say that he was guilty of a horrible crime now punished with death, and, in the language of the law books, " not fit to be named amongst Christians." I think, therefore, I was justified in calling him a " beast." The honorable member for Moira fills under the Government the position which was formerly held by a gentleman who filled it very ably, and who worked for his party for at least twenty months gratuit­ously after they went out of office. That gentleman, who was esteemed on both sides of the House, and universally respected, has been supplanted by the honorable member for Moira, who thought fit to devote the whole of his speech to a commentary on my first remarks on this Bill. There were only two or three items in the honorable member's speech which impressed themselves upon my memory. The first was that he referred to the barmaids, and he described by a quota­tion these girls, who are very much to be pitied, and who have to earn their own liveli­hood very hardly, as "a low lot." He added, however, that circumstances had recently com­pelled him to say that there were some very proper young women amongst the barmaids. He also told us that upon some past occa­sion he had been outraged to the extent of 3d. by being overcharged in the premises of a licensed publican, and that the barmaid there subsequently had said-" Mr. Hall is a mean man, and if he had told the truth instead of saying that he had a cup of coffee he would have said that he had a glass of beer." Judging from the doctrine

Second Reading. [AUGUST 19.J . Eighth Night's Debate. 755

of probabilities, which lawyers always take into account, the honorable member for Moira must not be surprised if, when there is only statement against statement, and hav­ing regard to the place, circumstances, and surroundings, people will prefer to believe the barmaid. While referring to the subject of barmaids, I may point out that the At­torney-General spoke in a very extraordinary and contradictory way indeed with respect to barmaids. In the first place he said­" We do not propose to interfere with any person who is earning her livelihood as a barmaid," but only a few sentences after­wards he said-" While existing barmaids are not interfered with, we lay down the broad principle that the calling is not one in which females should be employed." If that. is the "broad principle" of the Bill, why does he not turn out the barmaids instantly? If it is a "broad principle" that the calling is one in which females should not be employed, on what principle does the Attorney-General permit these young girls, whose souls, as I understand him, are being irrevocably lost by pursuing this calling, to remain in it one moment longer? Surely the honorable gentleman's statements are very contradictory indeed; and, moreover, his argument is a very bad one. Do not honorable members see that the instant you say that this calling is not fit for a young woman to be in, that moment you say that the licensed victualler himself is pursuing an improper calling?

Mr. WOODS.-There is no parallel. Mr. GA UNSON.-If it be an unfit

calling for a young woman, are you going to draw the line at the employe, and say it is a fit calling for a woman who is the daughter or the wife of a licensed victualler? If it be unfit for women to be employed as barmaids, it is because the publican's trade is a low­clas~ business, into which women ought not to be drawn under any circumstances.

Mr. WOODS.-Nonsense. Mr. GAUNSON.-The publican feels

that the prohibition of barmaids is an insult levelled against him as following a degrad­ing occupation, and there is no getting away from this conclusion. An honorable mem­ber has supplied me with a book called The Night Side of London, written from an evangelical point of view, and containing an account of a midnight meeting at which an address was delivered by the Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel. The meetillg was attended by 422 women who had fallen into vice, and it appeared that only one of them had been a barmaid. Could there be a stronger tribute

than that to the fact that the occupation of a barmaid is not one which necessarily leads to vice? Out of the 422 women, 320 had been domestic servants. I will not pur­sue the matter further. I am not going to throw stones. I am simply giving a plain statement of fact. I feel convinced that the Chief Secretary, before he introduced the Bill, must have been studying literature, and especially the literature of comic opera. His motif, as theatrical people say, for bringing in the Bill, must have been derived from Gilbert and Sullivan's latest comic opera, " The Mikado," the leading idea of which is the morality of the Mikado, and the import­ance of saving those young creatures who cannot take care of themselves. The Mikado comes on the stage and sings-

"My morals have been declared particularly correct."

Having made this proclamation, he con­tinues to sing, accompanied charmingly by a chorus-

" I'm a true philanthropist; It is my very humane endeavour

To make. to some extent, Each evil liver a running river

Of harmless merriment."

One of the nobles of the Japanese Court, Pish-Tush,declares the Mikado's benevolent and philanthropic desire for the morality of the community to be as follows:-

"Our great Mikado, virtuous man, When he to rule our land began,

o Hesolved to try A plan whereby

Young men might best be steadied. " So he decreed, in words succinct,

That all who flirted, leer'd, or wink'd (Upless connubially link'd) Should forthwith be beheaded.

" This stern decree you'll understand Caused great dismay throughout the land,

For young and old, And shy and bold,

Were equally affected. " The youth who winked a roving eye,

Or breathed a non-connubial sigh, Was thereupon condemned to die. He usually objected."

This just about describes the position ill which barmaids are to be placed by the Bill. Their occupation is not to be de­stroyed as far as they are concerned; their vested rights are not to be injured; but they are clearly to understand that if they con­tinue to pursue their occupation the Chief Secretary will not esteem them very moral young women.

Mr. WOODS.-Oh! Mr. GAUNSON.-I am not now deal­

ing with the Shops Commission, because we know that their reputation for morality is established. It would simply be painting

the lily, or gilding refined gold, to say one word about their mornlity. They were never guilty of any peccadilloes, and the reason is not fa.r to find-they tried and could not succeed. The whole tendency of the Bill is to degrade. It has a tendency to degrade all who are connected with the liquor trade -to degrade the licensed publicans and their employes, and, at the same time, to hand over the whole of their business, as far as possible, to the spirit merchants, who supply the grocers, and to the grocers themselves. As a further proof of this, I may mention that, though the Bill provides for the taking of a local option vote to de­cide whether the number of public-houses in any district sha.ll be reduced, there is no corresponding provision to reduce the num­ber of grocers' licences, although by the Canadian Act, from which the Government profess to have copied the' Bill, there is a sta,tutory number for grocers' licences. I am not disposed to join with any party to take away existing rights-l would let every holder of a grocers' licence continue to hold it so long as he conducts the business in a proper manner-but I am for putting an end to any increase of grocers' licences. There is no necessity for an increase of publicans' licences, and there is no necessity for a decrease. Deducting the 105 public­]lOl1SeS which have been established by vir­tue of the dil'ect action of the Governor in Council, there are less public-houses now than there were when the existing law first came into operation, while the population has increased by nearly 200,000. The num­ber of grocers' licences has increased, but the publicans have not increased except in the way I have mentioned. I think I have mnde out my case so clearly and so conclu­sively that no honorable member would consider me justified in voting for the seeond reading of so iniquitous a measure as the one now under our consideration.

Mr. GlLLIES.-Mr. Speaker, I confess I am very much surprised that honorable m«3mbers, in debating an important Bill like this, should confine nearly the whole of their remarks to matters of detail, which are really questions to be discussed in committee. The greater portion of the speech of the honorable member who has just resumed his seat was devoted to the consideration of mere details. The honorable member did not think fit to deal with the leading prin­c'iples or the Bill. It has been stated during the debate that the Bill was introduced with­out any hope on the part of the Government of it passing, and it has also been asserted

Law A mendment }Jill.

by some honorable members that it is essen­tially a Rill for the purpose of catching votes. Now, whatever design the Goyern­ment had in introducing the measure, I ven­ture to say that it could not possibly be to catch votes. A Licensing Bill can never be a Bill of that character. No Government could introduce a Bill to amend the licensing law in the expectation that they would catch votes from the two extreme parties. It would not be possible for any Government to introduce a Licensing Bill which, on the one hand, would obtain the united support of the licensed victuallers and those in­terested in their trade, and, on the other hand, would receive the support of the ex­treme party of the teetotallers. When I introduced the Licensing Bill in 1876, it was perfectly well known that it was a com­promise between the extreme parties, and no proposed amendment of the licensing law can very well be anything else than a com­promise if there is to be any hope of getting it placed on the statute-book. The present Bill is a compromise. It is useless to talk of it in any other terms, or to shut our eyes to the fact. But while it is a compromise between two extreme parties, holding totally different views in regard to the liquor traffic, it at the same time proposes very material and important alterations in the existing law. Many honorable members have said that all that is wanted is a few alterations in the existing law. Well, that is what is proposed by the present measure. The Bill takes the existing law as its basis, and proposes certain alterations, which, I believe, will make a very valuable reform in the law. The principle that under­lies the whole of the Bill, so far as the new portion of it is concerned, is the prin­ciple indicated in the Governor's speech to Parliament at the beginning of this session, and also at the beginning of last session, namely, that it is desirable to reduce the number of public-houses. If that is acknow­ledged, nearly all the new propositions con­tained in the Bill follow as amatterof course. I do not say that there may not be differ­ences of opinion on matters of detail-it is impossible to get everybody to agree as to matters of detail-but I assert that if the principle laid down in the Bill, that it is desirable to reduce the number of public­houses, is conceded, nearly all the llew pro­positions contained in the measure follow as a matter of course. What are thoseproposi­tions? If the number of public-houses has to be reduced, somebody must determine by what number they shall be reduced, and the

Second Readt'ng. [AUGUST 19.J Eighth Night's .Debate. 757

Govcrnment propose to follow the old lines, and declare that the ratepayers are the proper persons to determine that question. While the Bill is framed with the avowed object of reducing the number of public-houses, and gmnting the ratepayers the power to say by how many tIley shall be reduced, it recog­nises [mother important principle, namely, that a limit shall be placed on the power of thc rntepayers-that is to say, that the number of public-houses shall not be reduced below a certain given number, which is called the statutory number. Why is that provi­sion inserted? Because the Bill does not go in for prohibition. If it went in for pro­hibition, there would be no statutory number fixed; but, inasmuch as it does not pretend to go in for prohibition, or to grant the rate­payers power to sweep away the whole of the public-houses, there is provision that the power given to the ratepayers to reduce the number or public-houses can be exercised only within a certain statutory number. The Government fix what we believe to be a fair number of public-houses to be licensed, and between that number and the number of public-houses already existing there is plenty of scope for the exercise of the authority of local option. If a statutory number is not adopted, the House must accept the extreme principle of leaving it in the hands of the ratepayers to say whether there shall be any public-houses in the colony at all or not. Assuming that the ratepayers are tIle proper· persons to determine how many public-houses there shall be in any district, within the statutory number, it is necessary to appoint a body to carry out the determination of the ratepayers, if they decide that the existing n umber of public-houses shall be red uced, and to direct which llOuses shall be closed. This is clearly a power which could not be placed in the hands of the Government of the day, and it is proposed that it shall be exer­cised by the licensing court in each district. Then the question arises whether compen­sation should be given in the case of th6se public-houses which are closed by the opera­tion of the local option principle. I have no hesitation in saying that the Govern­ment determined that they could not ask Parliament to allow the number of public­houses to be reduced without providing that fair and reasonable compensation shall be paid to the owners and licensees of those houses which are arbitrarily closed. It will be part of the duty of the licensing courts to fix the compensation to be awarded.

Mr. WOODS.-How about the statutory number?

Mr. GILLIES.~It will be matter for discussion in committee whether the pro­posed statutory number shall be increased or otherwise. It 11a s been asserted by some honorable mem bel'S that it is a gross insult to the present licensing benches to propose that they shall be abolished. I have not a word to say a.gainst the character or con­duct of the members of the present licensing benches, but the serious powers proposed to be exercised by the courts to be appointed under the Bill could not properly be grantecl to the present licensing benches. The Go­vernment feel that it is necessary to create a totally new body-in fact, an important court-for the purpose of exercising the functions set out in the Bill.

Mr. MASON.-Is there not to be more than one licensing court?

Mr. GILLIES.-There is nothing to prevent a dozen courts being a.ppointed. The measure provides that there shall be one court for each licensihg district. It is true that the Bill does not define how the courts shall be constituted, but, after dis­cussion in committee, honorable members, I think, will have very little difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to what should be the constitution of the courts. That, however, is a matter which may fairly be left to be discussed in committee. There are very few honorable members who have taken part in this debate who do not admit that there is a necessity for reducing the number of public-houses. I wish again to repeat that, if this principle be conceded, most of the new propositions contained in the Bill follow as a matter of course. Some honorable members have spoken as bitterly aga.inst the Bill as if it were some sort of outrage, but really it is no outrage at all. The honorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Patterson) appears to feel very strongly against the Bill, but the honorable member, in his speech, gave his assent to nearly every one of the propositions I have mentioned. The honorable member acknowledged the desirability of reducing the number of pub­lic-houses, the desirability of that being done by a system of local option, and the desira .. bility of compensation being paid in cases in which public-houses are arbitrarily closed. The honorable member also insisted, as strongly as the Bill insists, upon the de­sirability of not permitting public-houses to be open on Sunday, and of severely punish .. ing publicans who sell liquor to children or youths of less than a certain age.

Mr. BURROWES.-All that can be done under the present Act.

758 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBL Y.] Law Amendment BiU.

Mr. GILLIES.-I assure the honorable member that all these things cannot be done under the present Act. The number of public-·houses cannot be reduced under the present Act by the vote or the ratepayers in the way proposed by the Bill; compen­sation cannot be granted under the present law in. cases in which public-houses are closed;: and, moreover, nobody is at present authorized to determine which houses shall be clos.ed. The honorable member for Bal­larat vVest (Lt.-Col. Smith), while intimat­ing that he intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill, appeared to entertain very strong objections to some portions or the measure. The honorable member seemed to think that there is a serious omission in the Bill-that it does not provide a sufficiently large fund for the payment of compensation. A few years ago, the honorable member supported a Permissive Bill which proposed to enable the voters in any ~istrict to pre­vent the issue of a single publican's licence in that district-a Bill which proposed to enable the voters to sweep away all public­houses-without any compensation what­ever . Nevertheless the honorable member, last night, spoke in the strongest terms about the necessity for taking care that fair and proper compensation is paid in every case in which a public-house is closed by the local option principle. No douht an honorable member may honestly change his opinions. I have changed my opinion on some important questions, and I have had no hesitation in saying so, and stating my rea­sons for the change j but the honorable mem­ber for Ballarat West did not tell us last night that he had changed his opinion with respect to the question of compensation. A few years ago the honorable member sup­ported. a Bill under which the whole of the hotels in the colony might have been closed without payment of any compensation what­ever, and yet, forsooth, he finds fault with this Bill on the ground that it does not sufficiently provide for the payment of com­pensation in cases ill which hotels are arbi­trarily closed. It certainly does not lie in the mouth of the honorable member to com­plain of this Bill on that ground, unless he first tells us that he has changed his opinion with respect to the question of .. compensation. The same remark will apply to the honorable member for Sandhurst (Mr. Mackay), who also supported· the Permissive Bill which was introduced some years ago. A number of the provisions of the present Bill have been spoken of by some honorable members as very unfair and un-English and all that sort

of thing. Now nearly the whole of the pro­posals to which they refer are to be found in the English law. The object of them, generally speaking, is to guard against the merest quibbles in a court of justice prevent­ing substantial justice from being adminis­tered. If a pl'ima facie case is made out a.gainst a defendant he is to be called upon for his defence, and that is perfectly fair. For instance, if a man who is the licensee of one public-house is proved to have inter­fered with the business of another public­house, he is to be called upon to show that he is not interested in the profits of the second house; and surely it is not unreason­able to require him to do that, under the circumstances, when the law says that a licensed victualler shall not hold more than one licence. The honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) referred to the 100th clause, which provides that, if a licensee is found guilty of anyone of certain specified offences, and his licence is not forfeited, he shall be required to exhibit a placard in his bar stating that he has been fined and setting forth the offence for which he has been fined. This provision was for the first time placed in the Act of 1876,and it was taken from an English Act, but it was never intended to apply to grocers, and it is absurd to suppose that it should be. No doubt by the phraseology employed in the Act of 1876 it might be supposed that it was intended to apply to grocers as well as to publicans, but that is not the case in England, nor was it in­tended to be so here, and the Bill simply confines the provision to its original inten­tion, that it should apply only to publicans. A great deal was said by the honorable member for Emerald Hill about the Bill interfering with existing rights, but I ven­ture to doubt whether there is any inter­ference of the kind he referred to. As to the matter of accommodation, the existing law requires publicans to provide the accommo­dation specified in the Bill with one or two exceptions. The sanitary accommodation required by the Bill is not compulsory under the existing law, but I wUlleave honorable members to say whether it is not fair and reasonable that that accommodation should be insisted upon in connexion with every licensed public-house. As to other ac­commodation, it is quite true that there are a number of hotels in Melbourne and in other parts of the colony which have not the accommodation required by law. The 11th section of the Act of 1870 set forth what objections might be taken under that Act

Second Reading. [AUGUST 19.J Eighth Night's Debate. 759

to the renewal of a publican's licence, and one of the objections was stated to be "that the premises in question have not the ac­commodation required by the 4th section of this Statute," the accommodation mentioned in the 4th section being that the house "shall contain for public accommodation not less than six rooms, besides the rooms occupied by the family of the licensee." No doubt, as the honorable member said, these words are not in the existing Act, but I will ask the honorable member what interpretation he places on the words which are in the existing Act? The existing Act states that one of the grounds of ob­jection which may be taken to the renewal of a licence is "that the premises in ques­tion are not maintained at the required standard." What interpretation does the honorable member place on the words " the required standard"? I say that they mean the standard required by the previous Act --:..the Act of 1870-namely, that the pre­mises shall contain six rooms exclusive of those occupied by the family of the licensee. The Bill, therefore, continues the provision of tho existing law as to accommodation. It is a reasonable provision, and I don't think that any licensed victualler has any ground to complain of it. Objections have been raised to various other clauses, but most of the objections, I repeat, are matter for consideration in committee. The honor­able member for East Melbourne (Mr. Cop­pin) said a great deal about the one-bar proposal. He seemed to turn up his nose at the idea of mixing with the common crowd, and to want a bar exclusively for the" wealthy lower orders," to use the ex­pression of a distinguished gentleman. I dare say it really does not matter very much whether a public-house should be allowed to have one bar or two bars. It is not a mat­ter of great importance-I don't think it is a matter of principle-but it is a question which should be considered in committee. If the committee, after discussion, are of opinion that two bars are better than one, I don't see why the Government should insist that there shall be only one bar. An objection has been urged-I am not pre­pared to say that there may not be something in it, but it also is essentially a question for discussion in committee-that Melbourne and other large cities, but particularly Mel­bourne, should not have the same statutory number of public-houses in proportion to the population as other parts of the colony. On certain festive occasions, Melbourne, it is said, has to provide hotel accommodation

far beyond what is required for its own in­habitants, and that therefore it should not be tied down to the same statutory number of hotels as other places. There may be something in that argument; it is a per­fectly proper question to be raised in com­mittee, and for the committee to determine according to its knowledge and judgment. The Government do not desire to fetter honorable members in any way whatever in dealing fairly and honestly with the details of the Bill. It lIas also been said, and great stress has been laid on this point, that the Bill takes away the power that ratepay­ers have under the existing law of objecting to the increase of publicans' licences. Some places have been referred to as notable ex­amples of places in which it would not be fair to allow the number of public-houses to be raised to the statutory number fixed by the Bill. It will be perfectly right for hon­orable members, if they think proper, to in­sert a provision in the Bill, in committee, to guard against that being done. With respect to the objection raised by the hon­orable member for Ballarat West about the compensation fund which is to be created under the Hill, I am not quite sure that I gathered exactly what was in the honorable member's mind. The honorable member appeared to assume that the whole of the public-houses in Ballarat in excess of the statutory number will be closed right off, immediately the measure comes into opera­tion. I venture to say that is an assump­tion which is scarcely warranted; and I am perfectly certain that the average amount which the honorable member says will have tc be paid for each public-house that is closed, namely, £500, would be a ridiculous sum to pay in the case of dozens of the public-houses in that city.

Lt.-Col. SMITH.-In some cases the compensation will be a great deal more.

Mr. GILLIES.-The honorable member is assuming that some of the best houses will be closed, but I will not assume that. I think that the ratepayers will act like sensible and discriminating people, and that they will do what is fair and reasonable in the interests of the public. The honorable member must not forget that, before the licensing court can order any public-houses to be closed, the ratepayers must decide that there shall be a certain reduction in the number. I don't believe that the ratepayers will at once rush to the decision to reduce the public-houses to the very lowest num­

°ber that they can be reduced to under the measure. I think they will probably wait

760 Licensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law Amenciment Bill.

and see how the measure operates before they decide upon a sweeping reduction in the number of public-houses; but, at all events, I am perfectly certain that the licensing courts will exercise a wise discre­tion as to which houses shall be closed, that they will retain those houses most adapted to supply the wants of the district in which they are situated, and that, as a rule, the best houses will be retained. I have no fear that the ratepayers will rush in and at once arbitrarily reduce the number of public­houses to the full extent allowed by the measure.

Mr. SHIELS.-Don't you think it is more than likely that they will at once go for the statutory number?

Mr. GIL LIES.-I don't think so. I believe that, at first, they will go for a re­duction above the statutory number, but yet considerably below the existing number. The temperance party, I am satisfied, as a whole, in order that the measure may have fail' play, and that the rest of the public may not be turned against it, will be quite willing to do what is reasonable.

Lt.-Col. SMITH.-How do the Govern­ment propose to find the money to pay the compensation?

Mr. GILLIES.-It is a mistake to sup­pose that the present financial year will be affected in the slightest degree so far as the licensed houses are concerned. It is intended that the Bill shall come into operation in November next, and there must be a vote of the ratepayers taken before the end of next March. Then those licensed victuallers whose houses it is proposed to close re'quire to have notice before the end of June, so that the whole of the present financial year will expire, and no doubt a considerable time longer will elapse, before any reduction in the number of public-houses can be effected. Meanwhile a larger revenue will be derived from publicans' licences. One of the pro­posals of the Bill is to increase the licence­fees. If that is adopted, I believe that the amount received by the Treasury this finan­cial year from the licence-fees will be double the amount that is paid under the existing system. I do not think that, in coming to that conclusion, I have calculated at all unreasonably.

Lt.-Col. SMITH.-The receipts will be £(;00 less in Ballarat alone.

Mr. GILLIES.-I fancy the honorable member has not fairly followed my state­ment. My estimate is based on the differ­ence between the old and new rates of the licence-fees.

Mr. BURROWES.-But supposing the increase is not agreed to?

Mr. GILLIES.-I am speaking of the Bill as it stands, and I am anticipating that, under its provisions, the Treasurer will re­ceive next year something like £180,000 from licences instead of the something like £90,000 received last year. Of course as the number of licences is reduced the receipts from them will be diminished pro rata. What reduction there will be during the first year of the new Act I have no means of knowing. Objection has been taken to the appropriation in favour of the municipal bodies of an amount equal to their present revenue from licences being limited to five years. But surely it is the plain duty of the Government not to commit Parliament, in matters of this kind, for more than a very short period. Even with respect to the ordinary municipal endowment, every Treasurer· has to be very careful on that score. We know that every year appeals to Parliament, for pecuniary assistance, are made by t.he local bodies, and that Parlia­ment is usually inclined to deal liberally with them. Indeed, from time to time, Parlia­ment has insisted on the local bodies being handsomely dealt with. In short, the Go­vernment do not propose to treat them in any way harshly, because they know that no proposition or that character would be listened to by Parliament. I may say that when the Treasurer of the day, as Treasurer, insists on placing such a limit as this in any Bill, he must always be rather afraid that it will not be assented to. The whole question is essentially one for the House to consider in committee. It has been urged by several honorable members, who have made a great deal of the point, that with respect to establishments like Gunsler's or the Bijou, upon which large sums of money have been spent in order to provide a par­ticular kiud of accommodation, it would be very unfair and unreasonable to insist upon their being provided, in addition, with all the accommodation required under the Bill. But that, too, is a point upon which honor­able members are quite as well able as the Government are to form an opinion, and which cannot be perfectly dealt with until the Bill is. committed. The honorable member for Dalhousie raised an important question, namely, what will be the actual limits of the licensing districts? The at­tention of the Government has been closely directed to that detail, and I may say that their idea is that none of the districts should be so large that any portion of one of them

Second Readi'l7g. [AUGUST 19.J Eighth IVight's Debate. 761

would be able to swamp another portion, or so small that the population of a section of it would be able to do as they chose. No doubt it will be difficult to define the licens­ing districts, just as it will be difficult to define new electoral districts for the Legis­lative Assembly, but nevertheless the thing must be done. vVhether the Government will be in a position this session to submit a schedule of licensing districts to be added to the Bill I vel'y much doubt, but I expect they will be able to afford honorable members sufficient information on the subject to en· able them to come to a fair conclusion on the point. At all events, all the information with respect to the matter which the Go­vernment have at their disposal will be placed before them.

Mr. WRIXON.-Why not keep to the municipal districts?

Mr. GILLIES.-It is still possible that that plan may be adopted. vVe have heard a great deal about Sunday trading. Well, I will say at once that from the beginning the Government made up their minds that they would not ask Parliament to alter the law relating to Sunday trading. For my­self, I venture to think that no Government could induce Parliament to alter the law, beca.use the difference of opinion with re­gard to the subject is so great. I confess that I am personally in favour of a limited amount of Sunday trading, principally be­cause I believe that such an arrangement would dispose of a great difficulty and re­move much hardship, but I do not think that if it were proposed it would be acceded to. I do not think that 30 honorable members coulll be got to vote for it. If, then, it is impossible to obtain an alteration of the law in favour of Sunday trading, the question for the House to con­sider is-Shall the law as it stands be en­forced ? No doubt Parliament is the tribunal of the people of the colony, and could dccille that public-houses might be open for a limited perioll on Sunday, but I am COll­

vinced that if the opinion or Parliament in the matter was taken it would be found in tlle end to be that public-houses should not be open at all on Sunday.

Mr. SHIELS.-"\tVhy not let the people o[ each loca.lity decide for themselves in the matter?

Mr. GILLIES.-I don't believe that Parliament is prepared to do that. What I say is that Parliament is in favour of the law as it stands, and, that being the case, the Government must insist upon obedience to the law.· vVha.t is the complaint made by

the very best class of publicans in the co­lony ? I know some people are inclined to jeer and say that the Bill is intended to flout the publicans, but I assure them that the Government have never had any such inten­tion. They know perfectly well that the great majority of the licensed victuallers are as respectable and upright a lot as could be found in any trade. What many of the best of them urge is this-Ie We don't desire to open our houses on Sunday at all, but we are compelled in self-defence to do so." A licensed victualler said to me the other day-" If I don't open on Sunday for an hour or two to supply some of my re­gular customers, my next-door neighbour will do so and carry off my custom; but if the Government will enforce the law upon all alike, closing all the houses without fear or favour, I, for one, will not be dis­satisfied."

Lt.-Col. SMITH.-Why has that not been done before?

Mr. GILLIES.-I don't think it would be very profitable to discuss that point now. I have my own ideas on the subject. At any rate, we know tl1at hitherto there has hardly been fair play all round. One house has been closely watched Sunday after Sun­day, lest it should open its doors, while an­other house has traded almost openly every Sunday, and has never been even looked at. That is not the style in which the law should be carried out. We must deal with all alike, and I believe that, when we are prepared to enter upon a course of that kind, we shall find no great difficulty in our way. I will refer to another matter for a moment. It has been contended that enforcing the law against Sunday trading will unfairly deprive a large number of men-working men-who are in the habit of drinking beer every day in the week of the opportunity of getting it on Sunday. They will be unable to get liquor on Sunday, although any per­son living in an hotel will be able to get it. But I reply that the men who are injuriously affected ought to be the men to complain.

Mr. DERHAM.-They look to Parlia­ment to do its duty by them.

Mr. GILLIES.-I agree with that, but the honorable member must recollect that Parliament, in doing its duty, must do it according to its own lights and its own conscience. Parliament can hardly be ex­pected to do what is supposed by some people to be the right thing unless it is con­vinced-say by complaints from persons that they suffer an injustice-that it is the right thing. Does not the honorable member

762 Lzcensing (Public-houses) [ASSEMBLY.] Law A mendme1tt Bill.

know as well as I do that, as a rule, Par~ liament proposes to legislate especially for the interests of the working men? But the working men must speak out as to what they want-with respect to Sunday trading as well as to other things. The working men or the colony are not usually afraid to let their views be known. Supposing, for example, Parliament were to propose to ex­tend the hours of labour from eight hours to nine, and, at the same time, to reduce wages, would the working men be silent? VV ould we not have petition upon petition against the change pouring in upon us? Would a single day elapse without our hearing something on the subject? I say, therefore, with respect to working men being deprived or their Sunday beer, that nothing can be done in their behalf until the parties aggrieved themselves bring their grievance forward. vVhen that is done, and in a sufficient way, I venture to say there will not be ten honorable members unwilling to listen to their demands. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will admit most freely that in the Bill there are several imperfections. I don't think the honorable member for Dalhousie or the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) need labour so hard to prove that there are difficulties with regard to this or that clause. What I want the House to be satisfied about is that the new principles contained in the Bill are right and true principles,. and that they are calculated to work in the right direction. The proposi­tion is to engraft the principles I refer to on the existing law, and if, when we are in committee, honorable members point out inconsistencies to be remedied, or suggest beneficial alterations in accordance with those principles, I am convinced that the Government, and also the House generally, will strive to meet their views. For myself,

. I firmly believe that the adoption of those principles, in order that they should work with those of the existing Act, will bring about a fundamental reform which will ob­tain the hearty approval of the general public.

Mr. RIOHARDSON.-Sir, it must be very satisfactory to the House that the Min­ister of Railways has practically brought back the discussion to the measure actually before us. He has stated what the Govern­ment are prepared to concede, and I think that many objections to the measure have been wholly removed by what he has told us. Even the honorable members utterly opposed to the Bill must now be satisfied with respect to very man,. of the points cOlltained in it.

Indeed, I think it would be almost as well for us to agree to read the Bill a second time forthwith, and go into committee upon it without further delay. I quite concur with the Minister of Railways that the speeches hitherto delivered on the measure have been loaded with references to details that would be better discussed when the Speaker is not in the chair. The interest taken bv the country in the Bill ha.s been shown by the large number of public meetings held to consider it, and the numerous petitions in its favour, or partly in its favour, we have received. It is true the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) referred last night in somewhat disparaging terms to a number of those petitions, and to the way in which they were got up, a.nd it may be granted that some of them were prepared in a rather questionable manner; but, never~ theless, the whole of them may be accepted as demonstrating the extent to which the feelings of the community have been stirred up on the question. It is because so much excitement exists that so many petitions ha.ye been presented, and I don't think we would act wisely if we were to look upon any of them as unworthy of our consideration. Especially do I regard the petitions sent in from public meetings as entitled to weight. It has been asked what justification tIle Go­vernment have for introducing the Bill, and arguments have been put forward to show that there is really no necessity for it, be­cause had the existing law been properly administered it would have been found suf­ficient for all purposes. While the Minister or Railways was speaking, the honorable member for Ballarat West (Lt.-Ool. Smith) interjected a question, the effect of which was to ask why the present law had not been strictly administered; but, for myself, I think queries of that sort come too late. I think that if honorable members generally consider their own position, and also that of the Go­vernment, with proper care, they will find themselves driven to the conclusion that the Government were bound to introduce a new Licensing Bill at the present juncture. For example, when I refer to the documents published by the Licensed Victuallers' As~ sociation, I find that, two years ago, the licensed victuallers themselves formally came to an agreement as to certain amendments which they wished to see made in the present licensing law. Those amendments were for­mulated with great care, and at the last elec­tion of members of the Legislatiye Oouncil, when the association became a strong poli­tical bod!, it w~s 90n~tituted a part of their

Sec@ncl Reading. [AUGUST 19.] Eighth Night's Debate. 763

platform that the changes they desired to see effected, and which they declared would operate in the convenience of the public as well as of the trade, should be pre~sed upon the attention of the Legislature. Again, in October last, the licensed vic­tuallers' waited on the Treasurer, and made special inquiries as to when an amending Licensing Bill would be introduced, and they urged the head of the Government to include in the intended measure certain provisions which they then and there speci­fied, and which I find embodied in the Bill before us. Therefore, it may be fairly argued that the measure was brought in in obedience to the request of the licensed victuallers themselves. Besides, it should be remem­bered that, two or three years ago, this Chamber decided in favour of the principle of extended local option, with which, at the suggestion of the Government of the day, was connected the principle of compensation. The resolution then carried formed of itself an instruction to the Government to propose an amendment of the licensing law. More­over, it may be contended, as showing further justification for the action of the Government, that no set of Ministers can afford to ignore the events passing around them, or the teachings of history. The honorable member for Emerald Hill made certain statements last night as to the opera­tion of the prohibitive and local option principles, but it occurred to me while he was speaking that he was practically deny­ing the existence of a state of things which must force itself upon the notice of every Government, namely, the fact that the question of restricting the use and sale of intoxicating liquors is now attracting the attention and challenging the consideration of the whole civilized world. So much is that the case that the London Times, a newspaper of most undoubted authority, has declared that the statistics of 1iquor con­sumption and thoseof poverty, crime, lunacy, and suicide are interchangeable.

Mr. GAUNSON.-That is not so. Mr. RICHARDSON.-I know that last

night the honorable member laid before ns certain statements which I so far accf:lptedj but there are two sides to every question, and what he then put forward referred to only one side of the present question. I don't know the date of the statistics he brought out, but I may tell him that on the 26th June last the Imperial Parliament published in England, as a parliamentary document, a despatch received from a British Consul-General, and asked for by

Earl Granville, which sets forth the con­dition, with respect to the consnmption of intoxicating liquors, of Germany, France, Belgium, and other European countries; and I venture to assert that the facts con­tained in that despatch go very far to show that the dictum of the London Times is perfectly correct. I will mention some of those facts. Between 1876 and 1880 the consumption of liquor in Germany increased from ten gallons per head of the male popu­lation to fourteen gallons, and poverty and crime also increased in the same ratio. In Belgium the licensed houses open in 1850 were 53,000j in. 1880 they were 125,000j and now they are 130,000, or one to every 40 or the population. During the same period the consumption of spirits increased 66 per cent., and that of beer 15'75 per cent.; suicides increased from 54 per 1,000,000 of the population to 80 pel' 1,000,000, or about 50 per cent.; lunatics increased from 720 per 1,000,000 to 1,470 per 1,000,000, or 104 per cent.; convicts increased 135 per cent.; and workmen dying in hospitals 80 per cent.; and the Inspector-General says that four-fifths of all the crime and social misery are due to that enhanced consump­tion. At the same time the operation of the restrictive law passed in France in 1~76 has been to reduce committals from 98,000 to 60,000. I am quite aware that statistics do not always reveal the exact course of events, and ar~ often not nearly so conclusive as we would like them to be. At the same time, the results I have indicated are quite sufficient of themselves to afford reason enough for legislation in a restrictive direction. The Times article to which I have alluded has the following passage:-

" Statistics of spirit drinking are interchange­able with statistics of crime and madness. In Germany 41 per cent. of the prisoners were in gaol for acts committed under the influence of intoxication. Not quite half the 41 per cent. were habitual drunkards. An eighth of all the annual suicides in Prussia are committed under the influence of alcohol. In the Prussian States 2,016 persons are treated for delirium tremens yearly, and there are 597 cases of dipsomania. in Prussia £13,000,000 are spent annually on spirits. Spirit drinkers in North Germany waste a large amount of national wealth; they murder; they assault; they run mad; they crowd hospitals, prisons, and asylums. The habit ruins them body and soul. It devises a fatal inheritance of disease. ricketiness, and mischief that threatens successive generations. The working classes are the replenishers of the population for future moral aud physical interests. It is of more im­portance to the national welfare that the trans­missible qualities of the race should not be vitiated in those classes than in their social superiors. Germany, according to the British Consul-General, is going hard and fast to work to poison the stock at its root."

764 . Expenditure [ ASSEMBLY.] 'ltnder Loans.

I veniiure to assert that the Times would not make that statement respecting the interchangeableness of the statistics it al­ludes to if the same principle was not practically applicable to every other country. Moreover, I find in the very same issue of the newspaper in question a report of a speech of Mr. Goschen, in which he states that the restriction exercised in England from 1875 has decreased the consumption of liquor from thirteen gallons per head to ten, and paupers from 5 per cent. to 3 per cent. I do not intend these figures to be an answer to the honorable member for Emerald Hill, but rather as completing the justification the Government have for bring­ing in their Bill. As I said before, it is too late to raise any question against the Go­vernment on that ground. What we have to do is to deal with the Bill in the practical way the Minister of Rail ways adopted. I think we may fairly follow him both in spirit and manner. I look on the measure as involving one of the most sweeping changes in connexion with the licensing question we could possibly be asked to make. The honor­able member for Emerald Hill made a great point of the fact that the conditions the Bill proposes to apply to licensed victuallers will not be applicable to licensed grocers. But I beg to point out to him that the por­tion of the Bill relating to grocers' licences is practically copied from the existing Act. Inasmuch as the time for taking pri\rate members' business is approaching, and I cannot complete my remarks this evening, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to, and the debate was a,djourned until the following evening.

EXPENDITURE UNDER LOANS.

The House having gone into committee, :Ma'. DEAKIN moved-

.. That the following estimate of the expendi­ture which the Board of Land and Works pro­poses to incur during the year ending 30th June, 1886, under Loan Act No. 717, and the Applica­tion Act thereto No. 735, also Loan Act No. 805, for the undermelltioned purposes, be agreed to by the committee:-"TOWARDS ERECTION OF THE HOUSES OF PARLIA­

MENT AND OF THE LAW COURTS.

Towards superstructure of west front Parliament Houses ... £23,613

"OPENING OF TI-IE ENTRANCE TO TIm GIPPSLAND LAKES.

Tow3,rds piers at new entrance, excava-tion of new channel, and other works 40,000 " W ARl~NAMBOOL HARBOUR IlIlPROVElIIENT

WORKS.

Towards viaduct, breakwater, and other harbour works ... ... .:. ... 40,000

"BELFAST HARBOUR IlIlPROVElIlENT WORKS.

Towards dredging River Moyne, remov­ing reefs in same, and other harbour works ... £10,200

II PORTLAND HARBOUR hlPROVElIlENT WORKS.

Towards breakwater, pier for the pro­tection of vessels, and other harbour works 20,000

II TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSES OF PARLIAlIIEN'r.

Towards superstructure of west front of the Parliament Houses ... 25,000

"FORTHE ERECTION OF STATE-SCHOOL BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT THE COLONY.

For erecting State-school buildings, in­cluding the amount required for re­paying into the consolidated revenue sums advanced therefrom under authority of the vote under division No. 66, subdivision I5!, of the Appro-priation Act 1884-5 75,000

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

AUSTRALIAN EXEOUTORS AND TRUSTEES ASSOOIATION BILL.

Mr. PATTERSON moved the second reading of this Bill. He said-Mr. Speaker, the object of this Bill is to confer upon the Australian Executors and Trustees Associa­tion Limited, of which Mr. J. C. Tyler, who was formerly Assistant Commissioner of Oustoms, is manager, similar powers to those which were conferred by an Act passed in 1879, on the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company, of which Mr. W. Temple­ton is the respected managing director. The legislation of 1879 was regarded then as ex­perimental, but time has proyed it to have supplied a really great public want. The Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company has been a pronounced success, arising purely from the preference which the public have for placing such important matters as the execution and administration of estates of deceased persons in the hands of responsible and properly authorized persons. We all know how often the duties of executors and trustees have been discharged in a very unbusiness-like manner. The usual custom is to select relations or intimate friends to fill the office-in many cases persons of ad­vanced age, whose demise probably follows closely on that of the testator, in which event the administration of the estate passes into other hands altogether from those which the testator originally contemplated. The ad­vantage of having a company to manage an estate in preference to an individual is be­ginning to be fully appreciated. The law has been in force for Rome time at the Oape of Good Hope; and the operation of the system here is being eagerly studied by persons in

Australian Exec~dol's and [AUGUST] 9. ] Trustees Association Bil'l. 765

the old country, who are anxious that a similar system shall be adopted there, al­though in England, where testators have a long line of relations to choose from, the difficulties connected with the finding of suitable persons to act as executors or administrators are not so great as they are here. However, the perpetration of fraud on the part of individuals acting as trustees or executors has not been an unfrequent thing. Then, again, trustees are often ap­pointed without any capacity whatever, while others who are induced to consent to undertake the duty are soon anxious to be relieved from it. This shows the advantage of having the work of trustees and executors performed by a company, which has at com­mand sufficient capital to afford the greatest possible security, and officers of special know­ledge and ability in the work of administering estates. One feature of the Bill is that it will enable the company to take o"Ver estates which have already been partially adminis­tered; and I don't see why an executor who desires to be relieved from his responsibili­ties should not be relieved in this way. Of course, it will be for the company, before they take up an estate, to see that previous to that time the estate has been properly administered. The measure also provides that an executor or trustee who may be ab­sent from the colony shall llave the power of transferring his responsibility to the company.

Mr. lVIIRAMS.-Is there any difference between the Bill and the Trustees, Execu­tors, and Agency Company's Act of 1879?

Mr. PATTERSON.-There is some difference. Powers in excess of those en­joyed by what may be called the parent company nre provided for by clauses 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and ]2, but it is proposed, under clause 22, to confer those powers upon that company. I nm not quite sure whether such a clause as clause 22 is regular­whether it is competent under the Bill to confer powers upon any other company than that which promotes the measure. The desire of the promoters is that their powers shall not be in excess of those possessed by the parent company. I may mention that the parent company, in a spirit of true liberality, offer no objection to the Bill. That course is consistent with the understanding arrived at in 1879 that there should be no monopoly in a business of this kind. Certainly there shou.ld b.e no attempt at monopoly, because the fIelclls large enough fortheestablishment of several other companies. I mlty add that the Bill empowers the Suprell1e Comt

SESe 1885.-3 K

to call the directors of the company to account, and, if it thinks fit, to remove them from the management of an estate. Thus it will be seen that there is ample protection for the public. When the Bill has been read a second time, it will have to go before a select committee; and I would suggest that whatever discussion may arise upon it should apply also to the Union Trustees, Executors, and Administrators Company's Bill, of which the honorable member for Normanby has charge. I must repeat that the difference of advantage in having an estate administered ~y a company over its administration by an individual is beginning to be fully appreciated; and I trust that what the public appreciate this House will be willing to give)ts assent to.

Mr. KERFERD.-Sir, I rise for the purpose not of opposing the second reading of this ,Bill, but of pointing out several particulars in which the measure differs materially from the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's Act. I think the differences are such as may well occupy the attention of the select committee to which the Bill will be referred. One provision of the measure will enable an individual who has been appointed executor, after the death of the testator, to nominate the company to perform the functions devolving upon him under the will. That is a nov-el departure. Such a provision demands v-ery serious consideration. Then, again, the capital of this company will be less than the capi­tal of the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company.

Mr. PATTERSON.-The deposit is the same.

Mr. KERFERD.-That may be; I be­lieve it is the same. But whereas the paid-up capital of the parent company Imd to be £25,000 before it could commence business, this company can commence with £20,000. Of course, the business of the company is a kind of business which can be carried on without any capital. The capital is a sort of collateral security for the bona fides of the company dealing with other people's affairs. Nevertheless there is no reason that the capital in this case should be less than that of the company which ob­tained authority)rom Parliament, in 1879, to carryon its:'business. No doubt these companies will serve a very useful public purpose. They will relieve persons w 110 have difficulty in finding friends to act as executors of a great deal of anxiety, because they will undertake to perform, for a sfi:ated commission, what those persons desire.

766 Australian Executors and r ASSEMBL Y.] Tr'ltStees Association Bill.

But if we allow the capital of this company to be minimized-if we allow it to be much less than the amount of the capital of the company which has been in existence some years--we shall remove some of the safe­guards which are necessary for the protec­tion of the estates of deceased persons. By the existing law a man who becomes an executor or the administrator of an estate is under the control of the Supreme Oourt. Every shilling he has in the world may be liable for his conduct in his capacity as executor or administrator. More than that, he is liable to be imprisoned, under the direction of the court, if he is guilty of any misconduct. Now I say that, if we allow a reduction in capital, if we minimize the liability of shareholders, we really narrow and cut down the guarantee which ought to be the security to widows and orphans with regard to the funds intrusted to these com­panies. I concur with the honorable mem­ber for Castlemaine (Mr. Patterson) that this Bill and the Bill of which the honorable member for Normanby has charge may well be taken together; and I hope that, in choosing the select committee, both those honorable members will take the best men in the House who have a knowledge of this particular business. One thing about which I think an understanding ought to be come to is as to the number of such companies which should be in existence, because the amount of business of this kind is limited, and, if companies are multiplied beyond the reasonable requirements and wants of the public, the results may be disastrous.

1\1r. COPPIN.-It is an increasing business.

Mr. KERFERD.-It is my duty to mention the difficulties and dangers which occur to me, so that they may receive due consideration when the Bill goes before a select committee. One other point I desire to refer to is that the Bill proposes that the company shall undertake the kind of business which is now transacted by the Curator of Estates of Deceased Persons. The gentle­man who fills that position is a very efficient officer, and zealously performs his duties, and it is a matter for consideration whether he ought not to have the same powers that it is now proposed to give to companies in dealing with estates. The State will lose a consider­able amount of revenue-some £3,000 or £4,000 per year-if the business now done by the Curator of Estates of Deceased Persons is diverted to these companies; and that is an important consideration from the Treasurer's poi~t of view ~ T4ere ~s one provision to

which, Mr. Speaker, I must direct your attention as involving the question of the practice of this House. The Bill contains a clause conferring powers on a company which is already in existence under the authority of an Act of Parliament. I say there is no precedent for a course of that kind; and I think, sir, you will consider it to be your duty to require the promoters of the Bill to give an undertaking that that clause will be struck out. If the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company desire the additional powers which clause 22 proposes to give them, they ought to come to this House and ask for those powers by a Bill of their own. A clause to confer powers on that company is foreign to the Bill. No doubt the reason for inserting the clause was, as stated by the honorable member for Oastle­maine, that the promoters were anxious to put what they call the parent company on the same footing as themselves. Of course, a good deal may be said in favour of carry­ing out that desire on their part, but the matter is one which this House cannot entertain in its present form. If the law relating to the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company is to be altered, it must be done by an amendment of their own Act. Before I conclude, I must call attention to the amount of commission which the Bill empowers the company to charge. In some cases they will be able to charge as much as 10 per cent.

Mr. PATTERSON.-That is the maxi­mum. The average will be more like 2! per cent.

Mr. KERFERD.-Clause 12 empowers the company to charge 5 per cent. on the capital value of any estate committed to their charge, and 5 per cent. on the income. I consider that wonld be rather a high com­mission. However, all these are matters for the consideration of the select committee. When the Bill is dealt with by the select committee, we will be able to see whether it is such a measure as ought to be allowed to pass into law.

Dr. QUICK.-Mr. Speaker, I don't op­pose the second reading of these Bills, but I desire to impress upon the House the necessity for guarding against legislation of the kind without proper precaution and due consideration. There can be no doubt that this class of legislation involves a re­volution, or, at all events, a very serious alteration in the existing law. Otherwise such companies would not be compelled to come to this House for enabling Bills. I believe that one of these com~an~es recently endeavoure4

.A~tstralian Exec~ttors and [AUGUST 19.J Trustees Association Bill • 767

to obtain probate or letters of administra- . whom he is trustee. If he likes to renounce tion. from the Supreme Oourt, but His the trust imposed upon him, he can do so, Honour Mr. Justice Molesworth refused to and then the court appoi,nts another person grant the application, the reason, of course, -perhaps some person kindred to the family being very palpable-that the court is not· -whom the court holds responsible for the capable of dealing with a corporation unless . due performance of the duties. Not only special legislation is provided for the pur- does this Bill propose to give an executor pose. In the first place, the court has no power to hand over testamentary dispositions power to deal with a corporation in pe1'sonarn, to the company, but it goes even further. and, in the second place, a corporation can- In the event of a man dying without a will, not make affidavit; it cannot enter into the .. it is pretty well understood that the next of necessa.ry bond, or give proper security for kin-say the widow-is entitled to take out the due performance of the duties it may . letters of administration. According to seek to discharge. I would have no objec- this Bill the next of kin has power, after tion to these Bills if they went no further obtaining letters of administration, in the than the powers conferred upon the Trus- same manner as an executor, to delegate his tees, Executors, and Agency Oompany. duties and obligations to the company, how­That company, it appears, has acted very ever unjust the proceeding may be to the fairly and properly up to the present, and other members of the family. If the next has given satisfaction, although, as a matter of kin does not wish to undertake the duties of fact, the Supreme Oourt has viewed with of administration, he also should renounce, caution and jealousy the exercise of the leaving the then next of kin, who may be powers of the company, as no doubt it al- willing and ready to undertake the obliga­ways will do. That company's Act seems tions and duties, to come in and act. I con­to be founded on very fair grounds. A per- sider it would be a great revolution in our son if he likes to make a will, nominating law-a very unwise alteration indeed-to the company as his executor, has a perfect, give an executor or administrator power to right to do so, and the court is merely car- delegate to any company the important rying out his will in granting probate to the duties and functions which belong to him by company. But under the Bill now before us, . law, and which are intrusted to him by the although a testator may nominate, by his court. The clauses I refer to are the most will, a trusted friend for the performance of serious in the Bill, and, if I find, when the his testamentary dispositions and wishes-- report of the select committee comes np,

Mr. MIRAMS.-vVithout the friend's that they are not, expunged, I shall feel, it knowledge sometimes. . my duty to endeavour to have them struck

Dr. QUIOK.-That friend can after- out. wards delegate the trust reposed in him to Mr. SHIELS.-Sir, I think the pro­the Australian Executors and Trustees motel'S of the two Bills can find no cause Association. of reasonable dissatisfaction at the remarks

Mr. MIRAMS.-And a very good thing of the Attorney-General and the honorable too. member for Sandhurst (Dr. Quick). Those

Dr. QUIOK.-Such a provision appears 'gentlemen have pointed out some little to me very objectionable. Why should an matters of detail to which the attention of Act of Parliament be allowed to interfere the select committee will probably be directed with the appointments and arrangements with a view to modification. With regard made by a testator? Parliament should not to the impolicy of allowing the next of kin in any way enable the trusts of a will to be to delegate his powers to a corporation, the interfered with after the testator is dead and modification of the provision dealing with gone. It would be a great ruistake-a that matter which occurs to my mind, with breach of faith-to do so. It is said that which, no doubt, the promoters of the Bills a person named as trustee or executor may are quite willing to concur, is that this renounce probate. That is quite true. He delegation of powers should be allowed is at perfect liberty to renounce probate if . only when the Supreme Oourt grants he wishes; and it is his duty to do so if he its assent. The honorable member for does not desire to undertake the duties and Sandhurst, in dealing with this matter, obligations of the trust. But he should not made no mention of the difficulty which be permitted, in the first place, to undertake continually meets the public in practice­the duties and obligations of the trnst, and namely, that persons are appointed without then haud over those duties and obligations their knowledge to act in the most delicate ~o a comparative strt}nger to tlIe family for and most embarr~~s.ing of posi~ions. When

3 K 2 '," .. ' .... ,., .'

768 Aitst1'alian Executo1's and [ASSEMBL Y. ] Trustee8 Association Bill.

a person so appointed renounces, is it not consistent with the common sense of this community to suppose that a corporation, the members of which ~re known, the capital of "hich is paid up, and which can furnish all suitable guarantees that the business it has to transact shall be properly performed, could well be intrusted with this delegated power? The Attorney-General seems to apprehend that, by the multiplication of these companies, there will be excessive competition. No doubt the business has been found, and will continue to be found, very profitable. But the result of the mul­tiplication of companies is to have the work done cheaper, and of this the public will get the benefit. Why, at the Cape of Good Hope, where legislation of this kind has been in force some years, eight or ten com­panies have sprung into exi.stence; they are all doing their work with great satisfac­tion, and the result of the competition is to bring down the charges. That is a consummation which, I think, is devoutly to be wished. I appeal to every member of this House who has been a trustee or executor whether, on having that office imposed upon him for the first time, he was not like a fish out of water, not knowing which way to turn, and anxious to fly, as to a refuge of safety, to the first lawyer's office. The honorable member for Sa,ndhurst shows by his remarks about the inability of the court to deal with a corpora­tion in personam that he has not carefully read the Bill, because, as a matter of fact, the court can di~ect its punishing power against the director or manager of the company just as much as it can against a private execu­tor; and the capital of the company can be made just as liable for the consequences of negligence as the estate of a private indi­vidual. Each of these companies will have to invest £10,000 of its capital in Govern­ment stock in the name of the Treasurer, as security to answer any negligence or mis­take which the company may be guilty of. Can the public-especially that public that is poor and has not the command of rich friends who would perform these duties for nothing-have any better guarantee that their affairs, after their death, will be well administered than devolving the duties upon companies like these? The Attorney­General has spoken about the commission which the Bills will give the companies power to charge, but it appears to me that the power is hedged round with sufficient guamntees against any undue exercise. If the companies make cx.cessive charges, the

Mr. Shiels.

court can come in and review and reduce the rate of commission. Moreover, clause 12 contains this proviso:-

"That the commission to be charged by the said company shall Dot exceed in each estate the amount of the published scale of charges of the said company at the time when such estate was committed to the said company." Probably the rates of commission in the case of small estates may approach the maximum, because a small estate gives as much trouble to an executor, and causcs him as much anxiety, as a large estate. I can speak feelingly with regard to the benefit of such a company, because I had the ill or good fortune to be placed in the position or an executor of a large estate, and a more thankless office I am not aware of. Testa­tors are often in great straits to know what to do as regards the charge of their affairs after their death. They have a natural reluc­tance to trouble friends with such a duty; and I believe with the honorable member for Coliingwood (Mr. Mirams) in the inter­jection which he made when the honorable member for Sandhurst was speaking, that in a large majority of cases executors are appointed without their knowledge-without so much as their advice 01' their assent being asked. When they find themselves appointed, they are anxious to observe some loyalty to the friendship which they had for the testator; at the same time the duties imposed upon them are too great a demand upon their time. "Vhy, in such a case, should not the duty of administration be transferred to acorn pany skilled in the business, and able to perform it much better than any individual executor or adminis­trator who may be worried sufficiently with the conduct of his own 'affairs? As a proor or the success of the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company, I may mention that their shares, upon which 20s. has been paid, now stand in the market at 52s. I have never 11em·d one complaint or that company since it was established in 1879. I think I am speaking within the know­ledge of nearly everyone in this House when I say that company has been a conspicuous success. I hope the House will, not only in justice to the community at large, but in a spirit of fair play to the new companies, grant to them the assent they ask for, and allow the Bill to go to a select committee, which, I can assure the Attorney-General, will be chosen with the cautioll which he thinks necessary. That committee, so far as the 11Ollorable member for Castlemaine (Mr. Pa.tterson) and myself are concerned, will be C\ thoroughly representative committee,

A1.lstratiun j~xeC1.liol's and [AUGUST 19.J J!1'ustees Association l1ill. 769

by whom all the objections which have been rn.ised to the details of the measures will be listened to with the greatest care; and every anxiety will be displayed to bring up a re­port on the Bills in a fOfm which will com­mand the ready assent of every member of the House.

Mr. WRIXON.-Mr. Speaker, I think this House may fairly read this Bill a second time, and refer it for discussion to a select committee; but I think there are one or two points of the measure upon which honorable members may properly express an opinion for the guidance of the select committee. As has been mentioned, the Bill contains some novelties. The company already in exist­ence can act as executor only when it is appointed; but under this Bill a man may die leaving an executor, and intending that that executor should act for him, and that executor, on his own motion, may hand over the estate to the company on whose behalf the Bill is promoted. This, I say, is a novelty; at the same time it is a violation of a well-known principle of our law that an r.gent cannot appoint an agent. No doubt it would be, in many cases, a great public convenience, and, if it were guarded in one of two ways which I will suggest, it might be agreed to by this House. One limitation which I think ought to be imposed has al­ready been alluded to; and that is that be. fore an executor hands over an estate to any company he should get the direct assent of the Supreme Court to his so doing. That would be a very simple proceeding; it need not be costiy. Another course which I think wise would be to provide that any tes­tator could insert in his will a prohibition to this step being taken.

Mr. BURROWES.-He can do that now.

Mr. WRIXON.-Of course he can; but if you pass a Bill enabling an executor to hand over an estate to a company, that pro­vision may have the effect of overriding any such prohibition unless it also is provided for in the measure. I think that prohibition should be expressly recognised in the law giving these powers to a company.

Mr. SHIELS.-There is no objection to that.

Mr. WRIXON.-That being so, the difficulty is removed with respect to an estate being placed in the hands of the com­pany against the wishes of the testator. The Attorney-General seemed to labour under the idea that the officers of the com­pany would not be within reach of the court in case of misconduct, but it will be seen that

by clause 11 they are liable in their own persons for misconduct. I think the liabi .. lity of the shareholders should be maintained in full force, and with this, and the personal liability of the directors, I think the public will be fairly secured. I agree with the Attorney-General as to the position of the Curator of Estates of Deceased Persons. I believe the curator is a most efficient officer who looks well after the estates of intestates, and I think it would be only reasonable to place him in the same position as this com­pany. With these limitations I think this Bill would be found of use. The public. have shown that they appreciate the present company, and this Bill is only going another step in the way of leaving it to the public to judge for themselves. If the public like to have these companies they will patronize them, and if they do not they won't, and after all they are the best judges of their own interests.

Mr. FINCHAM.-There is no subject which causes so much earnest solicitude in the mind of every man as the question of how he shall dispose of his property-al­ways assuming that he possesses some­after his death. Another difficulty which a man experiences is as to whom he will trust with the disposal of that property. Very often the settlement of this matter is the last act of a man's life, and in his anxiety to make a proper selection he has delayed so long that, when he ultimately does make the selection, his judgment is possibly enfeebled, and he does not choose the most suitable or competent persons. The pro­posals in the Bill provide to a great extent for the want which arises from this state of things. An organization supplied with all the appliances necessary for the proper care and disposal of estates will be able to discharge the arduous responsibility of a trustee with the least possible cost to those interested; and, so far from increasing the danger of letting estates get into the hands of the lawyers, such an organization will, from its experience and the machinery it pos­sesses, be able to a great extent to dispense with those gentlemen who are so ready to prey upon estates. Under these circum­stances, if care be taken to see that this com­panyprovides the necessary security to make up for any loss which may be caused in re­spect of any estate committed to its charge, either from any delinquency on the part of its officers or from any mistake, I think that the Bill will be a measure in the public interest as well as the interest of the com­pany itself. With regard to the question of .

770 Australian Executors and [ASSEMBL Y. ] T1'ttstees Association Bill.

intestate estates, it is really wonderful how earnest desire to do the very best for those many people neglect to make provision for the interested in the property under his control, disposal of their property after their death. and his administration of estates is most I have known many men of considerable successful. I believe that statement will means in this colony who, after delaying the find universal acceptance from all who have ma'tter year after year, at length were sud- had any experience of the matter. As to denly taken away without making a will, and the Bill before the House, I think these their estates fell into the hands of the Cura- companies supply a great public want, and I tor, who, by some strange manipulations, venture to say that there are few people who which were unseen and unchecked, was able have resided in the colony during the last to prey on them until there was not a frag- thirty years, as I have done, who have not ment or a feather left. I have not the on many occasions regretted the absence of pleasure of knowing the present Curator, such institutions. ·Our advice has often whom the Attorney-General has so highly been asked in cases where widows h~ve been complimented, but I have no hesitation in left without anyone to act f0r them and saying that his department is one which where it was almost impossible to get the requires more scrutinizing than ithashitherto ' security required, or where the executor received. I believe that there are members named in the will had died or renounced of this House who could give some astound- probate. In all these ()ases great loss has ing instances of estates being wormed out fallen on the widow and children, and I and exhausted to such an extent that the think the House should give every possible unfortunate persons entitled to the remnant assistance towards meeting a want which of the estate were never able to get a brass has been so often felt and deplored. I farthing. This is a matter which wants look- believe also that it would be a great mistake ing into, and I wish to call the Attorney- if the clauses in this Bill which are not in General's special attention to it. The present the Act of the existing company were to be Curator may, as the Attorney-General has omitted. I am quite sure that honorable said, administer estates to the best advan- members can supply instances from their tage of the persons interested in them; but own experience in which these provisions I believe that, if a scrutinizing investigation would be of great benefit to a widow having were made into the disposal of intestate no friend to look after her interests. I know estates during the last 25 years, the result of a recent case where a widow was unable to would create such a feeling of distrust that get security for a comparatively large estate the public would require some legislative and had to give it over to the next of kin. enactment to prevent any such frauds-for These clauses to which the Attorney-General I have no hesitation in calling them frauds objected will be of great public benefit in­-being perpetrated in the future. ' deed, although of course it will be a matter

Mr. C. YOUNG.-Sir, I was rather sur- ,for consideration whether, as the honorable prised to hear the remarks ofthe honorable member for Portland has suggested, the member for Ballarat West (Mr. Fincham). consent of the court should not be required In his observations with regard to intestate before administration is granted to the com­estates, he so mixed up what occurs now pany. That, however, is only a minor point. with what happened 25 years ago that it is . A widow has now very frequently to employ impossible to say whether the blame is to some business man to act for her, who gets be connected with facts which occurred 25 commission for the management of the years ago, or with something which has estate, and I would ask honorable members transpired during the last eight or ten years, whether in such a case the widow would not since the present Curator was appointed. rather intrust the matter to a company of

M:r. FINCHAM.-I stated that I knew this kind with a respectable directory, paid­nothing of the administration of the present' up capital, and a guarantee deposited in the Curator, and therefore I do not blame him. Treasury? I believe that under this system I spoke of circumstances which occurred the lawyers will not have so much to do prior to his appointment. with the estates of deceased persons. I

Mr. C. YOUNG.-I am glad to hear think it would be a most unfortunate thing the honorable member's explanation, be- if the House were to agree to the suggestion cause, having seen a good deal of the opera-:' of the Attorney-General and strike out tions of the present Curator, I am in a posi- these clauses, which I regard as the most tion to say that, while having a just regard useful provisions of the Bill. With refer­to his own interests, which the present ence to clause 22, I really think that this system of payment requires, he shows an company deserve the greatest credit for

.A~tstl'alian Executm's and [AUGUST 19.J T1'~tstees .Association Bill. 771

desiring to confer on a rival association the powers which they seek themselves. If we deem it right and proper that these enlarged powers should be given to the company now asking for them, I cannot see what objec­tion there can be to confer them also on the original company. I have not, I am sorry to say, one shilling of interest in either com­pany, but from my experience I can say that these companies Rupply a great public want, and I wish them every success.

Mr. McLELLAN.-I believe the com­pany already in existence is doing a legiti­mate business, and I think ought to be encouraged in all respects. As far as I am concerned, I shall be willing to give it all the necessary powers to extend its busi­ness in a legitimate manner, but that is a different thing altogether from the question involved in this Dill. What are we about to do here? vVe are about to violate the wills and the intentions of thousands who are lying in our cemeteries. (" No.") We are about to break down the safeguards which they in their wisdom, perhaps on their death-beds, saw necessary to guard the in­terests of their families in the future. As far as I am concerned, if you make this measure apply only to the future, and provide that everything that has been done in the past shall be left in the hands in which it is at present-that is to say, in the Judges of our Supreme Court-I shall be satisfied. I have more trust in them than in any com­pany in Victoria, and I will never give my consent to any measure that will interfere with the arrangements made by any persons, male or female, who are now lying in their last repose. I would ask any honorable member who is supporting this measure if he has any idea whatever of the amount of property that may come into the hands of this company, without any adequate security, during the next half-dozen years? Is there any security provided that will be at all commensurate with the vast property that may be accumulated by the company under this Bill? There is nothing of the kind, and it actually appals me, remembering the many friends I have whose property is under trust and other arrangements made by their parents, that we should now, at this last stage of our career as a Parliament, de­liberately interfere with those arrangements. I say such a thing is monstrous in principle. Is it to be said that, when a man has disposed of his property in the way he deems best for the interests of his family, six months after his death the whole of his arrangements may be upset without the family or the other

persons interested being consulted in the matter at all? I hope such a thing will never be sanctioned by this Assembly, and I, for one, will oppose this measure unless these features are eliminated from it before it is submitted for its third reading. An­other point is that I think there should be a provision in the Bill that when in the future any man in his will prohibits his property being put into the hands of this company his wishes should be respected. Let this company have a legitimate business such as is carried on at the present time and I willllave no objection to the Bill, but we must not violate the provisions of wills already in existence or the wishes of future testators.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Sir, I intend to vote for the reference of this Bill to a select com­mittee, but i think it is a pity that the Bill sllOuld be supported by such arguments as those of the honorable member for Kyneton. He said that one feature of the Bill was that the lawyers would not be able to gobble up the estates of deceased persons to the same extent as they do now; but I would like to ask in what respect the lawyers will have less to do with the estates of deceased persons under this measure? They will have precisely the same oppor­tunities, and no more, that they have under the existing law. I think the honorable member was not called upon to advocate the passing of the Bill by any reference to the lawyers at all. I may tell him that the public have a guarantee against the lawyers which they will not have against this com­pany. The guarantee for the general public against the lawyer is this-that if he is guilty of anything grossly improper in con­nexion with an estate he is struck off the rolls, and his chance of earning a livelihood is gone. .

Sir C. MAC MAHON.-Where and when has that been done in this colony?

Mr. GAUNSON,-Where has any case cropped up in which lawyers have been guilty of these things? I know that the honorable member has a particular feud to fight, but I may remind him that his feud is not with the solicitors, but with the barristers; his quarrel is with those who wear the horse­hair wig and not with the attorney. I be­lieve that this discussion will do an infinite amount of good, inasmuch as it has called attention to the state of the law with refer­ence to the estates of deceased persons. I do not share in the view of the honorable member for Ararat as to the wisdom of the death-bed. I believe that people display a

772 Australia1i Exec~do1'S and [ASSE:M:BL Y.] 'P1'1lstees .Association Bill.

great want of wisdom who leave it until their last hours to make their wills, when they should have made them when they were in sound mind and sound health. No doubt, however, it is a curious fact that man is so strangely constituted that numbers of the ablest men in the world have an unconquer­able objection to making their wills until they are almost in extremis. Therefore, to use the language of Mr. Burchell to Caro­lina Wilhelmina Amelia Skeggs, the wis­dom of the death-bed is "fudge." I fail also to understand the honorable member's remarks about the violation of wills. I do not suppose that any company will violate them :tny more than can be done at present.

Mr. MACKAY.-They can rush property into the market.

Mr. GAUNSON.-An executor can do that iiOO. Moreover, by rushihg the pro­perty the company would lose a certain amount of commission, upon which they de­pend for their profits. Although I support this Bill, I do not do so on the grounds put forward by some honorable members. It is no use saying that this Bill is submitted in the public interest. The preamble begins by reciting" Whereas, from the uncertainty of human life and from other causes, great dif­ficulty often arises in securing the services of suitable persons for the office of trustee, executor, and other similar offices," &c., but put into common sense the preamble might stand thus:-

"Whereas people die, and whereas certain philanthropic gentlemelllivingin the city of Mel­bourne see a most excellent opening for adding to their wealth, I:tnd are desirous of living in the most luxurious fashion possible, be it therefore enacted," &c.

Stripped of all nonsense, that is really the object of the Bill.

Mr. PATTERSON.-Every business is established on that principle.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Yes, but do not let us delude ourselves by humbug about the "uncertainty of human life" and so on. Let us put the Bill before us in its naked truth, and we can see our way whether to support it or not. With reference to the proposal in the Bill that the existing com­pany should come under it, I am inclined to think that the Attorney-General takes the right view in saying that this cannot be done in the Bill. If the object is that the one company shall mop up the other, what then becomes of the competition and the consequent cheapening of charges? There is no doubt that the whole object of the Bill is to make money, but, inasmuch us the company cannot succeed unless they do

justice to the public, I see no objection to the measure on that ground. This discus­sion will probably have a good effect in lead­ing us to think a great deal more on the whole subject of the law with reference to the estates of deceased persons. On what principle do we allow the law to stand so that a creditor can take administration, pay himself 20s. in the £1, and leave the rest of the creditors to go wanting? Again, I do not see why, if we are going to do justice to the public, the shareholders in these com­panies should not be made liable to the last farthing. Unless unlimited liability is pro­vided for, the public will not be satisfied. I also think that whatever powers are given to these companies should also be possessed by the Curator of the Estates of Deceased Persons. The present Curator is a remark­ably able man, though as to whether he may not receive more than any other officer of the Government I am not competent to speak. The only way in which I can testify my appreciation of the value of his office is by saying that I would be perfectly satisfied to retire from the Honse-and even to give up the Chief Justiceship infut~t1'o to which I am looking forward-in order to take his billet for life. I am perfectly confident that I would be able not only to support myself, but also all my relatives, out of the costs arising from the various legal proceedings in connexion with the office.

Mr. RICHARDSON.-I intend to sup­port the second reading of this Bill, but I share in the opinion which has been expressed that proper precautions must be taken to protect the persons interested in the estates with which the company will have to deal. I was glad to hear the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaun80n) raise the ob­jection he did to the lIth clause of the Bill, and I trust that it will be an instruction to the select committee that provision will have to be made for the unlimited liability of the shareholders. While I believe that the Bill is not intended to be, retrospective in the way the honorable member for Ararat pro­poses, I think the point raised by the honor­able member for Portland is one which de­serves consideration from the House. I do not think that, when a man has made a will and appointed an executor, that executor ought to be allowed under any circumstances to transfer his powers and duties to the com­pany. The honorable member for Portland suggested that a prohibition in the will should have the effect of preventing this, but I think that the very fact of a man making a will and appointing an executor while

Austraiian Executors and [AUGUST 1D.J Trustees Association Bill. 773

companies of this kind are in existence ought to be regarded as a prohibition from allow­ing his estate to go into the hands of a com­pany. At all events, before an estate is allowed to go into the hands of a company under such circumstances, the consent of the court should certainly be required. Another point deserving consideration is the per­centage which can be charged by the com­pany. The honorable member for N ormanby has informed us that the £1 shares of the company already in existence are quoted at 528., showing that the company make large profits. I think the public should be pro­tected from excessive charges by companies of this kind, and that ParliaIlLent should take care that the company asking for this Bill should not be allowed to charge such a high maximum as 5 per cent. on the amount of the estates of deceased persons. The Attornev-General has called attention to the fact· that the amount might be 10 per cent. under the Bill, but I do not think that is likely to be allowed so long as the court has discretionary power. I trust, however, that when the Bill is referred to a select committee, the committee will take the matter into consideration and lower the maximum fixed in the Bill. I know an estate at the present time from which an executor-not appointed by the testator, but by the executor left by him-is receiv­ing £400 a year, and the persons interested in the estate are complaining very much of the matter. This executor occupies the position exactly which the company would occupy if an executor was permitted to transfer his responsibility to them. The question of the charges which the company can make is therefore a matter for serious consideratio;n.

Mr. ZOX.-Sir, the case which has just been referred to by the honorable member for Creswick (Mr. Richardson) illustrates the necessity for a Bill of this kind, as under a company such as that proposed it is not at all likely that £400 wonld be paid for the management of a small estate. At the same time, the amount referred to y the honorable member is no doubt pa d under the will, and therefore the person who made the will knew the amount of the remuneration which the executor would receive.

Mr. RICHARDSON.-The law pro­vides it.

Mr. ZOX.-Then there is nothing illegal about it. With reference to this Bill, I may say that, when the existing company first started in this colony, I did not give it my

unqualified approval; but I am bound to state that, having had several business transactions with that company, anel haying observed the way in which it acts, I con­sider that the public arc saved a consider­able amount of money by being able to place estates in its hands. Indeed the fact is proved by the success which the existing company has met with, because its shares would not be so yaluable in the market if the public had not shown that they really appreciate the company and placc eycry confidence in it. I agree with the honor­able member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaun­son) that a number of gentlemen do not combine to start a company of this kind from purely philanthropic motives, but from a natural desire to invest their money in a way which they think will be ultimately profitable to themselves, while at the same time doing a large amount of public good. All companies carryon operations under similar conditions. Co-operative companies. supply people with goods cheaper than they could otherwise obtain them, and yet those' companies sometimes pay their shareholders large dividellds. The question for the con­sideration of Parliament is simply this­Will the Bill be of use to persons who are interested in the estates of deceased per­sons? I say that it will, beyond a doubt. The honorable member for Ararat asks what security there is that the association win properly perform the functions it under­takes. Well, one of the clauses proyides that the capital of the company shall be liable if any estate intrusted to the com­pany is improperly managed, and the paid­up capital is to be not less than £20,000~ But let me ask the honorable member what security there is where estates are administered by individual executors? I know two or three men who are now serv­ing their time, or have served their time, in Pentridge who were executors of estates which they administered so badly that the widows and orphans suffered. The estate of one man who died at Sandhurst, worth £7,000 or £8,000, was managed in such a way that the executors derived all the benefit of it, and the children had practi-

. cally to beg in the streets. The honorable

. member for Sandhurst (Mr. Burrowes) knows the case to which I refer, for he has personally interested himself in behalf of the orphan children. If the estate of a deceased person is mal-administered, either by the executors appointed under the will or through the fault of their solicitor, it is no recompense to the widow and children to

774 Australian Executors and [ASSEMBLY.] Tl'1tstees Association Bill.

sond the executors to Pentridge or to strike the solicitor off the roll, but if a company like the one who are the promoters of this Bill mismanage any estate intrusted to their care their capital will be liable to make good any loss that accrues; they will be bound, in common parlance, to " shell out." There can be no doubt that there is a better guarantee for the protection of the parties interested if an estate is administered by a company composed of men of respectability and standing, with a large capital at their back, than there is if it is in the hands of private executors. I know that the estates of lunatics have been frightfully misman­aged. I would like to see a clause intro­duced into the Bill to prevent the associa­tion disposing of real property, or even of personal property, above a certain value by private contract. This, however, is a minor point, and no doubt it and other matters of detail will receive careful consideration by a select committee, to which, I presume, the Bill will have to be referred, after the second reading.

Mr. LAURENS.-Sir, when the mea­sure under which the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company is authorized to transact business was before this Chamber, Igave it my warmest support, believing that the company was . calculated to meet a great want in Melbourne. During the debate on th e second reading of tha t Bill, the late Sir John O'Shanassy said-

"I have no hesitation in stating that, of all the public wauts which this country has experienced for tbe past 20 years. I know of no want equal to that which this company proposes to supply. I have been placed against my will in the posi­tion of executor, I may say a hundred times." If Sir John O'Shanassy were now alive, I am sure he would say that the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company has worked for good-that it has been of great conve­nience and advantage to many persons since it came into operation. The kind of busi­ness which the company undertakes is a constantly growing one, and there is no reason why a second or even a third com­pany should not be authorized to transact such business. It has been pointed out by the Attorney-General that under the Bill, as it stands, it will be competent for the Aus·tralian Executors and Trustees Asso­ciation to start operations with a paid-up capital of £20,000. I think that the se­curity offered by the company should not be less than that offered by the existing com­pany, namely, a paid-up capital of £25,000, and I trust that the Bill will be amended accordingly. There is one clause in the

measure which provides that any person appointed an executor under a will may transfer his obligation to the company. That is a provision which, I think, will require some consideration. We should be careful to guard against anything being done to prevent the instructions of a deceased person in regard to the management or disposal of the property which he has left behind him being faithfully carried out. Nothing short of really good grounds will justify a viola­tion of the expressed wishes of a testator.

Mr. "\VHEELER.-Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sorry to find that other com­panies have been established similar to the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company, which has been several years in existence. It is as great an advantage and security to the public to have public companies to com­pete with each other as it is to have compe­tition in private business. It appears to me that, by having more than one company to perform the business of executors, the cost of the administration of the estates of deceased persons will be kept down. Ob­jection has been raised to the clause which proposes to enable an executor to hand over his functions to the company which is to be authorized to carryon business by this Bill, but I think that is a very excellent pro­vision. At the present time there are many estates of deceased persons which are not being very well managed, and if it is the wish of the persons directly interested in those estates that the management of them should be taken from the existing executors and placed in the hands of a duly authorized company, the executors ought by all means to have the power of making the transfer; and in cases in which trustees desire to surrender their trust, I think that they should have the right to do so. In several cases in which I have acted as executor I would have liked to resign my trust. The position of executor is one which involves a great deal of anxiety, care, and trouble, but no profit; and it is only fair to an executor that he should be enabled to relieve himself of the responsibility of his trust by handing it over to a properly-organized company. I think that the Bill should fix some limit to the number of shares that any shareholder of the company can hold, as is the case with respect to the company already in existence. If I remember correctly, 500 is the maximum number of shares which any shareholder of the existing company can hold, and I would suggest that there should be the same limit in regard to the company whose Bill we are now considering.

A'U,stmlian Executo1's and [AUGUST 19.J T1'1.tstees Association Bill. 775

Mr. P ATTERSON.-There is no objec­tion to that.

Mr. WHEELER.-I am very glad to hear tl1e statement of the honorable member in charge of the Bill. By fixing a limit to the number of shares which any shareholder can hold, the possibility of one or two persons absorbing nearly the whole of the shares will be prevented. As to the paid-up capital of the company, I think that, instead of £20,000, it should be £25,000, the same as that of the existing company. I throw out this sugges­tion in the interests of the company itself as well as of the persons on whose behalf it may be employed to act as executor or trustee. I agree with the honorable member for Emerald Hill (Mr. Gaunson) that this debate will do a great deal of good, as it will make the community at large better in­formed than it is at present of the nature of companies of this character, and of the ad­vantages which they offer to the public. The one which has been in operation for some years past has proved a great success, and it could not have succeeded unless it had been conducted on proper business principles. There is plenty of room for other companies of a similar character. I believe that year by year the public will be more and more satisfied that the business of executors and trustees can be better managed by such companies than by private individuals.

Mr. OFFICER.-Sir, I intend to give this Bill my support. Experience of the working of the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company has convinced me that that company has supplied a public want, and that it gives general satisfaction. There is therefore no reason why similar companies should not be brought into existence. I have had occasionally to act as an executor, and I know that the office, especially to a layman, is attended with a great deal of difficulty. From time to time, for the sake of security, executors have to resort to law­yers for advice; in fact, they cannot take any important step without first consulting a lawyer. A lawyer's advice, of course, has to be paid for, and in many cases it becomes a considerable expense to the estate. I be­lieve that immense advantage will arise to the public through the multiplication of companies similar to the one already in ex­istence. I am not afraid of such companies growing too numerous, for they will not be started unless it is believed that they will pay. The honorable member for Ararat contended that under one of the provisions of the Bill violations of the wills of deceased persons will occur. I do not understand how anything of the kind can occur, because

in any case in which an executor transfers his trust to a company, the company will be bound to administer the will exactly as the executor would have had to do if he had re­tained his position. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether you belong to the class of persons called spiritists. I am led to make this remark in consequence of your having described yourself, some little time ago, as " a mere shadow." If you were a spiritist, you would readily understand how easy it would be to obtain the opinion of deceased persons as to how their estates should be dealt with. This is a matter which may be treated seriously, because in the present day there are persons who profess to believe in spirits, and I give them credit for sincerity. There are medical men in the city of Mel­bourne who, it is said, are in the habit of consultiug the spirits of deceased persons as to the way in which they should treat their patients. I cannot say that I would like to employ a medical man who gets his infor. mation in that way, but, as belief in spirits is met with in every-day life, I commend to the House the suggestion which I have made, and it can be taken for what it is worth.

Mr. COOPER.-lVIr. Speaker, I doubt whether it is at all wise to bring the ques­tion of spirits under the consideration of this House. If honorable members began to consult the departed as to the way in which they would like the estates they have left behind them to be dealt with, spirits might begin to petition this House on their own behalf. They might complain that they are very badly treated where they are, and they might apply to the House for redress. I think that we had better leave the question of spirits alone, and deal with the matter before us from a practical, common-sense, and business stand-point. We have been informed that some executors have derived a very large amount of money from the management of the estates intrusted to their care, but in order to form an opinion as to whether the amount they have received is reasonable or not we would" require to know what labour has been entailed upon them, the value of the estates which they have had to administer, and the annual income realized from the estates.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-Is 5 per cent. a proper commission?

lVIr. COOPER.-I think the percentage to be paid to the company on whose behalf this Bill has been introduced for the ad­ministration of estates is a question that may fairly be left to the committee to which the Bill will have to be referred; but I may

776 Australian Exec1tto1'S and [ASSEMBLY.] Trustees Association Bill.

remark, in passing, that if Parliament fixes the mte of commission too low, it may do irreparable injury to the estates intrusted to the care of the company and to the persons whoareinterestedinthem. Thecompanywill, of course, have to appoint agents in various parts of the colony who will haveto bepaid for their services, and if the commission to be received by the company is fixed unreason­ably low, it may appoint inferior or incapable persons to act as its agents. Therefore by fixing a low rate of commission, Parliament, instead or doing good, may do a great deal of harm. The question or commission, as I have already said, will be a matter for the consideration of the select committee. Per­lutps it would not be unreasonable to say that the commission allowed to the com­pany for administering any estate intrusted to its care should be only 2~ per cent. upon the capital value after the first £1,000 or £2,000, instead of 5 per cent. on the total amount. As to the amount or paid-up capital which the company should be re­quired to have, that is a matter of very little importance so long as the shares are fairly well held, and the amount of the capital, both subscribed and paid up, is available to meet any claims against the company. As the unpaid capital can always be called up in case of emergency, I do not see any utility in insisting on a paid-up capital rar beyond what may be required for the working of the -company. The great thing is to satisfy the public that the company is a stable com­pany, and that it is composed of men of moral principle and integrity as well as financial ability. If the public have that ,guarantee, it matters comparatively little what the company's capital amounts to. With reliable men at the head of the com­:pany's affairs, and with the shares fairly well held, there is every reasonable guaran­tee that can be desired. The principle of the Bill is decidedly a good one. As to the dam3e enabling an executor to transfer his obligation to the company, I am quite sure that it is a desirable one. If a similar pro­vision had been in operation years ago, many executors now dead would have been glad of the opportunity of appointing a company to continue their functions instead or letting the duty devolve on private individuals.

Mr. ANDERSON.-Mr. Speaker, I have 'very much pleasure in supporting the second reading of the Bill. During the last 30 years, although I have had no trouble what­ever in managing my own business, I have had a great amount or trouble in managing the estates of deceased persons, and I li~ve got. nothing for it but abuse. This very day

I was served with a writ in an action on account of some delay in a payment in con­nexion with an estate of which I am an ,executor. If companies like the one on whose behalf the present measure has been introduced had been in existence 20 or 30 years ago there would now have been very few private individuals acting as executors. There is an amount of security and stability in connexion with such a company, and a certainty that it will be in a position to ad­minister the estate of a deceased person, which there cannot possibly be in cases in which private individuals are appointed as executors. People sometimes die much sooner than is anticipated. Sometimes we find young men appointed executors of the will of an older man, and yet they die first, so that the testator has to make a fresh will or to appoint new executors. I think that the clause enabling an executor to hand over his trust to the company is a very good one indeed. Surely it is very much better that an executor should have power to hand over his trust to a company of recognised stand­ing and ability than that he should have power to transfer it to an individual who has, perhaps, neither the ability nor the inclina­tion to administer an estate.

An HONORABLE MEMBER.-An executor cannot transfer his trust to another person.

1\11'. ANDERSON.-But he may ap­point another person to manage the business after his death. I think it is very desirable that an executor should have power to transfer his trust to a company like the one in whose behalf the Bill has been introduced. As to the capital of the company, I am of opinion that £20,000 paid up will be a very substantial guarantee, inasmuch as there may never be any very large amount of money in the company's hands at one time, for in nine cases out of ten the business connected with the administration of an estate will be wound up in two or three years. I have no doubt that these com­panies will find plenty of estates committed to their management. I am sorry that there was not such a company in existence 30 years ago. If there had been, I would have been saved a great amount of trouble, and so would many of my friends. A pri­vate executor devotes only as much time as he can spare to the management of the estate of which he is executor, but it is to the interest of a company intrusted with such business to have capable men at the head of their affairs, and men who will devote the whole of their time to the management of the estates committed to the company's care; and, in the discharge of their duties,

Union :Pr~tstees,Executors, and [AUGUST 19.] Administrato1's Company's Bill. 777

they will necessarily acquire a large amount of knowledge and experience.

Mr. McLEAN.-Sir, it is my intention to support the Bill. I feel assured that if legatees throughout the colony had their affairs administered by a responsible public company, it would very greatly tend to their advantage. I have had several transactions with the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Oompany, and I have no hesitation in saying that on every occasion I have found the company discharge its duties in a thoroughly business-like manner. Its charges are mode­rate, and its business is transacted most efficiently. I fail to see any valid objection to the proposal in the Bill to confer power upon executors to delegate their trust to a company of this kind. I have frequently been appointed an executor, and on three or four occasions by persons who ueyer even consulted me on the subject. I knew nothing about the matter until I was informed of the fact. In those cases I would gladly have handed over my responsibility, if I could have done so with the certain know­ledge that the estates would be well and carefully administered, for I was saddled with a serious undertaking, involving great loss of time. It has been pointed out that, under the existing law, if an executor re­fuses to act, the Supreme Oourt steps in and appoints a substitute. I have every confidence in the judgment and integrity of the Judges of the Supreme Oourt-I think they are gentlemen or whom we may well be proud-but, nevertheless, I don't believe that it is possible to hand oyer the manage­ment of estates to any persons who would be better qualified to deal with them than a company appointed under the authority of Parliament, and whose very existence de­pends upon the efficient performance of its duties. vVith respect to the point raised by the Attorney-General as to clause 22, which proposes that the additional powers asked for by the promoters of the Bill shall ali10 be conferred on the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Oompany, I am not in a posi­tion to offer any opinion as to whether it would or would not be contrary to parlia­mentary practice to pass snch a clause, but if these additional powers are desirable for the new company, as I think they are, they cannot be undesirable for the existing com­pany. I thereforetrustthatthelittletechnical difficulty which has been raised will be got over, and that the powers referred to will also be conferred on the existing compally.

The SPEAKER.-Before the question is put, I desire to allude to the point raised

by the Attorney-General in regard to clause 22. I may inform the House that the Olerk has, in accordance with his duty, directed the Olerk of Private Bills to bring this clause under the special notice of the select com­mi ttee to which the Bill will be referred; but, before expressing a positive opinion on the question of order, I would like to ask the honorable member for Oastlemaine (Mr. Pa,tterson), and the honorable and learned member for Normanby, who is in charge or the next Bill on the paper, which is exactly similar to this, if they can cite any authority at all for inserting in a Bill relating to' one priyate company a clause to confer powers on another company? Such a course is quite unusual so far as Iknow.

Mr. P ATTERSON.-Mr. Speaker, after the opinion you have expressed, I am in­clined to give an undertaking that the clause referred to shall be expunged from the Bill, leaving the Trustees, Executors, and Agency Oompany to apply to Parlia­ment themselves for the additional powers which that cla,nse was intended to confer upon them.

Mr. SHIELS.-Sir, as you have ap­pealed to me, I may remark that I am not able at present to say whether there is any authority for inserting in a private Bill pro­moted by one company a clause to confer powers on another company. The difficulty, however, in the present case will be got over by expunging the clause in question when the Bill is before the select committee. The Executors and Trustees Association in­tended, by inserting the clause, to do good to the old company; but, if they are in­capacitated, the old company must take the will for the deed.

The SPEAKER.-The course indicated by the honoi'able members is a very proper one to take.

The motion for the second reading of the Bill was agreed to.

The Bill. was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed to a select committee.

UNION TRUSTEES, EXEOUTORS, AND ADMINISTRATOnS

OOMP ANY'S BILL. Mr. SHIELS moved the second reading

of this Bill. He explained that its' object and provisions were precisely similar to those of the Australian Executors and Trustees Association Bill.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to a select committee.

778 Naturalization. [ASSEMBLY.] Nat1tralization.

PUBLIO SERVIOE. OFFICERS OF PARLIAMENT.

Mr. REID said he had been requested by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney­General to postpone the motion standing in his name declaring that "the whole of the officers of Parliament ought to be under the control of Parliament itself, free from any board appointed to manage the general public service," and he would comply with the request, which was made in,consequence of the absence of the Premier, from illness. (Mr. Mirams-" Go on with the motion.") The Ohief Secretary had promised that, if it was postponed, the Government would enable it to be brought forward on as early a day as possible. Under the circumstances, and a8 the Premier desired to be present when the motion was discussed, it would be discourteous not to comply with the re­quest. He would therefore postpone the motion until that day week.

The motion was postponed accordingly.

NATURALIZATION. Mr. BOWMAN moved-

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Go­vernment ought to place themselves in commu­nication with the Governments of each of the Australian colonies, in order that an agreement may be entered into by which letters of natural­ization issued in one colony will hold good in allY of the colonies." There were many naturalized foreigners, especially Germans, in various parts of Vic­toria, and if any of them went to New South 'Vales, South Australia, or Queensland· they found that they were not British subjects there according to the present state of the law. In fact, if a foreigner naturalized in this col.ony crossed the Murray he belonged to no country at all-he had not even the same s1jatus as a blackfellow. It was a great hardship to a large number of useful colo­nists-Germans, Frenchmen, and others­that thl:lir letters of naturalization, in which­ever colony they were taken out, did not have full force and effect in all the colonies. He put a question on the subject to the Chief Secretary some time ago, and the honorable gentleman cavalierly answered that the matter was one for the Federal Council to deal with. It was, however, one on whieh immediate action should be taken, instead of waiting for the creation of the l~ederal. Council. All that the motion asked was that the Government should place them­selves in communication with the Govern­ment of each of the other colonies, in order that a general agreement might be arrived at to make letters of naturalization issued in one 9010ny hold ~ood in all th~ colonies.

Mr. OOOPER, who seconded the motion, stated that there were a large number of Italians, as well as Germans, in Victoria, to whom it would be of advantage if their letters of naturalization would give them the privileges of British subjects in the other colonies ns well as in this colony. No doubt the Federal Conncil, when it was established, would be able to deal with the question; but a settlement of it would in all probability be facilitated if the Government would at once communicate with the other colonies on the subject.

Mr. BERRY stated that what the pro­poser of the motion desired could not be effected by the Government, but would require legislntion. An agreement, on some even more important matters, had been come to at various intercolonial conferences, and had not been carried into practical effect. If the question raised by the motion was con­fined to persons belonging to the two or three nationnlities referred to, there might not be any great difficulty in dealing with the matter, but it affected persons of other nationalities. For instance, there were a large number of Chinese naturalized in Victoria, and, by a law recently passed, a capitation tax was now imposed on all Chinese who came to this colony. Each or the other colonies had its own law with reference to the Chinese, and he did not suppose that it would be disposed to alter its law. Honorable members might look forward to the establishment of the Federal Council at no distant day, and the question of making letters of naturalization issued in one colony apply to all the colonies might fairly be considered by that body. It was certainly unreasonable that, if a man was a naturalized British subject in one colony, the privilege should not extend over the whole of the colonies. When there was a body in existence capable of dealing with the question, no doubt this concession or reform would be made. In the meantime, he was quite sure that no communication on the subject with any other Government would have the slightest effect.

Mr. MACKAY observed that he ex­pected the motion to commend itself to the understanding and sense of justice of the House. It was certainly most extraordinary that respectable Germans and Italians, who had become naturalized British subjects in Victoria, should, directly they crossed the Murray, find themselves to be mere aliens and foreigners. Surely a very ordinary act of administration was all that was needed to re~qve the diffic':!ltr. (Mr. Berry-" It

Exclusion of Strangers. [AUGUST 19.J Excl'ltsion of Stmngers. 779

cannot be removed by mere administration. ") The thing could be done easily enough if there was any determination to do it. All that wanted doing was tbat Ministers bere should place themselves in communication on the subject with other Australian Min­istries. In all probability New South Wales would not come under the Enabling Act, but that was no reason why the Government of that colony and the Victorian Govern­ment should not mutually agree to recog­nise each other's letters of naturalization. What could be more simple than an ar­rangement of that sort? But it seemed that the more easy and straightforward a thing was the more difficulty Ministers found in carrying it out.

The motion was agreed to.

EXCLUSION OF STRANGERS.

Mr. ZOX moved-"That, in the opinion of this House, it is de­

sirable that a standing order in accordance with the present practice of the House of Commons be framed by the Standing Orders Committee, with reference to the practice of excluding strangers during the sitting of the House."

He said-Mr. Speaker, it is hardly neces­sary for me to say one word in support of this proposition, which I have brought before the House on several previous occasions. The present practice of the House of Com­mons is simply that, when an honorable member calls attention to the presence of strangers, the Speaker, without discussion, puts the question to the House, and the majority decide wbether strangers shall or shall not be excluded. In this House, how­ever, any honorable member objecting to the presence of strangers has only to rise and call the attention of the Speaker to the fact that strangers are present, and they are at once ordered to withdraw. What has been the result r vVhy I have seen an honorable member, who has exercised the privilege in question, surrounded by some 20 other members, almost begging him not to have strangers excluded. Surely that is 3. most anomalous state of things in a deliberative assembly, which, in all other respects is content to be ruled by the majority. All I desire on the present occasion is that the Standing Orders Committee should be asked to draw up a standing order on the subject of the exclusion of strangers, and when they have done that, and have reported to the House, we can discuss the whole matter at our leisure. I hope the motion will be car­ried. I am sure honorable members have often felt, when strangers have been ex­cluded, and the. newspa.pers have publishe4

such accounts as they could procure of wllat transpired while the reporters were absent, which accounts were, of course, not all that could be desired, that it would have been much better had the representatives of the press been allowed to remain in their places. There is no Legislative Assembly in the world, out of Australia, that has such a rule with respec~ to strangers, as we have. Speaking for myself, I would much rather that, upon occasions when it might be de­sirable to exclude strangers, the responsi­bility of ordering their exclnsion should rest with the Speaker. I believe that, under such an arrangement, the wishes of the House would always be met. That it should rest with any single honorable member, per­haps in a moment of pique, to have the galleries cleared, is a plan that has worked very ill in the past, and I am very anxious to see it abandoned, and that we should follow the example of the Imperial Parliament.

Mr. OOOPER seconded the motion. Mr. GAUNSON.-Sir, before the House

passes a resolution of this character it ought to be in possession of evidence showing that the behaviour of honorable members in times past has been such as to warra.nt the pro­ceeding. In ~he House of Oommons un­doubtedly the conduct of honorable members has often been such as to make it necessary to alter the old rule with regard to the exclusion of strangers. That is a matter of common every-day history. But let us take the history of the present Parliament of Victoria, and note the circnmstances under which, since it has been in existence, strangers have been excluded. In the ses­sion of 1883 the galleries were cleared, at the instance of the honorable member for Normanby, while I was speaking, and he afterwards explained that he had not the slightest intention of imputing to me any­thing of an incorrect character, but that he simply took the step he did because of the lateness of the hour at which the House was sitting. In fact it was a quarter to one o'clock a.m. The second time strangers were excluded the thing was done at the instance of the honorable member for East Bourke Boroughs, when the Sydney Oon­vention resolutions were under discussion. On that occasion there was a Deputy Speaker in the chair. It is indeed to be observed that, in each of the instances I have referred to, the Speaker was not present. The third and last time the galleries were cleared was when, not many nights since, observations were being made preparatory to an a~t~ck upo~ ap honor~ble member w40

780 Exclusion of Strangers. [ASSEMBL Y. ] Excl~t8ion of Strange1's.

was not present, and, upon my motion, stra.ngers were ordered to withdraw. My' object was that the honorable member in question should not be compromised in his absence. Where then has been the abuse

, of power which the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) appears to com­plain of? It is perfectly well known that the rowdy scenes occasionally enacted in the House of Oommons-the cock-crowing and the like-have never had their counterpart in this Assembly. I do not see that the slightest reason why we should pass the motion before us has yet been offered.

Mr. McLELLAN.-Mr. Speaker, it must not be supposed that I have any ob­jection to the presence of strangers in the gal1eries. I am always glad to see them there, especially when I am about to address the House. But there is something else involved in the question before us. For centuries it has been a parliamentary law that strangers have no right to be present at any debate, and the existence of the rule has always been regarded as a valuable safe­guard. But if the standing orders relating to strangers are repealed, what will be the result? That they will have a legal claim to be present in the chamber, and, if ever they are turned out, they will have a common law right to sue for damages for the wrong done to them. What sort of figure would the House and its officers, with the Speaker at t.heir head, cut in a transaction of that sori;? In my opinion, it would be most dangerous to give strangers a right to be present in the House at any time. We may habitually welcome them to our galleries to hear the debates, but to place them in a different position from that in which they now stand would be for honorable members to deprive themselves of a valuable means of protection.

Sir O. MAO MAHON.-Sir, if I under­stand the present proposition aright, it is that the Standing Orders Oommittee shall be asked to formulate a regulation of a par­ticular kind. But I do not sec what is to be gained by following that plan. If the object is that a certain pract.ice shall be adopted, why does not the honorable mem­ber for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) forthwith propose the 'adoption of that practice? Although I have been a member of the House for lllany years, I cannot say that I ha'i'e seen any great abuse of the power possessed by each honorable member to procure the exclusion of strangers. No doubt occasions sometimes arise when it is highly desirable that such a power should

exist. Oertainly there is one flaw in the existing rule, namely, that it does not give the Speaker himself the power to exclude strangers. I felt, when I was Speaker, that I ought to have that power, and I may add that it has been found necessary to vest the Speaker of the House of Commons with it. As the motion stands, I cannot approve of it. Had not the 11Onorable member for East Melbourne better amend it, with the view of remitting the whole question of the exclusion of strangers to the Standing Orders Committee? To thrust a cut-and. dried resolution upon that body will be scarcely fair.

Dr. QUICK.-l\Ir. Speaker, I am per­sonally indifferent as to whether the motion is carried or not. The question at issue is one affecting the corporate honour of the House, and it is for the House itself to determine whether it will surrender an im­portant privilege-one which was exercised by the House of Commons for centuries, and which we inherited under our Constitution Act. What the honorable member for East Melbourne (Mr. Zox) has said about the question of the exclusion of strangers being determined by a nutjority may be very true, but I think that when he asks us to follow the course he has proposed he ought to be prepared to support his case with something more than mere theory. So far as my ob­servation has gone, I have seen nothing in our past history to justify the surrender he wants us to make. Upon the whole, the motion seems to embody an unjustifiable re­flection upon ourselves. I notice that this is not the first time the honorable member has trotted it out. He seems to have made it a regular hobby. vVhether he is actuate(t in the matter by personal feeling, or been goaded on by a section of the press, I cannot say, but I am quite sure that no good reasons for the proposition have yet been offered.

Mr. ZOX.-I shall be glad to be allowed to adopt the suggestion of the honorable member for 'Vest Melbourne (Sir C. Mac Mahon), so that the whole question may be remitted to the Standing Orders Committee.

Mr. GAUNSON.-Thatcanonly be done with the leave of the House, and I object to that leave being given. If the honorable member wants to please the Al'g~t8 he must do it in some other w.ay.

On the motion or Mr. MASON, the debate was adjourned until vVedncsday, August 26.

The House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

INDEX.

~OLS. 48, 49, & 50.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 435; second reading moved by Mr. Ca.mpbell, 452; debated by Dr. Hearn, 453; Dr. Dobson, 454; Mr. Zeal, 455; Mr. Lori­mer, 456; Bill read second time,457; con· sidered in committee, 457 and 537; read third time, 542; Royal assent, 651.

Address to the Governor (Sir H. B. Locb, K. C.B.) -In reply to His Excellency's speech 011

the opening of the session, 13. Adjournments of the House-Over the race

week, 1665; in consequence of death of Sir Peter Scratchley, 2161.

Administration of Justice Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2008; second reading moved by Mr. Sar­good. 2146; debated by Dr. Hearn, 2147; Mr. Cuthbert, 2151; 1\1.1'. Meares, 2153; :Mr. Balfour, 2153; Dr. Dobson, 2154; Mr. Zeal, 2155; Mr. Brown, 2157; Mr. Ham. 2157; Mr. Melville, 2157; Mr. Ross, 2158; Bill read second time, 2158; considered in com­mittee, 2158 and 2193; read third time, 2194; message from Legislative Assem­bly, requesting concurrence in amendments recommended by the Governor, 2316; amendments agreed to, 2316; Royal assent, 2394·

Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and passed through all its stages, 2506; Royal assent, 2542.

Amalgamation of Legal Profession. (See Legal Projl'ssion Practice Bill.) ,

Appropriation Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2407; read second time, and passed through committee, 2442; read third time, 2496; message from I.Jegislative Assembly, re amendment of clerical errors, 2500; amendments concurred in, 2500; Royal assent, 2541.

Assent to Bills, 387,446, 65 1, 1719,2302,2394, and 2541.

Audit Act Further Amendment Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2498; passed through remaining stages, 25°1; Royal assent, 2542.

Australasia, Federntion of. (See Federal Council of Austra.lasia Bill.)

Australian Executors and Trustees Association Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, 1455; read first time, 1493; second reading. 1654; considered in committee, 1764; read third time, 1813; Royal assent, 2302. SEs.1885.-a

1

Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill­Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 216,; second reading, 2317-18; considered in committee, 2318; read tbird time, 2319; Royal assent, 2541.

BALFOUR, Hon. JAMES (S.E. Prov.) Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 541. Administration of Justice Bill, 2153, 2158,and

2160. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa­

tion Bill, 1654and 1765. Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

23 18 . Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 389,

543, 546, and 651. Close of tbe Session, 2507. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2097 and

2100. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2449. Factories, 'Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2208,

2254,2257,2258,2259,2262,2264,23°5,2306, 2309. 2310, 2314, 2459, and 2460.

Free Libraries Loans Bill, 2353. Governor's Speech, 8. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2464. Hours of Sitting, 22)2. Infanticide, 2494. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2°°5· J.Jegal Profession Practice Bill, 1336. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1502,1506,1615,1616,1618,1621,1622, 1626,1655,1656,1659,1660,1663,1664,1768, 1772,1814,1849,185°,1852,1854,1856,1893, 2088, and 2349.

Loan Application Bill, 2347. Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill,

15°9· Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1487. Protection of 'Women Bill, 2141, 21 44, 2195,

2196,2397,2398, and 2401. Real Property Statute Amendment Bill, 2501. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2501. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2504. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

649,712, 1170, 1172, and 2502. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

24°5·

Bass' and Banks' Straits, Resurvey of-Ques­'tion by Mr. Beaver, 1454.

BEANEY, Hon. J. G. (N. Yarra)-Gl'I.tn.ted leave of absence, 2,61.

I:N"DEX.

BEAYER, Hon. F. E. (N. Yll1'1'a) Bnkers and Millers Statute A mendment Bill,

2317 and 2318. Bass' and Banks' Straits, 1454. Fa.ctories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2204,

2303,2307, and 2316. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1964. Hotham Town Lands Bill, 1614 and 1731. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2005. Leave of Absence to Dr. Beaney, 261. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 989, 1174, and

1333· Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1618, 1620, 1719,1724,1726,177°,1814, and 1852.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2352.

Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1492. Protection of Women Bill, 2194. Ra.ilways Authorized by Act of Parliament,

:t259· Refreshment, 1760. Road Tolls, 64+. 987., and 986. Sl udge Disposal Bill, 2317. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

1167. Union Trustees, Executors, and Administra­

liors Company's Bill, 1493, 1653, and 1813.

BELCHER, Hon. G. F. (lYellington)-Granted leave of absence, 261.

Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2207, 2209, 2259, 2260, 2265, and 2304.

Grant Gratuity Bill, 2464. Justices of the Peace Law Consolidation Bill,

E895· . Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1626. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2461.

Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill, u68.

BELL, Hon. JAMES (N. W. Prov.) Administration of Justice Bill, 2193. Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill,

2·5°6. Consolidated Revenue (£804,000) Bill, 1614. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2101. Estates of Deceased Persons Administration

I~aw Amendment Bill, 2103. Ex:plosives Bill, 393, 548, and 652. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2203,

2253,2254,2256,2258,2260,2262,2264,23°2, 23°5,23°7, and 2316.

Federal Council of Australasia ~ill, 1959 and 1969.

Grant Gratuity Bill, 2354,2462, and 2496. Hours of Sitting, 2252. Justices of the Peace Law Consolidation Bill,

1896. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 1338. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1617, 1618,1621, 1626,1655,1656,1658, 1660,171~172~1725, 172~ 1728,176~1769, 1770, 1849, 1855, and 2089.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2395 and 2397.

Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill, 2495·

Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 1764. Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1488.

BELL, lIon. JAl\WS (continucd)-. Protection of Women Bill, 2145.

Real Property Statute Amendment Bill, ~50I. Sludge Disposal Bill, 25°4 and 25°7. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

648,650,810,813, 989,994,997, II69, II72, 1174, 2.5°0, and 2502.

Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill, 2405 and 2406.

Bills Discharged from the Pape~ - Electric Lighting, 262; Transfer of Land Statute Amendment, 536; Justices of the Peace Law Consolidation, 1760 and .1970; Sludge Dis­posal, 2351; Estates of Deceased Persons Administration Law Amendment, 2395.

Bill Ordered to be read a second time ., this (lay six months "-Legal Profession Practice Bill, 1342.

Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill':'-Brought in by Mr. Sargood, and read first time, 355; second reading, 387-91; considered in com­mittee, 446, 542, and 651; read third time, 7°2; returned from Legislative Assembly with an amendment, 2458; amendment agreed to, 2496; Royal assent, 2541.

BROl\IELL, Hon. THOlllAS (Nelson) Grant Gratuity Bill, 2467. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 1339. J ... icensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1616,1619,1621,1622,1657,1658,1722, 1768, 1770, 1773, 181 5, 1853, and 2089.

Mining Laws Amcndment Bill, 2442. i3urveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, 2007. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

240 7.

BROWN, Hon. FUEDERICK (N.E. Prov.) Administration of Justice Bill, 2157 and 2193. ]~lectoral Law Amendment Bill, 2454. Bxplosi ves Bill, 449. Factories, ·Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2207,

2254,2256,2258, 2265,23°3,2304,23°9, and 23 16.

Free Libraries Loans Bill, 2353. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2467. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 155°,1657,1659, 1766,1850, and 2349. Protection of Women Bill, 2194 and 2397. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2506. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2317 and 2507. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

810,991,996, and 2502.

BUCHANAN, Hon .• JAMES (S.E. Prov.) Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill,

25°6. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2457. Explosives Bill, 448. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2305

and 2309. . Grant Gratuity Bill, 2466.

Justices' Oaths Bill, 356. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 1342. ]~icellsing (Public-houses) J.Jaw Amendment

Bill, 1659 and 1730. Hailways in Mountainous Districts, 1260. Heal Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2498

and 2501. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2503. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2461 .

LEGl::;LATIVE COUXClL.

BUCHANAN, Hon. JAlIlBS (continued)-Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

715,810,812,816,989, 991, 997, 1I72, and 25°0.

1N ater Conservation Acts Amendment Bill, 2.404 and 2406.

Business, Despatch of-Question by Mr. Zeal, II 74 ; statement by Mr. Zeal, 1403. (See Sessional Arrangements.)

CAlIIPBELL, Hon. .J A::IIES, Postmaster-General ( Wellington)

Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 452,' 457, and 540.

Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2.498. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 651. Colliugwood Land Vesting Bill, 2498 and

250 1. Days of Sitting, 3. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2.095 and

2100. ])1'. Dobson, 1894. ]~lectoral Law Amendment Bill, 2450. ]~xplosives Bill, 449 and 549. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2208,

2255, 2257, 22.58, 2261, 2305, 2312, and 2459·

Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill, 1971,2002, and 2.006.

Justices of the Peace Iolaw Consolidation Bill, 261, 1258, 1760, 1858, 1861, 1895, 1896, and 1970.

Tolcave of Absence to Mr. ilelcher, 261. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bil1, 1621, 1623, 1627, 1657, 1662, 1721, 1723, 1730, 1766, 1770, 1850, 1854, 1856,

-2088, and 2349. Mining Laws Amendment Bill, 2442. Postal Department-Post-card Communica­

tion, 644; Loss of a Mail Bag at the Heads, 1486.

Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 1401, 1760, 1763, 1764, and 1861.

Protection of Women Bill, 1956,2138, 2141, 21 45, 21 46, 21 94, 21 96, 2397, 2398, 2400, 2402, and 2407.

l">ublic Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 435, 45 1,45 2, and 537.

Railways in Mountainous Districts, 1260. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2251, 2317,2351,2502,

2504, and 2507. Social Purity Movement, 2193. Stamp Act, 355 and 644. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2461• Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

II70 •

W'ater Conservation Acts Amendment Bill, 240 4.

Casting Vote of Chairman of Committees-On Mr. Zeal's proposal to insert, in Transfer of Toland Statute Amendment Bill, clause re equitable mortgages or liens, II72; on clause 22. of same Bill, 1173; on Dr. Hearn's amendment in clause 18 of Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill, 18 51 •

Chairman of Committees-Dr. Dobson elected, 13-14; Mr. Lorimer, Acting Chairman, 1764, 2395, 2408, and 2441; Mr. Balfour, Acting Chairman, 2596. a2 '

3

CHAIRlIIAN OF CO::l[l\lITTEES (the Hon. F~ S. Dobson), Rulings of-

Bills-Money clauses, 447, 653, 1619, 1663, I728 and 1767; postponement of clauses, 992;' amendment of title, 996; advancing Bills more than one stage, 2208.

Justices of the Peace Law Consolidation Bill, 1894.

Charitable Institutions Act Further Amend­ment Bill-Brought in by Mr. Sargood, and read first time, 1401; second reading, 1555 ; passed through committee, 1555; report adopted, 1615; Bill read third time, 1615; Royal assent, 2541.

CLARKE, Hon. Sir W. J., Bart. (S. Prov.) Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 538. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2456. Factories, 'Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2314. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1970. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2495· Protection of Women Bill, 2194.

Clerk, The-Absence of, 162 and 1166. Codification of the Law-Motion by Mr. Mel­

ville, 1975; debated, 1976; agreed to, 1976. Collingwood Land Vesting Bill-Received f!om

Legislative Assembly, and read first tlllle, 2.498; passed through remaining stages, 2501; Royal assent, 2542.

Committees (permanent)-Appointed, 3. Committees (select) - Appointed- Governor's

speech, 3; Elections and Quali~cati?ns Committee, 355; Money Clauses III BIlls, 1492•

Consolidated Revenue (£1,624,000) BiU-Re­, ceived from Legislative Assembly, and

passed through all its stages, 435; Royal assent, 446.

Consolidated J:{evenue (£804,000) Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and passed through all its stages, 1614-5; Hoyalassent, 171 9.

COUTTS, Hon. DAVID (N. W. Prov.) Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2265

and 2506. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2464. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2006. Land Maps, 809. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1548,1618, 1619, 1621,1623,1656,1721, 1730,1768, and 1770. '

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2396.

Manee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill, 981 and 2495.

Sludge Disposal Bill, 2507. Transfer of Land Statute AmendlUent Bill,

812 and 991. "Vater Conservation Acts Amendment Bill, , 2403,2404, and 2406.

CUlIIMING, Hon. T. F. (W. Prov.) Explosives Bill, 449. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2.208

and 2316. Intestate Estates, 1861. Tolcave of Ahsence to Mr. Ormond, 261.

INDEX.

CU~ING:' Hon. T. ~. (continued)-Lwensmg (Pubhc-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1657,1659,1723,1724,1725,1773, 1813, Iwd 1816.

Sludge Disposal Bill, 2504 and 2507. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill

2461 . '

CUTH~ERT, Hon. HENRY ( Wellington) A~:~mg Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 539. A~lJo~r.nment during the Race Week, 1665. AclmlDlstration of Justice Bill, 2151,2159, and

2160. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa­

tion Bill, 1765. Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill

23 18. ' B~lls. o~ Lading Law Amendment Bill, 546. Dlsclphne Act Amendment Bill, 2101. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2444. Estates of Deceased Persons Administration

Law.Amendment Bill, 1972,1974, and 2103. Exploslves Bill, 5~8. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2253,

2256,2259,2260,2263,2264,23°4,23°7,2310, a.nd 2459.

Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1964 and 1970.

Free Libraries Loans Bill, 2317, 2353, and 2.354·

Hours of Sitting, 2251. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill

2.003 and 2006. ' Justices of the Peace Law Consolidation Bill

1859 and 1896. ' Legal Profession Practice Bill, 1337. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 15°5,1506,1619,1622,1624,162.6,1663, 1664,171~1723,1724,172.~ 1728,173~ 1767, 1769,1770,1773,1849,1850,1855,1857,1892, 2087,2348, and 2350.

Loan Application Bill, 2346. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2395 and 2396. Mining Laws Amendment Bill, 2442. ;ha:mac~ Act Amendment Bill, 2409. I r~x~rentlal Payment of Wages Bill, 1762. Pnvllege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1487 and

1492. Protection of Women Bill, 2142 and 2397. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2496

and 2498. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2317. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2462 . Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

J36, 812,816, 8!8, 993,995, and 997· Water ConservatIOn Acts Amendment Bill,

240 7.

Days of Sitting. (See Sessional Arrangements.) Despatches from Secretary of ~tatc for the

Colonies-Presented by command, 98 I and 1401 .

Diseipline Act Amendment Bill-Brought in by Mr. Sarg~od, and read first time, IJ31; second readlllg moved by Mr. Sargood, ;091; debated by Dr. Hearn, 2092; Mr. Zea.l, 2093; Dr. Do?son, 2094; Mr. Camp­~ell, 20~5; Mr. Lorlme~, 2096; Mr. Balfour, ~097; Btl~ read second tll1lC, 2098; considered 111. con~nllttee, 2098, 2196, and 2252; rcnd tlllrc1 tune, 2266.

Divisions-In full HOllse-Re second reading of' Legal . ~rofession Practice Bill, 1342; re <?ounCll s amendments in Licensing (Pub­lIc-houses) Law Amendment Bill, 2090 and 2350; on second reading of Adminis­trati?n of Justice Bill, 2158; J·e second readmg of Electoral Law Amendment Bill 2458; re Council's amendments in Fac~ tories, Workro?ms, and Shops Bill, 2458; on second readmg 0\ Grant Gratuity Bill, 2467.

Divisions-In Committee-On Mr. Zeal's amendment in clause 2 of Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 546; on Mr. Zeal's proposal to insert, in Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill, clause re equitable mortgages or liens, 1171; on clause 22 of same Bill, II73; onMr, Stanbridge's amend­ment in clause 3 of Licensing (Public­houses) Law Amendment Bill (interpreta­tion of "lodger"), 1616; on Mr. Cuthbert's amendment in clause 23 of same Bill (local option), 1623; on Mr. Wallace's amendment in clause 97 .(Slll;tday trading),. 1663; on clause 108 (dlstramt for penalties), 1724; on clause lSI (barmaids), 1731; on Mr. Cuthbert's amendment in clause 3 of Pre­ferential Payment of ·Wages Bill 1763' on Mr. Bell's amendment in cla'use 35 (grocers' licences) of Licensing Bill, 1771 ; on Dr. Hearn's amendment in clause 18 (accommodation of new houses), 1851 ; on Mr. Beaver's clause, re bars in connexion with theatres, &c., 1853 ; on 1\1r .• Jenner's clause, l'e removal of licences, 1854; on Mr. Balfour's amendments in clause 3 re female licensees, 1856 and 1857; on Mr.

. Cuthberfs amendment, 1893; on Mr. Zeal's amendment in clause 5 of Administration of Justice Bill,. 2161; on Mr. Zeal's amend­ment (interpretation of" factory" or" work­room") in clause 3 of Factories, Workrooms and Shops Bill, 2256; on clause 59 (stamping of furniture), 2315.

DOBSON, Hon. F. S. (S.E. Prov.) Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 454. Administration of Justice Bill, 2154. Australian Executors and Trustees Association

Bill, 1654 and 1764. Bills of J ... ading Law Amendment Bill, 388. Consolidated Revenue (£804,000) Bill, 1614. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2094. Election of Chairman of Committees, 14· Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1961. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 2353. Justices' Oaths Bill, 356. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2002. Justices of the Peace Law Consolidation Bill,

1859. Licensing (Public-houses) La.w Amendment

Bill, 2089. ~p!i~ary Forces-Regulations, 53 6• I rIvllege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1257, 1488,

and 1493. Protection of Women Bill, 2143. Real Property ~tatute Explanation Bill,

2496. Sentences in Criminal Trials Bill, 1898. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

71 3, (Sec ChairJllan of COlltmittees.)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

DOUGH ARTY, Hon .• J. G. (Gippsland) Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2495· Protection of 'Women Bill, 2140. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2460.

Eight Hours Legalization Bill-Heceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1258; motion for second reading, 1401; debated, 1402; negatived, 1403.

Elections and Qualifications Committee-Presi­dent's warrant produced, 355.

Electoral Law Amendment Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2402; second reading moved byMr. Sargood, 2443; amendment by Mr. Cuthbert, that the Bill be read a second timc "this day six months," 2444-7; debate continued by Mr. Zeal, 2447; Mr. Hanna, 2.448; Mr. Balfour, 2449; Mr. Campbell, 2450; Mr. Lorimer, 2451; Mr. Young, 2453; Mr.Melville,2453; Mr. Brown, 2454; Mr. Ham, 2.455; Mr. Jenner, 2.455; Sir "T. J. Clarke, 2456; Mr. Hussell, 2456; Mr. Sterry, 2.456; Mr. Ross, 2456; Mr. Wallace, 2.457; Mr. McCulloch, 2457; Mr. Buchanan, 2457; amendment carried, 2.458.

Electric Lighting Bill-Brought in by Mr. Sar­good, and read first time, 3; discharged from the paper, 2.62.. .

Estates of Deceased Persons Administration I.Jaw Amendment Bill-Brought in by Mr. Thornley, and read first time, 1812; second reading moved by Mr. Thornley, 1971 ; de­bated by Mr. Cuthbert, 1972.; Mr. Sargood, 1973; Mr. Ham, 1974; Mr. Melville, 1975 ; debate adjourned, 1975; resumed, 21°3; further adjourned, 2. 103; order for resuming debate discharged, 2395.

Expiring Laws Continuation Bill-Heceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2354; passed through remaining stages, 24°3; Royal assent, 2541.

Explosives Bill-Brought in by Mr. Sargood, and read first time, 261; second reading, 392; considered in committee, 447, 547,652, 12.54, and 1492; report adopted, 1545; Bill read third time, 1545; returned from Legis­lative Assembly with amendments, 2354; amendments adopted, 2354; Royal assent, 2541. (See Privilege.)

Factories, Workrooms,and Shops Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2006; second reading moved by Mr. Sargood, 2197; debated by Mr. Meares, 2202.; Mr. Bell, 22°3; Mr. Beaver, 2204; Mr. Melville, 2204; Mr. Belcher, 2207; Mr. Brown, 2207; Bill read second time, 2208 ; considered in committee, 2208, 2253, and 23°2; read third time, 2347; message from Legislative Assembly, intimating disagree­ment with some of Council's amendments, 2458; certain of the amendments insisted on,2458-60; message from Legislative As­sembly, intimating agreement to Council's amendment in clause 59, with an amend­ment, 2498; amendment adopted, 2498 ; message from Legislative Assembly, re­questing concurrence in an amendment recommended by the Governor, 2. 541 ; amendment agreed to, 2541; Royal assent, 2541.

Federal Council of Australasia Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1764; sflcond reading moved by Mr. Sargood, 1956; debated by Mr. Ross, 1959; Mr. Beli, 1959; Mr. Ham, 1960; Dr. Dobson, 1961; Mr. Beaver, 1964; Mr. Cuthbert, 1964; Mr. Zeal, 1965; Mr. Melville, 1967 ; Mr. Hanna, 1968; Bill read second time, 1968; considered in committee, 1968 and 2090; read third time, 2°91; Hoyal assent, 23°2.

FITZGERALD, Hon. NICHOLAS (N.C. Prov.)­Granted leave of absence, 261.

Forest Conservation-Question by Mr. Ross, 536; returns ordered, on motion of Mr. Ross, II 74; produced, 16I3; question by Mr. Ross, 2087.

Free Libraries Loans Bill-Ueceived from Legis­lative Assembly, and read first time, 2317; read second time, 2. 3 5 3; considered in com­mittee, 2353; read third time, 2354; Royal assent, 2.541.

Governor, His Excellency the (Sir H. B. Loch, ICC B.)-Speech on opening the session, 2 ; motion by Mr. Winter, for committee to pre­pare address in reply, agreed to, 3 ; address brought up, 3; motion by Mr. Winter, for adoption of address, 4; seconded by Mr. Henty, 5; debated by Mr. Melville, 6; Mr. Balfour, 8; Mr. Ham, 9; Mr. Zeal, 9; Mr. Sargood, I I; address adopted, 13; His Ex­cellency's answer, 26o; speech on proroga­tion of Parliament, 2.542.

Governor's Messages-Intimating that His Ex­cellency has given the Uoyal assent to certain Bills, 387, 446, 651, 1719, 2302, and 2394 ; 1'e .Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill, 2.394; re Surveys and Titles Adjust­ment Bill, 2494; 1'e Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill, 2541 ; re Local Govern­ment Act Further Amendment Bill, 2541.

GRAHAlII, Hon. JAlIIES (S. Yarra) Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1620. Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 1763. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

81 7, 818,992, and II69.

Grant Gratuity Bill-Received from Legislative' Assembly, and read first time, 2354; secondl reading, 2462.-7; third reading, 2496; Hoyal, assent, 2541.

5

HAl\I, Hon. C. J. (Melbourne) Administration of Justice Bill, 2157 and 21"60'..' Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 546 and,.

651. Codification of the Law, 1976. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2100. Dr. Dobson, 1895. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1455. Estates of Deceased Persons Administrationr

Law Amendment Bill, 1974. Explosives Bill, 448 and 653. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 22.0&,.

22.55, 2257, 2.262, 2.265, 23°5, 2306, 2310,.

2.3 12,23 14, 2459, and 2460. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1960 and!

1970.

1~I)J:tX.

HA"3t, Hmi. C. J. (conlinued)­Governor's Speech, 9. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2466. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2005. ,Jmltices of the Peace Law Consolidation Bill,

18 96. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 1341. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1455, 1506,1508,1554,1616,1619,1620, 1623, 1626, 1656, 1658, 1662, 1664, 1725, 1726, 1729, 1770, 1772, 1814, ISI6, IS50,

"lS53, 1854, and 2350. Loeal Government Act Further Amendment

mll,2353· Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill,

150S. Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1257 and

1+93· Protection of Women Bill, 2143 and 2195. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2497. Road Tolls, 9S5. Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, IS94 and

200S. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

656, S14, S16, SIS, 993, 994,997, 1171, and 1172.

HANNA, Hon. PATRICK (N.E. Prov.) Electoral La.w Amendment Bill, 244S, Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Biil, 2303,

230S, 2312, and 2460. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1965. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2006. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1621, li21, 1725, 1726, 172S, 1730, 1769, IS51, IS55, IS57, and 2090.

Loan Application Bill, 2347. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill,2352. Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 14SS. Protection of "Women Bill, 2140 and 2194. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2497. Road Tolls, 9S 5 Tra,nsfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

651 and I169.

HEARN, Hon. W. E. (Melbourne) Acliing Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 453,

457, and 537. Administration of Justice Bill, 2147, 2159,

2160, and 2193. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa­

tion Bill, 1654. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bm, 388,

446,544, 546,651, and 652. Charitable Institutions Act Further Amend-

. Dlent Bill, 1555. " Conduct of Business, 261 and 394. Consolidated Revenue (£S04,000) Bill, 1614. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2092, 2°99,

2101, and 2102. Dr. Dobson, IS94 and 1895. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1402. Explosives Bill, 392 and 450. Justices of the Peace Law Consolidation Bill,

1258, 1858, and IS95. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 1335. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1455, 1500, 1615, 161S, 1620,1625,1626, 1656, 165S, 1660, 1663, 1664, 1773, 1849, 1855, and 1856.

6

IIEARx, I-Ion. W. E. (conthl1led)-Melbourne Tramways TruRt Amendment Bill,

1455, 1508 , and 1555· Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1255,

1257, 1331, 1333, 1489, and 1493· Protection of Women Bill, 214.0, 2145, 2146,

and 2194. Public Buildings Firc Protection Bill, 451

ana 452. Sentences in Criminal Trials Bills, 1167 and

1896. Substantive General L:tw Consolidation Bill,

165 I. Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, IS94. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

537, 64S, 702, SIO, S12, S15, 816, S18, 991, 992, 994, 996, 1167, 1170, and 1172.

HENTY. Hon. TllOilfAS (S. Prov.) Explosives Bill, 450. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2305. Governor's Speech, 5. Licensing (Public·houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1768. Protection of Women Bill, 2196 and 2397.

Hotham Town Lands Bill-Received from Legis­lative Assembly, and read first time, 1614; passed through remaining stages, 173 I ; Royal assent, 2302.

Infanticide-Question by Mr. Balfour, 2494; statement by Mr. Sargood, 2494.

Intestate li;states-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Cumming, 1861; produced, IS61.

JENNER, Hon. C.;J. (S. W. Prov.) Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 541. Chairman of Committees, 13. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2455. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2463. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1722, 1725,1726,1729, 1815, IS53, IS54, 234S, and 2350.

Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill, 2495·

Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1492. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2461 . Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

70 9.

Jika Jika Land Vesting Bill. (See Collingwood Land Vesting Bill.)

Justices' Oaths Bill-Brought in by Mr. Sar­good, and read first time, 355; second read­ing, 355-6; passed through remaining stages, 356; Royal assent, 3S7.

'Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill­Brought in by Mr. Campbell, and read first time, 197 I; second reading, 2002-6; con­sidered in committee, 2006; read third time, 2006; Governor's message recommending amendments,2394; amendments agreed to, 2395; Royal assent, 2541.

Justices of the Peace Law Consolidation Bill­Brought in by Mr. Campbell, and read first time, 261; second reading, 1258; Bill dis­charged from the paper, 1760; new Bill in­troduced, and read first time, 1760; second reading, 1858-61; considered in committee, IS61 and IS94; Bill discharged from the paper, 1970.

LEUl:;L.\.TlVE t.:OU~UIL.

Land Maps-Questioll hy 1\'11". Coutts, 809. Legal Profe~sion Practice Bill-Heceived from

Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 989; second reading moved by Mr. Beaver, 1333; amendment by Dr. Hearn, that the Bill . be read a second time "this day six months," 1335; debate continued by Mr. Bal­four, 1336; Mr. Ross, 1337; Mr. Cuthbert, 1337; Mr. Bell, 1338; Mr. Melville, 1338; Mr. Bromen, 1339; Mr. Meares, 1340; Mr. Ham, 1341; Mr. Buchanan, 1342; amend­ment carried, 1342.

Legislative Council-Question by Mr. Zeal, 1'e holidays to attendants, 2441.

Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1454; statement by Mr. Sterry, 1486; second reading of Bill moved by Mr. Sargood, 1493; debated by Dr. Hearn, 1500; Mr. Balfour, 1502; Mr. Cuth­bert, 15°5; debate adjourned, 1508; re­sumed by Mr. Melville, 1545; continued by Mr. "Vallace, 1547; Mr. Coutts, 1548; Mr. Zeal, 1549; Mr. Brown, 1550; Mr. Young, 1552; Mr. Ham, 1554; Bill read second time, 1555; considered in committee, 1615, 1655, 1719, 1766, 1813, 1849, and 1892; interpretation of term ., lodger," I 6 I 6 ; sale of colonial wine, 1617, 1618, and 1766; hours of closing, 1617 and 1767; billiard-table licences, 1618; licence· fees, 1619j road-side licences, 1620 and 1769; railway refreshment-rooms, 1621; local option, 1621 and 1655; compensation, 1624; grocers' licence, 1655 and 1770; sale of liquor to young persons, 1659; Sunday trading, 1660 and 1772; bonafide travellers, 1663; houses owned by brewers, &c., 1719; distraint for penalties, 1722; drunkards, 1724; age of spirits, 1726; appropriation of fees and fines, 1727 j barmaids, 1731; bars in theatres, &c., 1814 and 1852; new houses, 1849; removal of licences, 1853 ; female licensees, 1854 and 1892; Bill read third time, 1893; message from Legislative Assembly, intimating disagreement with one of Council's amendments, 2087; mes­sage considered, 2087; amendment insisted on, 2090; message from Legislative Assem­bly, intimating agreement to amendment with amendments, 2317; amendments adopted, 2348-50; message from Legisla­tive Assembly, requesting concurrence in amendments recommended by the Gover­nor, 2407; amendments agreed to, 2407; Royal assent, 2541.

Loan Application Bill-Received from Legisla­tive Assembly, and read first time, 2317; read second time, 2346; considered in com­mittee, 2347; read third time, 2347; mes­sage from Legislative Assembly, requesting concurrence in amendments recommended by the Governor, 2407; amendments agreed to, 2407; Royal assent, 2541.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill-Brought in by Mr. Sargood, and read first time, 2193; second reading, 2351-3; considered in committee, 2353, 2395, and 2441; read third time, 2441; returned from 1~egislative Assembly with amendments, 2500; amendments agreed to, 2500; Gover­nor's message recommending am.cndments, 2541; amendments agreed to, 2541; Royal assent,2542. .

7

Lodgers' Intel'Gsts ProtectIon Bill-Heceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1614; considered in committee, 1731 and 1764; read third time, 1812; Royal assent, 2302.

LORIlItER, Hon. JAMES (Melbourne) Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 456. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 390,

446,448, 450, and 2458. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2096, 2098,

2100,2196, and 2252. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 245 I. Factories, 'W orkrooms, and Shops Bill, 2209,

2253,2256,2258,2260,2262,2264,23°3,23°4, 2310,2313,2315,2316, and 2459.

Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1968, 1970, and 2091.

Hours of Sitting, 2252. . Justices of the Peace 1 ... aw Consolidation Bill,

1860 and 1895. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1616, 1618, 1621,1622,1624,1655, 1659, 1720,1723, 17~4,1726,1728,1767, 1768 ,1770, 1773, 18 14, 1850, 1854, 1857, 2088, and 2349·

1.Joan Application Bill, 2346. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2352. Lodgers' Interests Protection Bill, 1614, 1731,

1764, and 1812. Pharmacy Act Amendment Bill, 2354 and'

24°8. Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1487. Protection of Women Bill, 2146 and 2194. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 452. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2317. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2460. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

816, 989, 992, II69, and 1171. Works on Select Plants, 2251.

MACBAIN, Hon. JAlIIES (S. Yarra). (See Pre&i· dent, The.)

MCCULLOCH, Hon. WILLIAlIl (Gippsland) Administration of Justice Bill, 2158 and 2161. Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill,

25°6. Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

231 8. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2457. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2208,

2257,2258,2262,2264,2304,23°9,2310,2313, 2316, and 2460.

Grant Gratuity Bill, 2466. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1662, 1664, 1723, 1727, and 1730. Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment BrQ,

15°9· Protection of Women Bill, 2196. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2504 and 2506. Social Purity Movement-Mr. Campbell, 2193 •. Stratford Court-house Site Bill, 2498. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,.

II69·

Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bm. -Question by Mr. Coutts, 981;. Bill re­ceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2441; second reading, 2494-6;: passed through remaining stages, 2496; Royal assent, 2542.

INDEX.

MEARl<~S, Hon. GEORGE (N. Yarra) Administration of Justice Bill, 2153. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2202,

2208,2258,2260,2262,2303.2304,2306,2309, lmd 2311.

Gra.nt Gratuity Bill, 2463. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 1340. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2352 and 2395. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 25°2. Road Tolls, 984. Tra,nsfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

812 and 997.

Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill -Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1455; second reading moved by Dr. Hearn, 150S; debated, 1 50S; debate adjourned, 15°9; resumed, 1555 ; Bill read second time, and passed through remaining stages, 1555 ; Royal assent, 1719.

MELVILLE, Hon. DONALD (S. Prov.) Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 540. Administration of .Justice Bill, 2157. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 1654, 1765, and ISI3. Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

231S. BUls of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 543,

544, 546, and 651. Codification of the Law, 1975. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2099 and

2100. Dr. Dobson, 1894. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1401. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2453. Estates of Deceased Persons Administration

]~aw Amendment Bill, 1975. Explosives BilI,44S, 450, 548, and 653. Faetories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2204,

2208, 2255, 225S, 2260, 2264, 2303, 2304, 2306,2308,2310, 23 12,23 16, and 2459.

Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1967. ]j"ree Libraries Loans Bill, 2353. Governor's Speech, 6. Gmnt Gratuity Bill, 2465. ,Justices' Oaths Bill, 357. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2004. Justices of the Peace Law Consolidation Bill,

1896. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 133S. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1505, 150S, 1545,1619,1620,1623,1626, 1655, 1659, 1662, 1722, 1725, 176S, 1816, IS52, IS56, and 2090.

Lo:tn Application Bill, 2347. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2352. Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill,

1508 and 1555. New Railways, 644. Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1491. Protection of Women Bill, 2399 and 24.01. Real Property Statute Amendment Bill, 2501. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2497

and 2506. Road Tolls, 986. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2503. Stratford Court-house Site Bill, 2499. Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, 200'7 and

:w08.

8

MELVILLE, Hon. DONAL]) (continuetl)-Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2460. Transfer of Laud Statute Amendment Bill,

648, 710, 811, 812, 815, 817, 81 9, 991,991, 996,998, 1167, 1171,2499, and 2500.

Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill, 240 5.

Members-Absence of Dr. Beaney, Mr. Ormond, and Mr. Belcher announced, 3; leave of absence granted to Dr. Beaney, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Belcher, and Mr. :Fitzgerald, 261.

Military Forces-Regulations-Question by Dr. Dobson, 536.

Mines, Rating of-Subject discussed in com­mittee on the Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2396 and 2441.

Mining Laws Amendment Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2403; passed through remaining stages, 2442-3; Royal assent, 2541.

Money Clauses of Bills. (See Privilege.) Municipal. (See Local Government Act FU1'ther

Amendment Bill.)

ORlIIOND, Hon. FRANCIS (S. W. Prov.)-Granted leave of absence, 261.

Parliament-Opening of the session, I; proro­gation, 2543.

PEARSON, Hon. WILLlAlII (Gippsland) Justices' Oaths Bill, 356.

Petitions presented- Be Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 446; re Bills of Lading Law Amenilment Bill, 536; against Legal Profession Practice Bill, II 67 and I2 54; re Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill, 260, 1454, 1486, 1540, 1614, 1651, 1719, and 1760; re Australian Executors and Trustees Association Bill, 1614; against Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 1719; for Protection of Women Bill, 1760 and 2346; for Administration of Justice Bill, 2138; re Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2346 and 244L

Pharmacy Act Amendment Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2354 ; read second time, 240S; passed through remaining stages, 2409; Royal assent, 2541.

Plants, Select-Work on-Question by Mr. Lorimer, 2251.

Postal Department-Question by Mr. Sterry, re post-card communication, 644; by Mr. Zeal, re loss of a mail bag at the Heads, 1486.

Preferential Payment of Wages Bill-Brought in by Mr. Campbell, and read first time, 1401; second reading, 1760-2; considered in committee, 1762; read third time, 1861 ; Royal assent, 2541.

PRESIDENT, The (the Hon. James MacBain)­Rulings of-

Bills-First reading, 355; second reading, 35 6. Legislative Council-Holidays to atteudants,

2441. Privilege-Money clauses in Bills, 1257,1331,

and 1332. Select committees, 1493.

lJEGlSLATiVE COUNCIL.

Prince's Bridge, New. (See Swanston-street Bridge Bill.)

Privilege-Motion by Mr. Sargood, for recom­mittal of Explosives Bill, for the purpose of striking out certain money provisions, 1255; Dr. Hearn objects to the motion, as an in­terference wi th the Council's rights under the Constitution Act, 1255; subject debated, 1256; debate adjourned, 1257; tho Presi­dent's ruling, 1332 ; motion by Dr. Hearn, that the question be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, 1333; agreed to, 1333; committee empowered to sit on no-House days, 1401; committee's report brought up, 1487; debated, 1487; first recommendation adopted, 1492; select committee appointed to take second recommendation' into con­sideration, 1492; committee's report brought up, 2251.

Protection of Women Bill-Brought in by Mr. Campbell, and read first time, 1956; second reading moved by Mr. Campbell, 2138; de­bated by Mr. Dougharty, 2140; Mr. Hanna, 2140; ])1'. Hearn, 2140; Mr. Ross, 2141; Mr. Balfour, 2141; Mr. Zeal, 2142; Mr. Ham, 2143; Dr. Dobson, 2143; Bill read second time, 2144; considered in committee, 2145, 2194, and 2397; read third time, 2407.

Public 13uildings Fire Protection Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 435; second reading,451-2; considered in committee, 452; read third time, 537; message from l ... egislative Assembly, re­questing concurrence in amendments recom­mended by the Governor, 652; amendments agreed to, 6 $2.

Qualification, Declarations of-Delivered to Clerk, 3,162, and 981.

Railway LO:1n Account (1885) Application Bill­Heceived from Legislative Assembly, and passed through all its stages, 2441 ; Royal assent, 2541.

Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill-Re­ceived from Legislative Assembly,and read first time, 2317; passed through remaining stages, 2351; Royal assent, 2394.

Railways Authorized by Act of Parliament­Question by Mr. Melville, 644; by Mr. Beave.r, 1259.

Railways in Mountainous Districts-Question by Mr. Buchanan, 1260.

Real Property Statute Amendment Bill-Re­cei ved from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2441; passed through remaining stages, 2500; Hoyal assent, 2542.

Real Property Statute Explanation Bill-Re­ceived from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2441; second reading, 2496-7; considered in committee, 2497; read third time, 2498 ; message from Legislative As­sembly, intimating disagreement with some of Council's amendments, 2501; amend­ments insisted on, 2502; message from Legislative Assembly, insisting on disagree­ing with Council's amendments, 2506; amendments not insisted on, 2507; Royal assent, 2542. (See Title to Land.)

Refreshment-Motion by Mr. Beaver, limiting the adjournmel1t for refreshment to one hour, negatived, 1760.

9

Hoad Tolls - Question by Mr. Beaver, 644; motion by Mr. Beaver in favonr of munici­pa.lities being reimbursed" for their loss of revenue in consequence of the abolition of tolls," 982; seconded by Mr. Meares, 984: debated by Mr. Ross, 984; Mr. Ha.nna, 985; Mr. Sterry, 985; Mr. Ham, 985; Mr. Melville, 986; Mr. Winter, 987; Mr. Zeal, 987; Mr. Sargood, 988; motion agreed to, 989.

noas, Hon. \VILLIAM (W. Prov.) AJministration of Justice Bill, 2158. Codification of the Law, 1976. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2094, 2099,

2101, and 2102. Dr. Dobson, 1894. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2456. Explosives Bill, 448. Factories, Workrooms! and Shops Bill, 2257,

2261, 2263, 2302., 2305, 2309, 2311, 2313, 23 16, and 2459.

Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1959, 1969, and 1970.

Forest Conservation, 536, 1174, and 2087. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2466. Hours of Sitting, 2252. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2003. Justices of the Peace Law Consolidation Bill,

1861. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 1337. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1722, 1724, 1727, 1729,1766,1769,1813, 181 5, 18$4, 2090, and 2350.

Loan Application Bill, 2347. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill,~3$2 and 2396. Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1.257. Protection of Women Bill, 2141, 2145, 2397,

and 2398. Road Tolls, 984. Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, 2007. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2461. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

240 4.

RUSSELL, Hon. PHILIP (S. W. Prov.) Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 390

and 651. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2099. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2456. Explosives Bill, 450. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2208,

;1.257,2258, 2261,2264, 2304, and 231 I. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 2354. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2464. Justices' Oaths Bill, 356. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2005 and 2006. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1620, 1660, 1721, 1722, 1725, 1766, 1772, 1849, and 2089.

Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 1763. Protection of Women Bill, 2195. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 450. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2498. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2503 and 2504. Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, 2007. Swagsmen, 2002. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2461.

1NDEX.

HUI'SEJ.L, Hon. PHIT.1P (colltinued)-Transfer of Land Statute Amendment 13111,

648,810, and 816. Water Conservation Acts Amendment. Bill,

2403 and 2404.

SARGOOD, Hon. F. T., Minister of Defence and Water Supply (S. Yarra)

Actjng Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 435 and 542 •

Adjournment of the House over Race 'Week, 1665; in consequence of death of Sir Peter Scmtchley, 2.161.

Administration of ,Justice Bill, 2008, 2146, 21 58,2160, 2193,2194, and 2316.

Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill, 25 06.

A ppropriation Bill, 2407,2442, 2496, and 25°°. Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2501. . Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

2I61. Bass' and Banks' Straits, 1454. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 355,

387,446, 545, 547,65 1,7°2, and 245 8. Chairman of Committees, 13. Charitable Institutions Act Further Amend-

ment Bill, 1401. Clerk of Council, 162 and II67. Close of the Session, 25°7. Codi:fication of the Law, 1976. Conduct of Business, 262, 394, 1174, and 1403. Consolidated Revenue Bills, 435 and 1614.

lo'Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 1331, 2091, 2098,2100,2102,2196,2252, and 2266.

Dr. Dobson, 1894. :Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1258. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2402 and

244·3· Electric Lighting Bill, 3 and 262. Estates of Deceased Persons Administration

]~a.w Amendment Bill, 1973 and 2103. Expiring Laws Continuation Bill, 2354 and

240 3. Explosives Bill, 261, 392, 394, 447, 448, 450,

547, 548, 652, 1254, 1333, 1487, 1492, 1545, and 2354.

Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2006, 2197, 2205, 2208, 2253, 2254, 2256, 2258, 2260, 2262, 2264, 2303, 2304, 2306, 2309,

• : 23[0,23.15,2316,2347,2458,2498, and 2541. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1764,

19.56, 1968, '970, and 2090. Forest Conservation, 536, II74, and 2087. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 2353. Governor's Speech, II. Hours of Sitting, 2251 and 2252. Infanticide, 2494. ,Tustices' Oaths Bill, 355 and 356. Land Maps, 809. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1455, 1493, 161 5,1616,1618,1620,1622, 1624, 1626, 1655, 1657, 1658, 1664, 1719, 1720, 1722, 1724, 1726, 1729, 1766, 1768, 1770, 1772, 1813, 1815, 1816, 1849, 1850, ~.g52, 1854, 1857, 1858, 1.893, 2087, 2348, 2350, and 2407.

Loan Application Bill, 2317, 2346, and 2407. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2193 and 2500. MaIIeEi Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

98 I and 2494. Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill,

15°9·

SAllaOO}), Hon. F. T. (contimted)­Military Forces-Hegulations, 536. Mining Laws Amendment Bill, 2403. New Uailways, 644 and 1260. Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 1763. Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1256, 1401,

1491, and 1493. Protection of 'Vomen Bill, 2397. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 652. Uailway Loan Account (1885) Application

Bill, 2441. RailwH.ys and Irrigation Works Loan Bill,

2317 and 2350. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2501

aud 2507. Road Tolls, 644 and 988. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 2354 and 2402. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

24°9· Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

813,815,993, 1169, and II70. Visitor-Mr. Peddie, 1254. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

2354, 24°3, 2404, 2406, and 2541. Work on Select Plants, 2251. Yarra Banks-Police Patrol, 2494.

Scratchley, Major-General Sir Peter-Death announced and adjournment of the House in consequence, 2161.

Sentences in Criminal Trials Bill-Brought in by Dr. Hearn, and read first time, I167; second reading moved by Dr. Hearn, 1896; debated by Dr. Dobson, 1898; debate ad­journed, 1899.

Sessional Arrangement.s-Appointment of days of sitting and standing committees, 3; statement by Dr. Hearn, re conduct of busi­ness, 261; alteration of hours of sitting, 2251-2. (See Business.)

Sludge Disposal Bill-Brought in by Mr. Camp­bell, and read first time, 2251 ; discharged from the paper, 2351; Bill received from Legislati ve Assembly, and read first time, 2502; second reading, 2502,2505, and 2507; passed through remaining stages, 2507; Royal assent, 2542.

Social Purity Movement-Question by Mr. McCulloch, 2193.

Stamp Act, Amendment of-Questions by Mr . Zeal, 355 and 644.

STANBRIDGE, Hon. W. E. (N.O. Prov.) Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1616.

10

STERRY, Hon. D. C. (N. Prov.) Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

23 18. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2456. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2255,

2263.23°2, and 2316. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1486, 1621, 1622, 1664, 1724, 1731, 1766, 1768, 1772, 1849, 1850, and 1852.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2352,2396, and 2441.

Post-card Communication, 644-Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 1763. Roa.d Tolls, 985. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

2406.

LEU l:;LA'!'l VB llOU~CIL.

~tratford Court-house Site Bill-Heceived from Legislative ARsembly, and read first tIme, 2498; passed through remaining stages, 2499; Royal assent, 2542.

Substantive General Law Declaration Bill-· Brought in by Dr. Hearn, and read first time, 1651-3.

Supreme Court. (See Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill; also Administration of Justice Bill.)

Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill-Brought in by :Mr. Thornley, and read first time, 1614; second reading, 1893-4; considered in committee, 1975 and 2007; read third time, 2°91; Governor's message recommending amendment, 2494; amendment agreed to, 2494; Royal as~ent, 2541. (See Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill.)

Swagsmen-Statement by Mr. Russell, 2002. Swanston-street Bridge Bill-Received from

Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2354; passed through remaining stages, 2402; Royal assent, 2541.

Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill­Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2409; second reading, 246o-I; considered in committee, 246 I; read third time, 2462; Royal assent, 2541.

THORNJ4EY, Hon. NATHAN (W. Prov.) Charitable Institutions Act Further Amend-

ment Bill, 1555 and 1615. . Estates of Deceased Persons Administration

Law Amendment Bill, 1812 and 1971. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2351, 2395, 2396, and 2441. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2441. Real Property Statute Amendment Bill, 2441

and 2500. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2441,

2496, 2498, and 2506. Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, 1614,

1893, 2007,2008, and 2°91. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2460 and 2462. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

261,536,644,810,812,816,818,989,990,992, 995, 996, 998, 1167. II68, 1171, 1172, 1174, 1331, 2499,2500,2502, and 2505.

Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's Bill, 1731, 1861, and 1976.

Titles-oOlce. . (Se~ Public Buildings Fire Pro-tection Bill.) ,

Title to Land-Subject della ted. on second read­ing of Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill, 707 ;;.jfucmPJJlit.t~~,. a J 0, 989, ancL i 172; in connexion with Legislative Council's amendments in Real Property Statute Expianation Bill, 2496 and 2501.

Tolls. (See Road Tolls.) Transfer of Land Statute Amendment BiIl­

Brought in by Mr. Thornley, and read first time, 261; discharged from the paper, 536; new Bill brought in, and read first time, 537; second reading moved by Mr. Thornley, 644; debated by Mr. Russell, 648; Mr. Bell, 649; debate adjourned, 651; resumed by Dr. Hearn, 702; continued by Mr. Jenner, 709; Mr. Melville, 710; Mr. Balfour, 712; Dr. Dobson, 713; Mr. Buchanan, 715; Bill

11

Transfer of I.and Bill (conliullcd)-read second time, 716; considered in com­mittee, 810, 989, and II67; report adopted, 1254; Bill read third time, 1331; returned from Legislative Assembly with amend­ments, 2460; amendments dealt with, 2499; message from Legislative Assembly, in­timating agreement to clause 56 with an amendment, 2502; amendment accepted with an amendment, 25°5; Governor's message recommending amendment, 2541; amendment agreed to, 254-1; H.oyal assent, 2542 •

Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 1731; read second time, 1861; considered in committee, 1894; third reading, 1976; Royal assent, 2302.

Union Trustees, Executors, and Administrators Company's Bill-Received from Legislative Assembly, 1455; read first time, 1493; second reading, 1653-4; considered in committee, 1764; read third time, 18 I 3; Royal assent, 2302.

Visitor-Accommodated with a chair on the floor of the House-Mr. Peddie, member of the House of Commons, 1254.

WALLACE, Hon. J. A. (N.E. Prov.) Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

23 18• Consolidated Revenue (£804,000) Bill, 1615. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2457. Explosives Bill, 393, 450, and 652.. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2208,

2254,2256,2261,2264,2303,2305,2306,2308, 2311,2315, and 2316. .

Free Libraries Loans Bill, 2353. Hours of Sitting, 2252. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1455, 1547, 1616,1618,1622,1624,1626, 165~165~I658, 1660,1664,1723.1724, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1855, 1857, and 2088.·

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2396.

Mining Laws Amendment Bill, 2442. Pharmacy Act Amendment Bill, 2409. Protection of Women Bill, 2145. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2317, 2351, 2504, 2505,

and 2507. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2460. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

1169 and 2499. . Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

240 4. t.,

Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill­Received from Legislative Assembly, and read first time, 2354; read second time, 24°3; considered in committee, 2404; read third time, 2407; message from Legislative Assembly , requesting concurrence in amend­ments recommended by the Governor, 2541; amendments agreed to: 2541; Royal assent, 2541.

WETTENHALL, Hon. H. H. (Nelson) Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2306

and 2314. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2464.

INDEX.

WETTl:NHALL, Hon. H. I-I. (continued)­Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1508, 1617, 1660, 1730, 1767, 1768, 1770, and 1814.

Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 25°2. Sludge Disposal Bil1~ 2503. . Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment BIll,

~46I. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

24°6.

WILLIAMSON, Hon. JAlIIES (Nelson) . Australian Executors and Trustees AssocUl­

tion Bill, 1654, 1656, and 1658. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2100. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2208,

1. 2 59,2260, and 2305. . Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Ihll,

2003. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1618, 1722, 1725, 1726, 1768, 1771,1814, 2349, and 2350. .

Protection of Women Bill, 2145 and 2146. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2317. . Transfer of Land Statute Amendment BIll,

813, 816, and 1169.

WINTBR, Hon. W. I. (N. Prov.) . Factories, Workrooms, and Shops BIll, 2209,

2.262,2313. and 2460. Governor's Speech, 3, 4, and 13. . Justices of the Peace Law Amendment BIll,

2°°5· Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1622, 1656; 1767, 1769, 1771, and 1857. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2495· Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 1763. Protection of Women Bill, 2145. Roa,d Tolls, 987. Sludge Disposal Bill, 25°7. Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, 20°7 .. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment BIll,

2461. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

816,818, and 997. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

2404.

Yarra, Banks, Police Patrol of-Question by Mr. Zeal, 2494.

YOUNG, Hon. GEORGE (N. W. Prov.) Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2453. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 2209, . 2308,2313, and 2316.

Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill, 1552, 1656, 1663,1664,177°, 1815, and 1816.

Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2501. and 2506.

!.,:. ij,,. .. 12

ZEAL, Hon. W. A. (N.C. Prov.) . Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 455,

457, and 539. Administration of Justice Bill, 2155, 2158, and

2160. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa­

tion Bill, 1493 and 1764. . Rills of J ... ading Law Amendment Bill, 391,

543, 546, and 651. Codification of the Law, 1976. Conduct of Business, 262, 394, 1174, and

140 3. . Consolidated Revenue (£804,000) BIll, 1614. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2093, 2098,

2100,2102, and 2252. Dr. Dobson, 1894. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2447. ]~xplosives Bill, 447, 448. and,451. . . :Factories, 'Vorkrooms, and Shops Blll, 2254,

225 6,225 8,2261, and 2458. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1965,

1968, and 1970. Governor's Speech, 9. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2465. Hours of Sitting, 2251. .Tustices' Oaths Bill, 355 and 356. . Justices of the Peace Law Amendment BIll,

2003 and 2006. . . . Justices of the Peace Law ConsolIdatIOn BIll,

1860 and 1895. Leave of Absence to Mr. Fitzgerald, 261. Legislative Council-Holidays to Attendants,

2441. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1455,1549,1617,1618,1621,1622.1627, 1721,1723,1724,1727,1768,1770,1816,1853, 1856, 1858, 1893, and 2088.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2395.

Loss of a Mail Bag at the Heads, 1486. Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill,

15°9· Mining Laws Amendment Bill, 2442. Privilege-Money Clauses in Bills, 1488. Protection of Women Bill, 2142, 2145, 2146,

2397,2398, 24°1. 2402, and 2407. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 45 I and

45 2 • Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2498. Road Tolls, 987. Stamp Act. 355 and 644. . Stratford Court-house Site Bill, 2498. Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, 1894. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 2402. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

810,812, 81 4, 816, 818, 989, 991, 993, 994, 997, 1I68, and 1170.

Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bm, 2404 and 2406.

Yarra Banks-Police Patrol, 2494.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

Aborigines-Vote for department discussed in Committee of Supply, I2I0 and 1386.

ANDERSON, Mr. WILLIAM (Villiers and Heytes-

Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill-Brought in by Mr. Kerferd, and read first time, 302; second reading, 371-5; considered in c0!ll­mittee, 375; report adopted, 398; thIrd reading, 440.

Address to the Governor (Sir H. B. Loch, K.C. B. )--Inreply to His Excellency's speech on the opening of the session, 259.

Adjournments of the House-In consequence of municipal elections, 684 and 702; of National Agricultural Show, 747; over the race week, 1718; in consequence of death of Sir Peter Scratchley, 2192.

Administration of Justice Bill-Governor's message brought down, 396; considered ill committee, 446; resolution for an appro­priation agreed to, 446; considered and adopted, 857; Bill brought in, and read first time, 857; question by Mr. Gaunson, 1I77; second reading of Bill moved b:y: Mr. Kerferd, 1667; debated by Mr. W'nxon, 1671; Sir C. Mac Mahon, 1672; Lt.-Col. Smith, 1674; Mr. Shiels, 1675; Mr. Gaun­son, 1678; Mr. M. H. Davies, 1682; debate adjourned, 1684; r~sumed by Mr. M .. H. Davies, 1737; contmued by Dr. QUIck, 1739; Mr. Zox, 1741; Mr. Harper, 1742; Mr. Pearson, 1743; Mr. Graves, 1744; ]\'1r. Laurens, 1747; Bill read second time, 1747; considered in committee, 1984; read third time, 201 I; Governor's message recom­mending amendments, 2320; amendments agreed to, 2320.

Adulteration of Liquors. (See Licensing Bill.) Agricultural Colleges-Qu£:stion by Mr. Graham,

re amendment of Act, 23; by Mr. Langdon, re voters for members of council, 23; by Mr. Uren, re free passes to members of council, 1I97; by Mr. Langdon, re Foster's Swamp and Pental Island, 1735 and 2355.

A gricultural Colleges Act Amendment llill­Brought in by Mr. Levien, and read first time, 2413; second reading, 2533-4; con­sidered in committee, 2534; read third time,2535· .

Agriculture, Department of-Question by Mr. Derham, re Secretary, 1735 and 2410; re Agricultural Chemist, 1735; vote for de­partment discussed in Committee of Supply, 2242. (See Harvester, Combined.)

Albert Park-Question by Mr. Gaunson, 2522; 'statement by Mr. Tucker, 2523.

Alphington Railway-Questions by Mr. Mirams, 61 and 95; statements by Mr. Mirams, 123 and 164; by Mr. Langridge, 137; questions by Mr. Mirams, 459, 683, 932, and 1509.

Amalgamation of Legal Profession. (See Legal Profession Practice Bill.)

1;)

bury) Aborigines, 1388. Agricultural Department, 2243. . Australian Executors and Trustees Assocla-

tion Bill, 776.. . Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Blll,

1578. Camperdown and Terang Railway, 1666. Closed Roads, 1800. Education Vote, 2129. ];'~mployers' Liability Bill, 2191: . Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1647. . 1649, 1650,1748,1752,1929,1933,1935,1938,

1941,1942, 1946, 1949, 1950, and z5 16. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1611. Fish Creek Selections, 276. Glen Thompson H.ailway Station, 2320. Governor's ~peech, 255. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2039. Juvenile Circus Performers, 298. Koroit Police Court, 2319. Legislative Assembly-Holidays to Attend­

ants, 2412. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 799,1064, 1080, II85, and 12~4. Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bndge, 232.2.. Hace Week, 1718. Railway vVorkshops, 2046. Heal Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2536. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2484. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 1954. Telegraph Operators, 21I9. University of Melbourne, 1774 and ~134. . Water Conservation Acts Amendment BIll,

2343· Yarra Bank Sites, 416.

Antarctic Exploration-Motion by Mr. Duffy, withdrawn, 2344. .

Appropriation Bill-Brought in by Mr. Servlce, and read first time, 2356; read second time, 2413; considered in committee, 2413; read third time, 2428; clerical errors discovered bv the Clerk of the Parliaments, amended, 25 28 .

Assent to Bills, 371, 458,682, 1688, 2320, and 2428.

Assize Courts-Question by Dr. Quick, 2355; by IJt.-Col. Smith, 2355.

Atkinson's Special Survey-Land Tax-Ques­tions by Mr. J. J. Madden, 2010.

Auckland Islands, Supposed Shipwreck-Ques­tions by Mr. Mackay, 955 and 1366.

Audit Act Further Amendment Bill-Governor's message brought down, 2470; considered in committee, 2519; resolution for an appro­priation agreed to, 2519; adopted, 2519; Bill brought in, and read first time, 2519; passed through remaining stages, 2520-1.

Australasia, Fedemtion of. (See Federal Coun­cil of A llslntlas-ia Bill j also Federation.)

INDEX.

A ustra.lian Executors and Trustees Association Bill-Petition presented, 395; Bill brought in by Mr. Patterson, and read first time, 594; second reading moved by Mr. Patter­son,764; debated by Mr. Kerferd, 765; Dr. Quick, 766; Mr. Shiels, 767; Mr. Wrixon, 769; Mr. Fincham, 769; Mr. C. Young, 770; Mr. McLellan, 771; Mr. Gaunson, 771; Mr. Richardson, 772; Mr. Zox, 773; Mr. Laurens, 774; Mr. Wheeler, 774; Mr. Officer, 775; Mr. Cooper, 775; Mr. Anderson, 776 ; 1\1:r. McLean, 777; Bill read second time, and ordered to be committed to a select com­mittee, 777; committee appointed, 867; re­port brought up, 1020; adopted, 1'291; Bill read third time, 1454.

Avoca, Improvements at - Question by Mr. Langdon, 2468.

Bacchus Marsh and Gordons Railway-Ques­tions by Mr. Rees, 855 and 1900; by Mr. Staughton, 201 I and 2468.

13achelors-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Shackell, 1'291; produlJed, 1314.

BAKER, Mr. RICHARD (Tlte Wimmera) Administration of Justice Bill, 2001. Agricultural Department, 2243. Ballarat Reformatory, 2427. Cha.ritable Institutions, 2251. Closed Roads, 1808. Customs Department, 171 I. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1227 and 1230. Employers' Liability Bill, 1047 and 1916. Factories, Workrooms,and Shops Bill, 2518. lfederal Council of Australasia Bill, 1611. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 380. Governor's Summer Residence, 1696. Land at Ballarat-Lt.-Col. Smith, 1840 and

1978. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill-842, 925, 1016, 1018, 1073,1096, II61, II89, 1269, 1353, 1363,1370, 1375,and 1381.

McColl Gratuity Bill, 336. Mallee Country-Fencing, 1344. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

56 and 243 2. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2069. Minyip Court-house, 1703. Parliament House-Electric Lighting, 1703. Public Instruction - Teachers' Dwellings,

1706; Water at Schools, 1901 and 2130; Teachers' Salaries, 2125.

Rail way Department - Donald McDonald, 1127; Tourists' Tickets, 2215.

Sludge Disposal Bill, 2529. Survey Fees, 1824. Wa,terBoring, 1343. Wa,ter Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

23 62. Wa,ter Supply and Irrigation, 2185.

Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill­l'.fotiop by Mr. Duffy, for House to consider, on future day, the law relating to bakers and millers, agreed to, 701 ; resolution in favour of amending the law passed in com­mittee, 883 ; adopted, 904; Bill brought in, and read first time, 9°4; second reading, 1574-8; passed through committee, 1578-9; read third time, 2187; returned from Legis­lative Council with amendments, 2360; amendments adopted, 2360.

14

Ballarat Free Library - Question by Mr. McIntyre, 903.

Ballarat Gaol-Question by Lt.-Col. Smith, 2161. Ballarat Public Offices-Question by Mr. Bell,

94· . Ballarat Reformatory-Questions by Mr. Coppin,

170'1 and 201I; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Coppin, 2109; produced, 2272; state­ment by Mr. Coppin in committee on the Appropriation Bill, 2424; discussion thereon, 2.425. (See Reformatory Schools; also Train­ing Ship.)

Ballarat West Electorate-Question by Mr. D. M. Davies, 747.

Bass' Strait, Resurvey of-Question by Mr. Walker, 1703.

Bay Steamers, Overcrowding of-Subject dis­cussed in Committee of Supply, 1713.

BELL, Mr. HENRY (Ballarat West) Adjournments of the House-Mayor of Mel-

bourne's Ball, II95. Ballarat Public Offices, 94. Ballarat Reformatory, 2426. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1228. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, J94I. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 383. Gaol and Lunatic Asylum Warders, 2161 and

2166. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2368. Melbourne Har bour Trust-Imported Material,

1104. Mining Industry, 1977. Mining on Private Property Act-Lease Rent,

1686. Penal Establishments, 12.08. Phrenix Foundry Company, II05. Railway Department - Donald McDonald,

II36; Workshops, 2043. Try Excelsior Classes, 126 I.

Benevolent Asylums. (See Charitable Institu­tions.)

BENT, Mr. TIIOl\IAS (Brighton) Aborigines, 1210, 1212, Ij86, and 1389. Adjournment of the House-Mayor of Mel-

bourne's Ball, 12I2; Race'Veek, 1718. Administration of .Justice Bill, 1995 and 2001. Agricultural Department, 2244. Appropriation Bill, 2428. Bills of J~ading Law Amendment Bill, 2.473. Brighton and Picnic Point Railway, 552. Charitable Institutions, 2249 and 2284. Cholera, 2513. Codlin Moth, 396. Coroners' .Turies, 1717. Death of Sir Peter Scratchley, 2193. Defence Department, 684 and J077; Inspection

of Defence Works by Members, 1437; De­fence Vote, 2175 and 2177; Purchase of Hulks, 2413.

Discipline Act, 614. Divisions, 2000.

. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1142, I J 77, and 1232.

Employers' Liability Bill, 1915, 1917, 1921, 1923,1924, 1926, 2188, and 2191.

Estimates for the Chief Secretary's Depart­ment, 1613.

Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1476, 1912,1928,1930,1938,1943,1946,1949,1951, and 1982.

LEGISLA.TIVE ASSEMBLY.

BENT, Mr. THO~IAS (continued)-Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 15 17, 1544,

1641, 1643, 1644, and 1646. Fish Creek Selections, 280, 362,461, and 499. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 383. Friendly Societies, 1386, 1390, 1392, and 1395. Governor's Speech, 18 and 238. Governor's Summer Uesidence,. I 6 94 and 1699. Grant Gratuity Bill, 319, 2034, 2039, 2234,

2362,2371, and 2372. Hotham Town Lands Bill, 1585. Hours of Sitting, 2272. John Dougherty, 1478 and 1485. .Tustices' Oaths Bill, 362. Land at Ballarat-Mr. Baker, 1842. J-iands Department, 1834 and 1837. Land Selections at Woolomai, 1978. Law Courts-Accomlllodation for Police, &c.,

11I3· Legislative Assembly-Holidays to Attend­

ants, 1477. Licensing (Public-houses) La,v Amendment

Bill, 312, 353, 364, 366, 465, 700,849, 85 2, 885.887,892,898,901, 902,1054,1056,1662, 1064,1067,1072,1074,1081,1086,1096,1098, II5o, 1154, 1158, 1164,1166,1179,1180,1182, 1184,1186, 1188.119~ 119~1194,1237, 123~ 1240,1244,1246,1249,1251,1253,1264,1266, 126~ 1271,127~ 1274, 127~ 127~ 128~1284, 1315,1317,1318,1322,1324,1]28,1346,1348, 1351,1352,1354,1357,1359,1363,1364,1368, 1371,1375,1378,1380,1382,1384.1416,1423, 1424,1426,1434,2013,2019,2021, and 2428.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2327. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2522 and 2525. Lunacy Commission, 701 and 747. Lunatic Asylums, 1478 and 1485. McColl Gratuity Bill, 337. Magistrates, 360. Mctropolitan Water Supply, 2235 and 2469. MiniQg Department, 2076, 2085, a.nd 2086. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2070 and 2074. Mining on Private Property Act-Lease Rent,

1688. Mr. Gaunson and Mr. Zox, 1480. Order of Business, 284 and 1909. Parks and Gardens, 1847. Permanent Artillery-Courts Martial, 487, 55 I,

553,and 656; Insubordination, 498,499, and 500.

Personal Explanation, 2108. Point Ormond, 1978. Police, II 15; Constable Gilligan, 1149 and

2425. Postal Department, 21 II and 211 3. Private Members' Business, 386. Privilege - Note-taking in the Speaker's

Gallery, 30 and 32; The Age Newspaper, 165, 169, and 175.

Probate and Letters of Administration Bill) 19 14.

Public Buildings Fire Protectiou Bill, 369. Public Library and National Gallery, 1209 and

1210. Public Service-Officers of Parliament, I 112;

Trial of Officers, 2033; Telegraph Operators, 2122; Uent for Quarters, 2287.

Hailway Department-Mr. Allison Smith, 612; Sydney Trains-1Vodonga v. Albury, 1054, 1143, and 1144; Donald McDonald, II 34; Metropolitan Sub~rban Hadius, II41.

Real Property La.,v, 1510. Real Property Stat~te Explanation Bill, 2530.

15

BEx'r, :Mr. TUO:lIAS (colllilllled)-Rosstown Junction Uailway Extension Billil

396 and 2032. . Rosstown Railway Purchase Bill, 2472. Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill~ .877·

Scrap Iron, 1994. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2485,2529, and 2532. Small-pox-H. M. Smith, 211 I. Soudan War, 246. South Australian Boundary, 747. South Melbourne Jetty, 1702. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 1952 and 1955. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2331,2333,2429. and 2430. Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's

Bill, 1684. Water Supply anel Irrigation, 2187, 2236, and

2240. West Melbourne Swamp: 881 and 882. Yarra Bank Sites, 295, 354,411, and 1845. Yarrawonga Hailway, 614_

BERRY, Mr. GRAHAM, Chief Secretary (Geelong) Aborigines, 1210 and 1389. Adjournments of the House - Municipal

Elections, 615, 684, and 70I; National Agri­cultural Show, 747.

Alleged Wrongful Imprisonment-Hutchins and Noonan, 2267.

Auckland Islands-Supposed Shipwreck,955. Audit Act lTurther Amendment Bill, 2413,

2519, and 2521. Ballarat Free Library, 904. Ballarat Gaol, 2161. Ballarat West Electorate, 747. Betbanga Lock-out, 24. Botany of Victoria, 460. Charitable Institutions, 684. Chinese, 2047. Cholera, 2513. Christmas Holidays, 2269. Closed Roads, 1808. Defence of the Colony-Submarine Mines,

821; Queenscliff Batteries, 823; Mr. Buckley's Offer, 931.

Diphtheria-Mr. Greathead's Specific, 1345. Discipline Act, 614. Dredging Employes, 1709. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1142 and

2385. Employer!;' Liability Bill,' 821. European Mail Service, 1666. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 821. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1567, 1573,

and 1606. Federation of Australasia, 615. Free Libraries, 2289. Free Libraries Loans Bm, 378. J!""'riendly Societies Act, 395 and 823. Gaol and Lunatic Asylum Warders, 2163,

2165, and 2166. Government Advertising, 961. Government Contracts, 943. Governor's Speech, 103. Grant Gratuity Bill, 329. Hansard, 615,655, and 2106. Industrial and Ueformatory Schools, 163, 881

1556, 1701, 2011, 2288, and 2426. John Dougherty, 1397, 1401, and 1477. Juvenile Circus Performers, 298. Legislative Assembly-Holidays to Officials,

2412.

INDEX.

BERRY, Mr. GRAHAl\1 (continued)-Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 3Q2, 315, 353, 363.364,367,417,499.700, 850, 853, 856, 884, 886,888, 890, 906, 9Il, 91 3,91 7, 920, 925, 937, 962,976,978, 1002, 1004,1012,1014,1016,1018,1054,1055,1066, 1069,1072,1074,1097, I155, II64, u66, 1182, II89,1191,123~ 124~1247, 1251,1264,1266, 1272,1278,128I,131~ 1324,133o,1346,135~ 1374,1385,1427, 1431,2015,2018,2268, and 21p8.

Lunacy Commission, 21.,701, and 747. IJunatic Asylums, 1478 and 1484. :\felbourne Gaol, 136.285, and 1405. Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

IIn8. Melbourne Watch-house, II75. Metropolitan Cemetery, 164. Military Hegulations, 576. Mr. John McBurney, 368. Moira Electorate, 1344. Municipal Endowment, 904. Naturalization, 95, 778, 962, and 1001. Neglected and Criminal Children Law, 59. New Guinea. 105 and 820. Parliament Gardens-Lawn Tennis, 2009. Passenger Fares to and from England, 854 and

879· Penal Establishments - 'Varders' Holidays,

932 and 2509; Vote for Department, 1207 aud 1208; Convicts' Dress, 1386 and 2211.

Permanent Artillery-Courts Martial, 551, 577,656, 684, and 718.

Police, 135. 263, 298, 748, 1000, 1113, 1114, and I I 16; Constable Gilligan, 2426 and 2427.

Postal Department-Oakleigh Post-office, 136 and 747; Printed Cards, 338; Telegraph Messengers, 552; Letter Carriers-Saturday Half-holiday, 747; Payment for Overtime, 904 and 1628; Camberwell Post-office, 1I03; Armadale Telegraph-office, I I 76; Registered I,etters, 1403; Miss Levack, 2104; Vote for Department,2II2, 2II4, 2117, 2II8, 2120, and 2122; Telegraph Operators, 2121 and 2122; Letter-sorter Hill, 2I18 and 2470.

Prison Gate Brigade, 94. Public-houses, 339, 396, 55 1, 655, 1021, 1054,

and 1235. Public ~ervice-Mr. E. V. Browne, 228;

Inspector of Stores, 578; Lunatic Asylum 'Varders, 855 and 856; Payment of Salaries, 880 and 932; Appeals against Classification, 903; Trial of Officers, 956; HentforQuarters, 2287.

Queenscliff Batteries, 2177. Railway Department-Tourists' Tickets, 2212

and 2215. Ra:ilway Workshops, 855 and 2046. Registrar of Friendly ~ocieties, 1390, 1391,

and 1392. Rifle Clubs, 2008. Small-pox-H. M. Smith, 2110. So(!ial Evil, 1203 and 1900. Soudan Contingent-Return to Sydney, 19. South Australian Boundary, 747. Statistics, II76. Tasmanian Treaty,60, 112,262,460,654, II43,

[775, and 2047. Victorian Year Book, 1280.

Water Pipes, 103.

Bethanga Lock-out-Question by Mr. Richard­son,24. (See Wallace Bethanga CompunI}.)

Bills Discharged from the Paper-Pharmacy Act Amendment, 1038; Swanston-street Bridge, 1951; Shipping, 2341; Fire Bri­gades, 2341; Employers' Liability, 2345 ; Stock Brands Hegistration, 2345; Boilers I .. aw Amendment, 2345 ; Masters and Ser­vants Sta.tute Amendment, 2345 j Sales by Auction Statute Amendment, 2345 ; Coun­cils of Conciliation. 2345 ; Justices of the Peace Appointment, 2345; Real Property Statute Amendment, 2345; Printers and Newspapers Statute Amendment, 2345; Melbourne General Cemetery Roads, 2345; Probate and Letters of Administration, 2485; Discipline Act Amendment, 2536; Protection of Women, 2536.

Bill Withdrawn-Rosstown Junction Railway Extension, 2032.

Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill-Heceived from Legislative Council,and read first time, 746; second reading moved by Mr. Kerferd, 85i; debated, 858; debate adjourned, 867; Bill read second time, 2438; considered in committee, 2438; third reading, 2473-7.

BILLSON, Mr. GEORGE (The Ovens) Free Libraries, 1705. Governor's Speech, 235. Mining Leases, 552. Hail way Excursion Tickets, 1978. Titles-office, 353.

Bird, Mr.-Casc of-Question by Mr. Gaunson, 1280.

Boilers Law Amendment Bill-Motion by Dr. Rose for House to consider, on future day, the law relating to boilers, agreed to, 385; resolutions in favour of amending the law passed in committee, 121J; adopted, 1213; Bill brought in, and read first time, I213; second reading, 1579-85; Bill discharged, 2345· .

Bolts and Nuts. (See Customs Department.) Border Duties-Question by Mr. Burrowes,

15 I 2.

BOSISTO, Mr. JOSEPH (Richmond) Aborigines, 1211 and 1231. Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

1576. Boilers Inspection Bill, 1583. Botany of Victoria, 460. Dentists Registration Bill, 1586. . Explosives Bill, 2340. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1444,

1756, 1871, 1934, and 1937· Grant Gratuity Bill, 2363. Hospital in East Melbourne, 22. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 499.579,857,905,908,1162, 1188,1193, Ip8, 1324, 1328, and 1354.

Metropolitan Water Supply, 2410. Parks and Gardens, 1846. Parliament House-West Front, 438 and 1143. Pharmacy Act Amendment Bill, 384, 1038,

and 2345. Yarra Bank Sites, 294.

BOfany of Victoria, Key to-Question by Mr. Bosisto, 460.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEl\IBLY.

BOURCHIER, Mr. G.:Eo (The Avoea)-Introduced and sworn, 14.

Governor's Speech, 16 and 259. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 971, II63, and 1353. Magistrates, 1716. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2067. Pub lic Instruction-'W ater at Schools, 2134. Rabbit Extirpation, 1689. Railway Department-Holidays to Line Re-

pairers, 2508. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2483 and 2530. Water Supply and Irrigation, 2187 and 2241. Water Supply Engineer, 2510. 'Wedderburn Railway, 1511. Weirs on the Avoca, 1773.

BOWMAN, Mr. ROllERT (Alaryborouglt and Talbot) Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 858. Coroners' Juries, 1715. Court-keepers, 1714. Customs Department, 1710 and 1712. Female Telegraph Operators, 960. Fish Creek Selections, 464. Free J.Jibraries, 1704. Governor's Speech,209. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 891, 909, 941, 1017, 1276, 1327, and 14-33·

J.Junatic Asylums, 1485. Magistrates, 1716. Mining Department-Reception of Deputa­

tions, I 197; Statements by the Minister, 1292 and 1313.

Mining on Private Property Act, 93. Naturalization, 95, 778, 962, aud 1001. Parks and Gardens, 1847 and 1848. Rabbit Extirpation, 1848. Railway Department - Workshops, 854;

Donald McDonald, 1137; Sydney Trains­Wodonga v. Albury, IJ47; National Agri­cultural Show, H76.

Reserves, 1838. (Resignation announced, 2216.)

Boyd, Mr. Thomas-Question by Mr. C. Young, 165.

Bridges and Viaducts - Return ordered, . on motion of Mr. Woods, 1979; question by Mr. Woods, 2047; return produced, 2272.

Brighton and Picnic Point Ht>ilway-Question by Mr. Laurens, 440; by Mr. Bent, 552.

Budget, The-Submitted by Mr. Service in Committee of SupplY,417; debated by Lt.­Col. Smith,440. (Sce Supply; also Finances, The Public.)

Bullarto, Land at-Occupation of-Question by Mr. Wheeler. 927; statement by Mr. Ser­vice, 927; discussion thereon, 927; question by Mr. Richardson, 1927.

Buninyong Police Court-Question by Mr. D. M. Davies, 368.

BURROWES, Mr. ROBERT (Sandhurst) Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 2477. Boilers Inspection Bill, 158 I. Border Duties, 15 I 2. Charitable Institntions, 1438, 1774, 2247,

2280, and 2412. Closed Roads, 1807. Conduct of Business, 2470. Divisions, 2001. Education Vote, 2132. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1229.

~ES. 1885.-b

BURROWES, Mr. ROBERT (continlled)-

17

Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2388. Employers' Liability Bill, 1916 and 1926. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1 j 5 I.

1929,1937, 1943, and 2516. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1544. Fish Creek Selections, 462. Free Libraries, 2289. Friendly Societies, 395. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2.035 and 2345. Hours of Sitting, 1905. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment I3ill .

23 60. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 366, 844, 938, 1017, II 90, 1263,andI2.7!'. Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2.;24 Local Government Act Further Amendmcn l

13m, 2523. McColl Gratuity Bill, 2039 and 2372.. Magh;trates, 1736. Mining Department-Heception of Deputll'

tions, 1199; Secretary for Mines, 2086. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2062. Mr. Kerferd, 1999. Parliament Gardens-Lawn Tennis, 2009. Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 2361. Public Service-Rentfor Quarters, 2285. Hailway Department-Mr. Allison Smith, tiC)

and 612; Excursion Trains, 1196 and I3J.l. Railway 'Workshops, 2042 and 2427. Hailways and Irrigation ,"Yorks Loan Bill, 22.1 7 • Hosstown Railway Purchase Bill, 2471. Scrap Iron, 1994. Sir Peter Scratch ley, 2344. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2483. Stock Tax, 15 12. Tasmanian Treaty, 2514. Water Supply-Sandhurst, 58 and 1819; Volo

for Waterworks in Country Districts, 2.184 and 2237.

Business, Conduct of-Statement by Mr. Bur rowes, 2470.

CAlIIERON, Mr. E. H. (Evelyn) Aborigines, 12II and 1387.

Campel'down and Terang Railway-Question by Mr. Anderson, 1666.

Canalization-Mr. ,"V. W. Culcheth-Questioll by Mr. Woods, 135.

Carlton, North-Question by Mr. Gardiner, "8

sections 132 and 133 at North Carlton, 94.

CARTER, Mr. G. D. (W. Melbourne)-IntrouuccJ anel sworn, 1732.

Administration of Justice Bill, 1985. Billiard-table Licences, 2269. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2383 Mud

2389. Electoral Rolls, 2104. ]'actories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 19u,

1928 , 1930, 1934, 1948, and 1950. Hours of Sitting, 1903 and 2270. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 2013,2014,2018,2020,2022,2269,232.8, and 2330.

Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2069 and 2071. Public Service Board, 2216. Public Service-Rent for Quarters, 2288;

Lockers and ,"Yeighers, 2300. Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill, 2219. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2531. Spencer-street Railway Crossings, 2.319.

INDEX.

Chairman of Committees -Ur; M. H. Davies Acting Cha.irma.n, 875 and 883.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. Cooper)­

Hulings of-Amendments involving expenditure, 1364. Bills-Amendment on a clause practically

amounting to a new clause, 10°9; time for discussing clauses as a whole, 1080 ; new clauses, 1160; speaking to amendments, 1929 ; time for proposing amendments, 1938; clauses outside tbe scope of Bills, 195 I ;

mode of putting clauses, 2338. Debate-Speaking from the table, 1055; unpar­

liamentary language, 1070, 1250, and 1839; re-discussion of votes already passed, 1706 a.nd 1708; attack on members, 2178; refer­ence to private business of members, 2 I 78; use of the word "pretendedly," 1008.

Divisions, 919 and 2000. Documents read in debate, 1084. Motions for reporting progress, 1389. Postponement of votes in Committee of

Supply, 1708. Reflections upon the Speaker, I I 52. Rules for order in committee, 1085. Speaker'i gallery. 1063. Supply-Attaching conditions to vote, 1209;

amendment calculated to alter the direction of a vote, 1715. .

Testing the ruling of the chair, 1708 and 1935·

CHAIRlI[AN OJ!' COMlIIITTEES, ACTING (Mr. M. H. Davies)-Rulings of-

Calling for divisions, 901 and 902. Interruptions, 898. Use of the words" obstructive tactics," 900.

Charitable Institutions - Question by Mr. Graham, 684; by Mr. Burrowes, 1438 and 1774; by Mr. Zox, 1438; by Lt.-Col. Smith, 1774 and 2412; by Dr. Quick, 1775 ; vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 2246 and 228o; question by Mr. Burrowes, 2412.

Charitable Institutions Act Further Amend­ment Bill - Receiyed from Legislative Council, and read first time, 1643; passed through remaining stages, 2341.

Chinese, The-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Woods, 1200; produced, 1863; ques­tion by Mr. Russell, 2047; by Mr. Woods, 221 5.

Cholera-Question by Mr. Bent, 2513. Civil Service. (See Public Service.)

CLARK, Mr. A. T. (Williamstown) Boilers Law Amendment Bill, 1213. Closed Roads, 1795. Defence of the Colony-South Channel, 199 ;

Queenscliff Batteries, 821 and 8.23 ; Sub­marine Mines, 822; Gun-boats, 1000.

Dredging Employes-Holidays, 1706, 1710, and 2509.

Employers' Liability Bill. 1049. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1933,

1938, and 1941. Fish Creek Selections, 276 and 362. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 378. Gaol and Lunatic Asylum ·Warders, 2165 and

2166. Government Contracts, 945 and 948. Informal Petitions, 782. Justices' Oaths Bill, 362.

18

CLARK, Mr. A. T. (continucd)-Legal Profession Practice Bill, 875. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 351, 891, 893, 908 , 9I1 , 917, 920, 934. 976,1004,1270,1275,1325, IJ26, 1355, 1356, and 1373.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2321. Magistrates, 357. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2433· Melbourne Harbour Trust-Expenditure for

Defence Purposes, 164; Imported Material, 1022, 1024, 1026, 1028, and 1053.

Metropolitan Water Supply, 2410. Mode of Dealing with the Estimates, 1708. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 998. Personal Explanation, 24. Public Library and National Gallery, 1209 and

1210. Public Service-Employes in Postal Depart­

ment,lo77; Public Service Board, 2355 and 241 I; Lockers and vVeighers, 25 I 2.

Quarrying at Newport, 1197. Real Property Law, 2107. Sanatorium, 211 I. Shipping Law Consolidation and Amendment

Bill, 353. Silt, 2469. State School Accommodation at Newport, 823

and 2410. Williamst.own Piers, 2508. Williamstown Steam Iferry, 904. Yarra Bank Sites, 290 and 408.

CLARK, Mr. W. M. (Footscray) Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

1576 .. Dredging Employes, 1702. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2391 ; Rejec­

tion of Bill by Council, 2527. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1473,

1644,1649,1650,1748,1912,1936,1938,1941, and 1951.

Governor's Summer Residence, 1691, 1694, and 2413.

Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill, 887, 941,967,968.977,1004,1017, II87, 1189, II90, II93, and J351.

Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material, 1038 and 1104.

Mrs. M. A. White, 2273. Penal Establishments, 1208. Police, II 12. Powder Magazines, 1714 and 2179. Public Service-Holidays, 999. Hailway Department - Donald McDonald,

1128. Registrar of Friendly Societies, 139 I. Reserves, 1838. Scrap Iron, 1994. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2528.

Clerks of Courts-Question by Mr. Cooper, re allowances from the Mining department and the Treasury, 1099; vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 1715.

Clifton Hill Railway-Question by Mr. Gardi­ner, 199; by Mr. Reid, 1]66; by Mr. Pearson, 1556; statement by Mr. Gardiner, 2167.

Closed Roads. (See Roads, Closed.) Coal-Question by Mr. Patterson, I051. Coast, Survey of-Question by Mr. Walker,

1346.

LEUJ:;LAT1VE ASSE7IIHLY.

Coburg and Somerton Hailway-Question by :Mr. Pearson, 2468.

Cod lin l\loth. (See Insect Pests.) Collingwood I,and Vesting Bill-Governor's

message brought down, 2470 ; considered in committee, 2519; resolution for an appro­priation agreed to, 2519; adopted, 2519 ; Bill brought in, and read first time, 2472 ; passed through remaining stages, 2519.

Colonial nnd Indian Exhibition-Question by Mr. Connor, 2410. (See Steam Communica­tion with England.)

Committees (Permanent)-Appointed, 284. Committees (Select )-A ppointed-Governor's

Speech, 259; Elections and Qualifications, 357; Free Libraries Loans Bill, 435; Fire Brigades, 500; Australian Executors and Trustees Association Bill, 867; Union Trus­tees, Executors, and Administrators Com­pany Bill, 868.

Commons and Reserves--Return ordered, on motion of I .. t.-Col. Smith, 396; produced, 1054; question by Mr. A. Young, re Gren­ville, 931; by Mr. Dow, re Kara Kara, 1628.

CONNOR, Mr. J. H. (Geelong) Agricultural Department, 2243. Agricultural Societies, 2246. Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2521. Colonial and Indian Exhibition-Passenger

Fares to England, 854 and 2410. Defence Vote, 2175. Factories, vVorkrooms, and Shops Bill, 1472,

1646,1865, and 1950. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1640 and

1644. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 383. Geelong Water Supply, 578,2241, and 2242. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2367. Industrial and Technological Museum, 1209. Licensing (Public-houses) I .. aw Amendment

Bill, 626, 909, 939, 978, 1002, 1004, 1017, 1063. 1073, 1080, 1087, 1162, 1242, 1252, 1272,1321, and 1354.

Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill, 2433 and 2434.

Mcl bourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material, IlIO.

l'enal Establishments, 1208. Police-Overcoats, 747 aud I 113. Postmasters and Postmistresses, 21 I 3 and

2288. Public Health Statute, 384. Public Instruction-Cookery Classes, II75,

1688,2023. and 2026. Rabbit ]~xtirpation, 1848. Railway Department - Seaside Excursion

Tickets, 1977, 2211, and 2212; Workshops, 2044.

Reserves, 183 I .

Sludge Disposal Bill, 2479. Survey Fees, 1825. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

1979 and 2430. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2337 and 2429.

Consolidated Revenue (£1,624,000) Bill­Brought in by Mr. Service, and passed through all its stages, 435.

Consolidated Hcvenue (£804,000) Bill-Brought in by Mr. Service, and passed through aU its stages, 1613. b 2

19

Convictions for Drunkenness, &c.-Return or­dered, on motion of Mr. Cooper, 465 and 6IJ; produced, 71 9.

Cooke, Miss Kate-Statement by Mr. Nimmo, 1204.

COOPER, Mr. THOllfAS (Creswick) Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill,

2534· Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 77 5. Bakers and Millers Statute Amendmeqt Bill,

1578• Clerks of Courts, 1099. Closed Roads, 1807. Close of the Session, 2540. Convictions for Drunkenness, &c., 465 and

613· Creswick and Daylesford Railway, 1438. Diamond Drills, 1737. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1228. Electoral La,v Amendment Bill, 2388. Employers' Liability Bill, 1050 and 1917. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1445. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1542. Fish Creek Selections, 463. Gaol and Lunatic Asylum Warders, 2166. Governor's Speech, 256. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 805, 1369, 1372, 1383, and 2428. Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2321. Magistrates, 164. Mining on Private Property Act-Lease Rent,

135, II77, and 16.85· Naturalization .. 778. Occupation of I .. and at Bullarto, 930. Public Instruction-Classifiers' Supplemen­

tary Roll, 395. Public Service-Rent for Quarters, 2287. Hailway Department - Donald McDona,ld,

1138. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2.535. Sludge, 1665. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2.528. Steam Machinery, 197. University of Melbourne-Schools of Mines,

2297 and 2298. Yarra Bank Sites, 297 and 414.

(See Chairman of Committees.)

COPPIN, Mr. G. S. (E. Melbourne) Billia.rd-table Licences, 2267. Coroners' Juries, 1715. Employers' Liability Bill, 1925. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1473,

1644, 175o,and 1949· Grant Gratuity Bill, 2370. Hours of Sitting, 1908. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 479, 884, 889, 895,916,924,963,1011, 1058, 1069, 1073; 1182, 1186, 1252, 1271, 1277, 1282, 1351, 1353, 1356, 1362, 1370, 1379,2013,2019,2267, and 2330.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2524.

Melbourne Gaol, 1405. Melbourne Watch-house, 1175. Metropolitan Cemetery, 164. Personal Explanation, 1732. Postal Department-Printed Cards, 338; Re­

gistered Letters, 1403. Public Instruction-Teachers' Salaries, 1076. Reformatory Schools, 163, 1556, 1701, :lOII,

2109, 2424, and 2426.

INDEX.

COPPIN, Mr. G. S. (continued)­Social Evil, 1200 and 1202. Steam Communication with Europe, 879. Training Ship, 459. Transfer of Land Statute, 162. Try }~xcelsior Classes, I26x.

Councils of Conciliation Bill-Brought in by Mr. Richardson, and read first time, 385; diseharged from the paper, 2345.

Counts Out-On Speaker resuming the chair after refreshment hour, 1376; during con­sideration of vote for lunatic asylums, 1401 and 1486; on Mr. Connor's motion re cookery classes in State schools, 1688; dur­ing consideration in committee of Em­ployers' Liability Bill, 1926.

County 'Court JUdges-Question by Mr. Shac­kell, 933.

Court-houses-Question by Mr. Gardiner, 1'C

Carlton, 94; by Mr. Hall, re BenalIa, 1438; vote for court··houses discussed in Com­mittee of Supply, 1703; question by Dr. Quick, re Sandhurst, 232o.

Court-keepers-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 1714.

Courts Martial-Questions by Mr. C. Young, 481'l; by Mr. Bent, 487. (See Permanent A7·tillery. )

Coroners' Inquests-Question by Mr. Gaunson, re inquest on Ann Hunter, at Hotham, 1177; vote for coroners discussed in Com­mittee of Supply, 1715.

Creswick and Daylesford Railway-Question by Mr. Richardson, 95; by Mr. Cooper, 1438.

CUNNI~GHAM, Mr. GEORGE (Geelong) Geelong Water Supply, 2242. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2524. Railway Commissioners, 2214.

Customs Department-Quflstion by Mr. Mirams, re undervalued goods, 228; return re Bay officers ordered, on motion of Mr. Graves, 823; produced, 1022; question by Mr. Highett, re duty on bags and agricultural machinery, 998; by Mr. Woods, re Messrs. Dalton and McKeown, 999; by Mr. Mason, re deleterious wines and spirits, 1000; by Mr. Gaunson, re bolts and nuts, 1280 and 17°5; by Mr. Nimmo, re appeals from lockers and weighers, 1343; by Mr. Gaun­son, re drawback officers, 1511; by Mr. Woods, re share-moulds, 17°5; vote for de­partment discussed in Committee of Supply, 1710; return re undervalued goods ordered, on motion of Mr. Mimms, 1979; produced, 2109; question by Mr. Hall, re Custom­house at Wahgunyah, 2106; by Mr. Shackell, re manufacture of flour in bond, 2211 ; by Mr. Graves, re classification of

. lockers and weighers, 2269; by Mr. Dow, re De Laval cream separator, 2269; position of lockers and weighers discussed on vote for Customs department, 2298; return of revenue ordered, on motion of Mr. Graves, 2321; produced, 2412; question by Mr. C. Young, re rebate of duty on grain bags, 2411; by Mr. Graves, 7'e classification of lockers and weighers, 251 I; statements by Mr. Langridge, 2511; discussion thereon, 2·5I:7.. (See Sheep in Bond; also Tar(U',)

DAVIES, Mr. D. M. (Grenville) Ballarat West Electorate, 747. Buninyong Police Court, 368. John Dougherty, 1481. 'Lal Lal Race-course Railway, 395. Law Department-Removal, 683. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1372. McColl Gratuity Bill, 331 and 2039. Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1027. Mining Department, 2085. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2061. Personal Explanation, 134, Privilege-The Age Newspaper, 175. Hailway Department-Mr. Allison Smith, 608;

Excursion Trains, 1141 j Engine-drivers, 114I.

Hailway Workshops, 2046. Splitters' Licence-fees, 263.

DAVIES, Mr. M. H. (St. Kilda)

::W

Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 371,373, and 376.

Administration of Justice Bill, 1682, 1737, and 1988.

Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 863. Commissioner of Titles, 821. Cookery Classes in State Schools, 2026. ]~mployers' Liability Bill, 1044, 1918, and

192 3. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1471,

1647, and 1648. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1535. Fish Creek Selections, 278. Governor's Speech, 113. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2365. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2359· Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 926, 977, 1012, 101 7, 1058, 1089, II93, 1251, 1274,1356,1433, 1435, and 2330.

Magistrates, 360. Melbourne Harbour Trust-ImportedMaterial,

1030. ' Metropolitan Water Supply, 2508. Mining Department, 2083. Mr. S. Thompson, 2471. Mr. E. W. Wintle, 2034. Postal Department-Payment for Overtime,

904; Telegraph Office at Armadale, 1176. Printers and Newspapers Statute Amend­

ment Bill, 385 and 1°50. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 370. Public Service-Trial of Officers, 2033 j Dis­

satisfaction among Officers, 2103. Railway Department-Suburban Radius, 395;

Toorak and Armadale Stations, 551 and 2508; Donald McDonald, 1128.

Real Property Law, 1345, 1346, 1376, and 2106.

Real Property Statute Amendment Bill, 385, 2440, and 2531.

neal Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2536.

St. Kilda Yacht Cluh, 999. Supreme Court-Block in Business, 58. Toorak Police Station, 2409. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

1890 and 2338.

Days of Sitting-Appointed, 281-3.

tEGISLATiVE ASSElIIBLY.

DEAKIN, Mr. ALFRED, Solicitor-General and Millister of Puhlic Works (W. Bour/te)

American Rail way Freights, 199. Bacchus Marsh and Gordons Railway, 2011. Ballarat Public Offices, 94. Buninyong Police Court, 363. Collingwood Land Vesting Bill, 2472 and

25 1 9. Coroners' Juries, 1715 and 1717. Court-houses, 94, 1438,1703, and 2320. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1233. Expenditure under Loans, 764. Factories, 'Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 856,

883, 1l04, 1149, 1439, 1643, 1645, 1647,1648, 1650, 1748, 1751, 1752, 1755, 1865, 19II,

1928, 1931, 1932, 1935, 1930, 1938, 1944, 1951, 1979, 1980, 1983, 2011, 243 6, 25 15, 2516, and 2518.

Falls Bridge, 1628, 1705, and 1862. Flemington Cattle Yards-Road Maintenance,

682. . Gippsland Lakes, 1142. Governor's Summer Uesidence, 2106. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2363. Henry Hutchins, 1456. Holidays-Dredging Department, 999, 1702,

1706, 1709, and 2509; Reservoir Keepers, 2508 .

Hopper Dredge, 198 and 298. Hours of Sitting, 1909. Improvements at Avoca, 2469. Inquest on Ann Hunter, II77. Irrigation, 1629 and 2320. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2359· Koroit Police Court .. 2319. J,abour on Public Works, 2161. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2522. McColl Gratuity Bill, 314. Magistrates, 60, 164,298, 368, 459, and 1717;

Mansfield Police Magistrate, 339; Mr. Little, .T.P., 955.

Melbourne City and District Courts-Law Books, 1000.

Melbourne Morgue, 460. Metropolitan Water Supply, 377, 461 , 22.35,

2410,2469, and 2508. Murray River, 2931. O'Loghlen Government, 1909. Parliament Gardens-Lawn Tennis, 2009. Parliament House-Ventilation, 299; West

Front, 1143. Prerogative of Mercy-Christopher Dow, 577. Prince's·bridge, 1818 and 2321. Public-houses-Female Licensees, 251 I.

Public Offices-Post and Telegraph Staff, 1706.

Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill, 22 I 7 and 2227.

Reserves, 823. Rev. J. A. Dowie, 95. Sale Canal, 2341. Silt, 2470. South Melbourne Jetty, 1703. Steam Machinery, 197. Swan Hill Shire Waterworks Trust, 221 I. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 1346, 1951,1952,

1956,2341, and 2357. Toorak Police Station, 2409. Wahgunyah Custom-house, 2106. 'Yater Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

13 II, 1819, 1863,2341,2342,2344, 23 61 ,and 2435·

DEAKIN, Mr. ALFRED (coniinued)-o Water Conservation and Irrigation Commis­

sion, 22, 95, and 499. 'Water Pipes, 368, 1262, 1365, and 1405. Water Supply-Whipstick, :-)ebastian, and

Haywood, 58; Sand hurst, 58; Maldon, 396; Vote for Waterworks in Country Districts, 2181; Reservoirs, 2237; Geelong, 2242 and 2521; 'Water Supply Engineer, 2510.

W ~ter Trusts, I 176. Weirs on the ,AYoca, 1773 and 2008. Western Harbours, 1406. Whittlesea Railway, 1629. Yarra River, 614. Yarrawonga Bridge, 135 and 1818.

Defence of Australasia-Question by Mr. Gaun­son, 2106.

Defence of the Colony-Question by Mr.

21

McIntyre, re purchase of hulks, 57; subject referred to during debate on address in reply to Governor's speech, 68,19.0, and 221; question by Mr. A. T. Clark, re South Channel, 199; return re staff expenses ordered, on motion of Lt.-Col. Smith, 285; question by Lt.-Col. Smith, 386; return produced,417; question by Mr. Murray, re overcoats for the militia, 395; by Mr. Graves, re war materiel, 439; by Mr. C. Young, re military regulations, 576; pro­duction of correspondence between Minister of Defence and Military Commandant, ordered, on motiQn of Mr. Bent, 684; pro­duced, 904; question by Mr. Gaunson, re submarine mines, 821; statement by Mr. Berry, 821; discussion thereon, 822; ques­tion by Mr. A. T. Clark, re Queenscliff batteries, 823; by Mr. Mason, re Mr. Buckley's offer, 931 and 1406; by Mr. A. T. Clark, re gun-boats, 1000; by Lt.-Col. Smith, re defence vote, 1001; by Mr. Bent, re military regulations, 1077; by Mr. Mason, re rifle clubs, 1078 and 1280; state­ment by Mr. Service, re inspection of defence works by members of the House, 1437; question by Mr. C. Young, re rifle clubs, 15 II; by Lt.-Col. Smith, re reports, 1902; by Mr. Langdon, re rifle clubs, 2008; vote for Defence department discussed in Committee of Supply, 2167; question by Mr. Bent, re purchase of hulks, 24i 3. (See Permanent Artillery; also Militia Officers and Victorian Rifle Assoc.iation.)

Dentists Registration Bill-Governor's message brought down, 264; considered in com­mittee, 354; resolution for an appropriation agreed to, 354; adopted, 368 ; Bill brought in by Dr. Rose, and read first time, 384; second reading, 1585-7; ordered to be com­mitted to a select committee, 1587.

DERHAlIl,Mr. F. T. (Sandridge) Administration of Justice Bill, 1998. Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill,

253 1. Agricultural Dep~rtment, 2242; Secretary,

1735,2242, and 2410; Agricultural Chemist, 1735·

Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill, 1578.

Bills of I.-ading Law Amendment Bill, 864, 243 8,2439,2440, 2473, and 2477.

Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1942. Government Contracts, 949.

l~DJ<:X.

lh:RHA:\I, Mr. }'. T. (cnntinued)­Gra.nt Gratuity Bill, 2366. • Tudieature Act, 2469. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 350,736,853. 884,893,921, 939, 1020, 1098, 1165, 1166, 1241, 1264, 1269, 1290, 132.5,1351, and 1373·

Melbourne Harbour Trust-ImportedM aterial, JI09·

Port Melbourne Railway Station, 2508. Public Instruction-Water at Sehools, 2 130. Public Service-Draughtsmen, 2355. Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill,

2223 and 2224. Roads in the Metropolitan District, 460. Sand Licences, 1345 and 1832. University of Melbourne, 2 I 34.

Despatches from Secretary of State for the Colonies-Presented by command, 1001 and 1377·

Diamond Drills-Question by Mr. Graves, 614; by Mr. Patterson, 1456; by Mr. Russell, 1587; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Cooper, 1737. (See Prospecting.)

Discipline Act-Question by Mr. Bent, 614; by Mr. Gaunson, 880.

Discipline Act Amendment Bill-Received from Legislative Council, and read first time, 2321; read second time, 2358; discharged from the paper, 2536.

Divisions-In full House-On Mr. D. M. Davies' motion re McColl gratuity, 338; on Lt.-Col. Smith's motion re Mr. Allison Smith, 61 3; on Mr. Mason's motion for second reading of Legal Profession Practice Bill, 875; on Mr. Woods' motion re Government contracts, 950; on Mr. Pearson's motion re publicans' bills of sale, &c., 954; on Mr. A. T. Clark's motion re importation of machinery, &c., by Melbourne Harbour Trust, 1112; on Dr. Quick's motion for select committee re Donald McDonald, 1140; on Mr. Shackell's amendment in clause 19 of Licensing (Public-Houses) Law Amendment Bill (statutory number), 1380; on Mr. Orkney's amendment, 1380; on third reading of Bill, 1423; on Mr. Wrixon's motion to amend clause 3 (interpretation of "lodger"), 1424; on clause 107 (houses owned by brewers, &c.), 142.6; on Mr. Berry's proviso to clause 1,~8 (appropriation of fees, &c.-compensa­tion). 1434; re Mr. Woods' clause as to em­ployment of barmaids, 1435 and 1436; on the question that the Bill do pass, 1436; on :N.[r. McLean'S motion re closed roads, 1812; on Mr. Gaunson's amendment in clause 2 of Factories, Workrooms,and Shops Bill, 1982; on Mr. ·Woods' amendment in clause 29 of same Bill, 1983; re Legislative Council's amendment in Licensing Bill, 2020,2021, and 2330; on Mr. McIntyre's motion re mining dispute at Maldon, 2076; on Mr. Pearson's motion re prison warders, 2 I 67; on Lt.-Col. Smith's proposal for affiliation of Schools of Mines with the Melbourne Uni­versity, 2297; on Mr. Fincham's proposal re railway workshops at Newport, 2301; on motion for committal of Grant Gratuity Ilill, 2371; on motion for second reading of McColl Gratuity Bill, 2372; on second read­ingof Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2393; on third reading, 2394; on third reading of Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 2477.

Di\'isions-In Committee-On ::\11'. Gaunson's amendment in clause 2 of Licensing (Public­houses) Law Amendment Bill, 902; On :Mr . A. T. Clark's amendment ill clause 4 of same Bill (re parliamentary refreshment­room), 917; on Mr. A. T. Clark's amend­ment 1·e military canteens and clubs, 919; 011 l\ir, Gaunson's amendment in clause 6 (re hour of closing), 925; on clause 8 (grocers' licence), 975; on clause 16 (statu­tory number), lOll; on Mr. Gaunson's amendment in clause 18 (new houses), 1013; on Mr. Shiels' amendment in clause 27 (local option), 1071; ou Mr, Bent's amend­ment in clause 32 (appointment of licensing magistrates), 1097; on Mr. McIntyre's amendment in same clause, 1096; on Mr. McIntyre's amendment iu clause 33 (powers of licensing magistrates), 1097; on Mr. Bent's amendment in clause 78 (Sunday trading), 1193; on Mr. Shiels' amendments in same clause, 1238 and 1246; on Mr. Orkney's amendment, 1241; on Mr. Pear­son's amendment in clause 86 (barmaids), 1254; on clause 89 (houses owned by brewers, &c.), 1284 and 1317; on new clause relnting to constitution of licensing courts, 1323; on Mr. Kerferd's amendment in clause 14 (billiard-table licence-fee), 1357; on Mr. Bent's proposal to reduce vote for salary of Hegistrar of Friendly Societies, 1394; on Mr. Pearson's amendment in clrtuse 29 of :F'actories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1752; on Mr. Gaunson's amendment in clause 43 (early closing of shops), 1912; on Mr. Walker's amendment, 1928; on Mr. Woods' amendment, 1931; on clause 43,as amended, 1932; on Mr. Woods' clause re hours of labour, 1940; on Mr. Anderson's clause re stamping of furniture, 1946 and 1950; on clause 8 of Employers' Uability Bill, 2192; on Mr. Shiels' amendment in clause 13 of Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill, 2435; on clause 2 of Bins of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 2439.

Divisions not taken for want of tellers, 1395 and 2000.

Divisions, Taking of - Discussion as to pro-cedure, 919. .

Divorce Trials-Question by Mr. Harper, 94. Documents, Heading of-Ruling by the Speaker,

1313· Dougherty, John-Case of-Discussed in con­

nexion with vote for lunatic asylums, 1396 and 1477; statement by Mr. Gaunson, 2273; by Mr. Zox, 2276; by Mr. Officer, 2279.

Dow, Christopher. (See Prerogative of Mercy.)

Dow, Mr .• T. J.J. (J(ara Kam) Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 2475. Closed Roads, 181 I. De Laval Cream Separator, 2269. Governor's Speech, 145. Governor's Summer Residence, 1694. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2368. Kara Kara-Heserves, 961; Selection Plans,

1279; Commons, 1628. Land Selection-Mining Objections-W. and

H. T. Smith, 1404; Land at Navarre, 2107. Licensing (Public-houses) I~aw Amendment

Bill, 900. Miners' nights and Splitters' Licences, 1263.

LEUl1iLA'l'l\'J~ A:;SE:\lllLY.

bow, Mr. J. L. (continued)-Railway Department-Grain Freights, 149,

1735, and 1977; Additional Rolling-stock, 2267.

Hailway 'Workshops, 2044. l~ailways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill,

223 2. Sandy Creek (Kara Kara) Timber Reserve,

24· Survey Fees, 146, 181.0, 1826, and 2107. Yarra Bank Sites, 407.

Dowie, Rev. J. A.-Case of-Questions by Mr. Mirams, 95; statement by Mr. Kerferd, 134·

Dredging-Questions by Mr. Harper, re hopper dredge, 198 and 298; vote for dredging operations discussed in Committee of Supply, 17°2; question by Mr. W. M. Clark, 1'e holidays, to employes, 999; by Mr. A. T. Clark, 1706; discussion thereon, 1706.

DUFFY, Mr. J. GAVAN (Dalhousie) Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 375 and

377· Administration of Justice Bill, 1986. Agricultural Department, 2246. Antarctic Exploration, 2344. Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 252o. Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

701,883,9°4-,1574,1578,2187, and 2360. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 2477. Dentists Registration Bill, 1586. Divisions, 919. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2390. Employ,ers' Liability Bill, 2191. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill,1443,

1866, 1928, 1932, 1937, 1944, 1948, and 1982. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1529,

1630, 1636, and 1642. Federation of Australasia-Public Holiday,

24°9· Free Libraries Loans Bill, 383. Governor's Speech, 96. Governor's Summer Residence, 1691. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2369. Hours of Sitting, 19°6. Industrial Schools, 881. Justices' Oaths Bill, 363. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2359 and 2360. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 870. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 353, 583,886, 895, 908, 909, 913, 920, 969, 1002, 1015, 1021, 1056,1067,1068,1086, II50, 1153, 1154, 1156, II80, 1183, 1190, 1236, 1239, 1241, 1253, 1272, 1287, 13 18, 132.0, 1322, 1324, 1349, 1358, 1367, and 137°·

Lodgers' Interests Protection Bill, 384, 1039, 1040, and 1585.

Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material, 1°34·

New Guinea, 98. Order of Business, 284. Parliament House-West Front, II43. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 569. Police Protection at Baynton, I 116. Privilege-Note-taking in the Speaker's Gal-

lery, 31j The Age Newspaper, 173. Probate and Letters of Administra.tion Bill,

878. Public Instruction-Classification of Teachers,

1°520.

23

DUFFY, Mr. J. GAVAN (continued)...... _ Public Service-Increments, 999; InsUrance

Regulations, 1234; Overtime, 1456; Post­masters and Postmistresses, 2115 and 2.117; J.Jetter-sorter Hill, 2118; Mr. Murray, 22.34; Lockers and Weighers, 2512.

Railway Department-Accidents to Porters, 1438; Holidays to Employes, 2509.

Real Property Law, 552 and 1377. Real Property Statute Amendment Bill, 701. l~eal Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2535. Seymour Court-house, 1703. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2528 and 2.533. South Australian Boundary, 22. Speaker, 2540. Talking against Time, 2380. Tasmanian Treaty, 2513. Titles-office, 354. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2332,2335,2337, and 2.33 8. Travelling Stock, 1140. Yarra Bank Sites, 41 I.

Early Closing. (See Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill.)

Education. (See Public Instruction.) Edwards and Bowe. (See Mining Dispute at

Maldon.) Eight Hours Legalization Bill-Brought in by

Mr. James, and read first time, 954; second reading, 1213-29; considered in committee, 1229·

Elections and Qualifications Committee -Speaker's warrant produced, 357.

Electoral Law Amendment Bill-Question by Mr. W. Madden, 1000; by Mr. B~nt, 1142. and II77; by Mr. Graves, 1231 and 2.105; discussion thereon, 1231; question by Mr. W. Madden, 1737; by Mr. Walker, 1737; Bill brought in, and read first time, 1775; questions by Mr. Mason, 2162 and 2269; by Mr. Fincham, 2215; second reading of 13m moved by Mr. Gillies, 2372.; debated by Mr. Fincham, 2375; Mr. Nimmo, 2381 ; Lt.-Col. Smith, 2381 ; Mr. Wheeler, 2.385 ; Mr. Mason, 2385; Mr. Walker, 2386; Mr. Gardiner, 2387; Mr. Burrowes, 2388 ; Mr. Cooper, 2388; Mr. Carter, 2389; Dr. Rose, 2390; Mr. Duffy, 2390; Mr. Laurens, 2.390; Mr. Yeo, 2391; Mr. W. M. Clark, 2391; Mr. Righett, 2391; Mr. McLellan, 2392; Mr. Zox, 2392; Bill read second tIme, 2393; con­sidered in committee, 2394; read third time, 2394; Mr. Gaunson calls attention to the fact that the Bill has been rejected by the Legislative Council, 2485; subject debated, 2486; question by Mr. Gaun~on, 2510; by Mr. VY. Madden, 25II; subject of necessity for increased representation discussed, on motion for the adjournment of the House, 2525.

Electoral Map-Questions by Mr. Langdon, 458 and 1775.

Electoral Rolls-Question by Mr. Hunt, re printing, 1734; by Mr. Carter, re revision courts, 2 I 04.

Electoral Statistics-Question by Mr. Graves, 2469.

Employers' Liability Bill-Brought in by Mr. vYrixon. ancl read first time, 385; question by Mr. Wrixon, 821; second reading, 1°42-50; considered in committee, 1914 and 2.188; discharged from the paper, 2345.

t~DE~.

Estimates brought down-Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year, 417; substi­tutedEstimates,12.79; AdditionalEstimates, 2233·

l£urI)pean Mail Service - Questions by Mr. Woods, 1666.

1~~X'ecutive Councillors, Absence of-Question by Mr. Gaunson, 2270; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Gaunson, 2270; produced, 2270 •

r~xhibitions. (See Colonial and Indian E:chibi-tion.) .

K1(piring Laws Continuation Bill-Governor's message brought down, 22 I 6; considered in committee, 2357; resolution for an appro­priation agreed to, 2357; adopted,2357; Bill brought in, and passed through all its stages, 2357·

11~"plosives Bill- Receiyed from Legislative Council, and read first time, 1574; read second time, 2340; considered ill committee, 2340; read third time, 2357.

l!':lctories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill-Question by Mr. Wrixon, 821; Governor's message brought down, 856; motion by Mr. Deakin for House to go into committee, on future day, to consider the law relating to factories and the hours of trading in shops, agreed to, 883; Governor's message considered in eommittee, 1104; resolution for an appro­priation agreed to, 1I04; resolutions ill favour of introduction of Bill passed in com­mittee, 1104; resolutions adopted, 1149; Bill brought in, and read first time, IJ49; second reading of Bill moved by Mr. Dea­'kin, 1439; debated by Lt.-Col. Smith, 1439; Mr. Zox, 1440; Mr. Wrixon, 1440; Mr. WOOdS,I442; Mr.Duffy,I443; Mr. Wheeler, 1444; Mr. Bosisto, 1444; Mr. Cooper, 1445; Dr. Quick, 1447; Mr. Hall, 1448; Mr. Gaun­son, 1449; Mr. Officer, 1451; Mr. Richard­son, 1451; Mr. Fincham, 1453; debate adjourned, 1453; resumed by Mr. Harper, 1456; continued by Mr. McIntyre, 1461; Mr. Pearson, 1465; Dr. Rose, 1468; Mr. Walker, 1469; Mr. Nimmo, 1471; Mr. M. H. Davies, 1471; Mr. Connor, 1472; Mr. Reid, 1472; Mr. W. M. Clark, 1473; Mr. Coppin, 1473; Mr. Gardiner, 1473; Mr. Laurens,1474; Mr. Graves, 1475; Mr. Bent, 1476; Bill read second time, 1477; con­sideredin committee, 1643, 1747,1863,1910, and 1927; adoption of report, 1979; Bill read third time, 201 I; returned from Legis­lative Conncil with amendments, 2372; amendments dealt with, 2436; message from Legislative Council, insisting on certain amendments, 25 I 5; amendments agreed to with an amendment, 2519; Governor's mes­sage recommending an amendment, 2543; amendment agreed to, 2543.

Falls Bridge-Question by Mr.Nimmo,retenders, 1628; by Mr. Woods, re manufacture of iron girders, 1705; by Mr. Nimmo, re work­ing drawings and specifications, 1734 and 1862.

Federal Council of Australasia Bill-Brought in by Mr. Service, and read first time, 1263; Governor's message brought down, 1291; question by Mr. Orkney, IJ II; message considered in committee, 1386; resolution for an appropriation agreed to, 1336; udopted, J439; statement by Mr. Service,

24

Federal Council Bill (continued)-14S6; second reading moved hy Mr. Kerferd, ISI2; debated by Mr. Bent, ISI7; Mr. Pat­terson, 1520; Mr. Pearson, 1522; Mr.Duffy, 1529; Mr. WrixoD, 1531; Mr.M. H.Davies, 1535; Mr. Walker, 1537; Mr. Nimmo, 1538; Mr. Graves, 1540; Mr. Cooper, 1542; de­bate adjourned, IS44; resumed by Lt.-Co1. Smith,1557; continued by Mr. Zox,IS61; Dr. Quick, 1562; Mr. Berry, 1567; Mr. Uichardson, 1572; debate adjourned, 1574; resumed by Mr. Gaunson, 1587; continued by Sir U. MacMahon, IS92; Mr. Fincham, 1594; Mr. McIntyre, 1596; Mr. Mirams, 1597; Mr. Laurens,1605j Mr. Harper, 1608; Mr. J. J. Madden, 1610; Mr. Allderson, 16II; Mr. Baker, 16II; Mr. Righett, 1612; Bill read second time, 1612; considered in committee, 1630; report adopted, 1667; Bill read third time, 1747; returned from Legis­lative Council with amendments, 2 I 38 j amendments adopted, 2162.

Federation of Australasia-Question by Mr. Harper, re Enabling Bill, 396; statement by Mr. Service, 396; by Mr. Berry,615; ques­tions by Mr. Laurens, 854; by Mr. Duffy, re public holiday, 2409.

Finances, The Public-Question by Lt.-Col. Smith,487; statement by Mr. Service, 487; motion by Lt.-Col. Smith for return re ex­penditure, proposed and withdrawn, 1.273; question by Mr. Harper, 2509; statement by Mr. Service,2509' (See Budget.)

FINCHAM, Mr. G. R. (Ballarat West) Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 769 and 770. Boilers Inspection Bill, 1583. Closed Roads, 181 I. Close of the Session, 2540. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1228. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2215,2375,

2393,and 2394; Rejection of Bill by Coun­cil, 2486.

Electoral Reform, 153. :Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1453,

1753, 1931, and 1933. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1594. Gaol Warders, 2 I 66. Governor's Speech, 151. Governor's Summer Residence, 1698. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2363. Gunpowder Factory, 2179. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 671,887, 895,909,910,967,1°56,1069, IJ63, 1164, 1236, 1242, 1249, and 1316.

McColl Gratuity Bill, 336. Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Ma terial,

1037. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2063 and 2074. Mining Managers, 1587. Prospecting, 1927,2085, and 2300. Public Instruction-School at Ballarat, 654. Public Service-Increments, 361. Railway Department-Mr. Allison Smith, 603;

Tourists' Tickets, 2212; Workshops, 1732, 2040, 2043,2300, and 2437.

Regulation of Mines Act, 716. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2104 and 2483. Small-pox-H. M. Smith, 2111. Sunday Entertainments-Mr. Joseph Symes,

1077. University of Melbourne-Schools of Mines,

2297·

tEGISLA'l'lY.E A~SEl\IBLY.

FINK, Mr. ]3. J. (Maryborouglt and Talbot) Yarra. Bank Sites, 296 ..

Fire Brigades Bill-Brought in by Mr. Kerferd, and read first time, 14; statement by Mr. Kerferd, 377; Bill discharged, 234.1.

Fire Brigade System-Select commIttee ap­pointed, on motion ~f Mr. Langridge! 500 ; leave given to commIttee to report nunutes of evidence from time to time, 615; petition from Charles Salter ordered to be referred to committee, 654; committee's reports brought up, 684 and 2468.

Fish Creek Selections-Questions by Mr. Hichard­son, 24 and 59; statement by Ml': Mas?n, 229; by Mr. IUchardson, 264; diScussIon thereon 266; question by Mr. McIntyre, 298; st~t.ement by Mr. Service, 362; ques­tion by Mr. McIntyre, 396; personal ex­planation by Mr. Hich~rdson, 417; ~iscus­sion on Mr. Bent's motIOn for the adJourn­ment of the House, 461; question by Mr. Bent, 499; by Mr. McIntyre, 551; by Mr. Wrixon, 716; statement by Mr. Tucker, 7 1 7. ..

Fitzroy Branch Rail way-QuestIOn by Mr. ReId, 1510. .

Flemington Cattle Yards-Road Mamtenance­Question by Mr. Staughton, 682.

Forest Conservation. (See Splitters'Licences.) Foxes, Extermination of-Question by Mr. vV.

Madden, 1000. ' Free Libraries-Vote discussed in Committee of

Supply, 1704; motion by Lt.-Col. Smith, in favour of additional grant, 1819; ruled out of order, 1820; vote discussed on considera-tion of report, 2288. .

Free Libraries Loans Bill - Brought III by Lt. ·Col. Smith, and read first time, 285 ; second reading, 378-84; ordered to be com· mitted to a select committee, 384; com­mittee appointed, 435; leave given to com­mittee to report minutes of evidence from time to time, 615; committee's reports brought up, 655 and II03; considered in committee of the whole, 2233; Bill read third time, 2302.

:Friendly Societies-Question by Mr. Burrowes, 395; by Mr. Gaunson, 823; vote for regis­t.rar discussed in Committee of Supply, 1386 and 1390. ..,

Furniture, Branding of-SubJect dIscussed III

connexion with Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1946 and 2515.

Gaols. (See Penal Establishments; also War­ders.)

GARDINER, Mr. JOHN (Carlton) Agricultural Department, 2245. Carlton-Court-house, 94; Sections 132 and

133 at North Carlton, 94. Clifton Hill Railway, 199 and 2167. Constable O'Brien, I 116. Customs Lockers and Weighers, 2512. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1224. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2387; Rejec­, tion of Bill by Council, 2493. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1473,

1930,1950,2515,25'7, and 2539. Gaol and Lunatic Asylum 'Warders, 2166. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 838, 1245, 1252, and 2330. '

GARDINER, Mr. JOHN (continued)- . Local Government Act Further Amendment

25

Bill, 2525. Melbourne Gaol, 136. 285, and 286. Melbourne General Cemetery Roads Bill, 1454. Parks and Gardens, 1848. Personal Explanations, 934 and 1406. Postal Department- Telegraph Operators,

136; Postmasters, 1:35 and 2117· , Prince's Park, 60, 1840, and 2245. . Public Instruction-School Buildings, 21 32 •

Public Service Board, 2122. Railway Commissioners, 2212. Hailway Workshops, 2045. . Railways and Irrigation 'Works Loan BlIl, 222Z.

Sludge Disposal Bill, 2528. Tasmanian Treaty, 25 14. ,Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2331.

GAUNSON, Mr. DAVID (Emerald Hill) . Acting Judge of Supreme Court BIll, 373

and 377. ., Administration of Justice BIll, 1I77, 1678,

1998, and 2001. . ' Andit Act Further Amendment BIll, 2521. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 77 I. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 865. Bolts and Nuts, 1280 and 1705. Charitable Institutions, 2284. Clerks of Courts, 1715. Closed Roads, 1804. Coroners' Inquests, 1715 and 1716. Court-keepers, 1714. Customs Department, 17II and 1712. Days and Hours of Sitting, 283, 1906, andl

,

227°· Defence of Australasia, 2106. Defence of the Colony-Submarine Mines,

821 and 822. Defence Vote, 2176. Discipline Act, 880. Divisions, 919, 1425, and 2000. DredgingEmployes' Holidays, 1710. Employers' Liability Bill, 1045. 1916, 19zz,

1924, 1926,2189,2190, and 2192. Exclusion of Strangers, 779 and 780. Exclusion of Reporters, 230. Exe:!utive Councillors, 2270. , Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1449,

1645, 1646, 1649, 1866, 1910, 1928, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1936, 1938, 1942, 1945, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1979, 1981 ,25 15, and 25 18.

Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1587, 1637, 1640, and 1642.

Fish Creek Selections, 229, 273, and 464. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 382. Friendly Societies Act, 823. Gaol and Lunatic Asylum Warders, 2166. Gippsland Lakes, 1713. Governor's Speech, 18, 56, and 257. Governor's Summer Hesidence, 1693 and I~S'., Hansard, 1999 and 2106. Hotham Town Lands Bill, 1042. Inquest on Ann Hunter, 1177. John Dougherty, 1399, 2273, and 2276. Jolimont Hailway Crossing, 24 and 961. Judicature Act, 881. Justices' Oaths Bill, 363. I ... ands Department, 1828, 1833, and 1838. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 875 and 876. Letters read by Members, 2215.

I~DEX.

GAUNSON, Mr. DAVID (continued)- . Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 339, 364, 366, 739, 748, 85 1 , 856, 884, 886, 888, 894, 897, 898, 900, 902, 904, 905, 90 7,908 , 910, 915, 918 , 920 , 923, 926 ,971, 976, 1002, 1008, 1010, 1012,1014, 10] 6, 1018, 1059, 1060, 1063, 1069, 1072, 1074, 1083, 1088, 1092, 1094, 1097, 1098, 1153, 1154, 1:[56, 1178, II80, 1I82, 1184, 1186, 1188, u90, 1194, 1264, 1267, 1270, 1272, 1274, 12 76, 1278, IJ30, 1367, 1370, 1383, IJ 84, I'P9, 1424, 1426, 1435, 2015, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2268.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2325. l .. ocal Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2522 and 2524. Lodgers' Interests Protection Bill, 1040. Magistrates, 359; Mr. Little, J.P., 954. Master-in-Equity's Office, 1714. Melbourne City and District Courts-Law

Books, 1000. Mel bourneHarbour Trust-Imported Material,

1031. Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill,

1454. Members Writing at the Table, 1293. Militia Officers in Parliament, 1103. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2058, 2071, 2072,

and 2074. Mr. Bird, 1280. Mr. Farquhar McDonald, 1845. Mr. Shackell, 2177, 2178, and 2210. Mr. vVrixon, 1124 and 1152. :Mode of Dealing with the Estimates, 17°7 and

1708. Mud Island, 1838 and 1846. Occ:upation of Land at Bullal'to, 930. Orange Institution, 1083. Order of Business, 284. Overcrowding of Bay Steamers, 1714. Parks and Gardens, 1846 and 1848. Parliament House-Stone for West Front, 439. Party Processions Statute Amendment Bill,

385. Penal Establishments-Prisoners' Dress, 1386

and 2211; Warders' Holidays, 25°9. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 496,

570, and 718. Petitions, 781 and 782. Police, II 12, II 14, and 1116. Privilege-Note-taking in the Speaker's Gal-

lery, 30; The Age Newspaper, 170. Probate and Letters of Administration Bill,

879 and 1913. ~:>rothonotary's Office, 1714. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 369

and 370. Public-houses, 440, 551, 655, 700, and 882;

I~emale Licensees, 1818. Public Instruction-Teachers' Salaries, 1101;

Cookery Classes, 2024. Public Offices-Post and Telegraph Staff, 1706.

. Public Service-Payment of Salaries, 880 and 932; Trial of Officers, 955, 956, and 2032; Dra w back Officers, 1511; Lockers and Weighers, 2299 and 251 I; Warders, 2355.

Public Service Act, 2288. Railway Contracts, 1456. Railway Department-Mr. Allison Smith,

605; Hawthorn Trains, 1000; Donald McDonald, I I 24; Return of Employes, ] 927 and 2105; Engine-drivers and Firemen, h05; Ironwork for Bridges-St. Kilda Line, 2105; Sunday Duty, 2510.

26

GAUNSON, Mr. DAVID (continuetL)-Hailways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill,

2231. Railway Workshops, 2046. Heal Propert,y Law, ISII.

.Heformatory Schools, 1702. Refreshment Uooms, 285. Registrar of Friendly Societies. 1391 and 1394. Uejection of Electoral Bill by Legislative

Council, 2485, 2510, and 2525. Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill,

877 and 1039. Scrap Iron, 1954, 1955, 1989, 1991, 1992,1994,

and 2105. Secretary for Mines, 2086. Shipping Law Consolidation and Amendment

Bill, 353 and 551. Small pox-H. M. Smith, 2110. Soudan Contingent-Return to Sydney, 18. South Melbourne Court-house, 17°3. South Melbourne Jetty, 701 and 1702. Stratford Court-house Site Bill, 2522. Survey Fees, 1823, 1824, and 2211. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 1954. Tasmanian Treaty, 2513 and 2515. Titles-office-Compensation to Workmen,

19°1; Examiners of Titles, 2272. Transfer of I ... and Statute Amendment Bill,

2338 and 2340. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

2344· Williamstown Steam Ferry, 808. Yarra Bank Sites, 292, 296, and 354.

Geelong Water Supply-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Connor, 579; produced, 962; discussion in Committee of Supply, re 'Western Moorabool scheme, 2184 a.nd 2241.

GILLIES, Mr. DUNCAN, Minister of Railways and Minister of Public Instruction (Rodney)

Adjournment of the House-Mayor of Mel­bourne's Ball, 1195.

Appropriation Bill-Railway Management, 2418.

Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 859 and 863.

Coal in Gippsland, 1051. CustomsDepartment-:-Lockers and Weighers,

2299· Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1000, 1177,

1737, 1775, 2105, 2162, 2215, 2269, 237 2,

2384, and 2394. Electoral Statistics, 2469. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 198o,

2517, and 2518. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1643. Grant Gratuity Bill, 319 and 323. Hours of Sitting, 19°6. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 876. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 756,896,.901, 902, 904,940,977, 1018, 1020, J057, 1°59, 1060, 1063, 1074, 1239, 1275, 1319, 1357, 1368, 1409, 1428, and 1433·

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2519.

Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2048 and 2072. Miss Kate Cooke, 12°4. Mr. Bent, 1395. Mr. Bowman and the Minister of Mines,

1292 •

Mr. Hunt, ZI31 and2132. Mr. McIntyre, 1425.

l.,Em~LA'fl \']~ ASSE~IBL Y.

GILLms, 1\11'. DUNCAN (continued)­New Parliament, 2468. Order of Business, 284. Outer Circle Railway, 2468. Probate and Letters of Administration Bill,

878. Pnhlic Instruction-Teachers' Superannua­

tions, 298; Classifiers' Supplementary Holl, 395; Teachers' Salaries, 578, 1051, 1052, 1076, 1099, IIOI, 1343, 2010, 2104, 2123, 2125, 2127, and 2289; School No. 33, Ballarat, 654; Teachers' Certificates, 719; School Accommodation at Newport, 823 and 2410; Teachers' Compensation, 903; Truant Officers, 999, 2125, and 2289; Trained

. Teachers, 1021; Singing, 105 I; Education Heport, 1075; Honour Regulations, II03 and 1196; Transfer and Promotion of Teachers, II42; Edur.ation Census, 1175 and 2129; Cookery Classes, Il76 and 2025; Classification of Teachers, 1195; School at Carlton, 1406; Overtime in Education De­partment, 1456; Religious Teaching, 1666; Teachers fur Country Schools, 1689; School at Caulfield, 1689; ·Water at Schools, 1901 and 2132; School Buildings, 2131; Itinerant Teachers, 2133; Night Schools, 2319; Gazet­ting Promotion and Transfer of Teachers, 2468.

Public Service-Trial of Officers, 2032 and 2°34·

Railways Authorized by Act of Parliament-Mirboo, 61, 961, and 2011; Alphington, 62, 96,459, 68 3, 932, and 1510; Creswick and Daylesford, 95 and 1438; Wedderburn, 164 and 1511; Swan Hill, 199 and 1689; Clifton Hill, 199,1366, 1556,and2167; Ke,v, 229; Lal Lal Hace-course, 395; Brighton and Picnic Point, 440 and 553; Yarrawonga, 614 and 1344; Bacchus Marsh and Gordons, 855, 1900, and 2468; Mount Moriac and Forest, 1001; Fitzroy Branch, 1510; Cam­perdown and Terang, 1666; Yea and Mans­field, 1666; tiandhurst and Heathcote, 1735 ; vYodonga and TaUangatta, 1862; Neerim, 2010; Coburg and Somerton, 2468.

Railway Commissioners, 2214. R.ailway Department-Jolimont Crossing,24

and 961; Express Trains, Echuca Line, 57 and 338; Workshops, 134, 1629, 1689, 1732, 2040,2047, and 2436; Return Tickets, 162; Mr. Allison Smith, 259, 599, 1365, and 1404; Refreshment Charges, 263; Donald McDonald, 263 and I120; Habbit Freights, 338; Metropolitan Suburban Radius, 395, 1141, and 2105; Sand hurst Line, 395 and 1365; Trucks for Farm Produce, 552 and 1438; Seymour and Numurkah Trains, 683 and 2410; Officers' Salaries, 855; Sydney Trains-Wodonga v. Albury, 881, 1021, 1143, and 1145; Hawthorn Trains, 1000 and 2468; Excursion Fares, 1020, 1176, 1196, and 1314; Thomas O'Brien, 1021; Gate­keepers, 1141; Engine-drivers-Hours of Labour, 1141; Annual Report, I142; Floods on Yea Line, u61; Level Crossings, 1279; Accommodation at Winton, 1344; Acci­dents to Porters, 1438; Ambulance Wag­gons, 1510; Kerang Traills, 1511; Raising of Sandridge Line, 1628; Refrigerating Cars, 1665; Block on Daylesford Line, 1665 and 2162; Locomotives, 1774; Conveyance of Fish, 1774 and 24Il; Trucks for Country Stations, 1774; Weighbridge at Rochester,

27

GILLIES, Mr. DUNcA~ (continuecl)-1977; Supply of Coal, 2008; Grass Burning by Line l{epairers, 2008; Ellgine-drivers and Firemen-Double ~hifts, 2105; Iron­work for Bridges, St. Kilda Line, 2105; Purchase of Old Hails, 2105; ",York at Ballarat, 2266; Steel Hails, 2267; Addi­tional Rolliu)!-stock, 2267; Carriage of Corn sacks, 2267; Crossings ·at Spencer­street, 2319; Holidays, 2356 and 2508; Siding at Coburg, 2410; Supply of Car­riages, Country Lines, 2468; Grain Freights, 2510; Melbourne Operatives and Country Work, 2510; Sunday Duty, 2510.

Railway Loan Account 1885 Application Bill, 243 6.

Railway Stations-North Melbourne, 94; Toorak and Armadale, 551 and 2508; Men­tone, &c., 1103; Sandhurst, 1141; Rochester and Elmore, 1260; Smythesdale and Scars­dale, 1260; Boort, 1365; Kyneton, 1862; Glen Thompson, 2320; vVestCharlton, 2356; Moe and Flinn's Creek, 2468; Port Mel· bourne, 2508.

Rosstown J unction Railway Extension Bill, 2°3 2 •

Rosstown Railway Purchase Bill, 2471 and. 2472.

Speaker's Ruling, 781. Williamstown Piers, 2508. Williamstown Steam Ferry, 880. University of Melbourne-Schools of Mines,

2290.

Gippsland Lakes-Question by Mr. A. Harris, re entrance, II42; by Mr. Gaunson, re lighting, 1713.

Glen Iris Railway-Question by Mr. Keys, 1817. Government Advertising-Question by Mr .• r.

J. Madden, 961. Government Buildings, Insurance of-Return

ordered, on motion of Mr. Toohey, 2216; produced,25 19·

Government Contracts-Motion by Mr. Woods providing that" tenders for goods, supplies, and works reqnired in any Government department shall be limited to Victoria for the present," 942; debated by Mr. Berry, 943; Mr.A. T. Clark, 945; Dr. Quick, 945; Mr. Officer, 946; Mr. Zox, 946; Mr. C. Young, 947; Mr. Nimmo,948; Mr. Laurens, 949; Mr. Derham, 949; motion carried, 950; question by Mr. Woods, 1176. (See Melbourne Harbour Trust; also Loan Ap­plication Bill, Railway lJepartment, and Swanston-street Bridge Bill.)

Governor, His Excellency the (Sir H. B. Loch, K.C.B.)-Motion by Mr. Highett, for ad­dress in reply to speech, 15; seconded by Mr. Bourchier, 16. First Night's Debate­Lt.-Col. Smith, 24; Mr. Wrixon; 35; Mr. Kerferd, 40; Dr. Quick, 43; Mr. Patterson, 48; Mr. Richardson, 51; Mr. Gaunson, 56. Second Night - Mr. Walker, 62; Mr. McIntyre, 66; Mr. Harpel', 78. Third Night-Mr. DuffY,96; Mr. Berry, 103; Mr. )1. H. Davies, 113; Mr. Mirams, 117. Fourth Night-Mr. Langridge, 137; Mr. Nimmo, 138; Mr. Pearson, 143; Mr. Dow, 145; Mr. Fincham, 151; Mr. Maclmy, 156. Fifth Night-Mr. Zox, 176; Mr. Laurens, 182; Mr. McLean, 186; Mr. Graves, 18 9. Sixth Night-Mr. Woods, 199; Mr. Bowman, 209; Mr. Service,211. Seventh

INDEX.

Governor, His :Excellency the (continued)­Night-Mr. James, 2]0; Mr. Billson, 235; Mr. Bent, 238; amendment by Mr. Bent for adding to address an expression of satisfac­tion that the Ministry had" offereu to Her Majesty!s Government our troops for foreign service in the hour of need," 246; amendment seconded by Mr. Langdon, 252; debate continued by Mr. ·Wheeler, 252; Mr. Anderson,255; Mr. Cooper, 256; Mr. Gaun­son,257; Mr. A. Harris, 259; amendment withdrawn, 259; motion for address agreed to, 259; committee appointed to prepare address, 259; address brought up, 259; adopted, 260; His ]~xcellency's answer, 262.

Governor's Establishment, Cost of-Question by Mr. Mirams, 1456; motion by Mr. Mirams for return, set down as "unopposed," or­dered to be placed in the ordinary list, 1512; subject of summer residence for the Governor discus&ed in Committee of Supply, 1690; question by Mr. Graves, 2106.

Governor's Messages-Re I.Jicensing (Public­houses) Law Amendment Bill, 264 and 2428 ; re Shipping Law Consolidation and Amendment Bill, 264; re Dentists Registra­tion Bill, 264; re Public Buildings Fire Pro­tection Bill, 301 and 655; intimating that His Excellency has gi ven the Royal assent to cer­tainBills.371, 458, 682,1688,2320, and 2428; transmitting Estimates, 417, 1279, and2233; re Administration of Justice Bill, 396 and 2320; re Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 655; re Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 856 and 2543; re Federal Coun­cil of Australasia Bill, 129 I; re Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill, 1629 and 2543; re Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill, 1863; re Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 19°3; re MalIee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill, 2047; re McColl and Grant Gratuity Bills, 2108; "e Sludge Dis­posal Bill, 236o; re Expiring Laws Con­tinuation Bill, 2216; re Loan Application Bill,2428; re Hailway Loan Account (1885) Applicatiou Bill, 2428; re Transfer of Laud Statute Amendment Bill, 2428; re Colling­wood Land Vesting Bill. 2470 ; re Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2470; re Ross­town Ra.ilwaY Purchase Bill, 2470.

GRAHAM, Mr. GEORGE (Moira) Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill,

23 and 2534. Agricultural Department, 2244. Charitable Institutions, 684. Combined Harvester, 903. Disease in Vines, 264. MelbourneHar bour Trust-Imported Material,

11°9· Numurkah Court-house, 1703. R,ailway Department-Grass Burning by Line

Repairers, 2008; Seymour and Numurkah Trains,24IO; Grain Freights, 2510.

Rejection of Electoral Bill by Legislative Council, 2492 ..

Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill, 1°39·

Water Conservation, 2240. Water Supply Engineer, 2105. Water Trusts, 1176. Yal'rawonga Bridge, 135. Yarrawonga Railway, 1344.

Grant Gratuity Bill-Motion by Mr. Bent in favour of gratuity for the widow and family of the late Hon. J. M. Grant, M. P., 319; seconded by Mr. Wrixon, 319; de­bated by Mr. Dervice, 321; Mr. ·Woods, 321; Mr. Zox, 322; Mr. Gillies, 323; Mr. Laurens, 323; Mr. McLellan, 323; Mr. Harper, 324; Mr. Walker, 325; Mr. Mackay, 326; Mr. Patterson, 327; Mr. Nimmo, 328 ; Mr. Officer, 328; Mr. McIn­tyre, 329; Mr. Berry, 329; Mr. Graves, 331; Mr. Uren, 331; motion carried, 331; subject considered in committee, 2034; Go­vernor's message brought down, 2108; con­sidered in committee, 2234; resolution for an appropriation agreed to, 2234; adopted, 2345; Bill brought iFl, and read first time, 2345; second reading, 2362-71; considered in committee, 2371; read third time, 2372.

Grant v. Gilligan-Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. Bent, II49; produced, 1346.

GRAVES, Mr .• J. H. (Delatite)

28

Administration of Justice Bill, 1744 and 2001. Administration of the Land Law-Lands in

Wonnangatta, 60; Swamps, 1364; Mining Objections to Selections, 1405; Destruction ofYerminin Delatite, 1437; Grazing Blocks, 1557; Subdivision Allotments, 1734 and 183 I.

Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill, 2534·

Agricultural Department, 2245. Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2520. Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

1577 and 1579· Ballarat Heformatory, 2427. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 2439

and 2475. Boilers Inspection Bill, 1584. Charitable Institutions, 2280. Close of the Session, 2271. Customs Department-Bay Officers, 823; Vote

for Department, 1710 and 1712; Lockers and Weighers, 2269, 2298, 25II, and 2512.

Customs Revenue, 2321. Defence of the Colony-War Materiel, 439. Diamond Drills, 614. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1228 and 1230. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 194, 1231,

and 2105; Rejection of Bill by Council, 2486

Electoral Statistics, 2469. Employers' Liability Bill, 2190 and 2192. Factories, Workrooms, aud Shops Bill, 1475,

1645, 1648, 1946, 1950, 2516, and 2518. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1540 and

1638. Governor's Speech, 189. Governor's Summer Residence, 2106. Grant Gratuity Bill, 331. John Dougherty, 1477, 1480, and 1483. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2360. Land Maps, 198. Land at Ballarat-Mr. Baker, 1844. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 639,893, 910,913,965,976,1098, II53, II55, II59, 1165, II86, II95, 1265,1271,1275, 131~132I, 132~lj28,1346, 1350,135 8,13 69, 1371,1372, IJ77, 1378, 1383, 1384, and 201 9.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2324. Local Go\'ernment Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2524.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

GRAVES, Mr. J. H. (cnntinued)-Magistrates, 17 I 6; Mansfield Police Magis­

trate, 339. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2434· Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

I III.

Mining Department-Heception of Deputa-tions, 1199; Seeretary for Mines, 2088.

Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2069. Mining Leases, 2081. Motions for Adjournment, 2213. Municipal Endowment, 904. Officers of the House, 2539. Permanent Artillery - Insubordination, 497,

573, and 718. l'ersonal Explanations, 165 and 684. Premier's Department, 2 I 34. Public-houses-Inspectors, 551,700, and 1713;

Prosecutions, 1077. Public Library and National Gallery, 1209. Public Service Act, 1078. . Public Service Board, 2298. Public Service-Supreme Court Crier, 1235;

Water Rate Collectors, 1628; Postmasters, 2 II 9; Itinerant Teachers, 2 I 33; Overtime, 2210; Mr. Murray, 2235; Rent for Quarters, 2284.

Railway Department-Mr. Allison Smith, 613; Donald McDonald, 1132; Sydney Trains-Wodonga v. Albury, 1147; Accom­modation at Winton, 1344; Workshops, 2046; Management and Expenditure, 2266.

Hailway Loan Account (1885) Application Bill, 2437·

Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill, 2301.

Heal Property Law, 1406. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill,

2535· Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1393. Reserves, 823. Scrap Iron, 1991. Sir Peter Scratchley, 395. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2436, 2528, 2530, and

2533· Social Purity Movement, 2108. Soudan 'Var, 191. Stock Brands Hegistration Bill, 1235. Supreme Court-Cases Heard, 59 and 286;

Chamber Business, 2319. Survey Fees, 1825 and 1826. Tasmanian Treaty, 1143 and 2514. Titles Department, 1628. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2429. Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's

Bill, 1685. Water Conservation Acts A mendment Bill,

2362. Water Supply and Irrigation, 2186. Yarra Bank Sites, 294. Yea and Mansfield Hail way, 1666.

Greathead's Specific for Diphtheria-Question by Mr. Laurens, 1345.

Gunpowder Factory, Establishment of-Subject discussed in connexion with defence vote, 21 79.

HALL, Mr. G. W. (Moira) Benal1a Court-house, 1438. Closed Roads, 1801.

HALL, Mr. G. W. (continued)-Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1234; Rejec­

tion of Bill by Council, 2489, 2491, and 25 27.

Factories, ·Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1448 and 1941.

Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill, 684 and 940.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2523.

Mining Objections to Selection, 1437. Mr. Joseph Symes, 2412 and 2543. Moira Electorate, 1343. Public Service-Truant Officers, 999. Railway Department-Refreshment Charge!!,

263; Grain Freights, 263; Seymour alld Numurkah Trains, 683.

Wahgunya.h Custom-house, 2106. Yarrawonga Bridge, 1818.

Hansard-Statement by Mr. Walker, 434; ques­tion by Mr. Mackay, 614; statement by Mr. Mackay, 654; questions by Dr. Quick, 1076; by Mr. Gaunson, 2106; by Mr. Shackell, 2162.

HAltPlm, Mr. ROBERT (E. Bourke)

29

Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 375 and 377·

Administration of Justice Bill, 1742. and 1997·

Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill, 1577·

Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 860, 2438, 2439, and 2440.

Boilers Inspection Hill, 158 I and 1584. Closed Roads, 1810. Days and Houis of Sitting, 282, 1905, 1909,

and 227i. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2358. Divorce Trials, 94. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, I 2J 8, 12.29,

and 1230. Employers' Liability Bill, 1919, 192.1, 1925,

and 2188. Exercise of Ministerial Authority, 500. . Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1456,

1929, 1947, and 25 19. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1608 and

1634. Federation of Australasia, 396. Fish Creek Selections, 268. Governor's Speech, 78. Governor's Summer Residence, 1700. Grant Gratuity Bill, 324, 2036, and 2365. Hopper Dredge, 198 and 298. LangJands Foundry Company, 198. Licensing (Public-huuses) Law Amendment

Bill, 675, 1083, 1091, 1324,1326,1328, 1360, 1408, 1430, and 2329.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2.32.4. Mode of Dealing with the Estimates, 1707

and 1709. New Guinea, 24. Permp,nent Artillery-Insubordination, 575. Privilege-The A.Qe Newspaper, 174. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 369 and

370 •

Public Finances, 2509. Public Instruction-Bducation Report, 1075;

Heligious Tea.ching and Local Control, 1292 and 1293.

INDEX.

HARPER, Mr. ROBERT (conlinued)-l~nilways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill,

2217,2220, and 2226. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2530 and 2533. Tasmanian Treaty, 262, 2513, 2514, 2537, and

2539· Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2331,2333, and 2339. Wuter Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

2342 and 2362. Water Pipes, 79. Whitt.lesea Hailway, 461 and 1629. Yarra Bank Sites, 198,286,287,296, 354,386,

401,417, and 1845.

HARRIS, Mr. AI.BERT (N. Gippsland) Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1227. Fa.ctories, Workrooms, and. Shops Bill, 1645

and 195 I. Fish Creek Selections, 276. Gippsland Lakes, II42. Governor's Speech, 259. IrriglLtion, 499. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1275 and 1289. Masters and Servants Statute Amendment

Bill, 384 and 2345. Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1037. Mining Leases, 1001. Postal Department, 2II8. Prerogative of Mercy-Christopher Dow, 577. Railway Department-Conveyance of Fish,

1774· Wardens' Courts-Subprenas, 954.

HARRIS, Mr. JOSEPH (St. Kilda) Coroners' .Juries, 1717. Insect Pests, 297. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

23 60. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1071 and 1248. Mltgistrates, 359. Pa.rks and Gardens, 1200.

IIal'\'ester, Combined-Question by Mr. Graham, 90 3.

Hawking Licences-Question by Mr. Woods, 57; statement by Mr. Kerferd, 57.

HIGHETT, Mr. J. M. (Mandurang)-Introduced and sworn, 14.

Bags and Agricultural Machinery, 998. Disease in Vines, 961 and 1077. Electoral Law Amendmellt Bill, 2391. :Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1612. Governor's Speech, IS and 259. Hours of Labour in Mines, 486. Kerang and Swan Hill Hailway, 1689. Legislative Assembly-Holidays to Officials,

2412. McColl Gratuity Bill, 333. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2069. Mining Leases, 1900. Native Companions, 460. Prospecting, 439. Rail way Department-Weighbridge at Roches-

ter, 1977. Raywood Water Supply V{orks, 1736. Reserves-I1oth Section of Land Act, 2162. ,Vater Supply and Irrigation, 2185.

3Q

Holidays in the Public Departments-Ques· tion by Mr. Zox, re employes in the Go­vernment l'rinting-office, 1556; subject discussed on question by Mr. A. T. Clark, re holidays to dredging employes, 1706; question by Mr. Langdon, re Monday, 28th December, 2269; by Dr. Rose, 2356; by Mr. Bourchier, re holidays to railway labourers and line repairers, 2508; by Lt.-Col. Smith. re reservoir keepers, 2508; by Mr. Gaunson, 1'e gaol warders, 2509; by Mr. A. T. Clark, re dredging employes, Gippsland Lakes, 2509; by Mr. Duffy, re railway gangs, 2509.

Hospitals-Question hy Mr, Bosisto, re pro­posed hospital in East Melbourne, 22. (See Charitable Institutions.)

Hotham Town Lands Bill-Brought in by Mr. Laurens, and read firit time, 385; second reading, 1040-2; ordered to be committed, II49; passed through committee, 1585; third reading, 1585.

HUN1', Mr. THOllfAS (Kilmore and Anglesey) Electoral Rolls, 1734. Land Selections, 577. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 977, 978, 1003, 1055, 1368, 1372, 1378, and 1380.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2322. Magistrn.tes, 459. Mr. John McBurney, 368. Pu blic Instruction--Compensation to Teachers,

903; School 13uildings, 2131; Water at ~chooI5, 2132; Female Teachers, 2289.

Public Service-Long Service Increments, 1862.

Hailway Workshops, 2046. Yea Hailway Station, 2437.

Hutchins and Noonan, Case of-Statement by Mr. Mimms, 1456; questions by Mr. Mirams, 2267.

Immigration-Question by Mr. C. Young, re unused passage warrants, 500.

Indian n.nd Colonin.l Exhibition. (Sec Colonial and Indian Exhibition.)

Industrial n.nd Reformatory Schools-Questions by Mr. Duffy, 881; vote discussed in Com­mittee of Supply, 1701; question by Mr. Officer,2288. (See Ballarat Reformatory.)

Insect Pests-Questions by Mr .• J. Harris, 297; by Mr. Bent, 396.

Inspectors of Licensed Premises-Question by Mr. Reid, 1713.

Intercolonial Fiscal Relations-Question by Mr. McIntyre, 395.

Irrigation-Question by Mr. 'V. Madden, re Mr, Deakin's report, 95; byMr.A. Harris, 499; by Mr . .Moore re loan, 1365; by Mr. W. Madden, rc American water, supply labour­saving machines, 1629; 1'e Messrs. Chaffey Brothers, 2320. (See Water Conservatio1&; also Water Supply.)

JAlIIES, Mr. JOHN (Ballarat East) Adjournment of the House-Mayor of Mel-

bourne's Ball, 1195. Ballarat Water Commission, 2238. Crown Lands Bailiff at Morrisons, 2511. ]~ducation Vote, 2127. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 954,1213,1229,

and 1230.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

JAlIIES, Mr. JOHN (continued)-Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1942. Fish Creek Selections, 274. Governor's Speech, 230. Governor's Summer llesidence, 1692. Hours of Sitting, 1908. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 350,628, 1012, 1065. 1193,1238, 1253, 1364,1407,2013. and 2329.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2322. Mining Department, 2084; Secretary for

Mines, 2076 and 2086. Pnblic Instruction-Female Teachers, 2289. Railway Workshops, 2043. University of Melbourne-Schools of Mines,

2297·

Jika Jika Land Vesting Bill. (Sel'! Collingwood Land Vesting Bill.)

Jolimont Railway Crossing-Questions by Mr. Gaunson, 24 and 961.

Judicature Act-Questions by Mr. Gaunson, 881; by Mr. Derham, 2469.

Justices' Oaths 13ill-H,eceived from Legislative Council, and read first and second time, 362; passed through remaining stages, 363.

Justices of the Peace Appointment BiIl­Brought in by Mr. Wrixon, and read first time, 385; discharged from the paper, 2345.

Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill­Received from Legislative Council, and read first time, 2031; read second time, 2359; considered in committee, 2359; read third time, 2360; message from I ... egislative Council, requesting concurrence in amend­ments recommended by the Governor, 2430; amendments agreed to, 2430.

Juvenile Circus Performers-Question by Mr. Anderson, 298.

KERPERD, Mr. G. B., Atto!'ney-General (The Ovens)

Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 302, 371, 374, 376, and 440.

Administration of Justice Bill, 396,446, 857, 1177, 1667, 1984, 1999,2001, and 201 I.

Alteration of Petitions, 782. Appropriation of Supplies, 2354. Asking Questions, 882 and 1144. Assize Courts, 235 5. Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2519. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 765 and 867. Bakers and Millers Statute At)1endment Bill,

1577 and 1579. Billiard-table Licences, 2267. Bills of Lading Law Amendment BiU, 746,

857, and 2476. Boilers r nspection Bill, 1584. Chairman of Committees, 2540. Charitable Institutions, 2283. Charitable Institutions Act Further Amend-

ment Bill, 2341. Commissioner of Titles, 821. County Court .Judges, 933. Defence of the Colony - Submarine Mines,.

822; Gun-boats, 1001. Dentists Registration Bill, 354 and 1586. Discipline Act, 880. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2358. Bight Hours Legalization Bill, 1223. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1232 and

238+.

81

KERFERD, Mr. G. B. (conlillued)-Electoral Rolls, 2104. Employers' Liability Bill, 1043. Expiring Laws Continuation Bill, 2357. Explosives Bill, 1574,2340, and 2357. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1753,

1936, 1982, and 2515. Federal Council of Australasia. Bill, 13 12,

15 12, 1544, 1594, 1630, 1632, 1638, 1642, and 1667.

Federation of Australasia, 854. Fire Brigades Bill, 14 and 377. Fish Creek Selections, 272. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 381. Governor's Speech, 40. Hawking Licences, 57. Hotham Town Lands Bill, 1042. Hours of Labour in Mines, 486. Hours of Sitting, 2271. Judicature Act, 881 and 2469. Justices' Oaths Bill, 362. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2031,2359,2360, and 2430. Law Department-Itemoval, 683. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 511, 746,886,888, 890, 892,894, 897, 902 , 906, 908 , 910, 923, 935,976, 97 8,980, 1004, 101I, 1013, 1015, 1017, 1018, 1055, 1058, 1062, 1068, 1073, 1074, 1078, 1080, 1082, 1087, 1093, 1095, 1097, 1098, 1151, 1I52, II 54, II56, II59, 1I 64, II66, lIn, 1178,' 1I80, 1I82, 1184, 1I86, 1I89, 1236, 1239, 1241, J:Z.42 , 1244, 1247, 1253, 1254, 1263, 1264, 1267, 1269, 1270, 1272, 1274, 1277, 1278, 1290, 13 15, 1318, 1320, 13 22, 1324, 1326, 1330, 1346, 1348, 1351, 1352, 1355, 1356, 1358, 1364, 1366, 13 68, 1371, 1372, 1378, 1381, 1382, 1384, 1407, 1+23, 1426, 1432, 1434, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2020, 2022, 2268,2327, and 2329.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2522 and 2524.

Lodgers' Interests Protection Bill, 1040. Magistrates, 357, 358, 360, and 1736. Maldon Water Supply, 446. Melbourne Harbour Trust, 164; Imported

Material, 1024 and 1031. Militia Officers in Parliament, 1103. Mining Department-Ueception of Deputa-

tions, 1198. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2055. Mining Leases, 2080. Mining on .Private Property Act, 94, 682,

1177, and 1688. Mr. Bird, 1280. . Mrs. M. A. White, 2273. Patents, 1280. Penal Discipline-Solitary Confinement, 339. Permanent Artillery - Ins ubordination, 559

and 718. . Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 1892

and 2360. Private Bills, 1041. Privilege-The Age Newspaper, 171. Probate and Letters of Administration Bill,

1913· Protection of 'Women Bill, 2435. Publicans' Bills of Sale, 951 and 953. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 301,

353, 354, 369, 370,440, and 655. PubliC-houses, 486, 500, 551, 1818, and 2104. Public I ... ibrary and National Gallery, 1209. Public Service - Increments, 361, 932, and

1862; Appeals, 683; Trial of Officers, 958.

INDEX.

KERF:lJ:RD, Mr. G. B. (conlinued)­Ra.ce Week, 1717. Railway Department - Sydney Trains,

Wodonga v. Albury, 1054.and 1146. Hallways and Irrigation 'Vorks Loan Bill,

22.18. Rat.ing of Mining Tenements, 1732. Heal Property Law, 552, 1345, 1376, 1510,

and 2106. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2356,

2436,2530,2535, and :536. Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1392. Rev .• T. A. Dowie, 95 and 134. Rosstown Railway Purchase Bill, 2472. Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill,

877 and 1039. Shipping Law Consolidation and Amendment

Bill, 353 and 551. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2483, 2484, 2529,2531,

and 2532. Stamp Dutjes, 549 and 557. Stock Brands Hegistration Bill, 1235. Sunday Entertainments-Mr. Joseph Symes,

1077; Hall of Science, 2543. Supreme Court - Block in Business, 59;

Cases Heard, 59; Chamber Business, 2320. Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, 2394

and 2522. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2357, 2358, and 25 I 5. Transfer of Land Statute, 162. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

1406, 1886, 233 1, 2332, 2334, 2338, 2340, 2429,2430,2473, 253 1, and 2536.

Tra.velling Stock, I14I. Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's

Bill, 1684. Water Supply and Irrigation, 2183. Witnesses in Court, 1099. Yarra Bank Sites, 288.

l{ew Railway-Qu.estion by Mr. Walker, 229.

KEYS, Mr. JOHN (S. Bourke) Glen Iris Railway, 1817. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 897, 1068, 1267. 1270, 1371, and 1434 . . Municipal Endowment, 1020. Oakleigh Post-office, 136 and 747. Parks and Gardens, 1689. Railway Stations-Mentone, Rosstown, and

Murrumbeena, 1103. Revenue from Licence-fees, 880. Road Tolls, 1927. State School at Caulfield, 1689.

Koroit Police Court-Question by Mr. Ander­son, 2319.

Lal Lal Race-course Railway-Question by Mr. D. M. Davies, 395.

LALOR, Mr. PETER (Grant) Customs Lockers and Weighers, 2300. Death of Mr. J. M. Grant, 14. 01ficers of the House, 2540.

(See Speaker, The.)

Land Law, Administration of-Question by Mr. Graves, re lands in Wonnangatta, 60; by Mr. Langdon, re arrears of rent, 164; return re selection in South Gippsland, ordered, on motion of 1\1r. Mason, 285; produced, 719; question by Mr. Hunt, re

Land Law, Administration of (continued)­applications prior to expiration of 1869 Act, 577; question by Dr. Quick, re survey fees, 1051; by Mr. Langdon, re applications for occupation, 1234; by Mr. Rees, 1'e

selection in Cape Otway :Forest, 1279; by Dr. Quick, re sites for factories, 1345 j by Mr. Graves, re swamps, 1364; by Mr. Lang­don, re lands in Gladstone and Kara Karu, 1365; ,'e unsuccessful applicants for land, 1404; by Mr. Dow, ,'e case of W. and H. T. Smith, of Landsborough. 1404 j subject dis· cllssed, on motion for the adjournment of the House, 1404; question by Mr. Graves, ,·e destruction of vermin in Delatite, 1437; by Mr. Hall, re mining objections to selec­tion, 1437; by Mr. Graves, re grazing blocks, 1557; re agricultural and grazing lands­subdivision of allotments, 1734; by Mr. Langdon, re H~nry Griffith-Budgerum and Quambatook, 1734; motion by Mr. Dow, in favour of survey fees being defrayed by Lands department, 1820; debated, 1821; with· drawn, 1826; subject discussed in Committee of Supply, 1826; question by Mr. Bent, re Woolamai, 1978; by Mr. Dow, re land at Navarre, 2107; by Mr. Langdon, re Bailies­ton, 2107; by Mr. Dow, re survey fees, 2107; by Mr. Mason, 2108; by Mr. Highett, re IIoth section reserves, 2162; papers re land inquiry, Gladstone and Kara Kara, ordered, on motion of Mr. Langdon, 2162; produced, 2272; question by Mr. Gaunson, re survey fees, 22II; by Mr. James, re Crown lands bailiff at Morrisons, 251 I.

(See Bullarto, Land at; also Fish Creelt Selections, and Reserves.)

Land Maps-Question by Mr. Graves, 198; by Mr. Langdon,719 and 2162; by Mr. Dow, 1279; by Mr. Mason, 1775.

Lands Department-Vote discussed in Commit­tee of Supply, 1826; statement by Lt.-Col. Smith, ,·e Mr. Baker and land at Ballarat, 1840; by Mr. Baker, 1840; discussion thereon, 1842; question by Mr. Baker, 1978.

Land Tax-Question by Mr. Uren, 1260.

LANGDoN,Mr. TlIO~IAS (The Avoca) Administration of the Land Law-Arrears of

Rent, 164; Applications for Occupation, 1234; Land,s in Gladstone and Karu, Kara, 1364; Unsuccessful Applicants, 1404; Henry Griffith-.Budgerumand Quambatook, 1734; Land at Bailieston, 2107; Land Inquiry, Gladstone a.nd Rara Ibra, 2162.

Agricultnral Colleges Act Amendment Bill, 2533 and 2534.

Agricultural Colleges-Election of Council, 23; Endowment, 1735,2246, and 2355.

Christmas Holidays, 2269.

32

Court-houses at Charlton and Boort, 1703. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, J 2 34. Electoral Map, 458 and 1775. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1931. Governor's Speech, 252 and 259. Hours of Sitting, 1907. Improvements at Avoca, 2468. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2359· Land Maps, 719 and 2162. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 978,1002, 1004, 1187, 1351, 1371, Hnd 1382.

Loan Application Bill, 2302,

LEGISLATIVE ASSEl\IBLY.

LANGDON, Mr. THOllIAS (continued)­McColl Gratuity Bill, 2234 and 2345. Magistrates, 361, 1717, and 1736. Mining Department, 2085. Parks and Gardens, 1847. Public Instruction-Singing, 1051; Teachers

for Country Sehools, 1689; 'Water at Schools, 1901,2129, and 2132.

P.ublic Service-Appeals, 2269. Rabbit Extirpation, 933, 1262,1902, and 2320. Hail way Department-Trains on Country

Lines, 683; Station at Boort, 1365; Rush of Goods Traffic, 1665; Trucks for Country Stations, 1774; Saloon Carriages, 2468.

Rifle Clubs, 2008. Hiparian Rights, 487. Sheep in Bond, 1020, 1054, and II96. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2478 and 2529. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

2343 and 2362. 'Vater Conservation and Irrigation, 22, 2181,

2235, and 2237. Wedderburn Railway, 164. Weirs on the Avoca. 2008. 'Wire Netting, 459, 5'52, and 2161.

Langlands Foundry Company-Question by Mr. Harper, 198. ' (See Pipes, Water; also Ministerial Authority, Exercise of.)

LANGRIDGE, Mr. G. D., Minister of Trade and Customs (Collingwood)

Alphington Railway, 137. Chinese, 2216. Customs Department- Undervalued Goods,

228; Messrs. Dalton and McKeown, 999; Deleterious Wines and Spirits, 1000; Bolts and Nuts, 1280 and 1705; Lockers and 'Weighers, 1343 and 25II; Drawback Offi­cers, 1511 ; Vote for Department, 1710 and 1712; Manufacture of Flour in Bond, 2211; De Laval Cream Separator, 2270; Uebate of Duty on Grain Bags, 241 I.

Distilleries, 700. Fire Brigades, 500 and 615. Friendly Societies, 1390. Gippsland Lakes, 1713. Governor's Speech, 137. Immigration-Unused Passage vVarrants, 500. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1I63, 1164, and 1324. Lodgers' Interests Protection Bill, 1848. Native Companions, 460. Overcrowding of Bay Steamers, 1713. Parliament House-Stone for WestFront,436. Powder Magazines, 1714. Prosecutions under the Licensing Act, 1077. Rabbit Extirpation-Wire Netting, 197. Railway Department-Sydney Trains, 'Vo-

donga v. Albury, II47. Scrap Iron, 1954, 1990, and 1994. Sheep in Bond, 1020 and 1196. Shipping Law Consolidation and Amendment

Bill, 339, 368, and 369. Storage of Explosives, 2179. TasmaniaJl Treat.y, 1884.

LAURENS, Mr .• JOHN (N. Melbourne) Administration of Justice Bill, 1747. Appropriation Bill- Railway Management,

2413· Asking and Answering Questions, 94. Australian Executors and Truste~i';l Associa-

tion Bill, 774. "" ~ES. 1889:"':"'c

,_ I

'LAUUENS, Mr. JOHN (contiuued)-Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 2476. Brighton and Picnic Point Railway, 440. Closed Roads, 1806. Days and Hours of Sitting, 283 and 2272. Diphtheria-Mr. Greathead's Specific, 1345. Eight Hours Legalization Bill. 1221. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 184, 1234, and

2390; Rejection of Bill by Council, 2492. Employers' Lia.bility Bill, 1917. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1474,

1646, 1748. 175 2, 1929, 1933, 1940, 25 15, and 2518.

Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1605, 1631, 1637, and 1640.

Federation of Australasia, 854. Gaol and Lunatic Asylum Warders, 2165. Government Contracts, 949. Governor's Speech, 182. Grant Gratuity Bill, 323, 2034,2035, and 2364. Hotham Town Lands Bill, 385, 701, 1042,

1149, and 1585. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2359 and 2360. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 364,656, 856, 884, 886, 891,963, 1002, 1016, 1058, 1081, 1095, 1163, 1181, Il82, 1236, 1264, 1266, 1269, 1288, 1319, 1321, 1378, 1384,2019. and 2330.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2326. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2523 and 2524. McColl Gratuity Bill, 335. Melbourne Benevolent Asylum, 1733. Melbourne Gaol, 286. Melbourne Hal' bour Trust--Imported Material,

I I 10. Melbourne Hospital, 2249, 2281, and 2284. Mrs. Dalton, 1712. North Melbourne Railway Station, 94 and

1818. Penal Establishments, 1208 and 2165. Personal Explanation, 227. Prince's Park, 1847. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 302.

and 354. Public Service-Mr. E. V. Browne, 228;

Overtime in Postal department, 1628; Letter-sorter P. Hill, 2010, 2118, 2427, and 2470; Postmasters, 2II6; Lockers and 'Veighers, 17II, 2299, and 2512.

Race Week, 1718. Railway Department-~Ir.Allison Smith, 61 I;

Thomas O'Brien, 1020; Annual Report, II42 j Workshops, 2045.

Railways and Irrigation 'Vorks Loan Bill, 2217 and 2220.

Registrar of Friendly Societies) 1394. Royal Park, 1629. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2529 and 2533. Small-pox, 2111. Tasmanian Treaty, 2513. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2331 and 2430. . Trnstees, Executors, and Agency Company's

Bill, 1684. Yarra Bank Sites, 294 and 413.

Law Department, Removal of-Question by Mr. D. M. Davies, 683.

Legal Profession Practice Bill-Brought in by Mr. Mason, and read first time, 385; second reading. 868-75; passed through l·Q~.~ining stages, 875-6.

INDEX.

LegiBlative Assembly-Question by Mr. Staugh­ton, re ventilation of chamber, 299; state­ment by the Speaker, 299; by Mr. Deakin, 299; discussion thereon, 300; discussion re holidays for attendants, 1477 and 2412;

. statement by Mr. Service, re officers of the House, 2538; discussion thereon, 2538. (See Parliament House.)

LEVIEN, Mr. J. F., Minister of Mines and Agri­culture (Barwon)

Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill, 23,2413,2533, and 2534.

Agricultural Colleges Council, 23 and 1197. Agricultural Department, 2244; Secretary,

1735 and 2410; Agricultural Chemist, 1735; Agricultural Societies, 2242, 2244, and 2246.

Combined Harvester, 903. Diamond Drills, 614, 1456, and 1587. Disease in Vines, 264, 961: and 1077. Insect Pests, 297 and 396. Miners' Rights and Splitters' Licences, 1263. Mining Department-Reception of Deputa-

tions, 1198; Secretary for Mines, 2076 and 2086; Vote for Department, 2077 and 2085.

Mining Dispute at Maldon, 1900 and 2028. Mining Industry-Royal Commissions, 1628

and 1977. . Mining Laws Amendment Bill, 1927 and 2394. Mining Leases, 61,262, 552, 1001, 1142, 1345,

1900, and 2077. Mining Managers, 1587. Mining Objections to Selections, 1437. Mining on Private Property Act-Lease Rent,

135, II42 , and 1687. Mining Statistics, 1280 and 1343. Mining Timber, 136. Noxious Fumes Board, 1405 and 2167. Occupation of Land at Bullarto, 927 and 930. I'rospecting Vote, 439 and 1927. Regulation of Mines Act, 716. Uesidence Areas, 1142. Sheep Inspectors, 2468. Sludge, 1666, 1927, and 2104. Sludge Disposal Bill. 1556, 2435, 2436,2478,

2483, and 2533. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

1979 and 2430. Thrashing Machines, 197 and 13 IJ. Timber Reserves, 24. Wallace Bethanga Company, 57. Wardens' Courts-Subprenas, 954. Water Boring, 298. Wheat, 2469.

Licensing (Public-houses) Act-Question by Mr. Mason, re reports from police magis­trates, 396 and 486; return re licences in force ordered, on motion of Mr. Gaunson, 440; produced, 719 and 823; question by Mr. Graves, re reports from inspectors of licensed premises, 551; production of re­ports from police magistrates ordered, on motion of Mr. Mason, 655; reports produced, 7 I 9 ; return re licensed houses ordered, on motion of Mr. Mason, 684; produced, 719; return re revenue from licence-fees ordered, on motion of Mr. Keys, 880; produced, 1263; question by Mr. Graves, r'e prosecutions, 1077. (See Public-houses.)

Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill -Governor's message brought down, 264; considered in committee, 353; resolution for an appropriation agreed to, 353 ; adopted.

34

Licensing (Public-houses) Bill (continued)-367 ; motion by Mr. Berry for House to go into committee" to consider the law re­lating to the licensing of pUblic-houses, and the sale of fermented and spirituous liquors," 3°2; debated by Mr. Bent, 312; ~ir. ~ason, 317; debate adjourned, 318; resumed by Mr. GaunsoD, 339; continued by Mr. Nimmo, 347; Mr. Wrixon, 350; Mr. Derham, 350; Mr. James, 350 j Mr. A. T. Clark, 351; Dr. Quick, 352; motion agreed to, 353 ; motion affirming the expe­diency of bringing in a Bill, proposed by Mr. Berry, in committee, 363; agreed to, 364; resolution reported and adopted, 364-7; Bill brought in, and read first time, 367; second reading moved by Mr. Berry, 417. First Night's Debate-Mr. Bent, 465 ; Mr. Coppin,479. Second Night-Mr. Mirams, 504; Mr. Kerferd, 5 I I; Mr. Patterson, 518 ; Mr. Wrixon, 524; Mr. Nimmo, 531. Third Night-Mr. Bosisto, 579; Mr. Duffy, 583; Dr. Quick,591. Fourth Night-Mr. McIn­tyre, 615; Mr. Connor, 626; Mr. James, 628; Mr. Shackell, 635; Mr. Graves, 639. Fifth Night-Mr. Laurens, 656; Mr. Shiels, 661; Mr. Fincham, 671; Mr. Harper,675. Sixth Night-Mr. Hall, 684; Mr. Mackay, 694. Seventh Night-Mr. ·Walker, 719; Mr. Wheeler, 727; Lt.-Col. Smith, 732; Mr. Derham, 736; Mr. Gaunson, 739. Eighth Night- Mr. Gaunson, 748; Mr. Gillies, 756; Mr. Richardson, 762. Ninth Night­Mr. Richardson, 782; Mr. C. Smith, 788 ; Mr. Mason, 791 ; Mr. Anderson, 799; Mr .. Officer, 802; Mr. C. Young, 804; Mr. Cooper,805. Tenth Night-Mr. Zox, 823; Dr. Rose, 829; Mr. Pearson, 833; Mr. Gardiner, 838; Mr. Baker, 842; Mr. Bur­rowes, 844; Mr. Russell, 846 ; Mr. Murray, 848; Mr. Uren,849. Bill read second time, 850; motion by Mr. McIntyre, to refer Bill to select committee, 850; discussed, 851 ; withdrawn, 853; question by Mr. Shiels, 853; by Mr. Uaunson, 904 and 1002; Bill considered in committee, 883, 9°4, 934, 962, 1002, 1054, 1078, 1149, 1177, 1235, 1263, 1281, 1314, and 1346; vested rights, 888; exemptions, 905; hours of closing, 920, 1278, and 1368; grocers' licence, 934 and 962; railway refreshment-room licence, 977, 1274, and ~381; licensing districts, 978 and 1002; statutory number of vic­tuallers, 1004, 1373, and 1378; new houses, 1011 ; local option, 1019, 1054, and 1319; liens on public-houses, 1072; statutoryac­commodation, 1074; licensing courts, 1078, 1149, 1320, 1357, and 1382; compensation, 1153,1177, and 1357; inspectors of liquor, 1159 and 1382; transfer of licences, 1183; habitual drunkards, II 87 and 13 82; Sunday trading, 1190 and 1236; bonafide travellers, 1246; barmaids, 1247; unlawful sale of liquor, 1263; appropriation of fees and fines, 1265 and 1384; interpretation of terms-" club," 1270 and 1367; "lodger," 1271 and 1366; road-side licences, 1271 ; houses owned by brewers, &c., 1278, 1281, and 1314; new clauses, 1319; exa.mination of liquor, 1324 a.nd 1384; licence-fees, 1330, 1348, and 1372; packet licences, 1371; temporary licences, 1371; report adopted, 1366; third reading, 1406-23; Bill passed, 1436; returned from T_egislative Council

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

Licensing (Public-houses) Bill (continued)­witill amendments, 1910; amendments dealt with, 2011; message from Legislative Coun­cil, insisting on amendmellt disagreed with by Assj3mbly, 2138; considered, 2327; amendment agreed to, with amendments, 2327-3°; question by Mr. Coppin. l'e bil­lial·d··table licences, 2267; discussion there­on, 2268; Governor's message reeommend­ing amendments, 2428; amendments agreed to,2428. (See Public-houses.)

Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill Petitions- Que!'ltion by Mr. Bosisto, re precis, 499; motion byMr. Berry, for precis to be prepared by Clerk, 856; agreed to, 857; precis produced, 1001, 1078, 1177, and 1263 ; question by Mr. Mason, 1053.

Little, Mr. (J.P.)-Case of-Question by Mr. Gaunson, 95+.

Loan Application Bill-Brought in by Mr. Service, and read first time, 1863; read second time, 23°1; considered in committee, 2302; adoption of report, 2321; third reading, 2327; Governor's message, recom­mending an amendment, 2428 ; amendment agreed to, 2428.

Loans, Expenditureunder-1Bstimate of expendi­ture, re Metropolitan Water Supply, passed in committee, 377; resolution adopted, 398; estimate of expenditure re Maldon water supply, passed in committee, 446; resolu­tion adopted, 594; estimate of expenditure under Acts Nos. 717, 735, and 805, passed in committee, 764; resolution adopted, 823; estimate of expenditure in connexion with Sale Navigation Canal, passed in com­mittee, 2341; resolution adopted, 2356; estimate of expenditure 7'e Swanston-street Bridge, passed in committee, 2341 ; resolu­tion adopted, 2357; estimate of expenditure on railway construction, passed in com­mittee, 2436; resolution adopted, 2436; estimate of expenditure on Geelong water­works, passed in committee, 2521 ; reso­lution adopted, 2521.

Loans, Floating of-~ubject discussed in com­mittee on the Appropriation Bill, 2422.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill-Heccived from Legislative Council, and read first time, 25 I 9; read second time, 2522; considered in committee, 2522; read third time. 2525 ; message from Legislative Council, requesting concurrence in amend­ments recommended by the Governor, 25#; amendments agreed to, 2544.

Lodgers' Interests Protection Bill-Brought in by Mr. Duffy, and read first time, 384; second reading, 1039-40; considered in committee, 1040; report adopted, 1585; Bill read third time, 1585 ; returned from Legislative Couucil with amendments, 1848 ; amendments adopted, 1848.

I .. ow-lying Lands. (See Yarm Banll Sites.) Lunucy Commission-Question by Mr.l\1cLellan,

rc recommendations, 22 ; by Mr. Toohey, re Tender Board, 263 ; by Mr. Mason, J'e evi­dence, 264 ; by:Mr. Zox, rc lJr. Tucker, 701; by Mr. Bent, 747. (See Dougherty, John.)

Lunatic Asylums-Heturn re paying patients ordered, on motion of Mr. McLellan, 301 ; produced, 498; question by Mr. Mason, re warders, 855; by Mr. Gaunson, 2355: vote for department discussed in Committee of Supply, 1395 and 1477. (See Warders.) c2

McBurney, Mr. John-)fotion by Mr. Hunt, for return, proposed, 368 ; withdrawn, 368.

McColl Gratuity Bill~Motion by Mr. D. M. Davies in favour of gratuity to the widow and family of the late Mr. Hugh McColl, M.P., 331 ; seconded by l\1r. Highett, 333 ; debated by Mr. Zox, 333 ; Mr. Deakin, 334; Mr. Yeo, 335 ; Mr. Laurens, 335; Dr. Rose, 335; Mr. Officer, 336; Mr. Baker, 336; Mr. McLellan, 336; Mr. Fincham, 336; Mr. Russell, 337; Mr. Bent, 337; motion carried, 338; Governor's message brought down, 2108; considered in committee, 2234; resolution for an appropriation agreed to, 2234; adopt«;ld, 2345; Bill brought in, and read first time, 2345; second reading moved by Mr. Burrowes, 2372; motion negatived, 2372.

McDonald, Donald-Case of-Questions by Dr. Quick, 261; motion by Dr. Quick for select committee, I 116; debated by Mr. Gillies, 1120; Mr. Gaunson, 1124; Mr. Walker,1126; Mr. Baker, 1127; Mr. M. H. Davies, 1128; Mr. W.M. Clark,Il28; Mr. McLellan, 1129; Lt.-Col. Smith, I129; Mr. Wrixon, 1131 ; Mr. Graves, 1132; Mr. Richardson, II33 ; Mr. Bent, I I 34; Mr. Service, 1134; Mr. Bell, II36; Mr. Bowman, II37; Mr. Mackay, 1137; Mr. Cooper, 1138,; Mr. C. Young, 1139; Sir C. Mac Mahon, Il39; Mr. Rus­sell, II 39 ; Mr. Urell, II 39; motion nega­tived, 1140.

Machinery J Il1ported-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. 'Woods, 1022; produced, 1819.

McINTYRE, Mr .• TOlIN (Maldon)

35

Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 377. Administration of Justice Bill, 1997. Ballarat Free Library, 903. Call for a Division, 1425. Closed Roads, J 8 I 9. Days and Hours of Sitting, 282 and 190+. Defence of the Colony-Purchase of Hulks,

57· Divisions, 919. Factories, Workrooms, find Shops Bm, 1461,

1749, 1912, 1928, 1930, 1937, and 1938. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1596. Federation of Australasia, 398. Fish Creek Selections, 266, 298, 396, and 551, Free Libraries Loans Bill, 381. Friendly Societies, 1391. Governor's Speech, 17 and 66. Grant Gratuity Bill, 329. Intercolonial Fiscal Relations, 395. John Dougherty, 1480. Justices' Oaths Bill, 363. Lands Department, 1836 and 1837. Legislative Assembly Chamber-Ventilation,

300. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 365,615, 850, 856, 905, 907, 908, 910, 914,917, 918, 924, 926,973,976,978, 1004, 1014, 1018, 1054, 1063, 1068, 1074, 1084, 1087, 1089, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1150, 1153, 1154, Il62, II 64, Il66, Il78, 1181, II82, 1184, 1190, 1193, 1237, 1240, 1245, 1247. 1249, 12 63, 1264, 1269, 1270, 1272, 1315, 13 17, 13 18, 1320, 13 25, 1330, 1347, 1348, 1354, 1356, 1358, 13 61 , 1381 , 1382, 1385, 1415, 1423. 1425, 1428 , 1431, 1436, 2012, and 2019.

Magistrates, 358.

INDEX.

MclN~rYRE, Mr. JOHN (continued) Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1035. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 1900, 2026,2071,

2075, and 2216. Mining Leases, 2081. New Guinea, 2136. Parks and Gardens, 1848. Parliament Gardens-Lawn Tennis, 2009. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 493. Personal Explanation, 2108. Privilege-Note-taking in the Speaker's Gal-

lery, 32; The Age Newspaper, 165 alld 169. Public Instruction-Census, 2128; Water at

Schools, 2132. Public Service-Appointment of Officers, 227

and 228; Telegraph Messengers, 552; Officers' Quarters, 1485; Postmasters and Postmistresses, 2114, 2117, and 2118.

Railway Commissioners, 2213. Hai.lway Department-Sydney. Trains, Wo­

donga v. Albury, II47; Excursion :Fares, 1314; Workshops, 2044.

Railways. and Irrigation Works Loan Bill, 2217·

Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2536. Scrap Iron, 1991 and 1993. ::leeretary for Mines, 2086. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2529. Sodal Evil, 1900. Speaker, 2538. Tasmanian Treaty, 434, 1862, and 2538. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

1979· Water Supply-Malmsbury, 1313; Grassy

Flat, 1819. Ya.rra Bank Sites, 296 ; Mr. Wallis, 1844.

MACKAY, Mr. ANGUS (Sandhurst) Asking Questions, 654. Auckland Islands-Supposed Shipwreck, 955

and 1366. Governor's Speech, 156. Grant Gratuity Bill, 326. Hansard, 614 and 654. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 694,851, 885, 906, 908, 913, 922,941, 1013, 1017, 1018, 1061, 1090, 1095, 1283, 1284, 1288, 1320, 1322, 1348, 1368, 1372, 1374, and 1380.

Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material, 1026.

Members Speaking from the Table, 1293. Naturalization, 778. Occupation of Land at Bullarto, 930. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 567. Police, 1113 and 1114. Public Instruction-Teachers' Salaries, 1051,

1052, and 1100; Education Vote, 1075. Public Service-Trial of Officers, 960. Hailway Department-Trains on Sandhurst

Line, 395 and 1365; Donald McDonald, 1137; Sydney Trains-Wodongav. Albury, 1148; Excursion Fares, 1314.

Soudan W ar-N ew South Wales Contingent, 21 and 157.

McLEAN, Mr. ALLAN (N. Gippsland) Aborigines, 12 I 2. A.ustralian Executors and Trustees Associa­

tion Bill, 777. Closed Hoads, 1794 and 1801. Governor's Sveech, 186.

36

McLEAN, Mr. ALLAN (continued)-Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1268, 1278, and 1350. Narro,v-gauge Hailways, 1900. Probate and Letters of Administration Bill,

384, 877,878, 1913, and 1914. Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill,

877· Soudan VVar, 188. Stock Brands Registration Bill, 700. Stratford Court-house Site Bill, 2345, 2485,

and 2522. Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's

Bill, 1685.

McLELLAN, Mr. Wn,LIAl\1 (Ararat) Aborigines, 1388. Administration of Justice Bill, 1997. Alteration of Petitions, 782. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 77 I. .

Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill, 1578.

Boilers Inspection Bill, 1584. Closed Hoads, 1795 and 1803. Customs Department, 17II and 1713. Dentists Registration Bill, 1586. Divisions, 919 and 2000. ]~ight Hours Legalization Bill, 1220. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1233 and 2392. Bmployers'Liability Bill, 1920, 1921 , 1947,

195°,2189, and 2190. ];Jxclusion of Strangers, 780. Factories, VV orkrooms, and Shops Bill, 1646,

1648,1749, 1752, 19 12, 1941, 1942, 1981, and 25 18 .

Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1544 and 1635.

Fish Creek Selections, 271. Grant Gratuity Bill, 323 and 2363. Hours of Sitting, 1907. John Dougherty, 1398. Justices' Oaths Bill, 362. Land at Ballarat-Mr. Baker, 1843. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 884, 889, 892, 901 , 902, 905, 922, 977, 1009,1012,1065,1075,1081,1088, II61, II6S. 1166,1178,1184,1189,1194,1241,1242,1245, 1247,1254,1274,1319,1329,1348,1354,1418, 1424, and 2012.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's.bridge, 2327. Lunacy Commission, 21..

Lunatic Asylums, 1398; Paying Patients, 301, McColl Gratuity Bill, '336. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2435· Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1027. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2054, 2066, and

2072 . Mode of Dealing with the Estimates, 17°7 and

1708. Moyston Main Lead, 1200. Occupation of Land under Miners' Hights, 9 31. Parliament Gardens-Lawn Tennis, 2009. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 572. Private Bills, 1041. Public Instruction-Truant Officers, 2125. Public Library and National Gallery, 1209. Railway Department - Donald McDonald,

1129; VVorkshops, 2045. Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill,

2222. Serjeant-at-Arms, 238C?:

LEGISLATivE ASSEMBLY.

McLELLAN, Mr. WILLIAlII (continued)­Sludge Disposal Bill, 2485, 2529, and 2530. Social Evil, 1202. Tasmanian Treaty, 654 and 2514. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2430. Water Supply and Irrigation, 2238. Yarra lliver, 614.

MAC MAHON, Sir CHARLES (W. Melbourne) Administration of Justice Bill, 1672 and 1991. Defelice Vote, 2I71 arid 2175. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2384. Employers' Liability Bill, 1918, 1924, and 1926. Exclusion of Strangers, 780. Exercise of Ministerial Authority, 503. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1592,

1641, and 1642. Gaol and Lunatic Asylum 'Warders, 2166. Governor's Summer l1esidence, 1697. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2036. I .. icensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 899, 1068, 1089, 1095, II64, 1187, 1248, 1253,1320, 1330, and 1353.

Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material, 1029.

New Guinea, 2137. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 494. Public Service-Rent for Quarters. 2287. l1ailway Department - Donald McDonald,

1139; Special Trains, 1438. Scrap Iron, 1991. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

1889,2333, and 2334. "Vater Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

2344· Water Supply and Irrigation, 2237. West Melbourne Swamp, 882.

MADlIEN, Mr .• T. J. (Belfast) Atkinson's Special Survey-Land Tax, 2010. Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2520. Customs Department, 1710. Divisions, 919. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1224 and 1229. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1610. Government Advertising. 961. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2359· Legislative Assembly-Holidays to Attend-

ants, 1477. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 90S, 911, 975, 1246, 1252, I291,and I331. Loan Application BiU-Prince's.bridge, 2327. Police Constable Gilligan, 2427. Public Instruction - Teachers' Certificates,

719; Education Census, 1175; Truant Offi­cers, 2289.

Statistics, I 176. Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill, 2226. Rowing Club Boat-house Sites, 2355. Telegraph Operators, 2122.

MADDEN, Mr. WALTER (The Wimmera) Aborigines, 1211. Agricultnral Colleges Act Amendment Bill,

2533 and 2534. Agricultural Department. 2243. American Railway Freights, 199. Closed Roads, 1798. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1000, 1232,

and 1737; Rejection of Bill by Coullcil, 2487,2511, and 2526.

Foxes, 1000.

MABDEN, Mr. WALTER (continued)-Justices 'of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2359· Land at Ballarat-Mr. Baker, 1842. Lands Department, 1833. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1273. Magistrates, 361 and 1716. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2435· Order of Business, 283. Postmasters, 2115. Powder Magazines, 2179. Public Instruction-Water at Schools, 2129. Rabbit Extirpation, 1053 and 1345. Railway Department - Workshops, 2045;

Carriage of Cornsacks, 2267; West Charl­ton Station, 2356.

Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill, 2221,2227, and 2229.

Scrap Iron, 1994. Scrub J .. ands in South Australia, 1344. Swan Hill Shire Waterworks Trust, 2210. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

1892,2337, and 2430 •

Vegetable Products, 23. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

2343 and 2362. . Water Supply and Irrigation, 95, 1629,2181,

and 2320. Wheat, 2469. Yarra Bank Sites, 294 and 407.

Magistrates-Question by Mr~ Uren, 60; by Mr. Cooper, 164; by Mr. Zox, 298; discussion re new commission, on Mr. A. T. Clark's mo­tion for the adjournment of the House, 357; question by Mr. Nimmo, 368; by Mr. Hunt, 459; discussion in Committee of Supply, re necessity for additional magistrates, 1716; question by Mr. Langdon, 1736; by Mr. Burrowes, 1736. (See Little, Mr.)

Mail Communication with Europe. (See Euro­pean Mail Service.)

Maldon Water Supply. (See Loans, Expendi­ture under.)

Mallee Country-Question by Mr. Langdon, re fenc~ng, 552; by Mr. Baker, 1344. (See

. Wire LV eltin9') Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill­

Questions by Mr. Baker, 56 and 1734; Go­vernor's message brought down, 2047; con-· side red in committee, 2358; resolution for an appropriation agreed to, 2358; adopted~ 2358; Bill brought in, and read first time, 2358; second reading, 2431-3; considered: in committee, '433; read third time, 2435.

Mansfield Police Magistrate-Question by Mr.

37

Graves, 339. Manufactures, Local-Encouragement of. (See

Government Contracts; also Melbourne Har­bour Trust and Prince's Bridge.)

Maryborough, Representation of-Mr. Bowman's: resignation announced, 2216.

MASON, Mr. F. C. (S. Gippsland) Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 377. Customs Department-Deleterious Wines and

Spirits, 1000; Lockers and Weighers, 2300. Days and Hours of Sitting, 282. Defence of the Colony- ~1r. Buckley's Offer,

931 and 140~; Rifle Clubs, ]078 and 1280; Victorian Riffe A ssoci:ition, I 101.

Discipline .Act Amendment Bill, 2358.

IXDEX.

~1ASON, Mr. :P. C. (Colltl11ued)-.Dredging Employes' Holidays, I 70i. ]~Iectomi Law Amendment Bill, 2162, 2269,

238 5,and 2393; Rejection of Bill by Council, 2488 and 2527. -

Fish Creek Selections, 229, 230, and 462. Gaol and l~unatic Asylum 'Varders, 2163 and

2165. Governor's Messages, 2471. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2363. John Dougherty, 1397. Justices of the Peace Law Amendment Bill,

2339 and 2360. Land. Maps, 1775. Leadership of the Opposition, 18. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 385,868, and

876• Legislative Assembly Chamber-Ventilation,

300. Licensing (Public-houses) I ... aw Amendment

Bill, 317, 364, 469, 700, 791, 853, 856, 908, 910, 912, 916, 968, 1002, 1009, 1012, 1015, 1053, 1055, 1063, 1075, 1080, 1085, II51, II56, II 60, 1163, II65, 1178, 1194, 1240, 1243, 1264, 1266, 1268, 1270, 1273, 1275, 1282, 1317, 1322, 1326, 1347, 1348, 1362, 13 68, 1371, 1374, 1380, 1382, 1385, 1406, 1426, 1434, 1436, and 2329.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2327. :Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill, 2522 and 2524. Lunacy Commission, 264. Magistrates, 359; Melbonrne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1023. Mirboo Hailway, 61, 961, and 2011. Mode of Dealing with the Estimates, 1708. Neerim Hailway, 2010. _ Parliament Gardens-Lawn Tennis, 2009. Permanent Artillery-Courts Martial, 7 I 8. Public-houses, 396, 486, 655, 684, 2104, and

25 11 • Public Service-Lunatic Asylum Warders,

855,856, and 1397; Appeals against Clas­sifieation, 903; Promotion of Supernumer­aries and Juniors, 1099.

Publicans' Bills of Sale, 951. Railway Department-Workshops, 2301; Con­

veyance of Fish, 2410; Moe and Flinn's Creek Stations, 2468.

Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1393. Rosstown Railway Purchase Bill, 2472. Selection in South Gippsland, 285. Stand.ing Orders, 2011. Survey Fees. 1826, 1827, and 2108. Tasmanian Treaty, 60. Treat.ment of Members, 1100. -Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

2344·

Master-in-Equity-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 1714.

Masters and Servants Statute Amendment Bill -Brought in by Mr. A. Harris, and read first time, 384; discharged-from the paper, 2345·

Mayor of Melbourne's Ball-Question by Mr. Zox, lI95; statement by Mr. Gillies, 1195; discussion thereon, 1195; question by Mr. Bent, 1212.

Melbourne Benevolent Asylum-Question by Mr. Laurens, 1733. (See Charitable Insti­tutions.)

38

MelbOUl'ue Cityaud District Courts--Question by)1[r. Ganusol1, re supply of ::;tatutes and law reports, 1000.

Melbourne Gaol-Question by Mr. Gardiner, 136; motion by Mr. Gardiner in favour of removal of Melbourne Gaol, 285; debated, 285; withdrawn, 286; question hy Mr. Coppin, 1405. (See Penal Establishments.)

Melbourne General Cemetery Hoads Bill­Brought .in by Mr. Gardiner, and read first time, 1454; discharged from the paper, 2345·

Melbourne Harbour Trust-Question by Mr. A. T. Clark, 164; motion by Mr. A. T. Clark, affirming the desirability of the Government taking steps to prevent the trust importing any material, &c., "that can be obtained or manufactured in the colony," 1022; de­bated, 1022; deba.te adjourned, 1038; ques­tion by Mr. A. T. Clark, 1053; debate resumed, 1104; motion negatived, Il12. (See Govemment Contracts.)

Melbourne Morgue-Question by Mr. ZOX, 460. Melbourne (South) Jetty-Motion by Mr. Gaun­

son in favour of expenditure of £2,000, in providing a jetty for the city of South Melbourne, agreed to, 701; question by Mr. Gaunson, 17°2; discussion thereon, 1702; order for considering subject in committee discharged, 2345.

Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill­Standing orders suspended, I291; Bill brought in, and read first time, 1292; passed through remaining stages, 1454; returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 1579; amendments agreed to, 1579.

Melbourne Watch-house-Question by Mr. Coppin, 1175.

Melbourne (West), Representation of-Mr. Orkney's resignation announced, 1386; Mr. Qttrter's election announced, 1732; Mr. Carter introduced and sworn, 1732.

Melbourne (West) Swamp-Question by Mr. Bent, 881.

Members, New-Introduced and Sworn-Mr. Highett and Mr. Bourchier, 14; Mr. Carter, 173 2 •

Members, Hesignation of-Mr. Orkney, 1386; Mr. Bowman, 2216.

Metropolitan Cemetery - Question by Mr. Coppin, 164.

Metropolitan Water Supply-Question by Mr. A. T. Clark, 2410; by Mr. Bosisto, 2410; by Mr. Bent, 2469; by Mr. M. H. Davies, 2508. (See Loans, Expenditure under; also Whittlesea Railway.)

Militia Officers in Parliament-Question by Mr. Gaunson, II03.

Miners' nights-Question by Mr. Dow, re resi­dential qualification in State forests, 1263. (See Bullarto, Land at.)

Mines, Hours of Labour in - Question by Mr. Righett, 486.

Mines Regulation Act, Amendment of-Ques­tion by Mr. Fincham, 716.

Mining Department-Statement by Mr. Bow­man, re reception of deputations by Minister, II97; discussion thereon, II98; further statement by Mr. Bowman, 1292; vote for department discussed in Committee of Sup­ply, 2076.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

Mining Dispute at Maldon-Question by Mr. McIntyre, 1900; motion by Mr. Mcintyre for consideration of the case of Messrs. Edwards and Bowe, re non-working of No. 2088 gold mining lease, 2026; debated by Mr. Levien, 2028; Mr. Patterson, 2030; debate adjourned, 2031; resumed by Mr. Patterson, 2047; continued by Mr. Gillies, 2048; Dr. Quick, 2052; Mr. Kerferd, 2055; I .. t.-Col. Smith, 2057; Mr. Gaunson, -2058; Mr. D. M. Davies, 2061; Mr. Burrowes, 2062; Mr. Fincham, 2063; Mr. Richardson, 2064; Mr. McLellan, 2066; Mr. Bourchier, 2067; Mr. Nimmo, 2068; Mr. Wheeler, 2068; Mr. 13aker, 2069; Mr. Carter, 2069; Mr. Officer, 2069; Mr. Graves, 2069; Mr. Highett, 2069; Mr. Bent, 2070; Mr. McIn­tyre's reply, 2075; motion negatived, 2076; motion by Mr. McIntyre for papers pro­posed and withdrawn, 2216.

Mining Industry-Royal Commissions-Ques­tion by Mr. Pat-terson, re mining law, 1628; by Mr. Bell, re improved system of mining, 1977·

Mining Leases-Question by Dr. Quick, re for­feitures,61; by Mr. A. Young, re reduction of rent, 262; by Mr. Billson, re leases held by one company, 552; return presented the previous session ordered to be printed, 954; question by Mr. A. Harris, re rent, 1001; by Dr. Quick, re Black Cloud Company, 1142; by Mr. Uren, re rent, 1345; by Mr. Highett, re residential holdings, 1900.

Mining Managers-Question by Mr . .Fincham, 1587.

Mining on Private Property Act-Question by Mr. Bowman, 93; by Mr. Cooper, 135; by Mr. Patterson, 682; statement by Mr. Ker­ferd, 682; questions by Mr. Cooper, 1142 and 1177; motion by Mr. Cooper in favour of reduction of lease rent, 1685; debated, 1686; withdmwn, 1688.

Mining Laws Amendment Bill-Brought in by Mr. Levien, and read first time, 1927; passed through remaining stages, 2394.

Mining Statistics-Return ordered, on motion of Lt.-Col. Smith,578; question by Lt.-Col. Smith, 1280 and 1343; return produced, 181 9.

Mining Tenements, Rating of-Question by Mr. Moore, 1732; subject discussed in committee on the Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2523.

Ministerial Authority, Exercise of-Statement by Mr. Harper, on motion for the adjourn­ment of the House, 500; discussion thereon, 50 3.

MIRA1\IS; Mr. JAMES (Collingwood) Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 376. Alphington Railway, 61,95,96, 123, 138, 164,

459, 68 3, 932, and 1509. Appropriation Bill-Railway Management,

2414 and 2419. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 2474. Collingwood J.Jand Vesting Bill, 2519. Customs Department-Undervalued Goods,

228 and 1979. Documents read in Course of Debate, 2215. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1867,

1940, 1943, 1945, 1946, and 25 1 7. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, J 544 and

1597· _ Free Libraries Loans Bill, 379.

39

MmAlIIS, ~1r. JAlIIES (coniinued)--" Governor-Cost of Establishment, i456 and

1512; Summer Residence, 1696 and 1700. Governor's Speech, II7. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2037. Henry Hutchins, 1456; Hutchins and Noonan,

2267. John Dougherty, 1397. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 504, 854, 856, 886, 889, 897,906,91], 921 , -925, 935, 978, 1003, 1004, 1008, 1189, 1367, 1385, 1431, 1432, and 2012.

Lunatic Asylums, 1484. Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1030 • Mining on Private Property Act-Lease Rent,

1686. Mode of Dealing with the Estimates, 1706 and

170 9. Outer Circle Railway, 2468. Papers laid before the House, 2072. Parliament House-West .Front, 438 and 1143. Personal Explanation, 226. Private Bills, 1041. Publicans' Bills of Sale, 953. Public Instruction-Teachers' Salaries, 1099;

Education Vote, 2127. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 370. Public Service-Officers' Quarters, 136 and

163; Appointments, JI49 and 2011. Railway Commissioners, 2213. Rail way Department - Donald McDonald,

1140; Management and Expenditure, 2266. Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill,

2224· Registrar of Friendly Societies, 139 I. Rev. J. A. Dowie, 95 and 135. Soudan War, 130. Tasmanian Treaty, 126, 460, 1787, 1872, and

2047. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

233 1,2332,2339, and 2340. Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's

Bill, 1453 and 1684. Yarra Bank Sites, 408.

Mirboo Railway-Questions by Mr. Mason, 61, 961, and 2011.

Moira, Representation of-Question by Mr. Hall, 1343. (See Electoral Law AmendmentBill.)

MOORE, Mr. THOMPSON (Mandurang) Irrigation, 1365. Kerang Railway, 15Il. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1242, 1317, and 1318. Noxious Fumes Board, 1405. Rail way Department-Excursion Trains, I 176. Rating of Mining Tenements, 1732. Residence Areas, 1142. Swan Hill Railway, 198. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

13 11 • Water Supply to Whipstick, Sebastian, and

Raywood, 58.

Motions for the Adjournment of the House­Proposed to enable members to ventilate public questions-By Mr. McIntyre re Mr. Richardson's statement-l!'ish Creek selec­tions, 267; by Mr. A. T. Clark, re new com­mission of the peace, 357; by Mr. Orkney, re stone for west front of Parliament House, 436; by Mr. Bent, re Fish Creek selections,

INDEX.

Motions for Adjournment (continued)-461; by Lt. ·Col. Smith, re insubordination in the Permanent Artillery, 487 ; byMr.Harper, re exercise of Ministerial authority, 506; by Mr. Bent, re conrts martial, 553; by Mr. Gaunson, re presentation of petitions, 78r ; re submarine mines, 822; by Mr. Wbeeler,re occupation of land at Bullarto, 927; by Mr. Gardiner, re railway construction, 934; by Mr. Gaunson, re system of trying civil ser­vants, 956; by Mr. Bent, re Sydney railway trains-Wodonga v. Albury, II43; by Mr. Bowman, re administration of the Mining Department, 1197; by Mr. "\V. Madden, re amendment of the electoral law, 12J2; by Mr.Bowman,restatementsof the Ministerof Mines, 1292; by Mr. Orkney, re circulation of Federal Council of Australasia Bill. 13 12; by Mr. Dow, re case of W. and R. T. Smith, of Landsborough, 1404; by Mr. Gaunson, re rights of members, 1425; by ;\1r. Langdon, re Henry Griffith, Quambatook, 1902; by Mr. Connor,l'e sea-side rail way excursion tickets, 1977 and 221 I; by Mr. Mason, re lawn tennis court in the Parliament Gardens, 2009; by Mr. Fincham, re railway workshops, 2040 ; by Mr. Gaunson, re alteration of legislation by Governor's message, 2268; re rejection of the Electoral Bill by the Legislative Council, 2485 and 2525.

Motions proposed on order of the day for House to go into Committee of Supply-By Mr. A. T. Clark, re importation of machinery, &c., by Melbourne Harbour Trust, 1022 and 1104; by Mr. Dow, re survey fees, 1820; by Mr. Connor, re cookery classes in State schools, 2023; by Mr. McIntyre, re mining dispute at l\1aldon, 2026 and 2047 ; by Mr. Staughton, re compensation to H. M. Smith, 2109; by Mr. Pearson, re hours o:E duty of prison warders, 2162; by Mr. W. M. Clark, re petition of Mrs. M. A. White, 2273.

Motions "Unopposed "-Motions set down aR "unopposed" ordered to be placed in the ordinary list, 1512 and 2272.

Mount Moriac and Forest Railway-Question'by Mr. Uees, 1001.

MoystOll Main Lead-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. McLellan, 1200; produced,1346.

Mud Island-Questions by Mr. Gaunson, 1838 and 1846; statement by Mr. Tucker, 1846.

Munieipal Elections-Questions by Mr. Wheeler, re adjournment of the House, 615; by Mr. Patterson, 684.

Municipal Endowment-Questions byMr. Graves, 904; by Mr. Keys, 1020.

MURFtAY, Mr .• JOHN (Warrnambool) Aborigines, 121 I. Coroners' Juries, 1717. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1220.

, Faetories, 'Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1935. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

13 ill , 848,926, 975, 1058, 1081, II59, 1188, 1238, 1245, 1246, and 1273.

Manee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill, 2435·

Militia, 395. Publicans' Bills of Sale, 951. Public Instruction-Heligious Teaching, 1666

and 2129, , Ihbbit ]<;xtirpation, 1078. , Hace ~Week, lil8.

40

MURRAY, Mr. JOHN (continued)-Hejection of Electoral Bill by I~egislative

Council, 2492. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2529 and 2530. Telegraph Operators, 2119. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

233 2. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

23 6 1.

Murray, Mr.-Case of-Questions by Mr. Zox, re appointment in the Public 'Vorks Depart­ment, 1I96 and 1261; papers ordered, on motion of Mr. Zox, 1261; produced, lJ14; questions by I,t.-Col. SmIth, I26I and 1280.

Murray, The-Navigation of-Questions by Mr. Shack ell, 228 and 931.

Native Companions-Question by Mr. Highett, 460.

Naturalization-Question by Mr. Bowman, 95; motion by Mr. Bowman, in favour of agree­ment among the Australian colonies "by which letters of naturalization issued in one colony will hold good in any of the colonies," 778; debated, 778; agreed to, 779; questions by Mr. Bowman, 962 and 1001.

Neerim Railway-Question by Mr. Mason, 2010. Neglected'and Criminal Children Law, Amend­

ment of-Question by Mr. Wrixon, 59. New Guinea-Question by Mr. Harper, 24;

subject referred to during debate on address in reply to Governor's speech, 82, 98, 106, 143, and 214; questions by Mr. Patterson, 820, II02, and 2512; statements by Mr. Service, 1I02 and 2513; question by Mr. Zox, 1732; vote towards expenses of govern­ment discussed in Committee of ::;upply, 2135. (See Scratcltley, Sir Peter.)

Newport, Quarrying on Crown Lands at-Ques­tion by Mr. A. T. Clark, Il97.

Newspaper Reports - Statement by Lt.-Col. Smith, 1230; by Dr. Quick, 1231.

NU{]Ifo, Mr. JOHN (Emerald Hill) Acting .Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 372. Albert Park State School, 1666. Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

1575· Boilers Inspection Bill, 1581. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1221. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1233, 2381,

and 2393; Rejection of Bill by Council, 2486.

Employers' Liability Bill, 1048 and 2189. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1471,

1943, and 1981. Falls Bridge, 1628, 1734, and 1862. :Federal Council of A ns traJ.asia Bill, 1538 and

1640 • Fish Creek Selections, 269. Government Contracts, 948. Governor's Speech, 138. Governor's Summer Residence, 1693. Grant Gratuity Bill, 328. John Dougherty, 1483. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 347, 366, 53 1, 884, 886, 889, 892, 918, 922,965,1009,1063,1064, 1067,1083, 1090, 1098, 1161, 1188, 1251, 1264, 1276, 1285, 1330,1351,1373, and 1412.

LEGI8LATIYE ASSEMnLY.

NElll\lO, Mr. JOHN (continlled)­Magistrates, 368. Melbourne HarbourTrust-Imported Material,

II05· . Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2068. Miss Ka to Cooke, 1204. Parliament House-Stone for West Front,

437· Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 557. Public Service-Trial of Officers, 957; Lockers

and Weighers, 1343; Postmistresses, 2118; Teachers' Salaries, 2129.

Hace Week, 1717. Railway Department-Double-bogie Engines,

221 I. Hailways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill,

2231. Sandridge Railway, 1628. Shooting at Numurkah, 1346. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2479. Social Evil, 1202. 80udan War, 140. South Melbourne Jetty, 1702. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 1953. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

233 2 •

Water Supply and Irrigation, 2186. Yarra Bank Sites, 295 and 412.

North American, Supposed Wreck of-Questions by Mr. Mackay, 955 and 1366.

Notice-paper-Question by Mr. Woods, re form of question, 578; Speaker's ruling, 578; question by Mr. Mackay, re alteration of question. 654. .

Noxious Fumes Board-Question by Mr. Moore, 1405; statement 1:>y Dr. Quick, 2167.

Numurkah, Shooting at.-Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. Nimmo, 1346; produced, 1366.

OFFICER, Mr. C. M. (Dundas) Aborigines, 1388. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 77 5. Closed Roads, 58 and 1795. Cookery Classes in State Schools, 202.~. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1451,

1644, 1648, 1928, 1935,1943, and 1950 • Free Libraries, 1705. Government Contracts, 946. Grant Gratuity Bill, 328 and 331. Industrial and Reformatory Schools, 2288. Legislative Assembly Chamber-Ventilation,

300. r ... icensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 802,975, 1093, and 1329. r ... unacy Commission-John Dougherty, 2279. Lunatic Asylums, 1399. McColl Gratuity Bill, 336. Magistrates, 17 I 6. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2433 and 2434. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2069. Parliament House-Stone for West Front, 436. Sheep Inspectors, 2468. Survey Fees, 1823. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2357·

Opposition, The-Leadership of-Subject re­ferred to during debate on address in reply to Governor's speech, 18.

41

ORKNEY, Mr. JAMES CW. Melbourne) Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 13 II.

Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill, 850, 884, 908,910,970,1059, II52, II77, 1239, 1245, 1250, 128 3. 1289, 1319, 13 22 , 1326,1353,1362,1369, 1378,'and 1380.

Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material, 1110.

Parliament House-Stone for West Front, 435 and 436.

Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 370. West Melbourne Swamp, 882. Yarra Bank Sites, 439.

(Resignation announced, 1386.)

Outer Circle Railway-Question by Mr. Mirams, 2468. .

Oxley-shire-Question by Mr. Graves, 2105.

Parks and Gardens-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. J. Harris, 1200; produced, 1366; 'l'eturn ordered, on motion of Mr. Keys, 1689; produced, 2047; vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 1846. (See Albert Park; also Prince's Parlt and Royal Park.)

Parliament-Opening of the session, 14; pro­rogation, 2544.

Parliament Buildings-Question by Mr. Mirams, re electric lighting engines, 1143; by Mr. Baker, 1703.

Parliament Gardens-Lawn Tennis-Question by Mr. Patterson, re lawn tennis court, 2009; statement by Mr. Deakin, 2009; discussion thereon, 2009.

Parliament House-Completion of West Front -Question by Mr. Orkney, re stone, 435; statement by Mr. Serv·ice, 435; discussion thereon, 436; question by Mr. Bosisto, re Mr. Amess' deposit, 1143; statement by Mr. Deakin, 1143; discussion thereon, 1143. (See Legislative Assembly,)

Parliament Library-Statement by Mr. Woods, re surplus books. 2288.

Parliament, The New-Question by Lt.-Col. Smith, 2468.

Party Processions Statute Amendment Bill­Motion by Mr. Richardson for leave to in~ troduce, 385; secouded by Lt.-Col. Smith, 385; debated by Mr. Gaunson, 385; debate adjourned, 386; order for resuming debate discharged, 2345.

Patents-Question by Mr. Zox, re indexes, 1280.

PATTERSON, Mr. J. B. (Castlemaine) Aborigines, 1388 and 1390. Administration of Justice Bill, 1996. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 594,764,777, 867, 102~, and 1454. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 864. Coal in Gippsland, 1051. Defence of the Colony, 2179. Diamond Drills, 1456. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1226 and 1229. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1231 and

2384. Explosives Bill, 2340. Factories, 'Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1753~

19ii, 1928, 1946, and 2516. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1456

1520, 1632, and 1639. .Fish Creek Selections, 270 and 273. Governor-Cost of Establishment, 1512. Governor's Speech, 48.

INDEX.

PATTERSON, Mr. J. B. (continued)-, Grant Gratuity Bill, 327 and 2364. Hours of Sitting, 1907 and 2270. ]~al1c1s Department, 1843. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 874. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 518, 857. 887,892,962,980, 1003, 1°73. 1151, II83, II86, II88, 1243. 1267, 1276, 1314, 13 19, 1320, 1326, 1357, 1361, 1411 , 1'~28, 2012, anc1 2015.

Lunatic Asylums, 1482. Magistrates, 360. Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1031. Mining Dep.artment, 2086. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2030, 2°47, 2071,

and 2072. Mining Law, 1628. Mining Leases, 2081. Mining on Private Property Act, 682. :Municipal Elections, 684. Ne,,, Guinea, 820,1102, and 2512. Parliament Gardens-Lawn Tennis, 2009. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 566. Postal Department. 2122. Public Service-Remuneration of Officers,

2118. . Hace Week, 1718. Railway vVorkshops, 1900,2046, and 2266. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2535. Registrar of Friendly Societies, 1391. Reserves, 1831. ROBstown Railway Purchase Bill, 2470 and

2471. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2478, 2481, 2529, and

253°· Speaker, 2538. 'Speaker's Rulings, 1041. 'Tasmanian Treaty, 1862. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2331 and 2334. Yarra Ban~ Sites, 291,297. and 354.

PEARSON, Mr. C. H. (East Bourke Boroughs) Administration of Justice Bill, 1743. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 2476. Clifton Hill Railway, 1556. Closed Roads, 1795. Coburg and Somerton Railway, 2468. Dentists Registration Bill, 1586. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2384. E~lployers' Liability Bill, 1048. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1465,

[648, 1650, 1747, 1748, 1750, 1752, 1868, 1939, 1941, and 1945. .

Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1522, 1630, and 1639'

, ~ish Creek Selections, 277. IGaol and Lunatic Asylum Warders, 932, 2162,

2166, and 2287. 'Governor's Speech, 143. Oovernor's Summer Residence, 1693. Hours of Sitting, 1908. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 833, 883, 920, 1070, 1082, II87, 1240, 1250, 1253, 1278, 1284, 13 27, 1354, 14°9, 1429, 1434, and 2022.

Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material, 1°.33·

Mining on Private Property Act-Lease Rent, 1687.

New Guinea, 143. Penal Establishments - Warders' Holidays,

932; Vote for Department, 1205 and 1208.

PEARSON, Mr. C. H. (continued)-Permanent Artillery -Illsu bordination, 560

and 718. Postage, 2112. Publicans' Bills of Sale, 950 and 953. Public Instruction-Honour Uegulations, 1103

and II96; Cookery Classes, 2025. Railway Siding at Coburg, 2410. Soudan War, 144. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2331,2332, and 2337. University of Melbourne-Schools of Mines,

1704 and 2292.

Penal Establishments-Return re solitary con­finement ordered, on motion of Dr. Quick, 339; produced, 440; question by Mr. Pearson, re warders' holidays, 932; vote for depart­mentdiscussedinCommitteeofSupply, 1204; questions by Mr. Gaunson, re prisoners' dress, 1386 and 22II. (See Warders.)

Permanent Artillery, Insubordination in­Question by Lt.-Col. Smith, 487; statement by Mr. Service, 487; discussion thereon, 487 and 488; qnestions by Mr. Bent, 499, 500, and 551; statement by Mr. Bent, on motion for the adjournment of the House, 553; discussion thereon, 555; quest.ion by Mr. C. Young, 577; return ordered, on motion of Mr. C. Young, 615; produced, II99; questton by Mr. Bent, 656; by Mr. C. Young, 684; by Lt.-Col. Smith, 718; statement by Mr. Berry, 718; discussion thereon, 718; question by Mr. A. T. Clark, 998; by Lt.-Col. Smith, II 75. (See Courts Martial.)

Personal Explanations-By Mr. A. T. Clark, 24; by Mr. D. M. Davies, 134; by Mr. Graves, 165 and 684; by Mr. Mirams, 226; by Mr. Laurens, 227; by Mr. Richardson, 417; by Mr. Gardiner, 934 and 1406; by Lt.-Col. Smith, 1230 and 2109; by Mr. Bosisto, 1231; by Mr .. Coppin, 1732; by Mr. Bent, 2108; by Mr. McIntyre, 2108; by Mr. Shackell, 2209.

Petitions, Informal-Discussion raised by Mr. Gaunson, on motion for the adjournment of the House, 781.

Petitions presented-For division of Mandurang electorate, 14; for amendment of Bakers and Millers Act, 14;, re Tasmanian treaty, 227, 361,458, 576,682,1262,1773, and 1817; re Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amend­ment Bill, 2'62, 361,395,458,486,499, 549, 576, 61 3, 614, 653, 654, 682, 716, 746, 781, 81 9,820, 854,880,903, 926, 962, 998, 1020, 1053,1075,1101,1140,1175,1195,1231,1262, 1279, 1344, and 1366; re Union Trustees, Executors, and Administrators Company Bill, 394; re Australian Executors and Trnstees Assopiation Bill, 395; re James McLean, sen., 440; re Farquhar McDonald, 458; re Fire Brigade system, 654; re Regi­nald Green, 747; re case of Elizabeth and Anna McGauley, 781; for removal of certain immoral houses, 820; re occupation of land at Bnllarto, 927; for Probate and I,etters of Administration Bill, 927; for Bills of Lading Law Amesdment Bill, 927; re Mary Ann White, 998; re lady teachers in State schools, 998; re Colonial and Indian Exhibition, 1075; re Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill, I 175; against Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill, 1262 ;

Petitions pl'esentcd (colltinued)-for scverance of Haddon from Ballarat West electorate, 1280; re Moira electorate, 1366, 1405, 1556, and 1587; re Trustees, Execu­tors, and Agency Company's Bill, 1377; re Factories, vYorkrooms,andShops Bill, 1556, 1587,1628,1732,1977, and 2411 ; re opening of Public Library on Sunday, 1556; for legislation for the better protection of women and girls, 1732 and 2508; for amendment of Land Act, 1732; 1'e postmas­ters' quarters, 1817; against Administration of Justice Bill, 1862; l'e agricultural col­leges endowment, 2104.

Pharmacy Act Amendment Bill-Brought in by ]\fr. Bosisto, and read first time, 384; dis­charged from the paper, 1038; motion by Mr. Bosisto for House to consider the law relating to pharmacy, agreed to, [038; re­solution in favour of amending the law p~ss~d in committee, 1038; adopted, 1038 ; HIll mtroduced, and read first and second time, 1038; passed through remaining stages, 2345.

Phrenix Ifoundry Company-Statements by Mr. C. Young, 947 and 1107; by Mr. Bell, 1104; by Lt.-Col. Smith, 1108 ..

PipeR, Water-Manufacture of-Su bject referred to during debate on address in reply to Governor's speech, 79 and 103; question by Lt.-Col. Smith, 1262 and 1365. (See Lang­lands Foundry Company.)

Point Ormond, Reserve at-Question by Mr. Bent, 1978.

Police Magistrates. (See Man.Vield.) Police, The-Question by Dr. Quick, re detec­

tive sergeants, 135; by Mr. Richardson, re Ballarat police, 262; by Mr. Zox, re protec­tion of the public at Melbourne street­crossings, 298; by Mr. Connor, re overcoats, 747; by Mr. Rees, re Sergeant Carden, 1000; vote for Police department discussed in Committee of Supply, I I 12; question by Mr. M: H. Davies, re Toorak police station, 2409; by l\ir. Bent, re Constable Gilligan, 2425; by Mr. J. J. Madden, 2427.

Postal Department-Questions by Mr. Keys, re new post-office at Oakleigh, 136 and 747 ; by Mr. Laurens, re Mr. E. V. Browne, 228; by Mr. Coppin, re postage of printed cards, 338; by Lt.-Col. Smith, re Saturday half­holiday to letter-carriers, 747; motion by Mr. M. H. Davies for return re payment for overtime, 904; withdrawn, 904; ques­tion by Mr. A. T. Clark, re leave of absence to employes, 1077; by Mr. Walker, l'e new post-office at Camberwell, 1103; return re employment and remuneration of post­masters ordered, on motion of Mr. Gardiner, 1235; produced, 2412; question by Dr. Quick, re letter carriers, 1313; by Mr. Coppin, re registered letters, 1403; by Mr. Laurens, re payment for overtime, 1628; by Mr. Gaunson, l'e post and telegraph staff in the public offices, 1706; by Mr. Laurens, re letter sorter P. Hill, 2010 and 2470; by Mr. Richardson, 1'e Miss Levack, 2103; vote for Postal department discussed in Committec of Supply, 21 I I; question by Mr. Shackell, re relieving postmagters, 2210; by Mr. 'Wheeler, re promotions, 2269. (See Telegraph Department; also European Mail Service.)

1:'owder NIagazlues-Vote discusi:led in Com­mittce of Supply, I7 14.

Preferential Payment of vVages Dill-Received from Legisla.tivc Council, and read first time, 1892; read second time, 2360; passed through remaining stages, 2361.

Premier's Department-Vote discussed in Com­mittee of Supply, 2134.

Prerogative of Mercy-Question by Mr. A. Harris, re Christopher Dow, 577.

Prince's Bridge, New-Question by Dr. Quick, re girders, &c., 1817; proposal by Lt.··Col. Smith, in conncxion with Loan Application Bill, for the whole of the ironwork for Prince's-bridge to be manufactured in the colony, 2321; debated, 2322; withdrawn, 2327. (See Swanston-street Bridge Bill.)

Prince's Park-Question by Mr. Gardiner, 60. Printers and Newspapers Registration Bill­

Motion by Mr. M. H. Davies for House to consider on future day the laws relating to printers and newspapers registration, agreed to, 385; resolution in favour of amending the law, passed in committee, 1050; Bill brought in, and read first time, 1050; dis­charged from the paper, 2345.

Prison Gate Brig'ade-Question by Mr. Woods, 94·

Private Bills-Report from Standing ,Orders Committee brought up, 1260; resolutions of committee adopted as standing orders, 2440; Governor's approval of standing orders announced, 2536.

r>rivilege-Complaint by Mr. Bent, of note­taking in the Speaker's gallery, 30; discus­sion thereon, 30; statement by the Speaker, 62; complaint by Mr. Bent, re article in Age newspaper, 165; motion by Mr. Bent declaring the article to be "a scandalous breach of the privileges of this House," 169; seconded by Mr. McIntyre, 169; debated, 170; withdrawn, 176. .

Probate and Letters of Administration Bill­Brought in by Mr. McLean, and read first time, 384; second reading, 877-9; considered in committee, 1913; discharged from the paper, 2485.

Prospecting-Question by Mr. Highett, 439; by Mr. Fincham, 1927; statement by Mr. Fincham, 2300. (See Diamond Drills.)

Protection of Women Bill-Received from Legislative Council, and read first time, 243S; discharged from the paper, 2536.

Prothonotary-Vote discussed in Committee of Supply, 1714.

Public Buildings )fire Protection Bill-Gover­nor's message brought down, 301; considered in committee, 353; resolution for an appro­priation agreed to, 353-4; adopted, 369; Bill brought in, and read first time, 301-2 ; second reading, 369; considered in commit­tee, 369; report adopted, 398; Bill read third time, 440; returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 576; amend­ments agreed to, 594; Governor's message recommending amendments, 655; amend­ments agreed to, 655; question by Mr. Gaunson, re compensation to workmen, 190 1.

Public Finances. (See Finances, The Public.) Public Health Statute-Statement by Mr. Con­

nor, 384.

Public-houses-Questions by Dr. Quick, 339 and 500; return ordered, on motion of Dr. Quick, 500; produced,7I9; statement by Mr. Ciaunson, 882; by Mr. Pearson, 883; motion by Mr. Pearson for return re publicans' bills of sale or mortgages, 950; debated, 951; negatived, 953; question by Mr. Duffy, 1021; return ordered, on motion of Mr. nerry, 1235; produced,1235; question by Mr. Gaunson, 1818; by ·Mr. Mason, 2104 and 2511. (See Licensing Law Amendment Bill; also inspectors.)

Public Instruction-Census-Question by Mr. J. J. Madden, II75;

subject discussed in Committee of Supply, 2128. .

Cookery Classes-Question by Mr. Connor, 1175; motion by Mr. Connor in favour of n.ppropriation for competent trained teachers, 1688; debate interrupted by a "count out," 1688; second motion by Mr. Connor, 2023; debated, 2024; withdrawn, 2026.

Education Department-Question by Mr. Harper, re report, 1075; by Mr. Duffy, re overtime money, 1456.

Education Vote-Discussed in Committee of Supply, 2123; on consideration of report, 2289.

Honour Regulations-Question by Mr. Pear­Elon, 1103.

Religious Teaching and Local Control-Mo­tion by Mr. Harper, 1292; debate adjourned, 13 I I; order for resuming debate discharged, ~~345; question by Mr. Murray, 1666.

School Accommodation-Questions by Mr. A. 'f. Clark, re Newport, 823 and 2410; by Mr. Keys, re Caulfield, 1689.

School Attendance-Return re Albert Park School ordered, on motion of Mr. Nimmo, 1666; produced, 1737.

School Reserves, Fencing of-Subject dis­cussed in connexion with the education Yote, 2129'

Schools-Question by Dr. Quick, re Carlton (N o. 112), 1405; by Mr. Langdon, re supply of water, 1901; statement by Mr. Gillies, 1901; discussion thereon, 19°1; further discussion, 2129; question by Mr. Russell, re night schools, 2319.

Singing-Question by Mr. Langdon, 1051. TElachers-Question by Dr. Quick, re teach­

ers'superannuations, 298; by N:"r. Cooper, re classifiers' supplementary roll, 395; by Mr. Staughton, re teachers' increments, 578; by Mr. Fincham, re vacancy in school NO.3 3, at Ballarat, 654; by ~lr. J. J. Madden, re certifi­cates of competency, 719; by Mr. Hunt, re compensation, 903; motion by Mr. Mackay, for copy of petitions from lady teachers, re classification and remuneration, agreed to, 1001-2; information supplied, 1002; ques­tion by Dr. Quick, re trained teachers, 1021; by Mr. Mackay, 1'e reduction of sala­ries, 1051 and 1052; by Mr. Duffy, re classi­fication, 1052; by Mr. Coppin, re salaries, 1076; by Mr. Mackay, re reductions, 1100; statement by Mr. Gillies, IIOI; discllssion thereon, 1101; question by Dr. Quick, re transfers and promotions, 1142; re classi­fications, 1I95; by Mr. Pearson, re regula­tions for honours, 1196; by Mr. Hichardson, re increments, 1343; by Mr. Langdon, re country schools, 1689; by Dr. Quick, re

Public Instruction (continued)­increments,2010; byDr. Rose,rereductions, 2104; subject of classification discussed in Committee of Supply, 2123; question by Lt.-Col. Smith, re publication of promotions and transfers, 2468.

Teachers' Dwellings-Question by Mr. Baker, 1706.

Truant Officers-Question by Mr. Hall, 999; by Mr. McI.Jellan, 2125.

Public Library and National Gallery-Vote for' department discussed in Committee of Supply, 1209.

Public Service-Questions. by Mr. Mirams, re rent for quarters, 136 and 163; by Mr. Wall5.er, re grievances, 163; by Mr. McIn­tyre, re appointments, 227 and 228; by Mr. Fincham, re increments, 361; by Mr. Reid, re officers of Parliament, 460 and 1818; by Mr. 'Walker, re inspector of stores, 577; by Dr. Quick, re appeals, 683,1234, and 1343; Mr. Heicl's motion, re officers of Parliament, postponed, 778; question by Mr. Gaunson, re payment of salaries, 880 and 932; by Mr. Hees, re appeals, 903; by Mr. Mason, 903; by Dr. Quick, re increments, 932 and 1343; by Mr. Gaunson, re system of trying officers, 955; statement by Mr. Berry, 956; discus­sion thereon, 956; question by Mr. Duffy, re increments, 999; by Mr. Mason, re promo­tion of supernumeraries and juniors, 1099; by Mr. Bent, re officers of Parliament, II 12; return re appointments ordered, on motion of Mr. Mirains, 1149; question by Mr. Mirams, 2011; by Mr. DuffY, re insurance regulations, 1234; subject of allowances for quarters discussed in connexion with lunatic asylums vote, 1484; question by Mr. Zox, re appeals, 1628; by Mr. Graves, re water rate collectors, 1628; re Titles department, 1628; by Dr. Quick, re examinations, 1817; by Mr. Hunt, re long service increment, 1862; motion by Mr. Gaunson, re trial of public servants, 2032; debated, 2032; amend­ment by Mr. M. H. Davies, 2033; amend­ment carried, 2034; question by Mr. M. H. Davies, re dissatisfaction among Govern­ment employes, 2103; by Mr. Graves, re overtime, 2210; by Mr. Langdon, re appeals, 2269; by Dr. Quick, re reserved decisions of Public Service Board, 2269; discussion, 1'e rent for quarters, on report from Committee of Supply, 2284; question by Dr. Quick, re increments, 2320; by Mr. Derham; re draughtsmen, 2355; by Dr. Rose, re printed list of public servauts, 2356; by Mr. Walker, re Public Sen-ice Association, 2413; byMr. Officer, re sheep inspectors, 2468. (See Murray, Mr.; also Clerks of Courts, Cus­toms Department, Holidays, Luna,tic Asylums, Postal Department. Public Instruction, Su­preme Court, and Telegraph Depa7·tment.)

44

Public Service Act-Question by Mr. Graves, 1078.

Public Service Board-Return ordered, on mo­tion of Mr. Carter, 2216; produced, 2543; question by Mr. Graves, re Audit Commis­sioners' report, 2298; by Mr. A. T. Clark, 1'e chairman, 2355 and 2411.

Public Works, Labour on-Question by Lt.­Col. Smith, 2161.

Questions, Asking. (See Notice-paper.)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

QUICK, Dr. JOHN (Sandhurst) Administration of Justice Bill, 1739, 1988,

and 2011. Assize Courts, 2355. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 766. Boilers Inspection Bill, 158 I. Charitable Institutions, 1775 and 228 I. Closed Roads, 1798. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1222. Employers' Liability Bill, 1044 and 1919. Exclusion of Strangers, 780. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1447,

1753, 1929, 1936, and 1980. Factory Sites, 1345. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1562 and

15 67. Government Contracts, 945. Governor's Speech, 43. Grassy Flat Reservoirs, 1819. Hansard, 1076. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 352, 591, 700,906, 909,912, 967, 1098, 1149, II57, 13 18, 1358, and 1426.

IoJodgers' Interests Protection Bill, 1040. Melbourne Barbour Trust-Imported :Material,

102 3. Mining Department, 2084; Secretary for

Mines, 2086. Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2052, 2054, and

2071 . Mining Leases, 61, 1142, 2078, and 2080. New Guinea, 2135. Newspaper ]~ports, I23I. Noxious Compounds in Mines, 2167. Occupation of Land at Bullarto, 929. Penal Discipline-Solitary Confinement, 339. Police, 135. Prince's-bridge, 1817 and 2322. Private Bills, 1040. Probate and Letters of Administration Bill,

1914. Publicans' Bills of Sale, 953. Public-houses, 339 and 500. Public Instruction-Teachers' Superannua­

tions, 298; Trained Teachers, 1021 ; Trans­fers and Promotions, 1142; Classification, 1195; School at Carlton, 1405; Teachers' Salaries, 2010 and 2289; Female Teachers, 2127.

Public Service - Appeals, 683, 1234, and 1343; Increments, 932, 1343, and 2320; Trial of Officers, 958 and 2032; Profes­sional Officers in the Public Works Depart­ment, 1234; Letter Carriers, &c., 13 I3 and 2119; Examinations, 1817; Postmasters and Postmistresses, 2112 and 2119; He­served Decisions, 2269; Rent for Quarters, 228 5.

Railway Department-Express Trains, 57; Workshops, 134 and 2045; Donald McDon­ald, 263 and 1116; Rabbit Freights, 338; Sandhurst Station, 1141; Excursion Tickets, 1197; Passengers to Marong, 1587.

Sandhurst and Heathcote Railway, 1735. • Sandhurst Court-house, 2320. Survey Fees, 105 I and 1821. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2336. University of Melbourne-Schools of Mines:

1736,2133, and 2295. Wallace Bethanga Company, 57. Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

?- 34-2 and 20 344.

Rabbit Extirpation-Question by Mr. Staugh­ton, re duty on wire netting, 197 and 1848; by Mr. Langdon, re Gladstone county, 933; by Mr. W. :Madden, 1'e South Australian border, 1053; return re expenditure ordered, on motion of Mr. Murray, 1078; produced, 1587; question by Mr. Langdon, re poisoned grain, 1262; by Mr. VV. Madden, re re­serves, 1345; by Mr. Bourcbier, re Avoca frontages, 1689; by Mr. Bowman, re reward for remedy, 1848; by Mr. Langdon, re un­occupied blocks, mallee country, 1902; statement by Mr. JoJangdon, re Henry Griffith, Quambatook, 1902; by Mr. Tucker, 1902; question by Mr. Langdon, re Glad­stone and Tatchera, 20320. (See Wire Netting; also Maliee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill.)

Hace Week, Adjournment over-Question by Mr. Shack ell, 1666; motion by Mr. Service for adjournment of the House over •• Cup" day, 1717; amendment by Mr. Murray, for adjournment over the entire race week, 1717; subject debated, 1717; amendment. carried, 1718.

Railway Construction - Question by Mr McLean, re narrow-gauge lines, 1900.

Railway Contracts-Papers re conditions or· dered, on motion of Mr. Gaunson, 1456; produced, 1689; motion by Mr. Shack ell for return, set down as "unopposed," ordered to be placed in the ordinary list, 2272.

Railway Department-Question by Dr. Quick, re express trains, Echuca line, 57; by Mr. Shackell, 338; by Mr. Yeo, re return tickets, 162; by Mr. W. Madden, re Ameri­can railway freights, 199 ; by Mr. HaU, re refreshment charges, 263; re grain freights, 263 ; return re pay and ho-qrs of employes ordered, on motion of Mr. \Voods, 301; produced, 301 ; question by Dr. Quick, re freightonrabbits,338; by Mr. M.R. Davies, 7'e suburban radius, 395; by Mr. Mackay, ?'C Sandhurst line, 395 and 1365; by Lt.­Col. Smith, re trucks for farm produce, 5520 and 1438; by 1\11'. Hall, re Seymour and Numurkah trains, 683; by Mr. Toohey, re ' officers' salaries, 855; by Lt. -Col. Smith, re Sydney trains - Wodonga v. Albury, 881 and 102 I; return re Sunday trains ordered, on motion of Mr. Richardson, 950 ;

,produced, 1001 ; question by Mr. Gaunson, 1'e Hawthorn trains, 1000; by Lt.-Col. Smith, re excursion fares, 1020; by Mr. Laurens, re Thomas O'Brien, 1020; by Mr. ilent, re Wodonga and Albury, 1054; re metropolitan suburban radius, 1141; by Mr. Rees, re pay of gate-keepers, 1141 ; by Mr. D. M. Davies, re excursion trains, 1141; re engine-drivers, 1141; by Mr. Laurens, re annual report, 1142; by Mr. Bent, re Wodonga v. Albury, II43 ; discus­sion thereon, 1144; question by Mr. Moore, re excursion trains, 1176; by Mr. Bowman, II76; by Mr. Burrowes, II96; return re locomotives ordered, on motion of Lt.­Col. Smith, 1200; question by Lt.-Col. Smith, re floods on the Yea line, 1260; by Mr. C. Smith, re level crossings, 1279; by Mr. Burrowes, re excursion fares, 1314; statement by Mr. Gillies, 1314; discussiou thereon, 1314; questiou by Ml'! Graves! r~

INDEX.

Railway Department (continued)-3.ccommodation at 'Vinton, 1344; by Mr. Duffy, re accidents to porters, 1438; return of special trains ordered, on motion of Sir C. Mac Mahon, 1438; produced, 2272; re­turn re South Australian Border Railway ordered, on motion of Mr. Woods, 1439; produced, 1737; question by Mr. Zox, re ambulance waggons, 1510; by Mr. Moore, re additional train, Kerang· line, 1511 ; re­turn re travellers to Marong ordered, on motion of Dr. Quick, 1587; produced, 1863 ; question by Mr. Nimmo, re raising of Sandridge line, 1628; by Mr. Wheeler, re refrigerating cars-da.iry produce, 1665; re block on Daylesford line, 1665 and 'Z.I62; by Mr. Dow, re grain freights, 1735 and 1977; by Lt.-Col. Smith, re additional locomotives, 1774; by Mr. A. Harris, re refrigerating cars-conveyanqe of fish, 1774; by Mr. Mason, 2410; by :Mr. Langdon, re goods trucks for country stations, 17i4; return of employes ordered, on motion of Mr. Gaunson, 1927; pro­duced, 2109; question by Mr. Highett, re weigbbridge at Rochester, 1977; state­ment by Mr. Connor, re sea-side excursions, 1977; discussion thereon, 1978; question by Mr. Zox, re coal supply, 2008 ; by Mr. Gmham, 7'e grass-burning by line repairers, 2()08; papers re Mr. :E. 'V. Wintle ordered, on motion of Mr. M. H. Davies, 2034; pro­duced, 2109; question by Dr. Rose, re suburban radius, 2105; by Mr. Gaunson, re drivers and firemen, 2105 ; re ironwork for bridges, St. Kilda line, 2105; by Mr. Nimmo, re double-bogie engines, 2211; by Lt.-Col. Smith, re sea-side excursion tickets, 22II; statement by Mr. Service, 22II; discussion thereon, 22U; question by Lt.-Col. Smith, re work at Ballarat, 2:2:66; by .Mr. Graves, 7'e Mr. Mirams' statements as to management and expendi­ture, 2266; by Lt.-Col. Smith, re steel rails, 2267; by Mr. Dow, re construction of rolling-·stock, 2267; by Mr. W. Madden, re carriage o.f cornsacks, 2267; by Mr. Graham, re Seymour and Numurkah trains, 24.10; by Mr. Pearson, I'e siding at Coburg, 24.10; statement by Mr. Service, re grain freights, 2410; discussion re railway management and expenditure in committee on Appropriation Bill, 2413; question by Mr.Xeo, re carriages. Kerang line, 2468; by Mr. 'Valker, re Hawthorn trains, 2468 ; by Mr. Graham, re graiu freights, 2510; by M1'. Hussell, re Melbourne operatives and country work, 2510; by Mr. Gaunson, re Sunday duty, 2510. (See McDonald, Donald; also Smith, Mr. Allison.)

Railway Loan Account 1885 Application BiIl­Governor's message brought down, 2428 ; considered in committee, 2436; resolution for an appropriation agreed to, 2436; adopted, 2436; Bill brought in, and passed through all its stages, 2437.

Hailw3.ys and Irrigation Works Loan Bill­Governor's message brought down, 1863; considered in committee, 1927; resolution for an appropriation agreed to, 1927; adopted, 1979; Bill brought in, and read first time, 1863; second reading, 2216-18 ; considered in committee, 2218; read third time, 2301.

Railways authorized by Act of Parliament. (See .lIfirboo Railway; also Alphington, Bacchus Marsh and Gordons, Brighton and Plcnic Point, Camperdown and 1'erang, Clifton Hilt. Creswick and Daylesford, Coour,Q and Somerton, Fitzroy Branch, Glen Iris, Kew, Lal Lal Hace-course, Mi"boo, Mount Moriac and Forest, Neerim, Sand­hurst and Heathcute, Swan Hill, Wedder­burn, Wltittlesea, Wodonga and 1'allan­gatta, Yea and Man.'!field, and Yarra­wonga.)

Railway Stations-Question by Mr. Laurens, re North Melbourne, 94 and 1818; by Mr. M. H. Davies, re Toorak and Armadale, 551 and 2508; by Mr. Keys, re Mentone, Rosstown, and Murrumbeena, 1103; by Dr. Quick, re Sandhurst, 1141; by Mr. Yeo, re Rochester and :Elmore, 1260; by Mr. A. Young, re Smythesdale and Scars­dale, u60; by Mr. Langdon,re Boort, 1365; by Mr. Shackell, re Kyneton, 1862; by Mr. Anderson, re Glen Thompson, 2J20; by Mr. 'V. Madderi, 7'e West Charlton, 2356 ; by Mr. Mason, rc Moe and Flynu's Creek, 2468 ; by Mr. Derham, re Port Melbourne, 2508 . .

Railway Workshops-Question by Dr. Quick, 134; by Mr. Bowman, 854; by Mr. Russell, 1629 aud 1689; by Mr. Fiucham, 1732 aud 2040; by Lt.-Col. Smith, 1733; by Mr. Patterson, 1900 and 2266; statement by Mr. Gillies, 2040; discussion thereon, 2040 ; motion by Mr. Gillies for production of Rail­way CommissionerR' memorandum, agreed to, 2047; memorandum produced, 2047; motion by Mr. Fincham against further extension of Newport workshops before the next Legislative Assembly had au oppor­tunity of expressing its opinion tbereon, 2300; debated, 2301 ; negatived, 2301.

Real Property, Law of-Questions by Mr. Duffy, 552; by Mr. M. H. Davies, 1345,1376, and 2106; statement by Mr. Kerferd, 1376; by Mr. Duffy, 1377; by Mr. Graves, 1406; question by Mr. Bent, 1510; statements by Mr. Kerferd, 1510 and 2106; question by Mr. A. T. Clark, 2107; discussion on sub­ject, in connexion with Legislative Council's amendments in Heal Property Statute :Ex­plauation Bill, 2535.

Real Property Statute Amendment Bill­Brought in by Mr. M. H. Davies, and read first time, 385 ; passed through remaining stages, 2440; returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 2531; amend­ments adopted, 2531.

Real Property Statute Amendment Bill­Brought iu by Mr. Duffy, and read first time, 701; discharged from the paper, 2345·

Real Property Statute Explanation BiIl­Brought in by Mr. Kerferd, and read first time, 2356; passed through remaining stages, 2436; returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 2530; certaiu amendments disagreed with, 253 I ; message from Legislative Council, insisting on amendments, 2535; disagreement with amendments insisted on, 2536.

REES, Mr. JOHN (Grant) Bacchus Marsh and Gordons Railway, 855 and

1900•

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. , ". .~:.1 .

Rlims, Mr. JOHN (conthillcd)-Geelong Water'Supply, 2184 u.nd 2242. Gordons Court-house, 1703. Lands Department, 1834. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 975, 135 1, and 1353. Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1026. Mount Moriac and Forest Railway, 1001. Occupation of Land at Bullarto, 928. Police Sergeant Carden, 1000. Public Service-Appeals against Classifica­

tion, 903 ; Trial of Officers, 957. Railway Department-Pay of Gate-keepers,

II41 ; Rush of Goods Traffic, 1665. Selection in Cape Otway Forest, 1279. Survey Fees, 1821 and 1827. Water Supply andlrrigation, 2184 and 2239.

Reformatory Schools-Questions by Mr. Coppin, 163 and 1556 ; vote discussed in Co~nmittee of Supply, 1701. (See Ballarat 'Reforma­tory; also Training Ship.) ..

Refreshment Rooms Committee'--':Appointed, 284; discussion re arrangements of refresh­ment-rooms, 285.

REID, Mr. R. D. (Fitzroy) Aborigines', 1388. Clifton Hill Hailway, 1366. Eigh~ Hours Legalization Bill, 1214. Electoral Law Amendment Bi.U, 2377. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1472,

1947, and 25 16. Fitzroy Branch Rail way, 151.0. Gq.ol and Lunatic Asylum Warders, 2166. Hours of Sitting, 2271. Inspectors of Licensed Premises, 1713. John Dougherty, 1483. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 1073, II59, and 1286. Private Conversation among Members, 2379. Public Service-Officers of Parliament, 460,

778,1818, and 2540; Lockers and Weighers, 25 12.

Race 'Veek, 1717. . Railway Department - Mr. Allison Smith,

2422. Refreshment Rooms Committe~, 285." Sludge Disposal Bill, 2529 and 2530. Social Evil, 1201 and 1202. Speaker, 2540. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2357· Tmnsfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2339·

Reserves-Question by Mr. Graves, re Delatite, 823; return re reserves in Kant Kara ordered, on motion of Mr. Dow, 961; pro­duced, 1366; subject discussed in Com­mittee of Supply, 1830'

Residence Areas- Question by :Mr. Moore, I 142; by Mr. Shackell. 1629. .

RICHARDSON, Mr. HICHARD (Cl'eswicll) Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill,

2534· Appropriation Bill-Floating of Loans, 2422. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa­

tion Bill, 772. Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

1578.

47 u:~

RICHARDSON, Mr. RICHAIW (contilllled)­Ballarat Police, 262. Bethanga Lock-out, 24. Boilers Inspection Bill, 1582. Charitable Institutions, 2281. Closed Roads, 1797. Councils of Con~i1iation Bill, 385. Creswick and Daylesford Hailway, 95 and

221 5. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1215. Employers' Liability Bill, 1915,1917, 2188,and

21 90 • Factories, 'Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1451,

187°, 1935,1945, and 1951. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 13I2 and

1572 • Fish Creek Selections, 24, 59, 264, 273, and

4 1 7. ' : Free Libraries Loans Bill, 2233. Gaol and Lunatic Asylum Warders, 2166. Governor's Speech,51. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2368. Hours of Sittillg, 1905 and 2272. Licensing (Public-houses) Ln.w Amendment

Hill, 762, 782, 887, 891, 910, 922, 939, 108 9, II57, 1,268, 1291, 13 61 , 1366, 13 68, 1373, 1406, 1423. 1430, and 2022.

Lunatic Asylums, 1484. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

243 2 and 2434. Mining Department, 2083.

Mining Dispute at Ma.ldon, 2064 and 2074. Mining Leases, 954 and 2083. Occupation of Land at Bullarto, 928 ancl 1927. Orange Institution, 1084. Party Processions Statute Amendment Bill,

385. Postal Department, 2114; Miss Levack, 2103. Publicans' Bills of Sale, 952. Public Instruction-Teachers' Salaries, 1343;

Education Vote, 2128; Female Teachers, 2289.

Railway Commissioners, 2215. Uailway Depal'tment-·Sunday Trains, 950;

Donald McDonald, II 33. Railway Workshops, 2045.

Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2535. Sludge Disposal Bill, 1556, 1557, 2104,2481,

2482, and 2533. Survey Fees, 1822,1827, and 1828. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 1953. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

2358 and 2430. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

1891 and 2429. University of Melbourne-Schools of Mines,

2133 and 2294. 'Yater Conservation Acts Amendment Bill,

23 61. 'Yater Supply and Irrigation, 2182.

Rifle Clubs. (See Defence of the Colony.) Hiparian Rights-Question by Mr. Langdon,

487. Roads, Closed-Question by Mr. Officer, 58;

motion by Mr. McLean, for permission for the temporary closing of roads to be subject to the payment of a licence-fee, 1794; de­bated, 1795; negatived, 1812; statement by Mr. Service, 1818; by Mr. McIntyre, 1819.

Roads in Metropolitan District, State of-Ques­tioll by Mr. Derham, 46o.

Road Tolls-Question by Mr. Keys, 1927.

INDEX.

ROSE, Dr. J. M. (N. Melbourne) Bakers and Millers Statute Amendment Bill,

1578. 130ilers Law Amendment Bill, 385, 1213, 1579,

1584, and 1587. Charitable Institutions, 2248. Customs Department, 171 I. Dentists Registration Bill, 384 and 1585. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1219. Electural Law Amendment Bill, 2390. Employers' Liability Bill, 1917. Factodes, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1468,

16++,1933,1936,.1938,1951, and 2517. HCl,{! Libraries Loans Bill, 380. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2363. l~icensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 829, 1328,1330, and 135I. l~oan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2326. ]~unatic Asylums, 1484. McColl Gratuity Bill, 335. Prince's Park, 1846 and 2246. l?ublic Instruction-Cookery Classes, 2024;

Teachers' Salaries, 2104, 2125, and 2289. ]?ubJic Service, 2356. Hailway Department- Mr. Allison Smith,

607; Suburban Radius, 2105; Holidays, 2356.

Sludge Disposal Bill, 2529. Small-pox, 21 II.

Yarra Bank Sites, 293.

Rosstown Junction Railway ]~xtension Bill­Read first ~ime, 396; .withdrawn, 2032.

Rosstown Railway Purchase Bill-Governor's message brought down, 2470; motion by Mr. Gillies for leave to introduce Bill, 2471; debated, 2471; withdrawn, 2472; order for considering Governor's message discharged, 25 19.

Rowing Club Boat-house Sites - Question by Mr. J. J. Madden, 2355.

Royal Park-Question by Mr. LaureJ?s, 1629.

RUSSELL, Mr. JAMES (Ballarat East) Charitable Institutions, 2250. Chinese, 2047. Diamond Drills, 1586. l~ight Hours Legalization Bill, 1229. l~lectoral Law Amendment Bill, 2482. lnsh Creek Selections, 278. Grant Gratuity Bi11, 2369. l~icensing (Public·houses) Law Amendment

mil. 846. McColl Gratuity Bill, 337. Mining Timber, 136. Public Instruction-Night Schools, 2319. Hailway Department - Mr. Allison Smith,

604; Donald McDonald, I I 39; Tourists' Tickets, 2214; Melbourne Operatives and Country Work, 2510.

Hailway vVorkshops, 1629, 1689, and 2044. Travelling Stock, 2106. Univer~ity of Melbourne-Schools of Mines,

:u 34 and 2293.

St. Kilda Beach-Question by Mr. M. H. Davies, re boat-house site for St. Kilda Yacht Club, 999·

Sale Canal. (See Loans, Expenditure under.) Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill­

Brought in by Mr. Shackell, and read first time, 2.85; second reading, 876-7; con­sidered in committee, 1038; discharged ffPIll the paper, z345.

Sales by Auction Statute - Cattle Stcaling­Heturn ordered, on motion of Mr. Shackell, 1103; produced,1377.

Sand hurst and Heathcote Railway-Question by Dr. Quick, 1735.

Sand Licences-Question by Mr. Derham, 1345 ; statement by Mr. Derham, 1832.

Scenes in Parliament-Question by Mr. Sbackell, 2010.

Schools of Mines-Question by Lt.-Col. Smith, re affiliation of schools of mines to Univer­sity of Melbourne, 1703; statement by Mr. Service, 1704; discussion thereon, 1704; subject discussed in connexion with vote for additional endowment to University, 2133 and 2290.

Scrap Iron, Exportation of-Discussed in con­nexion with I:5wanston-street Bridge 13 ill , 1954; in connexion with Administration of Justice Bill, 1989; question by Mr. Gaunson, 2105.

Scratchley, Major-General Sir Peter-Question by Mr. Graves, 395; death of Sir Peter Scratch ley announced, and adjournment of the House in: consequence, 2192; statement by Mr. Service, re funeral, 2344. (See New Guinea.)

SERVICE, Mr. J AllIES, Premier and Treasurer ( Castlemaine)

Adjournments of the House, 386; Mayor of Melbourne's Ball, 1213; Hace vVeek, 1666 and 1717; Death of Sir Peter Scratchley, 21 92 •

Administration of .Justice Bill, 1987. A ppeals from the Ruling of the Chairman of

Committees, 1707 and 1708. Appropriation Bill, 2356,2413, 2423,and 2428. Asking Questions, 1100, Auc.kland Islands - Supposed Shipwreck,

1366. Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2520. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 2438,

2440,2473, and 2475. Border Duties, 1512. Budget, 417. Canalization, 136. Charitable Institutions, 1438, 1774, 2246, 2249,

2280, and 2412. Charitable Institutions Act Further Amend-

ment Bill, 1643. Closed Roads, 1818. Coast Survey, 1346. Colonial and Indian Exhibition, 2410. Consolidated Revenue Bills, 435 and 1613. Defence of Australasia, 2106. Defence of the Colony-Purchase of Hulks,

57 and 2413; South Channel, 199; Artillery Corps, 221; Staff Expenses, 386; Overcoats for the Militia, 395; War Materiel, 439; Defence Vote, 1001 and 2172; Military Regulations, 1077; Rifle Clubs, 1078, 1280, and ISII; Mr. Buckley'S Offer, 1406; In­spection of Defence 'Works by Members, 1437·

Despatch of Business, 1393. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2321. Divorce Trials, 94. Dredging Employes-Holidays, 17 I o. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1214, 1229, and

1230 •

Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1231, 1~32, and 25II.

Electoral Rolls, 1734,

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

SERVICE, Mr. JAlIlES (conlinued)­Employers' Liability Bill, 1924 and 2192. Executive Councillors, 2270. Factories, Workrooms, aud Shops Bill, 1871,

1940, 1981, and 2518. Falls Bridge, 1734. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1263,

13 12, 1386, 1456, 1542, 1544, 1596, 1607, 1630, 1642, and 1747.

Federation of Australasia, 396, 398, and 2409. :Fish Creek Selections, 229, 266, 279, 299,

362, 396, 461 , and 499. Floating of Loans, 252 and 2423. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 384. Glen Iris Railway, 1817. Governor - Cost of }~stablishment, 1456;

Summer Residence, 1690 and 1695. Government Contracts, 1176. Governor's Speech, 17, 2II, and 252. Grant Gratuity Bill, 321, 2036, and 2039. Hansard, 1076 and 2162. Hospital in East Melbourne, 22. Importation of Stock, 1438. Intercolonial Fiscal Relations, 396. Intercolonial Telegrams, 2270. Irrigation, 1365. Lands Department, 1836,1837, and 1846. Land Tax, 1260. Legislative Assembly-Ventilation of Cham­

ber, 300; Holidays to Attendants, 1477 and 2412.

Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill, 353, 365, 1002, 1156, II65, 1179, II80, 1237, 1244, 1266, 1268; 1270, 1279, 1283, 1326, 1328, 1347, 1348, 1355, 1375, 1377, 1383, and 1433.

Loan Application Bill, 1863,2301, 2302, 2322, and 2327.

Lunacy Commission-Tender Board, 263. Lunatic Asylums, 1479. McColl Gratuity Bill, 2039 and 2413. Magistrates, 360 and 1736. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2435· Melbourne Benevolent Asylum, 1733. Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1022, 1053, and II08. Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill,

1291 • Mining Dispute at Maldon, 1900, 2071, and

2216. Mining on Private Property Act-Lease Ren t,

1688. Mode of Dealing with Estimates, 1706. Mr. Bent, 1395. Mr. Thomas Boyd, 165. Mr. McIntyre, 1425. Municipal Endowment, 1020. Murray River, 228. Narrow-gauge Railways, 1900. New Guinea, 24, 214, II02, 1732, 2135, and

25 1 3. North Melbourne Railway Station, 1818. Note-taking in the Speaker's Gallery, 30. Parliament House-Stone for West Front,

435 and 436. Permanent Artillery-Insuhordination, 487,

490, 999, and I I 75; Court Martial, 486, 499, and soC'.

Premier's Department, 2134. Private Bills, 2440. Privilege-The Age Newspaper, 165. Prohate and Letters of Administration Bill,

1914. SES. 1885.-d

49

SERVICE, Mr. JAlIlES (continued)­Public Finances, 487, 2273, and 2509. Public Instructiou-Teachers' Salaries, 1052;

Classification of Teachers, 1052; Education Vote, 1076.

Puhlic Library and National Gallery, 1209 and 1210.

Public Service-Officers' Quarters, 136, 163, 2II5, and 2286: Grievances, 163; Appoint-· ments, 227; Officers of Parliament, 460 and II 12 ; Increments, 999; 1343, and 23 20 ; Pos tal Department, 1077, II I 3. 2 II 5, and 2210; Clerks of Courts, 1099; Promotions, 1099 and 2269; Mr. Murray, II96, 1261, 1262, 1280, and 2235; Insurance Regulations, 1234; Supreme Court Crier, 1235; Public Works Department, 1235 and 2355; Ap­peals, 1234, 1343, 1628, and 2269; Holidays, 1556; Titles Department, 1628; Examina­tions, 1817; Letter-sorter Hill, 2010; Trial of Officers, 2033; Dissatisfaction among Officers, 2103; Overtime, 2210; Lockers and Weighers, 2269, 2299, and 2300; Re­served Decisions, 2269; ·Warders, 2356; Printed List of Officers, 2356; Public 8er­vice Association, 2413.

Public Service Act, 1078. Puhlic Service Boa.rd, 2298, 2355. ancl241 I. Railway Department - Grain Freights, 263,

1735, 1977, and 24II; W·odonga v. Albury, 1021; Donald McDonald, II 34; Douhle­bogie Engines, 22II; Tourists' Tickets, 22II and 2212.

Railway "Torkshops, 2042, 2266, and 2300. Railways and Irrigation ·Works Loan Bill,

1863,1927,2216,2218,2223,2226, and 2301. Raywood Water Supply Works, 1736. Refreshment Rooms, 285. Resurvey of Bass' Strait, 1703. Riparian Rights, 487. Roads in the Metropolitan District, 460. Road Tolls, 1927. Scrap Iron, 1955 and 1992. Sessional Arrangements-Days and Hours of

Sitting, 281, 1903, 1908, and 2270; Order of Business, 283 and 284; Standing Commit­tees, 284; Private Members' Business, 386.

Sir Peter Scratchley, 395, 2192, and 2344. 8ludge Disposal Bill, 2104 and 2482. Soudan War, 224. South Australian Boundary, 22. South Melbourne Jetty, 1703. Speaker. 2538. Stock Tax, 499 and 15 12. "Stone-walling"-Explanations, 2109. Survey Fees, 1826. Surveys and Titles Adjustment Bill, 2138. Tariff, 2105; Bags and Agricultural Machinery,

998 i Hebate of Duty on Grain Bags, 2412. Tasmanian Treaty, 1862 and 2537. Tintaldra, 2512. Titles-office - Compensation to Workmen,

1901 . Training Ship, 459. Travelling Stock. 1I4I. Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's

Bill, 1684. Try Excelsior Classes, 1261. University of Melbourne-Schools of Mines,

1704,1736,2133,2134, 2290,2292, and 2294; Appointment of Examiners, 1733; Mode of Conducting Examinations, 1774.

Vegetable Products, 23. Victorian Rifle Association, 1102 and 1263.

INDEX.

SEJlVICE, Mr. JAMES (continued)­Votes on Account, 434 and 1612. Water Boring, 1343. 'Water Conservation, 1313 and 2237 . . Water Supply Engineer, 2106. \Vays and Means, 281,435, 1613, and 2321. Wire Netting, 459 and 2161. Yarra, Bank Sites, 291,296,354, 386, aud 439.

Sessional Arrangements-A ppointment of days and hours of sitting, 281-3; order of busi­ness, 283-4; standing committees, 284; question by Mr. Bent, re private members' business, 386 ; alteration of hours of sitting, 1903-10; motion by Mr. Service to enable fresh Government business to be taken after eleven o'clock p.m., 2270; debated, 2270; agreed to, 2272. (See Business, Con­duct of; also Notice-paper.)

SHACKELL, ~r. JAMES (Rodney) Adjournment over the Hace Week, 1666. Asking Questions, I100. Bachelors, I29I.

County Court Judges, 933. llansard, 2162. Importation of Stock, 1437 and 1456. Intercolonial Telegrams, 2270. Kyneton Railway Station, 1862. I.icensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 635, Il78, 1186, 1349, and 1373. Manllfacture of Flour in Bond, 2211. :Mr. Gaunson and Lt.-Col. Smith, 2178 and

2210. Murray River, 228 and 931. Personal Explanations, 2177 and 2209. Postma~ters, 2210. Public Instruction-Water at Schools, 2132. Hailway Department - ]!;xpress Trains,

Echuca Line, 338. Uailway Expenditure at Ballarat, 2272. :Residence Areas, 1629. Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill,

285,876, and 1038; Cattle Stealing, 1103. Scenes in Parliament, 2010 and 2178. Stamp Duties, 577. Tariff, 2I05· 'Water Boring, 298 and 1280. Water Rights-Heathcote, 1149. Water Supply Commission, 2241.

Sheep in Bond-Questions by Mr. Langdon, 1020 and 1196; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Langdon, 1054; produced, 1235.

SHIELS, Mr. VVILLIAl\I (Normanby) Acting ,Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 376. Administration of Justice Bill, 1675, 1987,

and 2001. Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2519 and

25 20. A ustralian Executors and Trustees Associa·

tion Bill, 767 and 777. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1225. ]~mplo.vers' Liability Bill, 1048. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1312,

1638, and 1641. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

mIl, 651, 723, 853,883, 886,890,901, 1004, 1012, 1014, 1016, 1018, 1055, 1067, 1071, 1073, 1074, 1193. 1236, 1239, 124 1, 1242, 1245, 1246, 1253, 1263, 1264, 1269, 1278, 1285, 13 17, 1319, 13 21 , 1323, 13 24, 1347, 1348, 1355, 1364,2012,2018, and 2020.

50

SHIELS, Mr. WILLIAl\{ (continued)-Legal Profession Practice Bill, 868, 875, and

876. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2434· Members Writing at the Table, 1293. Probate and Letters of Administration Bill,

878. Public Instruction-Female Teachers, 2125

and 2127. Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill, 2223. Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2536. Heserves, 1831. Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill,

877· Sludge Disposal Bill, 2533. Survey Fees, 1826. Trustees, Executors, and Agency Company's

Bill, 1684. U Dion Trustees, ]~xecutors, anclAdministrators

Company's Bill, 595, 777, 867, 1021, and 145+

Shipping Law Consolidation and Amendment Bill-Governor's message brought down, 264; considered in committee, 353; resolu­tion for an appropriation agreed to, 353 ; adopted, 367; motion by Mr. Langridge, for House to go into committee on Iuture day to consider the laws relating to shipping, agreed to, ~39; resolution affirming the ex­pediency of consolidating and amending the laws relating to shippi~g, passed in com­mittee, 368; adopted, 368; Bill brought in, and read first time, 369; question by Mr. Gaunson, 551; Bill discharged, 2341.

Shops. (See Factories, Worltrooms, and Shops Bill.)

Silt, Disposal of-Question by Mr. A. T. Clark, 2469.

Sludge, Disposal of-Question by Mr. Richard­son, re Seven Hills Estate, 1556; by Mr. Cooper, re Majorca. 1665; by Lt.-Col. Smith, re Creswick, 1927; by Mr. Fincham, re legislation, 2104.

Sludge Disposal Bill - Governor's message brought down, 2360; considered in com­mittee, 2435; resolution for an appropria­tion agreed to, 2435; adopted, 2436; Bill brought in, and read first time, 2436; second reading, 2478 and 2528; considered in com­mittee, 2529 and 2531; read third time, 2533·

Small-po x-Motion by Mr. Staughton in favour of compensation to Mr. H. M. Smith, 2109; debated, 2IIO; negatived, 211 I.

SMITH, Lt.-Col. W. C. (Ballamt West) Administration of Justice Bill, 1674. Agricultural Societies, 2242. Appropriation Bill, 2428; Railway Manage-

ment, 2420. Appropriation of Supplies, 2354. Asking Questions, 1144. Assize Courts, 2355. Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2520. Ballarat Gaol, 2161 and 2164. Ballarat Reformatory, 1701 and 2425. Ballarat 'Waterworks, 2238. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 862,

2438, and 2440. Budget, 440. Charitable Institutions, 1774, 2247, 2280, and

2412.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

SlIIITH, Lt.-Col. W. C. (continued)­Commons and Reserves, 396. Defence of the Colony-Staff Expenses, 285

and 386; Reports, 1902; Vote for Depart­ment, 2167.

Dentists Registration Bill, 1586. Discipline Act Amendment Bill, 2358. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1226. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1232, 2381,

2383, and 2394; Rejection of Bill by Council, 2490.

Employers' Liability Bill, 1923 and 1926. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1439,

1748, 1865, 1935,1937, 1941, and 25 18. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1514,

1544,1557, 1630, 1632, 1642, and 1644. Fish Creek Selections, 229 and 230. Free Libraries, 1705, 1819, and 2288. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 285,378,384,435,

615,655,2233,2234, and 2302. Governor's Speech, 17,24, and 32. Governor's Summer Residence, 1690. Holidays-Reservoir Keepers, 2508. Hours of: Sitting, 1908 and 2271. Labour on Public 'Works, 2161. Lands Departm~nt, 1828. Land at Ballarat-Mr. Baker, 1840 and 1843. Letter-carriers-Saturday Half-holiday, 747. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 732, 884, and 1413. Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2J21

and 2327. Lunatic Asylums, 1484. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2434· . 'Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1024 and IJ07. Mining Department-Reception of Deputa­

tions, II99; Mr. Bowman and .the Minister of Mines, 1292; Vote for Department, 2076 and 2084.

Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2057, 2071, 2072, and 2074.

Mining Statistics, 578, 1280, and 1343. Mr. Shackell, 2178 and 2238. New Parliament, 2468. Newspaper Reports, 1230. Parks and Gardens, 1848. Parliament Gardens-Lawn Tennis, 2009. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 487,

564, 718, and 1175. Personal Explanation, 2109. Phamix Foundry Company, 1I08. Police, 1 I 16. Preferential Payment of Wages Bill, 2361. Privilege-Note-taking in the Speaker's Gal-

lery, 30; The Age Newspaper, 172. Public ]~xpenditure, 2273. Public Finances, 487. Public Instruction-Teachers, 2123,2126, and

2468 . Public Service-Trial of Officers, 957 and 958;

Mr. Murray, 11.61 and 1280; Telegraph Operators, 2121.

Railway Department-Mr. Allison Smith, 368, 595, 1365, 1404,2421 , and 2422; Trucks for Farm Produce, 552 and 1438; Wodonga v. Albury, 881, 1021, and 1054; Excursion :Fares, 1020; Donald McDonald, II29; Locomotives, II99 and 1774; Floods on Yea Line, 1260; Sea-side Excursion Tickets, 1978, 2211, and 2212; 'York at Ballarat, 2266 and 2510; Stecl Rails, 2267; Railway Contracts, 2272.

51

SMITH, Lt.-Col. W. C. (continued)-Railway Workshops, 1733, 2040, 2041, 2042,

2300, and 2436. Railways and Irrigation 'Works Loan Bill,

2222. Scrap Iron, 1993 and 1994. Sludge, 1927. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 1953. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2429. University of Melbourne-Schools of Mines,

1703,2133,2290,2292, and 2294. Water Pipes, 1262, 1365, and 1405.

SlIIlTH, Mr. CHARLES (Richmond) Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 864. Charitable Institutions, 2250 and 2281. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1753,

1928, 1934, and 1943. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2365. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 724, 788, 921, 968, 1071, 1080, 1165, 1182, 1192, 12+1, 1254, 1327, 1363, 1369, and 2013.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2525.

Parks and Gardens, 1847 and 1848. Pa.rliament House-Stone for "Vest Front, 438. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 370. Railway Department-Level Crossings, 1279. Rejection of ElectoraL Bill by ]~egislative

Council, 2490. Speaker, 2539.

Social Evil-Statement by Mr. Coppin, 1200; discussion thereon, 1201; question by Mr. Zox, 1900.

Social Purity Movement-Statement by Mr. Graves, 2108.

Soudan 'War-Discussion re representation of Victoria at Sydney on return of New South "Vales Contingent, 18 ; 7'e offer of Victorian troops, 37,40,74, 86, 100, 130,140, 144,159, 178,185,188, 191, 224, and 246.

South Australian Border Hailway. (See Rail­way Department.)

South Australian Boundary-Question by Mr. Duffy, 22; statement by Mr. Service, 22; question by Mr. Bent, 747.

South Australia" Scrub I~ands in-Question by Mr. W. Ma.dden, 1344.

SPEAKER, The (the lIon. Peter Lalor)­Rulings of-

Asking and answering questions, 94, 163,578, 654, IIOO, II44, and 13 14.

Australian Executors and Trustees Asso­ciation Bill, 777.

Bills-Circulation of, 366 and 2358; Bills reported without amendment, 1230; re­printing of, 1377 ; new clauses, 1406, 1407, and 2011 ; clauses repealing Acts, 1980 and 198 I; Council's amendments, 2020; Hills of urgency, 2533.

Debate-Interruptions, 477, 491, n.nd 1122; discussion of a subject on the notice-paper on a motion for the adjournment of the House, 959; discussion of an estimate of expendi-

. ture on a similar motion, 2041; "lIn­becoming and improper line of argument," 2059; imputation ot' motives, 2060 and 2276; private conversations, 2379.

INDEX.

SI'EAKER, The-Rulings of (continueil)­Division-Withdrawal of call, 1425. Documents read in course of debate, 2215. Blectoral Law Amendment Bill, 2383 and

2384. ]~xclusion of strangers, 47~. Expressions alleged to be" a disgrace to Par-

liament," 2058. J!"'ederal Council of Australasia Bill, 1312. Governor's messages, 247I. Hotham Town Lands Bill, 1040. JJegislative Assembly-Ventilation of cham­

ber, 299 and 300; holidays to attendants, 1477 and 2412.

]~icensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment Bill, 353, 366, 850,1372, and 1377.

Masters and Servants Statute Amendment Bill, 2345.

Members-Speaking from the table, 1292; writing at the table, 1293.

),fotions-" Unopposed," 96 and 1512; for the adjournment of the House, 164, 165, 822, 934,1314, 1812,2213,2215,2268, and 2504; forincreasing grants, 1820; penalties, 2362; withdrawal of motions, 2271.

Papers printed and circulated, 617 and 655; laid before the House, 2°71 and 2072.

Personal explanations, 267 l'etitions-Informal, 7SI; alteration of, 781

and 782. l'rivate Bills, 1040. l'rivilege-Note-ta,ldng in the Speaker's gal­

lery, 30, 32, and 62; The Age newspaper, 166,175, and 176.

l'nblic Buildings J!'ire Protection Bill, 369. Heading documents, 1292 and 1313. Hequisitions, 76. Serjeant-at-Arms, 2379 and 2380. Stratford Court-house Site Bill, 2345. Supply-Amendments calculated to increase

expenditure, 2299 and 2300. Use of the term ., client," 1I21 ; of the term

"unbiased," 2393.

Speaker, Absence of -Mr. Cooper acts as Deputy Speaker, 853 and 879.

Spencer· street Railway Crossings-Question by Mr. Carter, 2319.

Splitters' Licences-Question by Mr. D. M. Davies, re fees, 263 ; by Mr. Dow, l'e resi­llential clause, 1263.

Stamp Duties-Question by Mr. Zox, 549 ; by Mr. Shackell, 577.

Standing Orders. (See Private Bills.) Statistics, Collection of-Question by Mr. J. J.

Madden, J I 76.

STAUGHTON, Mr. S. T. (W. Bourke) Agricultural Department, 2244. Ba.cchus Marsh and Gorllons Railway, 2011

and 2468. Closed Hoads, 1796. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1215 and 1216. Employers' I,iability niU, 1916. Factories, 'Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1932

and 1980. Flemington Cattle Yards-Hoad Maintenance,

682. Grant GratuiLY Bill, 2362. Gunpowder Manufacture, 2179. Lands Department, 1832.

STAUGHTON, Mr. S. T_ (continued)-Legislative Assembly Chamber-Ventilation,

299· Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 926, 1063, 1074, II63, 1265,1322, 13 28, 1356, and 2329.

Local Government Act Further Amendment Bill, 2524.

McColl Gratuity Bill, 2372. Mallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2433· Motions for Adjournment, 2215. Public Instruction-Teachers' Increments,

578. Rabbit Extirpation, 197 and 1848 .. Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill,

2218. Rebate of Duty on Grain Bags, 2412. Scrap Iron, 1992. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2530. Small-pox-H. M. Smith, 2109. Social Evil, 1202. Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill,

1979,2357, and 2430. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2331· Werribee Licensing District, 606.

Steam Communication with England-Question by Mr. Connor, 854; by Mr. Coppin, 879.

Steam Machinery-Question by Mr. Cooper, 197·

Stock Brands Registration Bill-Brought in by Mr. McLean, and read first time,. 700; question by Mr. Graves, 1235; Bill dis­charged, 2345.

Stock, Importation of-Question by Mr. Shackell, 1437; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Shackell, 1456; produced, 1456.

Stock Tax-Question by Mr. Woods, 499. Stock, Travelling-Question by Mr. Duffy,

II40; by Mr. Russell, 2106. " Stone-walling"-":"'Explanations, 2108. Strangers, ]~xclusion of-Motion by Mr. Zox, in

fa.vour of framing a standing order" with reference to the practice of excluding strangers during the sitting of the House," 779; debated, 779; debate adjourned, 780 ; order for resuming debu,te discharged, 2345.

Strangers ordered to withdraw, 32, 229, 1926, 2087, 2251, and 2394.

Stratford Court-house Site Bill-Brought in by­Mr. McLean, and read first time, 2345; passed through remaining stages, 2522.

Supplies, Appropriation of-Question by Lt.­Col. Smith, 2354.

Supply-Preliminary resolution adopted, 281; Budget submitted by Mr. Service, 417; votes on account, 434 and 1612; voting of Estima.tes for 1885-6 proceeded with, I· II 2 ; J .. egislative Assembly, II 12 and 2284; Police, II 12; Penal ]~stablishments, 1204; Public Library and National Gallery, 1209; Aborigines, 1210 and 1386; Friendly So­cieties, 1386 and 1390; Lunatic Asylums, 1395 and 1477; Public 'Works Department, 1690; Industrial and Reformatory Schools, 1701 and 2288; Court-houses, 1703; Uni­versity of Melbourne, 1703, 2133,and 2290; lfree Libraries, 1074 and 2288; Road 'Works and Uridges, 1706; Customs Department, 1710 and 2298; Dist.illeries and Excise,

LEGISLATIVE ASS~l\iBLl'.

Supply (continued)-1713; Powder Magazines, 1714; Prothono­tary, 1714; Master-in-Equity, 1714; Sheriffs, 1714; Clerks of Courts, 1715; Coroners, 1715; Lands Department, 1826; Parksand Gardens, 1846; Habbit Extirpation, 1848; Mining Department, 2076; Postal Depart­ment, 211 I; Public Instruction, 2123 and 2289; Premier's Department, 2134; New Guinea, 2135; Defence of the Colony, 2167; Waterworks in Country Districts, 2I 8 I and 2234; Coliban and Geelong Water Supply, 22,P; Agricultural Department, 2242; Charita.ble Institutions, 2246 and 228o; Parliament J ... ibrary, 2288; Public Service Board, 2298; Prospecting, 2300; Railway Department, 2300.

Supreme Court- Question by Mr. M. H. Davies, re block in business, 58; by Mr. Graves, re cases heard, 59; return l'e cases heard ordered, on motion of Mr. Graves, 286; })roduced, 362 and 458; question by Mr. Graves, re crier, 1235; re chamber business, 2319. (See Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill; also Administration of JUl>tice Bill.)

Survey Fees. (See Land Law, Administration oj:)

Survp.ys and Titles Adjustment Bill-Received from Legi:;lative Council, and read first time, 2138 j passed through remaining stages, 2394; messa.ge from J ... egislative Council, rClluesting concurrence in amendment re­commended by t.he Governor, 2521 j amcnd­ment agreed to, 2522.

Swan Hill Railway-Question by Mr. Moore, 198; by Mr. Higilett, 1689.

Swan Hill Shire Waterworks Trust-Question by Mr. W. Madden, re contour sUJvey, 2210.

~wanston-street Bridge Bill-Brought in by Mr. Deakin, and read first time, 1346; discharged from the pa.per, 1951; Governor's message brought down, 1903; considered in com­mittee, 1951 ; motion by Mr. Deakin for an appropriation, 195 Ij debated, 1952; debate adjourned, 1956; motion agreed to, 2341; resolution adopted, 2356; Bill brought in, and passed through all its stages, 2357. (See Loans, Expenditure under; also Prince's Bridge.)

Symes, Mr. Joseph-Case of-Question by Mr. :Fincham, 1077; return ordered, on lllotion of Mr. Hall, 2412; produced, 2470; ques­tion by Mr. Hall, 2543.

Tariff, The-Uevision of-Question by Mr. Shack ell, 2105. (See Customs Depm·tment.)

Ta.smania-Proposed Heciprocity 'l'reaty with­Question by Mr. Mason, 60; by Mr. Harper, 262; by Mr. Mirams, 460; by Mr. McLellan, 654 j by Mr. Graves, II43; motion by Mr. Berry, for House to resolve itself into committee on future day" to consider the proposed reciprocity treaty with Tasmania.," 1775 j debated by Mr. Mimms, li87 and 1872; Mr. Langridge, 1884; debate ad­journed, 1886; question by Mr. MeIntyre, 1862; by Mr. Mirams, 2047; motion by Mr. Harper for adjournment of the House to enablc him to discuss treaty, 2513; ruled out of order, 2515; order for resuming debate on Mr. Berry's motion discbarged, 2537; statement by lVIr. Harper, 2537; by Mr. Service, 2537; discussion thereon, 2538.

Teachers. (See Public Instruction.)

Telegraph Department-Question by Mr. Gar­diner, re operators, 136; by Mr. McIntyre, re messengers, 552; by Mr. M. H. Davies, re office at Armadale, 1176; by Mr. Shackell, re intercolonial telegrams, 2270. (Sec Postal Department.)

Thistle Prevention Statute Amendment Bill­Brought in by Mr. Levien, and read first time, 1979; second reading, 2357-8; passed through remaining stages, 2430 j returned from Legisla.tive Council with amendments, 2515; amendments agreed to, 2515.

Thompson, Mr. S.-Case of-Papers ordered, on motion of Mr. M. H. Davies, 2471.

Thrashing Machines-Questions by Mr. Wheeler, 197 and 13 12.

Timber for Mining-Question by Mr. Russell, 136.

Timber Reserves-Question by Mr. Dow, re Sandy Creek, Kara Kara, 24. ,

Tintaldra, Bridge at-Question by Mr. 'Wallace, 25 12.

Titles.office-Question by Mr. M. H. Davies, re Commissioner of Titles, 821; return re examiners ordered, on motion of Mr. Gaunson,2272. (See Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill.)

Tolls. (See Road Tolls.)

TOOHEY, Mr. JA:arEs (Villiers and Heytesbur,1J) Insurance of Government Buildings, 2216. Licensing (Public-houses) Law ..Amendment

Bill, 1238 and 1288. J ... unacy Commission-Tender Board, 263. Magistrates, 359. Ha.ilway Department-Officers' Salaries, 855. University of Melbourne-Appointment of

Exa.miners, 1733. Victorian Year Booll, 1280.

Training Ship-Question by Mr. Coppin, 459. Transfer of J ... and Statute Amendment Bill­

Question by Mr. Coppin, 162 j Bill received from Legislative Council, and read first time, 1406; second reading moved by Mr. Ker­ferd, 1886; debated by Sir C. Mac Mahon, 1889; Mr. M. II. Davics, 1890; Mr. Rich­ardson, 1891; Mr. W. Madden, 1892; Bill read second time, 1892; considered in com­mittee, 2331; adoption of report, 2357; Governor's message recolllmending an ap­propriation brought down, 2428; considered in committee, 2429; resolution for an ape propriation agreed to, 2429; Bill recom­mitted, 2429; read third t.ime, 2473; mes­sage from Legislative Council, intimating disagreement with striking out of 56th clause, 253 I; clause reinstated with an amendment, 2531; message from Legisht­tive Uouncil, intimating agreement to As­sembly's amendment with amendments, 2536; amendments adopted, 2536; message from Legislative Council, requesting con­currence in amendment recolllmended by the Governor, 2543; amendment agreed to, 2544·

Trustees, Executors; and Agency Company's Bill-Standing orders dispensed with, 1453; Bill brought in, and read first time, 1454; read second time, 1684; considered in com­mittee, 1684; read third time, 1685.

Try Excelsior Classes-Question by Mr. Coppill, 1261; statement by Mr. Service, U61 j by Mr. Bell, 1261.

53,

INDEX.

TUCKER, Mr. A. L., Minister of Lands (Fitzroy) Administration of the Land Law-Lands in

Wonnangatta, 61; Sections 132 and 133 at North Carlton, 94; Arrears of Rent, 164; Mining Objections to Selections, 577; Land at Bullarto, 929 and 1927; Commons in Grenville, 931; Survey Fees, 1051, 1822, 2107, and 2211; Applications for Occupa­tion, 1234; Selection in Cape Otway Forest, 1279; Lessees in the Mallee, 1344; Sites for Factories, 1345; Swamps, 1364; Lands. in Gladstone and Kam Kara, 1365; Unsuc~ cessful Applicants, 1404; W. and R. T. Smith, 1404; Destruction of Vel'min in Delatite, 1437; Grazing Blocks, 1557; Com­mons in Kara Kara, 1629; Subdivision Allot­ments, 1734; Henry Griflith-Budgerum and Quambatook, 1734 and 19°2; Vote for Lands Department, r830 and 1832; Land at Ballarat, 1978; Selections at Woolamai, 1978; Land at Navarre, 2107; at Bailieston, 2 I 07; 1 loth Section Heserves, 2 I 62; Crown Lands Bailiff at Morrisons, 2511.

Agricultural Colleges-Endowment, 1736 and 2355·

Atkinson's Special Survey-Land Tax, 2010. Closed Hoads, 58, 1799. and 2107. ]~lectoral Map, 459 and 1775. Exercise of Ministerial Authority, 503. l!'ish Creel~ Selections, 24, 59, 462, 55 I, and 7 I 7· ]!'oxes, 1000. ]~and Maps, 198,719, 1279, 1775, and 2162. Lands Department, 1839. l~anglands Foundry Company, 198. IJocal Government Act :Further Amendment

Bill, 2522. ::\:[a11ee Pastoral Leases Act, 56; Fencing, 552. Jl1allee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

1734,2358,2431,2432, and 2434. Mud Island, 1846. l)arks and Gardens, 1847 and 1848. Point Ormond, 1978. . I)rince's Park, 60. Quarrying at Newport, 1197. Habbit Extirpation, 933, 1053, 1262, 1345,

1689, 1848, 1902, and 2320. Itesidencc Areas, 1629. Howing Club Boat-house Sites, 2355. Hoyal Park-Calf J.Jymph Depot, 1629. St. Kilda Yacht Club, 999. Sand Licences, 1345 and 1839. Scrub I.Jands in South Australia, 1344. Splitters' Licence·fees, 264. Travelling Stock, 2106. Yarra. Bank Sites, 198, 286, 296,354,362,398,

and 1844.

Union Trustees, Executors, and Administrators Company's Bill-Petition presented, 394; Bill brought. in by ~1r. Shiels, and read first time, 595; read second tlme, and ordered to be committed to a select committee, 777; committee appointed, 868 j report brought up, 1021; adopted, 1291; Bill read third time, 1454.

University of Melbourne-Vote for buildings discussed in Committee of Supply, 17°3; question by Lt.-Col. Smith, re affiliation of schools of mines, 1704; by Dr. Quick, 1736; by Mr. Toohey, re appointment of exa­miners, 1733; by Mr. Anderson, re mpde of conducting examinations, 1774; discussion re affiliation of schools of mines on vote for add.itional endowment, 21·33 and 2290.

UREN, Mr. W. H. (Ripon and Hampden) Agricultural Colleges, 1197. Fish Creek Selections, 268 and 281. Grant Gratuity Bill, 33 I.

Land Tax, 1260. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 849, 922, 1017, 1071, 1182, and 1372. Magistrates, 60. Mining Leases, 1345. Occupation of Land under ¥iners' Hights,

931. Postmasters, 2122. Railway Department - Donald McDonald,

1139; Burrumbeet and Windermere Stations, 2427; Beaufort Station, 2437.

Vegetable Products-Question by Mr. W. Mad­den, 23.

Victorian Hifie Association-Question by Mr. Mason, 1101; by Mr. Walker, 1102 and 1262.

Victorian Year Book-Question by Mr. Toohey, 1280.

Vines-Question by Mr. Graham, re importa­tion of grape vines, &c., 264; by Mr. Righett, re phylloxera in New South Wales, 961 and 1077.

Votes on Account-Granted in Committee of Supply, 434 and 1613.

WALKER, Mr. W. F. (Boroondara) Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 859,

2438,2440,2475, and 2477. Camberwell Post-office, 1103. Coast Survey, 1346. Corporation Tip-Ba.d Fish, 2513. Days and Hours of Sitting, 282, 1908,and 1910. Defence of the Colony-Gunpowder Factory, . 2180.

Despatch of Business, I391. Electoral Law Amendment .Bill, 1737 and

2386; Rejection of Bill by Council, 2487. Employers' Liability Bill, 1049. Factories, 'Vorkrooms, and Shops Bill, 1469,

1647, 1650, 1748, 1753, 1866, 1929, 1932, 1947,1949, and 1981.

Federal Council of A ustralasia Bill, 1537 and 1634.

Free Libraries Loans Bill, 380. Governor~s Speech, 62. Grant Gratuity Bill, 325,2°35, and 2365. Hansard, 434. John Dougherty, 1396 and 1482. J{ew Hailway, 229. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 366, 719, 898, 935,977, 978,1002, 1016, 1057, 1°73, 1092, I!50, II65, II66, II86, II88, 1250, 1356, 1370, 1371, 1375, 1406, and 1414.

Lunatic Asylums, 1395; ·Warders, 2165. Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported MateriaJ,

1025. Mode of Dealing with the Estimates, 1707. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 495. Public Library and National Gallery, 1210. Public Service - Officers' Grievances, 163;

Inspector of Stores, 577; Hent for Quarters, 2286; Lockers and 'Veigbers, 2298 and 25 12; Public Service Association, 24 13.

Railway Department- Mr. Allison Smith, 61I; Donald McDonald, 1126; Lavatories at Stations, 2437; Hawthorn Trains, 2468.

Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill, 2221.

54

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

WALKER, Mr. W. F. (continued)-Real Property Statute Explanation Bill, 2536. Resurvey of Bass' Strait, 1703. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2484. Tasmanian Treaty, 2513 ~nd 2539. Titles-office, 353. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2335· Victorian Rifle Association, II02 and 1262. Yarra Bank Sites, 292 and 386.

Wallace Bethanga Company-Questions by Dr. Qaick,57. (See Bet/tanya Lock.out.)

W ALLA.CE, Mr. P. B. (Benambra) Bridge at Tintaldra, 2512. Wodonga and Tallangatta Railway, 1862.

vVardens' Courts-Question by Mr. A. Harris, re subpoonas, 954.

Warders in Gaols and Lunatic Asylums­Motion by Mr. Pearson for limiting hours of duty of prison warders to nine per day, 2162; debated,2164; negatived,2167. (See Ballarat Gaol; also Holidays.)

Water Boring-Question by Mr. Shackell, 298; return ordered, on motion of Mr. Shack ell, 1280; produced, 1280; question by Mr. Baker, 1343.

Water Conservation-Question by Mr. Bourchier, re failure of weirs on the Avoca, 1773; by Mr. Langdon, 2008.

Water Conservation Acts Amendment Bill­Question by Mr. Moore. 131I; Governor's message brought down, 1629; considered in committee, 1819; resolution for an appro­priation agreed to, 1819; adopted, 1863; Bill brought in, and read first time, 1863; second reading, 2341-2; considered in com­mittee, 2342 and 2361; read third time, 2362; returned from Legislative Council with amendments, 2.435; amendments adopted, 2435; Governor's message recom­mending an amendment, 2543; amendment agreed to, 2543.

Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission -Question by Mr. Langdon, 22.

Water Pipes-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Woods, 368; produced, 396; question by Lt.-Col. Smith, 1365 and 1405. (See Pipes, lVater-Manufacture of.)

Water Rights-Heathcote-Return ordered, on motion of Mr. Shackell, I 149; produced, 1557.

Water Supply-Question by Mr. Moore, 7'e Whipstick, Sebastian, and Raywood, 58; by Mr. Burrowes, re second main to Sand· hurst, 58; by Mr. McIntyre, re new legisla­tion, 1313; re second dam at Malmsbury, 1313; by Mr. Highett, re Raywood, 1736; by Dr. Quick, re Grassy Flat reservoirS", 1819; by Mr. Graham, re engineer, 2105; by Mr. Bourchier, 2510; vote for water­works in country districts discussed in Committee of Supply, 2181 and 2234. (See Geelong Water Supply.)

vVater Trusts-Question by Mr. Graham, 1176. vVays and Means - Preliminary resolution

adopted, 281; resolutions on which to found Consolidated Revenue Bills considered and adopted, 435 and 1613; resolution on which to found Appropriation Bill considered and adopted, 2321 and 2356.

Wedderburn Railway-Question by Mr. Lang­don, 164; by Mr. Bourchier, 1511.

55

Western Ha.rbours-Question by Mr. Wrixon, 1406.

vVheat-Question by Mr. W. Madden, 2469.

WHEELER, Mr. J. H. (Creswick) Agricultural Department, 2245. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 774. Boilers Inspection Bill, 1583. Charitable Institutions, 2250 and 2283. Coroners' Inquests, 1715 and 1716. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2385. Employers' Liability Bill, 1045, 1916, and

1922. :Jfactories, vVorkrooms, and Shops Bill, 1444,

1644, 1649, 1753, 1928, 1932, aud 1948. Governor's Speech, 252. Governor's Summer Residence, 1693. Grant Gratuity Bill, 2037 and 2371. Hours of Sitting, 1907. John Dougherty, 1477 and 1481. Legislative Assembly Chamber-Ventilation,

300. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 727,853,924,969,976,1015,1071,1081, 1085, 1266,1275, 1326,132~ 1330,1349,1352, 1356, 1363, and 1417.

Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material, 1036.

Mining Dispute at Maldon, 2068. Mining Leases, 2084. Mining on Private Property Act-LeaseRent,

1687. Municipal Elections, 615. Occupation of Land at Bullarto, 927. Postal Department-Postmasters, 2II6 and

2119; Promotions, 2269. Race Week, 1718. Railway Commissioners, 2213. Railway Department-Mr. Allison Smith,

610; Refrigerating Cars, 1665; Block on Daylesford Line,1665 and 2.162; Tourists' Tickets. 2213.

Secretary for Mines, 2086. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2272,2484, and 2529. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 1953. Tasmanian Treaty, 2514 .. Thrashing Machines, 197 and 1312. Water Supply and Irrigation, 2238.

White, Mrs. M. H.-Case of-Motion by Mr. 'V. M. Clark for consideration of petition, 2273; debated, 2273; negatived,2273·

Whittle sea Railway-Question by Mr. Harper, 461 and 1629.

Williamstown Piers-Question by Mr. A. T. Clark, 2508.

Williamstown Steam Ferry-Question by Mr. Gaunson, 880; return ordered, on motion of Mr. A. T. Clark, 904; produced, 1021.

Wire Netting, Duty on-Questions by Mr. Langdon, 459 and 2161. (See MuLlee Country; also Rabbit Extirpation.)

Witnesses in Court-Question by Mr. Zox, 1099. Wodonga and Tallangatta Railway-Question

by Mr. Wallace, 1862.

WOODS, Mr. JOHN (Slawell) Asking Questions, 578. Bridges and Viaducts, 1979 and 2047. Canalization, 135. Chinese, 1200 and 2215. Customs Department-Messrs. Dalton and

McKeown, 999; Share Moulds, 1705.

INDEX.

WOODS, Mr. JOHN (continued)­]:mployers'Liability Bill, 1046,1922, and 1925. ]:uropean Mail Service, 1666. :E'actories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1442,

1647,1649,1650,1749,1750,1870, 1931,1935, 1937,1938, 1940, 1948, and 1983.

]lallsBridge, 1705. ]'ederal Council of Australasia Bill, 1632. Gaol and Lunatic Asylum Warders, 2165. Government Contracts, 942, 949, and 1 176. Governor's Speech, 21 and 199. Governor's Summer Residence, 1692. Grant Gratuity Bill, 321 and 2038. Hawking Licences, 57. Imported Machinery, 1022. Lands Department, 1835. Licensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 906, 908, IOII, II 60, 1248, 1253, 1273, 1274,1325,1326,1328,1368,1370,1383,1435, 1436, and 2269.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2323 and 2327.

Mel bourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material, 1022.

Mr. Deakin, 1910. New Guinea, 2135 and 2137. Parliament House-Ventilation of Assemblv

Chamber, 300; Electric Lighting, 1703. " Parliament Library, 2288. Powder Magazines, 2179 and u80. Prison Gate Brigade, 94. Public Instruction--Education Vote, 2130;

Water at Schools, 2132. Public Service-Trial of Officers, 2°32; Rent

for Quarters, 2287. Railway Commissioners, 22IZ. Railway Department-Management, 204;

Pay and Hours of Employes, 301; Work­shops, 2045 and 2301.

llailways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill, 2226.

Scrap Iron, 1955 and 1994. Soudan Contingent-neturn to Sydney, 20. South Australian Border Railway, 1439. Stock Tax, 499. Sugar Beet, 2245. Swanston-street Bridge Bill, 1952. University, 1704. Water Pipes, 201 anil 368.

Workrooms. (See Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill.)

Wreck. (See Auckland Islan1s.)

VVRIXON, Mr. H. J. (Portland) Aborigines, IZIO. Acting Judge of Supreme Court Bill, 374. Administration of Justice Bill, 1671. Audit Act Further Amendment Bill, 2520. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 769. Bills of Lading Law Amendment Bill, 863

and 2476. , County Court Judges, 933. Days aud Hours of Sitting, 283. Education Vote, 2126. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1217. Employers' Liability Bill, 385, 821,1042,1914,

1917, 1921, 1924, 1926,2188, 2191, and 2192. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 821,

1440, 191 I, and 1980. Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 153 I,

16]2, 1637, and 1642. FIsh Creek Selections, 269, 463, anc1716.

56

WRIXON, Mr. H. J. (continued)­Free Libraries Loans Bill, 379. Governor's Speech, 35. Grant Gratuity Bill, 319, 2366, and 2371. Justices' Oaths Bill, 363. Justices of the Peace Appointment Bill, 385. Legal Profession Practice Bill, 873. Licensing (Public-houses) J.aw Amendment

Bill, 350, 366, 524, 906, 909, 923, 93 6, 977, 978,1003, 1004, 1009,1013,1014,1°58,1071, 1073,1074,1078,1080,1082,1094,1097,1150, II 56, 1194, u70, u83, u86, 1320,1348, J 366, 1371, 1424,2013,2022, and 2268.

Lodgers' Interests Protection Bill, 1040. Melbourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1027. Mr. Gaunson, 1131 and 1153. Neglected and Criminal Children Law, 59. Permanent Artillery-Insubordination, 562. Private Bills, 1042. Privilege-Note-taking in the Speaker's

Gallery, 31; The Age Newspaper, 174. Probate and 'Letters of Administration Bill,

878 and 1913. Public Buildings Fire Protection Bill, 302. rublic Library and National Gallery, IZIO. Public Service-Trial of Officers, 960. HaHway Department-Donald McDonald,

II 31. Railways and Irrigation Works Loan Bill,

221 7. Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill,

1039. Shipping Law Consolidation and Amendment

Dill, 353. Sludge Disposal Bill, 2479. Transfer of Land Statute Amendment Bill,

2332. and 2336. University of Melbourne-Schools of Mines,

2296. Western Harbours, 1406.

Yan Yean. (See Metropolitan Water Supply.) Yarra, The-Question by Mr. McLellan, re Sir

John Coode's report, 614. Yarra Bank Sites-Question by Mr. Harper,

198; motion by Mr. Harper, in favour of the remaining unalienated low-lying lands on the north and south banks of the Yarra being vested in trustees for reclamation and improvement, and thereafter for leasing purposes, 286; statement by Mr. Tucker, 287; motion debated by Mr. Kerferd, 288 ; Mr. A. T. Clark, 290; Mr. Patterson, 291 ; Mr. Service, 291; amendment proposed by Mr. Gaunson, 292; debate continued by Mr. W'alker, 292; Dr. Rose, 293 i Mr. Bosisto, 294; Mr. W. Madden, 294; Mr. Laurens, 294; Mr. Graves, 294; Mr. Nimmo, 295; Mr. Bent, 295; deba.te adjourned, 297; ques­tion by Mr. Harper, 354; discussion there­on, 354; statement by Mr. TUCKer, 362; question by Mr. Harper, 386; debate on Mr. Harper's motion and Mr. Gaunson's amendment resumed by Mr. Tucker, 398; continued by Mr. Harper, 401; MI'. W. Madden, 407; Mr. Dow, 407; Mr. A. T. Clark, 408; Mr. Mirams, 408; Mr. Bent, 411 ; Mr. Nimmo, 4IZ; Mr. Laurens, 413; Mr. Cooper, 414; Mr. Anderson, 416; amendment negatived and motion with­drawn, 417; question by Mr. Orkney, 439; discussion in Committee of Supply re land leased to Mr. Wallis, 1844.

LEGISLATIYE ASSEi\IULY.

Yal'rawonga, Bridge at-QueRtion by Mr. Gra­ham, 135; by Mr. Hall, 1818.

Yarrawonga Railway-Question by Mr. Bent, 614; by Mr. Graham, 1344.

Yea and Mansfield Railway-Question by Mr. Graves, 1666.

Y1W, Mr. CHAULES (illandurang) Agricultural Colleges Act Amendment Bill,

2534. Agricultural Department, 2244. Closed Roads, 1797. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1228. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 2391. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 383. Immigration-Unused Passage Warrants, 500. Licensing (Public-houses) J~aw Amendment

Bill. 905,925, 1004. 1017, and II82. !\1cColl Gratuity Bill, 335. . i\Iallee Pastoral Leases Act Amendment Bill,

2435· ::\tining on Private Property Act-Lease Rent,

1688. Public Instruction-Water at Schools, 2130. Railway Department-Return Tickets. 162;

Rochester and Elmore Stations, 1260; Car­riages, Kerang Line, 2468.

Sludge Disposal Bill, 2483 and 2530. 'Water Supply and Irrigation, 2185 and 2239.

YOUNG. Mr. ALEXANDEU (Grenville) Commons in Grenville, 931. Mining l~eases, 262. Smythesdale and Scarsdale Railway Stations,

1260.

YOUNG, Mr. CHAULES (Kyneton Boroughs) Australian Bxecutors and Trustees Associa-

tion Bill, 770. Free Libraries Loans Bill, 382. Government Contracts, 947. JusticeR' Oaths Bill, 363. I~icensing (Public-houses) Law Amendment

Bill, 804, 852, 886, 897, 898, 901,906,908, 918,923,939, 1003, 1012, 1093, II58, 1265, 1267, 1277, 1282, 1288, 1329, 13+7, 1350, 13 61 , and 1372.

Lunatic Asylums, 1483. Magistrates, 359. Mel bourne Harbour Trust-Imported Material,

1022 and 1I07. Military Regulations, 576. Mr. Thomas J30yd, 165. Occupation of Land at Bullarto, 929. Permanent Artillery - Insubordination, 489

and 555; Courts l\'lartial, 486, 577, 615, and 684.

Phoon1x Foundry Company, 947 and IJ07 .. Pllhlicans' Bills of Sale, 952. ' Railway Department-Mr. Allison Smith, 607;

Donald McDonald, I I 39; Sydney Trains­Wodonga v. Albury, 1148.

Rebate of Duty on Grain Bags, 241 I. Rifle Clubs, 151 I.

Zox. Mr. K I~. (E. Melbourne) Adjournments of the House-Mayor of Mel­

bourne's Ball, II95 ; Race 'Week, 1718. Administration of Justice Bill, 1741 and 1985. Australian Executors and Trustees Associa­

tion Hill, 773. Bakers and :JfillerR Statute Amendment Bill,

1576. Charitable Institutions, 1438, 2247, and 2283.

S.ES. 1885.-6

57

ZOX, Mr. E. J~. (continued)­Coroners' Juries, 1717. Customs Department-Mr. Musgrove, 1711 ;

Lockers and Weighers, 2299 and 251 I. Defence Vote, 2176. Dentists Registration Bill, 1586. Eight Hours Legalization Bill, 1216. Electoral Law Amendment Bill, 1232 and

2392. Employers' Liability Bill, 1915 and 1916. Exclusion of Strangers, 779 and 780. Factories, Workrooms, and Shops Bill, 1440,

1644,1646,1647,1749,1751,1752,1863,1929, 193 1, 1933,1937, 1939, 1943, 1945, and 1982.

:Federal Council of Australasia Bill, 1561. Fire Brigades, 654. Fish Creek Selections, 271. Free J~ibraries Loans Bill, 382 and 2233. Friendly Societies, 1390 and 1393. Government Contracts, 946. Governor's Speech, 176. Governor's Summer Residence, 1691. Grant Gratuity Bill, 322,2034, and 2364. Hours of Sitting, 1904 and 2271. .Tohn Dougherty, 1396,1479, 1480, and 2276. Licensing (Public-houses) J.aw Amendment

Rill, 366, 700, 823, 887, 891,901, 909,911, 914, 920, 925, 970, 976, 1013, 1014, 1060, 1069, 1073, 1074, 108 3, IC94, 1150, II 54, 1158, II 64, Il78, II 84, 1188, 1236, 1238, 1241, 1243, 1251, 1270, 1275. 1279, 1281, 1286, 1315, 1324, 1330, 1350, 1353, 1356, 1359, 1367, 1373, 1429, and 201 3.

Loan Application Bill-Prince's-bridge, 2322. Local Government Act Further Amendment

Bill,25 24· Lunacy Commission, 264, 701~ and 2165. McColl Gratuity Bill, 333. Magistrates, 298 and 358. Melbourne Gaol, 286. Melbourne Morgue, 460. Melbourne Tramways Trust Amendment Bill,

1291, 1292, 1454, and 1579. Mr. Gaunson, 2059. New Guinea, 1732. Note-taking in the Speaker's Gallery, 31. Overcrowding of Bay Steamers, 1713. Patents, 1280. Police, I I I 5. Probate and Let.ters of Administration Bill,

879, 1913, and 1914. Protection of the Public at Melbourne Street

Crossings, 2q8. Publicans' Hills of Sale, 951. Public Buildings :Fire Protection Bill, 369. Public Instruction-Cookery Classes, 2025 ;

Truant Officers, 2125. Public Library and National Gallery, 1210. Public Service-Mr. Murray, Il96, 1261, and

2235; Government Printing-office, 1556; Appeals, 1628; Postmasters and Postmis· tresses, 211 3; Letter Carriers, 2122; Tele­graph OperatorR, 2122.

Hail way Department-Mr. Allison Smith. 6°9; Ambulance Waggons, 1510; Supply of Coal. 2008.

Rllil ways aud Irrigation 'Yorks Loan Bill, 2~2 I.

Sales by Auction Statute Amendment Bill, 877. Sludge Disposal 13il1, 2532. Social Evil, 1203 anll 1900. Soudan 'Yar, 178. Stamp Duties, 549. 'Yitnesses in Court, 1099. Yarra B:lliI.k Sites, 294.

l\IEL130URNE: JOHN FERRES, PRI~TER.