Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 1898

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

Questions. [13 DECEMBER.] Motion for Adjournment. 1475

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.

TUESDAY, 13 DECEMBER, 1898.

'£he SPEAKER took the chair at half-past 3 o'clock.

QUESTIONS. ASSISTANT TEACHERS AND THEIR PAY.

Mr. McDON~ELL asked the Secretary for Public Instruction-

!. What i.s the number of married assistant teachers in the Education Department p

2. What is the number of assistant teachers receiving a salary of £102, £114, and £126 respectively?

3. What was the amount paid to assistant teachers holding staff rank in the shape of emoluments in the year l888P

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC IN­STRUCTION replied-

!. Twenty-lour. 2. (a) Forty-three; (b) sixty; (c) forty-nine of whom

nine receive additional special allowances ran'ging from £22 to £81 per annum.

3. £4,184.

CENSUS OF CoLOURED ALIENS. Mr. DRAKE asked the Premier-1. What progress is being made with the rough census

of the coloured alien population of the colony, taken on the 1st of l\ ovember last P

2. When is the return likely to be laid before Parlia­ment?

The P JlEMnm replied-A censu:s has been prepared, and will be laid on the

table forthwith. The paper was laid on the table accordingly,

and ordered to be printed.

ASSASSINATION OF EMPRESS OF AUSTRIA.

THANKS OF EMPEROR FOR ADDRESS m• CON· DOLENCE.

The PREMIER laid on the table a despatch conveying the thanks of the Emperor of Austria for the expressions of sympathy with him regard­ing the assassination of Her Imperial Majesty the Emnress of Austria

BISHOPSBOURNE ESTATE AND SEE ENDOWMENT TRUSTS BILL.

THIRD READING. On the motion of Mr. GROOM, this Bill was

read a third time, passed, and ordered to be transmitted to the Council for their concurrence.

lVIOTIOl'\ FOR ADJOURNMENT. ELECTORAL REGISTRAR AND REVISION COURT,

lSISFORD. Mr. KERR said : I beg to move the adjourn­

ment of the House. The SPEAKER read a letter from the hon.

member for Barcoo, intimating that he intended to moYe the adjournment of the House "on a matter of urgent public importance-namely, 'the action of thP electoral registrar and bench of magistrates at Isisford in removing from the electoral roll the names of certain persons who possess the qualificati.m necessary to have their names retained on such roll.' "

Not less than five members havmg nsen in their places in support of the motion,

Mr. KERH said : Previously this session I had occasion to draw a.ttention to the action of the electoral registrar and bench of magistrates at loisford. I brought certain matters before the late Home Secretary-the present Premier­who asked me to reduce my complaint to writing, which I did.

The SPEAKER : Order ! Before the hon. member proceeds further, I would ask him if this motion deals with the same question as he brought np before?

Mr. KERR: No, it does not deal with the same question.

The SPEAKER: It does not refer to the cases which were discussed before?

Mr. KERR: No. Mr. SMYTH: We have discussed t twice

already this session. Mr. KERR: I am just showing that I sought

redress from the department in regard to certain matters, and I took the steps which I was asked to take by the then Home Secretary in the month of September. I received a letter from the department. stating that the matter would be attended to. After some months' delay I waited on the Under Home Secretary, who informed me that the matter was being attended to. I afterwards wrote a letter to the present Home Secretary, and the matter is still under COilsid8ration. The case I have to bring before the House this afternoon is with regard to the action of the electoral registrar and the bench of magistrates at the annual revision court at Isisford. The annual revision court is held in the month ot November. Before that, in the month ot

1476 Motion jo1' Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for Adjourrvment.

September, the rolls are marked by the registrar, the words "dead," "disqualified," or "left" being put against the names of persons so die­qualifierl. An advertisement appeared in the local paper containing thP names of eighty-nine persons against whose names such marks "ere placed. Since that, and before the holding of the annual revision conrt, the p]ectoral rPg:istrar markfd other names, bringing np the total to 114, but those other names were not adverti.ied. Twenty-three were not advertised, but fourteen of them were posted up outside the cnurt-house at Isisford on Pr before the 1st of N ovem her. Between 9 and 10 o'clock on the 1st of November two men had occasion t<; go to the veranda of the court-house to see the names posted there, and they noticed that nine of the names which were afterwards rejected by the bench were not in that list. Among the names advertised were James Lonergan, Thomas J ames Mather, Patrick Oollins, Jacob Pugb, Alfred Gerald King, and others. On the 17th of October, last Alfred King sent a letter to the manag-er of a store at Isisford, aeking him to represent him at the revision court. In that letter he said :-

I have been a resident of the district for above ten years, and can prove continuous residence on 1tetreat from April, 1894, to July, 1898. I have only been out of the di,trict from tbe middle of July to the 7th of September, while on a visit to Brisbane. Carmody was not in Longreach when I passed through, but I mentioned the matter to the constable in charge during his absence, with the view of having it explained in case he should strike me off. Although I am hawking now, I do not intend to liYtve the dit-:trict. ·would you kindly act as my agent at next revision court, and oblige.

The person who wrote that letter I saw in the month of May'' hen I happened to be on Retreut Station on the Tbnmpson River. He had been four y< ars as bookkeeper and storekeet=er on Retreat Station, and he left that po~ition to commence hawking. I eaw him again when he was down in Brisbane, whither he had come for the purp<k<e of purchasing his goods, and after he had done that he went back to follow his occupation as a hawker. Surely those members who believe that a man who is thrifty should have a vote will not say that a man who puts his money into hawking and has vans and goods has no stake in the country, and is not endeavour­ing to make an hcmest living. \Vhen he arrived at the station he was residing in the same Isis­ford division of the Barcoo electorate.

Mr. M oRGAN : Was he struck off? Mr. KERR : He was struck off. His name

happened to be one of the eighty-nine which were advertised. He was struck off r,s having "left."

Mr. KIDSTON : Was his letter brought before the court?

Mr. KERR : Yes. The next person I have to refer to is James Lonergan, who was on the roll for the township of Stonehenge. He had fol­lowed the occupation of his uncle, who was a pioneer storekeeper in that district as regards the forming of the townships of Jundah and Stone­henge ; but, owing to his uncle meeting with mis­fortune, and his business not going right, he had to leave him. He wa" then engaged by the divisionall1oard, and afterwards, when Mr. King left Retr. at Stati•m, he got the positit>n of book­keeper and storek>eper on that statir•n. He was on the roll for Stonehenge, and on the 21st of October la't he took tbe precauti< n to write a letter from Relreat Station to Mr. John Nash, in which he said-

I see by Western Champion that my name is likely to be omitted from eleetoralroll.

I wrote C:-trmody acquainting him that I left ~tone~ henge, and wus now living at Retreat Station, which is in the samp district.

I! you should attend the uext revision court, you will do me a favour by seeing into the matter.

Carmody, I may explain, is the electo.ral registrar and police constable in c~arg~ at Isisford. From the letters I have read 1t w1ll be seen that those two persons were duly qualified. Though they were marked on the rnlls as having "left," they were still living in the same electoral division, and yet their names were struck off the rolls by the action of the electoral registrar and the bench of magistrates on the Bth of November. There is the name of another person on the printed list to which I have re­ferred-namely, Thomas James Mather. He has lived in and about I>isford for years, and his children attend the school there. He was away at Isisford Downs a!lll Emmett Downs shearing. Both those places are in the same division of the Barcoo electorate. Mather ap­peared himself at the court, and swore that he had been in the electorate for several years, and was residing at Isisford at the present time. He was a shearer, and when he was in town he camped on the reserve, and the 1·eason the bench g-ave for strikimr him off w><stha.t hA ha.fl no right to live on the reserve without the permission of the Crown lands ranger or some other person. Then there was another man named Patrick Collins, who has been living in an hotel in Isisford for many years, and who has rented the racecourse paddock for the purpose of taking in horses on agistment. He happened to be in Longreach on business last year, and his name was struck off on the ground of not being a resident. Then there was Jacob Pugh, who has been working on Mutti, an outstation on "\Varbreccan; he has not been away from Mutti for t1velve months, and he has been residing in the Barcoo electorate for fifteen years, but whose name was struck off on the ground of nnn-resirlence. I may say that the bench at Isisford took up the peculiar position that no man can claim for residence on a station even if he is living and working there. Mr. Oory, the manager o'f Emmett Downs, admit.ted from the bench that three of the men whose names were "truck off were working there at the timl' the annual revi8ion court was being held ; and Mr. Smith, the manager of Isis Downs, admitted also from the bench that two men struck off were still living there, but all the same they were disfranchised. One man was shearing at Portland Downs, but the manager, Mr. Hamilton, said he had no residence there while he was shearing. These men have been shearing in the district for years, and it was proved that they had been living and working on these stations, but the bench would not allow their names to be retained on the rolls.

The Hon. G. THORN: Have you many more cases?

Mr. KERR: I could bring up any number of similar case•, but I do not wish to weary the House. My contention is that the action taken by the police magistrate and the seven magis­trates who sat with him was not in accordance with the facts, and was a;ainst the evidence. I may also state that when Mr. Major, the solicitor at Longreach who represented a number of the<e men, questioned therightQfthe electoral regiBtrar to strike off a number of names on the ground that they had not been posted up before the 1st November, this officer stated that they were posted up on the 31st October. Mr. Major then stated that "he had witnesses who C<<uld prove that the names were not posted up, even at the court-house, until between 9 and 10 o'clock on 1st November, and had not been ad1·ertised in the P"Per." The registrar then replied that he had posted them up at the proper time, and he thought the bench would believe him before they would believe any witnesses Major would bring forward, add'i,ng the words, "We know what your witnesses will

Motion for Arl:fournmen·t. [13 DECEMBER.j Motion for Arl}our'/llllf/,Cnt.

swear." The police magistrate, in reply to Mr. Carmody said, "Y eB, we have already made up our minds in the matter."

'l'he H"OME SECRETARY: Whose tale is this? Mr. KERR: A ]Jerson who was present in

court. The HOiiiE SECRETARY: But what is his nnme?

I should like to know his name.

Mr. KERR: Then you will boycott him. The HOME SECRETARY : That is it, is it? Mr. KERR : Yes. That is what is done, and

that is what many men are suffering from whom I represent in thls Chamber. They have been boycotted by the action of officers under the Government. Mr. McCulloch, another solicitor, wa• allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, but he refused to state whom he represented. In fact the other solicitor questioned his ri&ht to cross-examine the witnesses, but he was over­ruled by the bench, and McCulloch asked the witneRses questions as to where they had been living, where they were living then, and where they were going to live some time next year. He a;lso said to the bench, "Let him put his witnesses in the box and hear what they have to say." That was only a fair thing, but the police magistrate said, " He can do so if he likes, but it will not make any diil'el't'nce or alter our opinion." To which Major replied, " It is no use putting my witnesses into the box if you have made up your minds." That was all any solicitor could do under the circum­stances, when the police magistrate and seven magistrates were against him. I have one witness who is prepared to follow up the state­ment made as to the names only being posted up on the 1st November. There were 114 names objected to, and of these, eighty-nine were on the list published by the registrar, the remaining twenty-five being objected to by o~her persons,;;"a gentleman in Blackall object­ing to them. There is no need for me to give the name of the gentleman in Blackall, because I do not want any man, even though he may differ from me in policies, to be boycotted in any way.

The SECRETARY FOR RAILWAYS: Who was the police magistrate in the case ?

Mr. KERR: Mr. Taylor, of Blackall. This man writes me :

When Major in the court objected to those names being struck off on the ground that clause 21 of tbe Elections Act had not been comnlied with in the posting up of the names, the bench ruled th"'t it did not matter whether they had been posted up m accordance with the Act or not, and they were justified in dealing with them as if they were.

Mr. GLASSEY: Neither law nor testimony had any weight with them.

The HOME SECRETARY: I rise to a point of order. I notice the hon. member is prac­tically reading his speech, but I do not know whether it is being so taken down.

Mr. KIDSTON: Shame !

The HOME SECRETARY: The hon. mem­ber will allow me. I do not know whether the hon. member's speech is being taken down for Han.~ard as though it were a serieB of quotations from certain documents which the hon. member is reading frnm. I do not object to the hon. member reading his speech if he wants to, but I want to point out that most of the statements he is making are read from documents which he ha~ in his hands, and which therefore should appear in Hansanl as quotations from those documents and not as the hon. member's own words.

The SPEAKER : I have not the slightest doubt that they will so appear in HanJJard.

Mr. KERR : The gentleman who writes ~o me has no objection to his name being publishea He has been boycotted enough. He says that the bench ruled that-

They wereju-tified in dealing with them as if they were, and the registrar handed his book contarn1ng them to the bench to show that they were entered on 31st October, and further said that they were posted up on that date, and when :l'Ir. lllajor said he could brmg several witnesses to prove that tlley were post~d ou lst November-(men who were looking at the reg1str~r posting them up)-this officer of the police force said that he was ready and willing to go into the box and swear that he posted them up on the 31st Oetober, and further, th!Lt in his opinion ~Ir. Ylajor could get men who would swear to anythin;:. I should thmk th1s ought to be a case for further inquiry by the Home Secretary's Department, as it is a certainty that som~­body would have to either back down or commit perjury, and your humble s<Jrvant would not do mther. The signature to the end of that letter is--

The HoME SECRETARY : Suppressed ! Mr. KERR : Is "N eil Christiansen." . The

hon. gentleman ought not to jurr;p to concluswns, because these cases were so plam that the men, even at the expense of being boycotte~, feel that they mu"t do sometht_ng to get. th.eir electoral rights. It may be said that this IS only an ex parte statement.

The HOiiiE i:lECRETARY : Hear, heE~r ! Mr. KERR : Well, I say that taking it only

for what it is worth as an ex parte sta~eme;u, the department ought to make full mqlllry into it.

The HOME SECRETARY: So they are. Mr. KERR: If Police Magistrate Taylor

made the Atatement from the bench that he had fully made np his mind, an~ that there. was no need for Mr. Major to put his Witnesses mto the box I t.hink the department should take steps to see that the claimants at revision cuurtsare allow~d to put their witnesses into the box, a_n~ that m future no police magistrate at the revisiOn court shall be allowed to make such a statement as I have referred to in open court: .'Ne do not ask that there should be any partiality shown to us. All that the men in the West ask for is that they shonld' get justice; that they should hMe the right to have their. namE!s on th<'; el:>ctoral roll when they have resided m the d1~tnct for the required time. The Premie: said the other night, in introducing the ElectiOns Acts Amenq­ment Bill, that everyone desired to look after their social rights, and I m~:l' state thatt~ese men have no other reason for desirmg that their names should be on the roll than that they should be able to exercise their right of franchi~e and citizensh.ip, which they claim they are ~ntitled to, and whiCh right they respect and cherish. I need not take up the time of the House much longer. I have only to state that I have reason to feel annoyed at the manner in which I have been treated by the Home Secretary's Depa:tment. I. bron!;ht a mc.tter np some time ago m connectiOn With the same court and I complied with the request then made to ~e by the then Home ::lecretary, the present Premier.

The HOME SECRETARY : 'What w.;,s the request? Mr. KETIR: The request was th!'~ certain

claim' which were rejected at the revisiOn court held in Isisford-I may 'ay the claims could not he got-but that certified copies of those cla;ms should be got. I wr~te my req.uest for certified copies of those cla1ms, I tlnnk, on the 21st September--

The SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. member that he must confine himself to the subject matter of the molitm. He must not raise a different question.

Mr. KERR: I will not touch any farther than that but I say that I think the department has not treated me fairly in the matter. I may state that I ha'Ve a personal knowledge of some of the

1478 Motion fo'1' AdjQurnment. [ASSEMBI,Y.] Motion for Adjournment.

men whose cases I have referred to this after­noon-King, Lonergan, Pugh, and others-who have been marked off the annual rolls. I s>ty that they would never have been struck off if the registrar had taken the trouble to make inquiries. 'The Isisford division of the Barcoo is peculiar, as it is not near the boundary of any other elec­toral district. The stations surrounding it are all in the one electorate, and men in the I,isford division are not likely to travel into another electorate. I may state that if the electoral registrar had wanted any of these men, in his official capacity as a policeman, he would eo,sily have found them on the stations surrounding Isisford, and he would have seen that there was no reascm to mark them "left" or '• dis­qualified." I move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. HAMILTON : The hon. member for Barcoo boasted some time ago that he had put forty men on the roll. One of those men, Bertie Hughes, claimed as qualification six months' residence. Among the place' mentioned to make up this six months' residence was the last preceding two months on Northampton Downs. This was put down in his claim. This man only arrived on Northampton Downs on the 18th August, and the hon. member for Barcoo witnessed his claim on Northampton Downs on the 25th August. According to his calculation from the 18th to the 25th August was two months. On the 3rd September, 1898, at Terrick the hon. member witnesses William Bristowe's: claiin~ which was two n1onths' r~..·si­denc,, at Blackall, and four months at Terrick, which if true would mean that he had been nn Terrick all of :Ylay, .June, July, and August. He camped on the creek at Terrick station for a Jew day~ about a fortnight before that time, then went to Barcaldine, and retnrnerl about the 12th August.

Mr. KIDSTON : I rise to a point of ordet. 'The hon. gentleman is not dealing with the question under consideration.

The SPEAKER: If these are cases that were dealt with at the annual revi&ion court at which this bench of m .. gistrates stt, the. hon. member is in order; otherwi'e he is n"t.

Mr. HAMIVTON : I believe they are. :Yir. 'l'uRLEY : No ; they are not. 1\fr. HA::\IILTON : Does the hon. member

wish the question bur ked? The SPEAKER: The hem. member for

Barcoo has stated that over lOO names were struck off. Are those names included in this number?

Mr. HAMILTON: I believe thev are. Mr. KEI\R: No, they are not. Mr. HAMILTON: The hon. member says

the cases are not, yet I have not read them. Mr. KERR: I know the names you gave. Mr. HAMILTON : How can the hon. gentle­

man say the case•. I am going to read have not been--

Mr. TURLEY : They are in another E.lectoral dividon.

Mr. HAMILTON : I can understand tht hem. gentleman's anxiety to burke this if he is guilty.

Mr. KERR: I have no anxiety. Mr. HAMILTON: One case, I believe-­Mr. DANIELS : I ask your ruling, Mr.

Speaker--The SPEAKER: Order! I do not under­

stand the hon. member for Cook to ,ay the cases .are not--

Mr. DANIELS : The hon. member for Barcoo says they are not.

The SPEAKER: Order! Do I understand that the hon. member for Cook says hP believes they are cases that came before this bench of magistrates? If he has good ground for that l;lelief, and is not contradicted, he may proceed.

Mr. DANIELS : He is contradicted. The SPEAKER: Order! If the hon. mem­

ber will not remain silent I shall have to deal with him. I am determined that while the Speaker is addressing the House hon. members must remain silent. I trust the hon. member for Cook will not introduce any cases which do not come ~pecitically under this motion.

:\fr. HAMILTON: I believe they are cases. I have nu evidence to prove that they are not. As I have not read the cases how can--

YI:r. KERR: I have the names here, Mr. HAMILTON: He cannot know the

names of those I am going to read, unless he is guilty and knows what charge I am g?ing to make. On the 3rd September at Terrtck the hon. member for Barcoo witnessed a claim--

The SPEAKER: Oder l We have nothing to do with cases in which the hon. member witnessed claims, provided they are not cases dealt with at this revision conrt.

Mr. KERR: It is not in my electoral district at all.

:VIr. HAMILTON : I have no reason to believe they are not cases dealt with at that court.

Mr. KIDSTON: We can prove that they are not.

Mr. KEUR: I can prove that they are not. Mr. HAMILTON: If the hon. member does

not know what I am going to read, what is the hon. member 8.fr.>id of? On the 3rd SAptember, ;,t Terrick, the hon. g-entleman witnessed one claim which stated that the place of abode was--

Mr. KIDSTON: I object. If that was at Terrick it could not be one of the names dealt with at Isioford, and the hem. gentleman--

The SPEAKER : Order ! The terms of the motion refer to the action of the electoral regis­tr"r and bench of magistrates at the revision C'mrt at Isisford. If the hon. member is re­fvrring to cases dealt with at another revision court l1e is entirely out of order, and I trust he will not proceed further.

Mr. HAMILTON : Am I not allowed to read th, se cases?

The SPEAKER : Certainly not, unless they were dealt with ;et the annual revision court at Isisford. If they were dealt with at any other court thev are inadmissible.

Mr. HAMILTON: They don't like it. Mr. TuRLllY: They are like your other state­

ments. The HOME SECRETARY: I have nothing

wha~ever to rlo with the hon. member for Barcoo having witne,sed certain claims under peculiar circum.,tances of which I have information. 1 shall confine myself to the remarks made by the hon. ge•rtleman himself. Certainly neither the hon. member nor any other hon. member on the other side is more desirous than myself to see that every person properly entitled to be on the roll should have his name placed on the roll, and also to S·"C removed from the roll everybody who is not entitled. That, I take it, is what the hon. member desires.

Mr. KERR: That is all we want. The HOME SECRI<;TARY: That is what

the hon. member says he wants. ;v1r. KmsTON: Tlmt is all you say you want.

You are ex»ctly on the >-ame plane. The H0.\1E SECRETARY: Will the hon.

member reserve his remarks till he gets permis­sion to address the House.

,\lr. Kms'rON : Do not insult hon. members like that. Your ~tatement--

The SPEAKER: Order l Will the hon. mem­ber be silent.

Mr. KIDSTON: ::'<ot if he makes statements like that.

Motion for Adjournment. [13 DEcEMBER.] Motion for Adjournment. 1479

Mr. DuNSFORD : The Minister is most insult­ing ; he al way; is.

Mr. KIDS1'0N : I won't remain silent if he insults--

The SPEAKER: Order! If the hon. member will not be silent when the Speaker rises, I shall have to ask the House to de~! with him. I will see that the hon. member for Barcoo has fair play.

The HOME SECRETARY : All I said was that the hon. member says that is what he wants. Surely there is nothing insulting about that. I may h<IVe my doubts, and I think a good many people throughout the country, possibly, have their doubts, as to whether the hon. member is sincere in saying that. That is not an insult.

Mr. KIDSTON: We have just the same doubts of you.

The HOME SECRETARY: And the hon. member is perfectly welcome to entertain those doubts as far as I am cuncerned-in fact, I should think somethin,- had gone wrong with me if the hon. member did not entertain those doubts of me. The hon. member for Barcoo has not had the courtesy of pursuing the usual course and informing myself or the department.

Mr. KERR : I rise to make a personal explanation.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Home Secre­tary is in possession of the Chair.

The HO:\'I.E SECRETARY: I have not con­cluded my sentence. The hon. member has not paid me the courtesy of informing me of his intention to bring this on to-day. ·

Mr. KERR: Yes, I did·-I wrote a letter on Saturday.

The HOME SECRETARY: I have not received it-the hon. member has forgotten it. The first I knew of the matter was when the hon. men1ber rose in his place, but I had not the slightest idea until I heard Mr. Speaker re•d the notice that what the hon. member was going to talk about had anything to do with the depart­ment under my control.

Mr. KERR: I wrote a letter on Saturday. The HOME SECRETARY: I cannot help

what the hon. gentleman wrote. He should see when he writes a letter that it is delivered.

Mr. McDoNNELL : The hon. member is not a postman. .

The HOME SECRETARY: It is quite im­possible for me, not knowing any of the details of the case, to answer any of the statements the hon. member has made concerning the cases dealt with by the Isisford revision court. That must be patent to everybody. But suppose that it were so, I am not at all sure that it would be within my province to go into this matter, bec,ause I have yet to learn that it is one of the functiom of this House to act as a sort of extra­revision court for all the constituencies in the colony. If all the grievances which people have in connection w1th revision courts were to be dra;;ged up iri this House, we would have to sit from the 1st of January to the 31st of December in each year, and do nothing else but deal with these questions.

Mr. GROOM: I have just receh·ed two post cards.

The HOWE SECRETAHY: I hwe plenty of them. Does the hon. member suppose th.;t these complaints are only from supporters of members on the other side? Everv bon mem­ber in the Hnnse receive" plenty of C'lmplaints, but if every case of a:leged injllstice was to be dragged up here we won!,! ha' e time to d' noth­mg dse hut di,cuss them. The h"n· member fnr Barcnn has properly de,;cribed his statements as ex pm·te. For what purpose ha"e they been brought up here but tor electioneering purposes? I hope the hon. member will not say again that l am insulting him.

Mr. KERR: I have no need to electioneer. Mr. DAN!ELS : What were the men knocked

off for? The HOME SEORETARY: I do not know

what they were knocked off for; but when the repnrt o{the bench of magi,<trates is available, I have no d,mbt it will be found that there were good grounds for knocking them off. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that when the hon. m"mber for Barcoo was challenged he admitted that the statement was practic"-llY anonymous. It is not his own statement. It is a statement given to him apparently in writing by someone at a distance, whose name either the hon. member or his informant is not man enough to give.

Mr. TURLEY: He gave you his name. 'rhe HOME SECRETARY: HA did not.

'rhe hon. member said he would not give the names of several.

Mr. TURLEY : He gave you the name of Neil Chris tiansen.

The HOME SECRETARY: He gave one name, c•1rtainly ; but the greater portion of the statements were made anonymously, and the hon. member pleaded, as an excuse, that if he gave the names the men would be boycotted. A more absurd statement I never heard in my life.

Mr. TURLEY : You do not know any better. The HOME SECRETARY : I am perfectly

aware that it is an absurd excuse. However, I do not place the slightest reliance on anonymous statements. The man who has to hide behind a false name or a name not given at all is a man whose statements are not worthy of credence. Suppose I were to take out of my box a state­ment written by anybody whose name I am not called upon to give, giving the lie direct to every statement the hon. member has made, the one statement would be just as good as the other. That would not be my statement, any more than the statement given by the hon. member is his statement. I merely rose to protest against what I conceive to be an abuse of the pri­vilege of the House which is conferred upnn hou. members of moving the adjournment of the House on matters of urgent public importance. If every hon. member is going to bring forward

, every case of the sort which is brought under his notice as a matter of urgent public importance, they will take precedence of everything else, not only for the rest of this session, but for the whole of next session too. I know of one case in n district not far from that to which the hon. member has referred, in which the name of Mr. Willis, a well-known member of the legislature in another colony, was removed from the roll­and I know of a great many other cases. I understand that Mr. Willis's qualification was not correctly stated. He thought he had a grievance, and a great many other people think they have grievances; but it is not a proper thing to waste the time of the House in listening to ex parte statements which it is impossible to answer at the present time, and statements which can dn no pos~1hle goo·1, so far as I can see, either one wav or the other.

Mr. KIDSTO:'l: 'Have you no knowledJe of the ca-.:e?

The HO:\fF; SECRETARY: None what ever. The only knowl-dge [ have is tha.t ten days a"'o I received a l~tter from the hon. mem­ber for

0

Barco·>, esking for a reply to a previous letter which he had written to tny predecessor in office-the present Prt>tUiHr. Knowing nn~hing of the matter, I h"nded the 1-tter over to the Under Se~retary, who informed me \·erl> dly t,he next morning that a report had heen called fur in connection with the matter. \Vhen that report comes to hand-! presume it is a report from the bench-I do not even know that not

148\J Motion for Adjournment. [.ASSEMBLY.] Motion for Adjournment.

having seen any other papers connected withit­b,ut when the re'port is received from the pnl_ice magiRtrate it will be available for ans\vcTmg such statements as have been made by thP hon. membet'. Until then it is simvly b'cating the air. Ex pm'te statement~, made by anonymous persons are certainly not goiug to carry very much weight in this House, I should imagine.

Mr. GLASSEY : It is unfortunate that the B:dme Secretary has not received the lette'r written by the hon. member for Barcoo, announcing his intention to move the adjonrn­menp of the Hot1se this afternoon', but I do not think the hon. member for Barcoo is to blame fqr that. I presume the hon. member posted the letter, and if the post'al authorities have fail~d to discharge their duties in the usual way--

The HOME SECRETARY : He did not even oay that he had posted it.

Mr. KERR: I handed it to the librarian. Mt. GLASSEY: At any rate, if the hon.

gentleman has not received the letter, it is not the fault of the hon. member for Barcoo,

The HOME SECRETARY : It certainly is his fault. .

Mr. GLASSEY: He placed it in the hands of an official of this House, so that that official might delfver it to the hon. gentleman in due course to gi Vfil, the hon. gentleman notice of his intention to bring forward this motion. The hon., gentleman might very ta,ily have disr:;osed of this matter if he had felt inclined. He asks why members bring these matters . before the House from time to time, instead of, I presunlG, taking some other com,oe? I ask the hon. gentle­man What Other COUrSe is UjJBll to hon. members than to bring them up in this HouFe and so give tliein all. publicity, in order that some day so tile Government will bring in a different electoral law and sett!<' this question once for aJl ?

The HoME SECRETARY: Bnt all th<>·,,e men may have been properly struck off for aught this Ho,us< knows.

Mr. GLASSEY: ::'-To stronger tp.;timnnycould be adduced than the fact of complaints being made to members on both sides regarding the action of electoral registrars and benches of magistrates in connection with the electural roll' in different parts of the colony. Surely the time has fully arrived when the Government of the day should deal with this question in such a manner that there will be no necessity in the future for m0ving the adjournment of the House to call attention to cases of this kind. I quite agree that it is an unfortunate thing that the time of the Assembly should be taken up so freq nently with discussions on this subject, but until the electoral law is such that every elector in the country can get his name on the roll without all the turmoil, trouble, expense, irritation, and annoyance at present connected with th,,t matter, I do not see how it can be avoided. I do not think there is any other place where the electors are eubject to so much irritation and annoyance in getting their names on the roll as they experience from time tn time in QuPens­land.

The SPEAKER : Order! The hon. member cannot deal with the question in a general manner on this motiot1. He must df'al with the specific cases' before the House.

Mr. GLASSEY : I an1 aware that there is a specific question bafore the House, and I am metely pointing out that it h unfortunate that th~ time of members shou1d J)e occupied in deal­ing·with Sllclt matters, when they can he, dealt with more effectually by other means. Why did not the Hon1e Secretary say, "I have no infor­mation rEigarding this matter. I regret the occurrences if they are as stated by the him.

member for Barcoo, but I will cause inquiry to be made into the matter to see whether they are accurate or otherwise ?"

The HoME bECRETARY : The hon. member for Barcuo himsdf kl:ows that an inquiry is being made now, ami I etated in my speech that it had been called for.

Mr. GLASSEY: I have no hesitation in saying t.Jat if the statements which have been made by the lwn. member for Barcoo are true, there is only one courBe open to the Home Secre­tary, and that is to immediately discharge the registrar and to see th ,t the men who sat on the benci1 do not hold commissions of .the peace in future. If the conduct of the registrar was such as has be••n alleged, he is not only open tu censure, but he is utterly unfit to hold a'ny position of responsibility and trust under the Government. These are not the only cases of the kind unfortunately, but I am debarred from referring to other cases in other parts of the country.

Mr. LEAHY : You will h:we the Elections Bill in committee shortly.

Mr. GLASSEY: Yes, we shall have 'the Elections Bill in committee, and then we can go into the matter. I have no desire to prolong this discussion but I wish l.o emphasise the fact that I hope and trust that the Gove.rnment will, even o,t this late period of the sesswn, endeavour to deal effec•,ually with this question in the Elections Bill.

The SPEAKER: Order! The hon. tnember cannot deal with tha· question now. He must confine himself to the motion.

Mr. GLASSEY: I only hope that some means will be taken by whic!t these discussions will be obviated in future, and which will prevent the manih station of that strong partisanship that appears to have been exhibited by the electoral registr.lr at Isisford i_u t~is pt.rti.cular instttnce. It is a lamentable thmg 1f electtons cannot be fought and won without 1;esorting . to such trick.·ry. Many of the men mclncled m the 114 names dealt 'Aith at the hisford revision court are compelled by their occupation to go about from place to place, and they sh_ould no.t, qn that account, be debarred from havmg a vbiCe m the elect>on of the member to represent their district in Parliament. Some justices hold that if a man v orks a couple of months on one st<Ltion a couple of months on another station, and a ~ouple of months on a third station in the same electorate that does not qualify him for registration as :1 voter. I venture to say that the Home Secretary, or any lawyer whose reputat'ion is worth very, much, will admit thdt such men have a legal qualification.

The HOJHE SECRETARY: He must have a residence.

Mr. GLASSEY: The man so situated has a r(sidr_nce but the bw does not say that he niust be in eo~e specific spot for six months, but simply that he must reside in the electorate for six months.

The HoME SECRETARY: He mnst have a home there.

Mr. GLASSEY: He has a home there, but he works in different \Jlaces. It i" quLe ti:ine that all the heartburnmg and '!'nxiety which occurs in connection with this matter should be ended by p1·oper legi&lntion on the subject. In New South \Vales and South Australia they have none of tbis trouble, and--

The SPEAKER: Order ! The hon. member must confine him&elf to the ca;;es before the House.

Mr. GLASSEY: If the statements of the hon. member for Barcoo with reg ,rd to the po~~­ing of the notices in these cases are• true, then rt is plain that the registrar acted illegally, for the law requires that the notices shall be posted a

Motion for A.dimfl1'nment. [13 DEcEMBER.] Motion for Adjournment. 148i

certain time prior to the sitting of the court, aild the bench incurred a serious responsibility in rejecting the names of those electors. I regret that these things have occurred, and hope that when this report comes in from Isisford the matter will be cleared up, and the Home Secretary will be induced, not only to do justice, but to inflict punishment where it is merited. I hope also that it will emphasise the fact that it is necessary to amend our law.

The PREMIER: I do not wish to protract the discussion, which I comider inconvenient­especially at this period of the session-and can lead to no good. I agree with my colleague that it is an abuse of the privileges of the House to intro­duce a matter of this kind as one of urgent public importance, because it can have no finality. Certainly no decision arrived at now by the House would plac it in such a position that it could be considered as a matter of urgent public importance. I rise, however, because what the hon. member has told us would leave the registrar and the bench of m:.gistrates under the imputation that they had committed some grave dereliccion of duty. In fact, from the language he used, he must be under the linpres~ion that the statement~ made by the hon. member for Barcoo are perfectly cor­rect, and that these men ought to be cenBured forthwith by a resolution of the House. r take the opposite view ; I do not hold these men to be guilty. I hold them to be innocent. They must have had good and sufficient reasons placed before them before they ordered these names tb be struck off the roll. That is the cortect view to take until we receive a report which will show that they have not intelligently dis­charged their duties. Until that report comes before us, and discloses some grave breach of duty, I shall accept no such statement, but shall "hold that they have no right to be held up to public execration as having grossly miscon­ducted themsdves in the discharge of one of the most important functions which can be entrusted to any man. In that light I consider that the leader of the Opposition has been too strong and too emphatic in his language, and too ready in accepting the views of the hon. member for Barcoo. Although the latter may himself be under the belief that some injt1stice has been done, still, we are a deliberative body, and we require to be convinced that some improper action has taken place before we pnblicly con­demn men who are placed in such responsible positions. I say that this question has been introduced at an inconvenient time, and at a time when no definite answer can be given by this Rouse. The hon. member had an oppor­tunity before, and should ha Ye placed a notice of motion upon the paper, which would have given the Home Secretary time to wire for this report, aU!i make himself acquainted with the whole of the documentary evidence, which is, or ought to be, in the pos;;e,,sion of the Home Secretary's office. We should then have heard both sides fully; we should have had the facts stated by the bou. member for"Barcoo, and we should have also had the facts as stated by the Home Secre­tary, and with both sides before us we might have arrived at some conclusion. At the pre,ent time the £btement made by the hon. member for Barcoo can only be received as an ex parte Btatement, carrying no weight. I am sure every hon. member has received complaints about names being put on the rolls improperly, or struck off improperl:r, and I do not think that, how­e\'er faithfully any electoral registrar in the colony discharges his duty, there will not be found some man who has a complaint to make in regard to some supposed neglect. I contend that we should consider both sides of this question. I am not" eritering into the question

of residence, because that was ably explained to the different electoral registrars by the late Premier, who, in his position of Attorney-General, gave a definition of the term which I have no doubt has been strictly acted upon. However, I shall not pursue tha't further, but only wish to express my regret that the hon. member has opened up a subject capable of very large discussion, at a time when the work of the session is behind hand, and time is valuable. I trust that what has been said will close this debate, so that we may be a,ble to proceed with the legislative work which I hope to finish before the session terminates,

Mr. DANIELS: I think that moving the adjournment of the House wa• a very proper thing to do. It is all very fine to say that notice should have been given, but although we are not allowed to refer to previous cases this session, 1 may state that there have been similar cases w hi eh were brougb t under the notice of the Home Secretary. One was brought under his notice on the 21st SerJtember, and it is under consideration sti1l, <>nd such being the case, the only course for an hon. member to pursue is to bring the matter before the House. It is a fact that the electo"al registrar in that district and thP justices are taking an unfair and illegal method of trying to unseat the hrJn. member for Barcoo at the next general elections, and they have worked this matter up_

The HoME SECRETARY: You should hear the evidence before you make a statement of that sort.

Mr. DANIELS : The names of a lot of people have been given, and I may say that the jtlstices are not the only respectable people, because many of them have simply been made justices on account of the political support they have given to the Government upon certain occasions_

The SPEAKER : Order ! Mr. DANIELS : I was replying to the Home

Secretary. Mr. BATTERSBY: What,has this motion to,do

with justices of the peace? Mr. DANIELS,: I think justices of the peace­

should have a lot to do with the hon. member. It is a matter of fact that the justwes in this electorate are making a dead set again&t the hon. member, and are trying to get off the rolls all those who are not,in favour of their party. As to the statement of the Home Secretary that unless a man has a home he has no right to a vote, more than half the people in the colony, I am sorry to say, have no homes.

The HmiE SECRETARY: Nonsense! Mr_ DANIELS : There is a great proportion,

at any r;~,te, wl,>o have not got homes, and they are still law-abiding citizens, and as straightfor­ward and respectable as any hon. member in this Assembly.

The SPEAKER: Order! I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the"question before the House.

Mr. DANIELS : If the statement of the Home Secretary is correct--

The HoliiE SECRETARY: I said" residence." Mr. DANIELS : When they are shearing on

a station they must reside there, although we know that some of Lhe residences provided on stations are none too good. If it is only two or thr~e boughs put together to make a black­fellow's "mi-mi" it is their residence, and they are qualified to get their names on the roll. If a tnan shifts from one place to another, and lives in a bark bumpy in one place and in a slab hut in another, they are his residences for tbe time being. Accordin~ to the Rome Secretat:y these men have no right to have their names on the roll.

The HoME SECRETARY: I never said anything ofthesort.

14?!2 Motion far Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Motion for Adiournment.

Mr. DANIELS: These men living on a station have not the right to have their n"mes on the roll for residence during the time they are living on the station.

The HoME SECRETARY : I never said anything of the kind.

Yl:r. DANIELS: The bench of magistrates distiuctly said so, according to the evidence. It is all very fine for the Home Secretary to tell us that he would like to see everyrme on the roll who is entitled to be there legally, but while the case was being re<td out by the hon. member for Barcoo the bon. gentleman kept up a fire of inter­jections to the effect that he did not believe the hon. member.

Mr. HA>IILTO)'I : He w·>.nts evidence. The HOME SECRETARY : Yes, Don't you ? Mr. DANI.ELS: We might not take the word

of the hon. n.ember fc·r Cook without evidence. Mr. HAMILTON : Yours certainly would not be. Mr. DANIELS : But the hon. member for

Barcoo gave his evidence, and it was handed up to the reporters. The Home Secretary could wire up in a few day• to see whether the state­ments made tre true or not, but the hon. gentle­man would not even give us his word that that would be the course of action he would pursuE'.

The Ho~IE SECRETARY : You know that a report has been called for.

Mr. DANIELS: I take it this is the re,ult of the work of the political underground engineer, commonly called Bulcockism--

The SPEAKER : Order ! The hon. member i• entirely out of order in introducinil' new matter. He must confine himself to the matter before the House-the action of the bench of magistrates at Isisford.

Mr. DANIELS : According to the statement of the Home Secretary, if a man sees that his name is struck off the roll he should simply sit down 'md do nothing, or he should go to the Home Secretary and ask him if he would kindly inquire into it. And the hon. gentlemLn would say, "Yes, I wiil take the matter into my serious consideration," and in three or four months' time, when the Plections are going on, the matter would still be under the hon. gentleman's con­sideration, and would have got no further. That is the reason I say the hon. member for Barcoo took the proper course in bringing this question under the notice of the public, at all eventa to show that thing> are not being worked in a fair and straightforward manner.

Mr. BATTERSBY: It is amusing to hear the speeche" of hon. members on the other side. If the hon. member for Barcoo, when he got the correspondence he read out, had hande·d it to the Home Secrcbry and had asked him to find out whether it was true or not, the hon. gentleman would, no doubt, have been able to answer him to-day. A lot of anonymous correspondence was read out ; whether it is true or not I do not know, but I have no reason to doubt the word of the hon. member who read it. But I say it was unfair to the :Minister to read out thnt corre­sponrlence withont hm·ing firot gone to him with i Ho find out whether it was cmrect or not. I ad vi•e the hon. member t<J h md the corre­spondence to the Home Secretary, ann let him s<nd up to Blackall or hbford and get a reply from th.,se who are interested. I am S%ti,fied that if those intHestE'd have done wrong the present Government will see them punis-hed for it. The hon. member "hould not come here and waste the time of the House on a m:;tion for ndjuurnment in re~ding anony1nnus corre"pondence. This corn: s r•mnd every year, and if I go to the Barcoo it will not be in November, December, or January, for that is the time when the Barcoo rot is at its worst. If the

hon. member will hand his correspondence to the Home Secretary to-morrow, that hon. gentlewan will see that fair play is done.

Mr. KIDSTON: We have had the statement from the other side that it is wasting the time of the House tu bring up a matter of this sort ; but it seems to me that if there is truth in the allega­tion that a large number of citizens have been struck off the roll improperly, it is very far from waBting the time of the House to call attention to it. If some of the gentlemen who have com­plained that the time of the House is being wasted had their own names struck off the rolls, and had thus beendisqualifiedfrom standing at the next general election, I am quite Rure they would consider it of suft\cient importance to waste, not only the time of the House, but the time of the country, too, over it.. The allegation made by the'hon. member for Barcoo is that of 114 names struck off the roll at the annual revision comt at Isisford son1e twenty-three had not been ad ver­tised in accordance with the requirements of the law.

The HoME SECRETARY : That may or may not be true.

:VIr. KIDS TON: I will come to that after­wards. The hon. member for Barcoo further alleged that one of the claimants whose name had been ~~ruck off the roll, submitted to the court evidence that he was still holding the residence qualification for which he was on the roll. A letter was read from the elector which was ample evidence that he was still there and that his name should not have been struck off; and yet it was struck off all the same. Then it is alleged that some of the electors residing on neighbouring stations were adjudged by the court as not hrtving a residence within the meaning of the Act, and they were struck off for that reason. Another man, who was admitted to have been residing on the reserve, was struck off because in the opinion of the court he had no right to reside there, as he had not got; permission to do so from the Crown lands ranger. So that it appeared that the law as administered in the Barcoo was that you would be struck off the roll because you had not residence, and you would be struck off because you had residence. The Home Secretary complained that the statement made by the hon. member for Barcoo is an ex parte statement and that he wants evidence of its truth. The hon. member for Barcoo has been trying to induce the Home Secretary to get evidence in another case since the 21st September, and the hon. gentleman knows that no evidence has been forthcoming yet.

The HoME SECRETA~Y: I do not know any thing about it.

Mr. KIDSTON : When he was on his feet he told us.he did know something about it.

The HOME SECRETARY : You are referring to another case.

Mr. KIDSTON: I am taking the other case as an illustration of the advantage there is in applying to the Home Secretary in these matters. In this other case application was made on the 21st September, and now on the 13th Decem­ber the Home Secretary tell; u;; he is awaiting a report.

Tt·e HoME SECRETARY: I am not aware that referred to any other case at all.

Mr. KIDSTON : If that is the rapid way in which the hnn. gentleman can deal with a similar serious charge as to maladrninistration--

The HoME SECRETARY: Why don't yuu stick to the truth?

The SPEAKER: Order, order! Mr. KlDSTON: Does the hon. gentleman

infer that I am not sticking to the truth The HOME SECRETARY: Yes, I do. Mr. KlDSTON: Well, I will sit down and let

him show that I am not speaking the truth 1f he

Motion for Adjournment. [13 DECEMBER.] Motion for Adjournment. 1483

likes. If that is the rapid manner in which the hon. gentleman's office redresses grievances of this sort, what is the good of applying? Suppose the hon. member for Barcoo had written, I sup­pose it would have been after the next election before the hon. gentleman would get a report.

The HoME SECRETARY: I said a report was asked for in this case. You have mistaken me. I know nothing about the other ca~e.

Mr. KIDS TON: The Chief Secretary said that until we receive a report showing that. those magistrates are guilty of maladministering the law, it is impossible for the Government to take any action in the matter, and presumably the Government are getting a report from those magistrates. Is there any sense in that kind ,,f thing? Does the Home Secretary or the Chief Secretary expect those magistrates to send in a report condemning their own conduct-showing themselves unfit to sit on the bench? Have they the remotest idea that those magistrates will do that? If the allegations made here this afternoon against those magistrates are true, or if a tenth part of them is true, those magistrates are unworthy to sit on the bench at all. I think the Home Secretary will admit that, and he asks those magistrates for a report.

The HOME SECRETARY: A defence if you like to call it so-at all events an answer. Surely they are entitled to be heard !

Mr. KIDSTON : I do not want them to be condemned without being heard,

The HoME 8ECRETARY: You are condemning them without being heard.

Mr. KIDS TON: But when citizens are robbed of their electoral rights in this way I expect those who have the administration of the law, as the hon. gentleman has--

The HOME SECRETARY: You are assuming the whole questi"n by saying that.

Mr. KIDS TON :To show something like busi­ness promptitude in having the matter examined into, and having the electoral rights restored to those men if they have been unfairly taken from them. \Ve have heard some remarkable stories from the Barcoo--

The HoME SECRETARY: Hear, hear ! So have I. Mr. KIDSTON: I have myself seen a

letter in the handwriting of a Barcoo magis­trate cautioning a fellow-magistrate what to do at the coming revision court, and I can quite believe that some remarkable things happen out there. Indeed, it is not only in the Barcoo that these things happen. So far as I know of the administration of the electoral law there is con­st>tnt pressure all over the country to strike names off wherever possible.

The SI'EAKER : Order, order ! I would ask the hon. member to confine himself to the ques­tion.

Mr. KIDSTON : I have no intention of re­ferring to such cases, except in a general way by way of illustration. I know in Rockhampton men who have been thirty years living there and known perfectly well to the men revising the roll, hut their claims were called in question over and over again. I say that constant pressure appears to be exercised by those engaged by the Govern­ment by the electoral registrars to strike men off the roll. They will take no trouble to put them on, hut they will take any am nun t of trouble to strike them off. I do nut think that is an honest and legitimate way of administering the electoral law we have--

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: It is not a correct statenJent.

Mr. KID.:JTON: I know that it i~ " correct statement. If it was permissible I could go into detarls and prove that it was correct in a town where we have comparatively little to complain of in that respect ; where not only the magis­trates, but also the electoral registrars, have been

fair and impartial. I referred to that for this reason-and here is the moral of the whole busi­nees. When the Home Secretary was sveaking someone interjected that it was a reason for amending the law. And who is responstble for the presPnt state of the law? It is the Govern­ment. It is the duty of the Government to submit such a reform of the electoral law as will do away with these continual complaints from all over the country, and enable citi?ens who are entitled to be on the rolls to get on the rolls without all this trouble and continual worry.

The HOME SECRETARY : Who are not entitled? Mr. STEW ART: \Ve have had a most extra­

ordinary instance of the thing that passes for political morality upon the other side.

The SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION : On your own side.

Mr. STEW ART: The hon. member for Barcoo brought forward specific cases where it is alleged that maladministration of the electoral law has taken place in his electorate, and Minister after Minister-the Home Secretary to begiu with, the Premier following--has got up with protests against the time of the House being wasted in diocussing a matter of this kind. I would like to ask what kind of question could possibly be more important than a question of this kind? :Matters affecting our electoral law lie at the very foundation of our institutions. \Vhat is making up the electoral roll? lt is simply on a parallel with choosing a jury to try a c i1Se.

When you choose a jury you try to give everyone who is interested in the case the fullest oppor­tunity of having an impartial jury. You place every impediment in the way of the jury being packed. Well, that is all we want with regard to our electoral laws. We say that by this mal­administration the jury is being packed, and that the verdict of the country is thereby affected. I say, again, that no more important question could be brought before an assembly of this kind-no question that it is more enti.tled to deal with. Again, the hon. gentleman sard that it was inconvenient. I have no doubt it was inconvenient for the hon. gentleman and hon. members on the other side. It is always incon­venient for people who wink at wrong-doing to be found out.

The SECRETARY FOR PuBLIC INSTRUCTION : Your leader said it was inconvenient.

Mr. STEW ART: I am not responsible for my leader.

The SECRETARY l!'OR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION : He is not responsible for you either, I hope.

Mr. STEW ART: I hope not. I would not like to be responsible for the hon. gentleman, and I would not care for him to be res{'onsible for me. Again the Premier said it was an abuse of privilege to bring a matter of this kind before the Chamber. Did anyone ever hear such a statement? An abuse of privilege ! Why, if there is any privilege that Parliament possesses that ought t.o be more freely a vailed of than any other it is the privilege of referring to the mul­adrninistrationofour laws. I submit that apJ-imu facie case for an investigation has been madeout by the hon. member for Barcoo. The bun. member has not come forward and made deliberate charges against any perwn. He has said that theee things have been r~ported to him, and all that he claims is that an investigation should be made. The hon. gentleman has told us that an investigatiun will be made; but who is to make that investigation? The electoral registrar, against whom a specific charge is made ? Is he to be made judge and jury in t,is own case?

Mr. PETRIE: YPs. Mr. S'l'E WART : That would be J•acking the

jury with a >engean~e. The elector..! ngi>trar is charged with being connected with the striking off of twenty-three names-those names not

Motion for Adjournment. [ASSEM:BLY.] Motion for Ad}our-nment.

having been advertised according to law ; and the hon. gentleman proposes to ask the electoral registrar if he did such " thing. I say the thing is ridiculous.

The HmiE SECRETARY: Of course, he ought not to be heard >tt all.

Mr. STEW ART: I have not said that he ought not to be heard. What I said-as the hon. gentleman would have heard if he had kept his ears open, and what he would understand, if he has any brains-was that it was not proper to make the electoral registrar judge and jury in his own case ..

The HOME SECRETARY : The hon. member did not say that.

Mr. STEW ART: 'l'he hon. member did say that. The hon. gentleman apparently cannot do two things at. once. It is recorded of a certain great man that he could dictate to three secre­taries at one and the same time; but the hon. gentleman apparently cannot sit and write at that table and listen to what other hon. members are saying. His intellect is not capacious enough for that, and that being the c~se I would advise him to take his seat upon the bench and listen attentively with all the brain he can summon while hon. members are speaking. I said that a man should not be jud,;e and jury in his own case, and that is practically what the hon. gentleman proposes, so far as I have been able to discover.

The HoME SJWRETARY: \V ell, you are not right.

Mr. STJ<}W ART : Why did not the hon. gentleman explain his meaning? Will the hon. gentleman explain it when he gets up?

The HOME SECRETARY: I have no right to speak again.

:Mr. STEW ART: The hon. gentleman can reply by permission of the Rous\.

The HoME SECRETARY : Reply to what? I did not move the adjournment.

~1r. STEW ART: There is another allegation made against the electoral registrar-and this can be proved-that is that the names were not posted up in time.

The HoME SECRETARY : Why iRn't it proved? Mr. STEW ART: This is not a court in which

to prove. It is merely a place to bring the matter under the notice of the administrative authorities, and get them to set the proper machinery in motion. We are not allowed to bring our evidence in here-the hon. gentleman surely knows that! Why, the hon. gentleman is more ignorant of the procedure.of Parliament than I anticipated. There is still another alle· gation made against the electoral registrar, and it is that he did not eend the proper notices to the men whom it was proposed to strike off. There are thu~ three distinct charges made against tlw registrar, and they are surely matters which are capable of proof. I have no doubt that if the hon. gentleman 8Ubmits the nwtter to a prot;er tribunal the persons who informed the hon. member for Barcoo will be prepared to bring forward evidence ; but surely the hon. gentleman do,s not expect that th•y are pre­pared to bring forward their evidence in a court where the electoral registrar-the puson cha1g,d -is at once jnd~e and jury. No one would be so foolish as to do that, "'nd no man who had any desire to see the pnre administration of jus­tice in the colony would ask such a thing to take place. ln addition to the electoral registrar, there is a complaint being mad<- against the police- magistrate. I shall quote from the Wes­tem Ohampionr-not as evidence, .or as anything

more than an ex prm•te stateitllent warranting further inquiry. Here is the report of the pro· ceedings-

The police magistrate ruled. that a tent on the reserve was not a residence; that because the man did not own .. the land' n which he .pitched his tent and made his camp he had no vote. That is a most extraordinary interpretation of the law. This is not the occasion to enter upon a discussion as to whether the interpretation .of the police magistrate is correct or not, but I believe it is not correct. \Vould a wooden house, or a bark humpy, or a galvanised building on a reserve, be a residence .under the Act? What does it matter whether the walls of ahousein which a man lives are of calico, or iron, or wood, •or stone, or brick? The e•sential matter, so far as the Electoral Act is concerned, is that a man sha11 live in a particular electar.ate. There is np mention of reserve in the Elections Act, and if the fact of living on a reserve is sufficient to disqualify these men in the Barcoo, I venture to assert that 10,000 men in Queensland might be disfranchised to-movrnw under a similar misin· terpretation of the .Jaw. The reporter further says that the police magistrate asked them-

Is it your permanent home: ·what a question to ask any elector'! None of us could go before a court of justice and say, "This· is my permanent home." A man might live in Queen street to-day and in A del aide street to· morrow, or in South Brisbane to-day and· lUO miles away te-morrow, a:nd·could··not:swear 'that a particular place was his permanent residence. Then, again, the police magistrate wonl<!l say-

You are only trespassing ; have you permission from the reserve ,ranger ?

I submit that the police magistraP.e had nn right to ask any of the persons who came before him that question. Here is another feature of the case that wants inquiring into. The reporter says that-

Most of the men proposed to be struck off, judging from the pile of letters the registrar had, had written notifying their ch,.nge of residenee, but they were struck off all the same because they had no fix.ed house. That bears out what the hon. member for Barcoo told us. '.IIhe Act requires that when a man removes from one part of an electorate to another he shall send notice to the electoral registrar of his change of residence-I agree with that prO\•ision-and that the electoral registrar shall alter the residence on the roll accordingly. But in the case under discussion >~<e find that 110 out of 112 names were struck off the roll. The police magistrate in saying that they were disqualified because they had not a fixed ·house was merely making a law ,to suit himself, or to suit some other inspiring body that we may perhaps g.uess, but dare not mention. Again the reporter says-

Other men, because not having a home of th~ir·own they had to make their home at a hotel, ani! though they may .have made one hotel their home .for years when not following shearing or whatever their employ· ment was, unless they could say that they paid for their room all the ·time they were away, and that n:o one else could use it, they were struck off. I submit that these rulings were entirely against the spirit of the Elections Act, and ·that the police magistrate in deciding as he did was exceeding his ·duty. There is one point that I wish to direct attention ·to again, and that is that the hon. member for Barcoo has made out ·a p1'im'1 frroie eaae for investigation. Who is to make that investigation?

:M:r. PETRIE: You. Mr. STEW ART·: I have no desire to make

the investigation ; I de not think I would be a proper party to make it, J desir-e ·that the investigation should be ·made in an .impartial

Motion JOT Atijwt1'1Wtent. [13 DECEMBER.] Elections, q-c. Bill 1485

manner. Here is a charge against the electoral registrar that he has maladministered the law, that he has directly violated the provisions of the Electoral Act, and omitted certain names from the roll before doing certain things, and I say that if that is a case for inq\liry at ::>1! it is one in which the services of the Public Service Board should be bro\lght into requisition. I think the Home Secretary should tell us before this debate closes whether he intends that the Pablic 8ervice Board shall be called upon to make an inquiry into this matter. With regard to the police magistrate, it is only fair to ask that the Government should frame regulations explaining to such offici"ls what the Elections Act really means. If the Government do isS\lt;l regulations, as J believe they do-or at a,ny rate if not formal reg\llations informal instructions-whatever those instrnctions may be they should be made vublic.

'rhe HoME SEcRETARY : They are. Mr. ST,I£W ART: If they are, I prest1me the

police magistrate was in this matter a.cting in accordance with those instructions. If .so, then those instructions are against the spirit of the Act, for be acted against the spirit of the Act.

The HoME SECRETARY: We don't know what the facts are in the matter .

.Mr. STEW ART: But we want to :find them out.

The HOME SECRETARY : You are condemning the man unheard.

Mr. STEW ART: I am not condemning the man .at all, 'lilY more than a man is condemned when he is brought before a court charged with a!). oi;Ience. It is a well-known axiom in English law, and in every other law which profeP•es trJ be a decent and honourable law, that every man is to be considered innocent until he ie found gujlty. But a charge must be made, and a prim<t facie case must be submitted to the court, and all that we claim i.s that a case has been made out which warrants the Government in appointing an inquiry into the particular circum­stances •ietailed here this afternoon. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to do that, or has he merely 'ent to the electoral registrar for a report? I hope he has gone a little further than that, and that a little more expedition .•rill be shown in this case than was shown in the case referred to by the senior member for Rockhampton.

Mr. KERR, in reply : The Home Secretary appears to have confused the point at issue with another matter. The hon. gentleman stated that the matter I bave brought up this afternoon has ueen referred for investigation.

The HoME SECRETARY : S" I understood ; I ]j:pow nothing about it.

Mr. KERR: I may explain that op the 21st of September I brought a somewhat similar matter before the House, and I sabRequently wro~ to th!l then Home Secretary, asking- that certam clanns should be got from Isisford-but those claims had nothing to do with the revision conrt-so that I could verify and substantiate a statement which I had made in this Chamber. I received the letter on the 27th 8eptember, and called at the Home Secretary's office upon two occasions, hut the matter had not been settled. I wrote agrtin on thn 23r<l. November to the present Home Secretary, and racehed a reply to that statmg that an inquiry would be held into the matter; but my reas.on for bringing the matter forward now is that it is one of urgent public importance;particularly to the men whose names hav.e b• en struck off the rolls; and I hu \'8

taken t>be steps arh·ised by the Home Secretary', Department upon other occasions. The matter had been delayed so long that, as the senior member :for Rockhampton said, it roight be next y.ea.r before ~ xoeceived the report. I am very sor.ry .that i4e le.tt.er I wrote the Ho !).le Secretary

on Saturday failed to reach him, but I took the usual course, and left it in the library asking that it shoul•l he forwarded.

The HOME SECRETARY: Satnrday was a half­holiday and Monday was a whole huliday.

Mr. KERR : I am sorry that the letter was not sent until this morning. I did not intend any discourtesy to the hon. gentleman, hut took what I considered to be the proper means of giving him notice, and as the letter has been mislaid, I must apologi,e. As I do not wish ot detain the House I shall say no more, except to reply to the statement that I have been electioneer­ing. 1 have no need to do any electioneering here, as I am quite capable of doing it outside, and I am also c«pable of looking after my own interests in the electorate I represent. No doubt what I have said has been onlv nn ex parte statement, but the statement will aiJ!Jear in Hansard, and if the department will grant an inquiry-not before the magistrate or justices who sat on the bench at Isisford, but before an officer not in any way c:mnected with t'Je matter-I am certain tha,t the all<•gations I have made upon the floor of this Chamber will be borne out by the evidence of those who were present in the court upon that occasion. I beg to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ELECTIONS ACTS AMEND:.\fENT BILL. CoMMITTEE.

On cl:>use 1-"Shnrt title"-Mr. KIDSTON asked the Chairman whether

it would be in order under the title of the Bill to subsequently move such an amendment as the omission of the attestation clauses of the present Act?

The CHAIRMAN: The quPstion the hem. member asks does not arise upon the short title of the Bill, ''"hich is all th,t is dealt with in this clause.

Mr. KIDSTON: No; but he asked whether later in the Bill it would be permis,ible under this title to move such an amendment of the pres,,nt electorall>~w. He did not want to dig­cuss the amendment now.

The CHAIRMAN : I shall only be able to judge as to the queetion the hon. member r.dses when the matter to wbich he refPrs comes along. The questie>n beforetheCommitteenowisclause 1.

C!rtuse put ant! pas,ed. On clause 2--" Definition of 'Principal elec­

toral registrar.'" Mr. G LASSEY : The only justification for

this mea,ur was the app;,intment of a principal electoral registrar and the relief the Bill would afford in the ea qe of members of local authorities being appointed returning officers. Bnt, a' he pointed out on t'1e second reading·, the work of the principal electoral registrar was really finished so far '" the general elections were con­cerned, and what was the object in introducing this princivle at all at the pr, c;ent time? He would like to know if the hon. gmtleman had taken any eteps to fill the position of princi­pal electoral registrar? It was much better that this important work should be in the hands of a wortby and -1ualified man as free from politic:tl bir.s as vossible, but there was a Rtrong suspicion in the minds of a large number of persons that there bad been an appointment to the position--made or promised. He did not say that he shac·ed that npinion, bnt tl1ey should have some authoritative stat<'ment on the subject from the Premier. The matters dealt \\ith in the Bill cuurd be far more eff•·ctively and com­pr~he.nsively t.reate:i when they came tv consider the whole electoral "Y>tem, So far as t.he duties of the pri1,cipal electoral registrpr were con­cerned they should have ~.,me intormation about them. So far "" the work of registration was concerned he rlic;! not think the cost of a small

1486 Elections Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

department to deal <pecially with that work would be at all out of place, or that a moderately considerable sum would be conHidered wasted on that department prodded that the work was done in a rn'tnner tf at would give general satis-faction to the country. ·

The PREMIER : The information asked for by the hon. men,ber was reasonable and would be furniHhed. Tlw object lesson they had had this afternoon abundantly justified the appoint· ment of a princip .l electoral registrar to assume the direction and control of the electoral sys;tem-to enable su::h cases as h:1d been referred to to be dealt with more immediatelv than was at prf'sent poosible, where courts of petty sessions had to be communicated with and delay intervened. It bad been impressed upon him for years past that the electoral system was by no means in a satisfactory condition-he did not so much refer to what he called "the 'theory, of the frnn­chi'e " as to the administr~tion of the Electoral Acts themselves. Until they had some uirectly responsible officer to investigate such cases as they had heard of this afternoon they could never have a good perception as to whether their electoral registrars and courts of ]oetty ~essim1s discharged their duties in a satisfactory manner <>r otherwise. For that reason the Government vroposed to appoint an officer who should initi~te an electoral department removed from political control. This was a ver} oppor­tune time for the appointment of a principal registrar, because it would not interfere with the approaching elections, and he could assure the Committee that the public service would be exhausted before going outside for a gentle­man to fill the office; and, further, there was no preconceived idea of any individual at the present time who was to fill the office. The duties of the principal registrar would be from time to time to make, or cause to be made, such inquiries and investigations "'s he th<,ught necessary for the effectual execution of his duties and the duties of electoral registrars. He would visit the electoral districts and observe how the electoral registrars did their work and would have the entire system under his control; and when a complaint came to the Minister, that Minister, inscead of having to write to the clerks of petty sessions, would at once place it in the hands of the principal registrar for inquiry and report. Hon. members would see, on reflection, that this was the initiation of a better system, one that woulrl relieve Parliament from representa­tions such as had been made latf'ly of the in­efficiency, or otherwise, of the provincial regis­trars and clerks of petty sessions.

Mr. GLASSEY: He was just as anxious as the hon. gentleman to have these matters tttken out of the bands of the political head of a depart­ment, and placed in the hands of some capable disinterested person, but he favoured the whole of the registration work of the colony beinrr done by the Police Department. The next best thing was to have a distinct registration rlepartment, with a responsible head, tn whom the electoral registrars throughout the colony would he re'·ponsihle. Another matler that might be le£& in the hand;; of the general registrar was the qne"tion of finding convenient polling-places to sene the largest number of electors. But as the hon. genLleman said the appointment would not be made till after the general elec:ion there was no u>e in discussing what was practically '111 abstract question. 'l'heir time would be better employed in discussing matters of more practical utility, and he would like to submit an amend­ment later on for the purpose of abolishing plural votmg He was glad the Premier had cleared away som<· misgivings which existed in connection with the appointment of the princip;c,l

registrar because there was a suspicion that it was to be given to a gentleman holding a seat in the other Chamber.

ThP PREMIER: Distinctly not. Mr. G LASSEY wc:s glad to hear the hon.

gentlemen say so, and to lu ve his assurance that the public service would be exhausted before going outside to find a man for the position. While he t1id not urge the desirability of appoint­ing an outsider, J.e did not by any means say that it was not possible to get a first-class man for that work who had not been in the Civil Service, and who would take a broad grasp of the very important question of the regrstmtion of voters, and not be influenced in the discharge of his duty by any li: tle loc:>l contentions.

The HoN. G. THORN would like to know \<'hat sa!.try it w"'' proposer! to pay to the principal electoral registnr? Personally he was not altogether in favour of the Bill. 8eeing that the registration courts were all onr for this year, the matter might be left in abeyance for the present, and dealt with on some future occasion. Whatever gentle:nan was n.ppointed to the posi­tion, his appointment would be cavilled at by hon. members npposioc·, and when those hon. members <'!me into powH whatever gentleman they appointed would be adversely criticised by their opponent". With regard to the matter referred to this •. .tternoon by the hon. member for Barcoo, he belieHd that he fore very long it would be di•covered to bt. a mare's nest. Complaints had been made to him (Mr. Thorn) that friends of his had been knocked off the roll in his district, but after careful inquiry into the matter he found that the electoral registrar had simply done his duty; and what was true of hrs r!i~trict was also true of other districts in the colony. 'rhe hon. member for Barcoo had raised th<• question about his own name being objected to, but he did uot stJ,te that it was not objected t<l until he put in a fresh claim for freehold qualification.

Mr. KERR: That's a lie. The CHAIRMAK : Order! The hon. mem­

ber must know that that expression is not parliamentary.

Mr. KERR: I withdraw it, but the hon. member's statement is untrue.

The HoN. G. THORN: He got his informa­tion from a newe.paper.

The CHAIR:\IAl'l : I would ask the hon. member not to go into a diocussion that has taken place in the House this session. That has nothing to do with the question before the Com· mittee, which is clause 2 of this Bill.

The HoN. G. THORN : Clause 2 raised a very big question ; they could debate the whole sub­ject on that clause, but he did not intend to do so. The ban. member for RoE~wnod rAferred the other night to some complaint about the electoral registrar at Cunnamulla, who was a policeman. An eyewitness of what happened at that place on the occasion referred to-a person who leaned to neither party in that House-had informed him that the electov.l registrar in that case waH only doing his duty in rloing that which had been taken exception to. He trusted that they would have no more of those complaints against good offioers in tbe Government service. So far ao; he wa' con<>erned, he had never known them do anytbin;,(· wrong, especially the police, and he trusted they would not hear many of theo;e v .rnplaintcJ in futnre. It was time the hon. member for Rusewood and the hon. member for Bnndaherg ceased attacking the police for not doing their duty. People who were qualified to vote were left on the rolls, and those who were not wer·e struck off.

The CHAIR1VlAN : This is the definition clause of the Bill, and I would remind the hon. member that he is going over the whole question,

Elections Acts [13 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1487

The HoN. G. THORN: He trusted the Premier woulrl give them the information he had asked for; but whatever o-entleman was appointed to the position, he w;uld always be accused of favouritism.

Mr. KIDSTON : The Premier had lectured them abuut wasting time earlier in the afternoon but he would like to know if discussing this Hili was not a pure waste of time. The Premier was to blame for introducing this poor little apology for an amendment, but he quite agreed with the statement of the hon. gentleman that the elec­toral laws were in a very unsatisfactory con­dition. There were a score of little evils' in the law that the hon. member might remedy, but they were all left on one side and this was all that was given them.

The CHAIRMAN : I would remind the hon. member that this Bill has already been read a second time, and it is now before the Committee to be considered in detail. The clau•e now before the Committee is clause 2, and the hon. member must see that he cannot now make asecona-read­ing speech. . Mr: KIDS?'ON : He was definitely concern­mg himself With clause 2, to which he objected · and, if necessary, he would move an amendment upon it. He did not see the slightest necessity for this officer at all, although there was a great need for reform in the electoral system, as would be apparent from the fact that while there were 130,000 adult male whites in the colony, there were only 8-1,528 on the roll, including plural voters; so that about 3i) per cent. were not on the rolls. He did not see that the appointment of this officer would remedy this state of affairs at all. It would not have bettered the case that had been before the Hou;;e this afternoon, because he would have had the power that the Home Secre­tary had now.

The PREMIER: He would have had a report of the whole proceedin!{s.

Mr. KIDSTON: He would have no more po_wer in the court of Isisford than he (Mr. K1dston). In fact he would be no better than a clerk. The justices and magistrates, who formed the courts at present, would be the persons to decide whether a man's name should remain on the roll or not. He might give instructi,ms to electoral registrars as to ho .v they were to deal out the law they had to administer, but in such a case as the hon. member for Barcoo had referred to he would have no standing at all. He would not even have the power to call upon the magistrates in those cases to submit a report but the Home Secretary could do that, becaus~ they were !In~ er his <;Iepartment. They were to have a prmCipal registrar, a deputy registrar, and, no doubt, by-9,nd-by they would have an assistant deputy registrar. Tlie whole proposal was only to multiply officers without any corresponding benefit, a?, though he had care­fully searched the Bill, he could find no duties imposed upon the principal electoral registrar which were not now under the law imposed upon the Home Secretary. They had been promised a~ amendment ?f the electoral law at the begin­mug of the sesswn, and hon. members on his side had not attempted to introduce any electoral reform until they saw the reform they were to get from the Government. And here it was. If the Premier had introduced a Bill to abolish the attestation claus~s of th~ present Act, which were a sonrce ot Inconvenience, annoyance, aud trouble to thousands of citizens of QueenRland, it would have been a ,small reform, but it would have been a reform. If he had proposed to enfranchise all the men it would have been a reform.

'rhe CHAIRMAN : The hon. member must see that he is getting away from the clause

before the Committee altogether. He is making a speech now which he should have made upon the second reading of tbh Bill.

Mr. KIDSTON: Unfortmntelv he was not pres nt when the Bill was before tl1e House for its second reading or he would h<tve opposed it, as there were only two things in it-the appoint­ment of tte priocipal dectoral registrar, and a further attempt to frig;1ten justice< from attest­ing claim;;; and one of those things he con­sidered uselesB, and th~_, oth8r Th~rnicions. ':rhe people were looking for>~ ard to >Oll18 substantial reform of the electoral law after thP g-ener.;l elec­tion, becauRe there wa~, go(~d ground for a hupe that the result of it would be the rPturn to powpr of men preruretl to propose a radical reform of those laws, which ,,-ould bring them along.ide the other colonib in this m,,tter. If that W''' at all likely, they were only wasting time in discussing this Bill. What was the uRe of apJ,ointing this officer now, when the rolls for 1899 had been compleed? It would be far better to take this Bill out of their way altogether, and let them get Jn with business of consequence to the country; and let the people at :he general election state what reform of their electoral laws they would have.

Mr. HAMILTON : It was very singular that thoBe wbo objected to the abuses said to be cnrried on under the present sy,;tem •hould now objr et to the appointn1en" of a man specially; correct those abuses. That abu-es had occnrred was evident, and that showed the d0"ira bility nf appointing a principal electoral registrar. He would ctdd his testimony to the other side in proof that certain abuses were taking place. He noticed this in the Western Champion-

So far as the town of Barcaldine is concerned, and with the help of its servants ou the railway lengths, whom the Government consideratf'ly convey by special trains to vote for their opponents on polling-day, )fr. Kerr is snre of a majority, but els~wbere there are fearful doubts in the minds of t.Pc political associations connected with the Ln.bour _p:trty as to whether they can command :t full or even a baug-tail mu~ter of their crowd. ::\'Ir. Kerr has been out I...;isford vt ay since the session commenced, and the n·sult lws been most strenuous efforts Uy his supporters to forcr names on the electoral roll for the next election.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. gentleman is opening a discuscion on anothPr qnestion, and lf he doe" that I do not know where it will end. I do not & e "bat the quotation has to do with the clause.

Mr. HAMILTON : He had not come to it yet, hut he intended to show the nece«sity for a principal registrar by showing that abuses were being carried on.

The 0HAIRMAK: If it is the ple1,mre of the Committee th-,t the hon. member shall quote from the paper he has in his hand--

Mr. HAMILT0::'-1: He w"uld like to know if he could not give reasons why a pl'incipa. registrar should be appointed.

Mr. DANIELS: Provided bun. members on this side can reply.

Mr. HA:\IILTON: Of course hon. members on th~t side could reply.

'1 he war drum has been beaten, nnd the roll-stuffers are hard ~tt \vork, hoping thereby to t:ecure a majority when the time comeR. At Blackall the bench detected the eflorts in their infa1 cy, and prosecntionR followed. At IsiRford, by some extraordinary movement, no less than 112 dummy voters camt to camp in th,~ir tf'nts on the Lower Barcoo, thereby enabling them to 1 egister in time to give '• Ger,rge ''a vote at the ge~ eral deetion This wa~ al~o discovered, expose~l, and prevented. The tactics falled there, but in remoter pJ Leer;, where the bench were not ve1·haps .so wideawake, the frauds were not discovered. ::ur. Kerr, Iil Parliament. r-, -~oke bitterly of Mr.Oameron having w-ritten to his friends in the Barcoo electorate advising them to keep their eyes open, but it seems there was very vital uew;stSity for the warning. At the same time Jlr. Ken's friends were cognisant of what was being done in the way of roll-stuffing .at

1488 Elections Acts [.A.SSEM:BLY.] Amendment Bill.

~lackall and Isisford, hugging themselves in anticipa­tiOn of 150 or 200 dummies being spared from the rolls at :\'!itchell or Clermout to swell the number of pat.rw~,s who are to swell the triumph of the Labour party 1n the Barcoo at the next elect\on, In corroboration of that he had furth~r state­ments from a r8putable g·eutleman whose name he would give if challenged to do so. A gentle-11Jan, holding a high position in the hon. gPntle­man s own electorate. He stated that on the 3rd September the hon. member witnessed J ames Hn,n~s' claim, which was six months' re"idence at Terrick. Hands had not been there for six months, •1nd had since written to the electoral ,.,.~is~rar at Blac~mll withdrawing his claim. ~VI!l_ram .McKenzie arrived At Ravensbourne f;ltatwn on the 19th May, 1897, and left it on the 27th May, Ul98, and had not since returned. On the 24th August the hon. member for Barcoo at Northarhpteon Downs witnessed his claim w}lich stctted "residence for the preceding six: teen months at Ravens bourn e." John J<'uster· Dunlop\ claim wae witnessed by the hon. mem­ber on the 3rd SPptember. His claim wa• six months' residence, the last four months on Te~rick Station. At the time he m'lde this clmrl! he had only been employed on Terrick StatiOn for three weeb, and had spent about six weeks IJefore that iu camping on Lorne rtnd cm Terrick Station. Those statement" would indi­cate . that there was great necessity for the appomtme~t of a principal registrar.

Mr. KJ<,RR: He -thought the Government S<;!avengar deserved every credit--

Mr. HAMILTON : You have been known for a long trme as the parliamentary scavenger.

The CHAIRMAN : The hon. member must know that is unparliamentary.

Mr. KERR : The Government whipper-up was always about when there was any nasty business on hand. The hon. member was at liberty to read whatever he likerl from the public Press anrl bring forward whatever charges he liked and state that he had them from gentlemen of repute. He (Mr. K~rr) knew the gentlemen; he knew where he got hrs mforrnation and every­thing about it. As to the charge that he had attempted to stuff the rolls, he might say that those. men camP before hiru ttnd he put the usnal questions to them and witnessed their claims. He had nothi'lg to do with filling in the claims. He mrght also tell the hon. member for Cook that he had no need to go electioneering either in the. House or in ·the Barcoo, because he was gorng to represent that electomte again even though a large number of men had been knocked off the roll. He was not living on politics, like the hon. member for Cook. If he were out. of politics he could still earn his living at his trade ~she did beFore he came in. As to the charges the hon. member brought forward, he w~s certain that lOO ont of 110 names knocked off had never been for the last six months qut of the Barcoo electorate. \Vith regard to those men who had been working on Terrick Station, t.h.e hon. mem~ h_er allowed they ·had been camping a certain t1me, and would he say that Terrbk was in the same division of the electorate as North­ampton Downs o.r Ravembourne? Some followed the occupation of sca]pers, and were nE'ver on the station books as .employees of the station· but strll they were residing on the station, and there lmd been no endeavour on his part or on the part. of his friends, to stuff the roll. AiJ they bad en de~ vonred to do was to get registered the l)ames of persons who .haq a right to be on the roll.

T.he PHEMIER thought it was about time that this recrimination ceased, ~tnd that they got to busines9. Ther:e had been a good deal of unnec,essary lo9.uacrty, and they mnst remember that the time for Parliament to sit was getting

gradually shortened. He hoped that hon. wem­bers, instead of indulging in recrimination, would seriously consider the Bill. If there was a general disposition to talk election ma.tters this evening, h.,""" not inclined to be a party to it, and, unless hon. members would assist to pass ·the Bill with fair criticism and fair consideration of any amendments proposed, be should certainly proceed with othc,r business on which there would b~ let'S contention.

Mr. KIDSTON was very glad to hear the Prt>mier Iuake that statement, because he did not think the hon. gentleman should waste the time pf the country over a m<asme nf that sort, but that be should withdraw it. The hon. mem­ber for Cook, for the purpose of showing some reason for the appointment of a principal elec­toral registrar, read an ext1 ad fl om a Western newspaper, and a quantity of anonymous state· ments. The hon. member was evidently afraid to give the name of his correspondent, or his correspondent was ashamed of his own name, and did not sign his statements, so that hon. members might put them aside. But even if the statements referred to did prove that an attempt had been made to stuff the roll in the Barcoo ele-ctorate, th&t was no argument in favour of the appointment of a principal electoral regis­trar. All that the r,rincipal electoral registrar could do would be to furnish the revision court with fresh information, and that could be done now without that officer, ns 11 claims passed by tbe bi-monthly courts were duly advertised, and the electoral registrnr had hi~ agents going about and findinP" out what electors had lrft the district or were otherwise disqualified. Ther<'' was not the slightest justification for the appointment of a principal electoral regi;,trar.

l\lr. McMASTER regretted very much to hear the r_emarks which had been made by the Premier, and hoped the h(Jn. gentleman would not witbdr:;,w the Bill. If any argument were needed in favour of the appointment of a princi­pal elPctoral regic•rar th;y had it in what they had heard this Rfternoon and ev<-ning. The hon. member for Rnckb:ompton seemed to think that the electoral rolls fnr thiR year were complete, but that waR not the fact, as the supplementary rolls would not be completed until the first Tuesday in February. If therte was one clause in the Bill which it was worth while passing that session, it was that relating to the appointment of a principal _electoral rrgistrar. His duty would be to revise the vuri,us n,l!s and supple­mentary rolls of the colony, and he w<.nld do that a.s he received the roils every two months, and not leave the necessary inquiries to be made at the end of the year, as was nsually the case at present. The discussion thie afternoon showed the necessity for an ',fficer to supervise the rolls. The hon. member for Barcoo admitted that those men, after they had been camped for a certain number of weeks or months in the electorate, endeavonred t<• get their names on the roll. In doing th,, t t.h<:y were only car­rying out the instructions given them by the organ of the labonr uniuus published in Brisbane. They were to!d how they conld get two· votes, and he took it that the people in the district referred to this afternoon were carrying out the instrnctions thev receirrd. He was a constant reader of the Wor/.'e1', and saw some instruc­tions given in it last week and the week before as to how roll>< could be stuffed. The following paragraph occnrred in the leader of the issue of the lOth instant:-

A householder is entitled to claim a vote as a house­holdet· after he has resided in an electorate for six months. and a hou~eholder whose name is on a roll c~m. if he r..emoves to another electorate, claim a vote

~ec~o;:,~~~!.Oi~~~t~o~~~~. as he l;tas been m th[!..t

Eleation8 Act8 [13 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1489

Further-A househo1der ean have a household vote in one

electorate, and if he resides in another electorate can claitn a residence vote _for the electorate in which he resides. That meant that if a shearer, for instance, had his family residing in one €leccorate, and he went to work for two or three months in another elec­torate, he could claim a vote as a resident without taking his nam~ off the former roll, aad thereby get a plural vote. Of C'Jurse that was against the law, but the Worker told them how it Could be done; and, jurlging- from the deb»te that had taken phce, the 110 men in the Barcoo who had been struck off the roll might havt' he-n re,i­dents in another electorate, and have had their names on other rolls. He Hgreed th<tt if a me,n left his family and looked for work in another electorate, he should not be struck off the roll for that electorate ; but he had no right to be on the second roll unless he were a freeholder. If this officer were appointed he would have nothing else to do hut to attend to these matters, and he would take c:;>re that snch cases were followed up. They heard a gr,,at deal abont the improper things that \V'E>nt on out in the West, and they wanted to try to stop them ; but he did not believe all these charges that were made against tegistrars, and in ord~r to back them up the Government were asking for the appointment of an officer whose uuty it would be to inquire into such charges and see that the rolls were kept as pure as possible.

Mr. KEOGH: He was more than surprised to hear the language used by the hon. member who had just sat down. He re<tlly thought that hon. member understood an Act of Parliament when he read it; but it seemed as if he were completBiy nonplussed. He was one of those who would glarrce over a matter and take it for granted that becau~e he placed a certain interpretation upon it, it must be correct. So far as householrlers were col'lcerned the Act was very pl tin indeod. It stated that a man should be entitled to vote as a householder if hi< house were of the annual v<tlur of £10. He had hou~eholders on the J pswich roll working for him and re,idin::; on his fam1 four miles out of Ip<wich. Tile men rcsidinc: on that fa;rm were entitled to a •·esidenc' qualification. The hon. member f,,,r J<'ortitnde Valley tried to show that it was not pns<ibL~ fnr a m;m having a household qualifk~tion to be entitld to auo~,her qualificati<>n for residence out,ide that of a householder, but he had shown that that was incorrect. He did not wi<h it to go broadcast to the people through Hansm·d that he wa' opposed to the collection of the roll, by the police, He had been one of the first since he cam,, into the House to advocate their collection, a< in the past, by the police. :B'ormerly those who were not on the rolls when ,the police c<>l!ectd the names had only themselves to hlame for it, a' the police had done the work h,moumbly and faith­fully and there had been no complaints. If they returned to that system now there would be no need for this princip•l electoral recdstrar. He could not for the life of him see why snch itn officer was wanted, p1rtict1larly at the end of a session and just before a general election. The Premier had inf,mnerl the o.,mmittee that the public service was to be tbra<hed out to secure one of the best men in the Rervice for the po.,ition, but he held that there were j nst as good men outside the ><er vice as in ic, and if the House endorsed the Bill, and such an appoint· ment was to be made, he hnpeJ a m,1n ,,·ould be appointed who would be like Oresar's wife­" above suspicion." One n:<ttter of gr~at im­portance which he was surprised had escaped the notioe of his leader was tb" counting of the ballots, especially in the casE> of outside electorat''"· The presiding officers in the West were usually the

1898-4 y

overseers or superintendents of the stations, and if Tom or Bill or Jack did not vote in accordance with the wishes of the station it was discovered in counting the votes, and "Walker" was their name in a very short time. His plan would do away with that kin·l of thing, for he would have all the ballot-boxes locked and sent locked to the returning officer, who shouli eonnt all the voteR, and it would not he known where or how a man voted. If the Premier would introduce an amend'ment of the law in that respect it would redound more to tile credit of the Government than anything they h>vl brought forward this session.

i\lr. HAMILTON : In s>1pporting the appoint­ment of a principal electoral registrar he had read a rwrtion of a leading article and had made cer­tain statemenos, giving day and ·date for certain transactions committed by the hon. me!uber for Barcoo, and he had made those statements with­out any comment. The hon. member, instead of attempting to controvert those statements said that he (Mr. Hamilton) lived by politics. That was untrue, and it only showed the extremity the hon. member was driven to in support of hi~ ca<tc, because it had nothing to do with the charges. He (Mr. Hamilton) had never live.d on politics, rror had he been summoned by working men for their wag-e'. Tue statement by hon. members opposite that he was afraid to give the name of his infmma.nt was also untrue, because he would now give it-Mr. Carkeek, the mayor of Blackall-and he did so with that gentleman's ]:Jerrnission. If the hon. member for Barcoo knew, as he had stated, where he had got his informatinn, he must have got it by improper me'1ns, becau8e he (i'.fr. H:cmilton) received it only Ia,t mght by wire from Mr. Oarkeek. It was stra.nge how evil-speaking, evil·thinking apostles of slander wriggled when attacked thermolve<. Like an ancient character, the obnoxious odour the hon. mdmber complained of arose frvrn something disgustingly foul in his own nostril.;. He contended that not one statement he had made had been controverted.

i\1r. TURLgy: The whole of the trouble in conn; c'ion with the Barcoo roll had arisen bec,.tus~ a rnan waR going tD conte;;t the electo­rate in the Government interest and had lately travelled 'hroug:1 the electorate, and had a cnnsiderable amoun~ of influence on the magis­trates residing in the electorate who were pre­pctred to go back on the opinions of other benches, who hat! ree<Hnio<ed that the men to whom reference ha'l b en made possessed the necessary qn,tlification-not because they had ceased to hold the qualific)ation, but because it was thought better to have them off the roll. Hon. members •m his sicle knc•w the writer of the article quoted by 'he hon. mewber for Cook, and, they knew why it was wri, ten. As to the gentlema"R of repute who g >ve tbe hmL m•embe,. the other in­formation, the Government sai'i in 1890 that the m~n was n0t fit ttJ have his name on the commis sion of the peqce, and scl'atched it off; and it was only because he had got hi m self elected t<• the posi­tion of mayo" of Bl1ckall that his name appeared on the commi<sion of the P''ace now. It was reckoned at the time he was scruck off that he was a p Jssihle co,ndi,hre for the Barcoo district in the Ls.i:>,llU' interest. Coming to the argument of the senLt" member for J<'onitude V alley, it was strange the hon. member h'tcl nnt known t,he e-.:istence of the law, ass! ated in the columns of the }Vorker, to he c 'rrect. He h td been mayor of the city of Brisbane, and he knew ther11 were a large number of men livin~ outside the elec­tor·lt.e of Bribha,ne North claiming r~~sidence for outside and hirin~ tin.pot otfices in the city at 5a. oe 6~. a V'{Pek--

Mr. l\fci\fASTER: That is leasehold Mr. TUHLEY: It was not lnsehold ; it was

household ; and the hon. gentleman had given as

1490 Elections Acts [ASSEMBLY.] .Amendment Bill.

good reasons as he had ever heard why they should abolish the plural vote, Accordmg to the hon, member the principal registrar was going to be ar•pninted with the ohj-ct, not of carrying out tho law, but of seeing that the law wasn isregarded, bee~ use he said that we would not have men holding leasehold votes in one elen­torate and reBidence votes in another, 'Vhen a man was <ill the roll wit 'I a leasehold vote and ldt his wife and family, hut still retained his qualitication by paying a certain rent.tl per annum, he was still entitled to that vote accord­ing to law, no n1atter where he \vent. He was not op)JOBed to the proposal to appoint a principal elec· oral registrar, who should have power to deal with a good deal of work that was at present done by the Home Secretary's Department.

The PREMIER: Then why all this talk? Mr. TU RLEY: All that talk had originated

with members on the Gowrnment side who had charged members of the Opposition with tr: ing to stuff the electoral rollB and with advising people to get their names on two rolls ; and he for one would not sit quiet and allow such charges to go forth through the Press uncontra­dicted, The hon, gentleman gave them to understand, "hen speaking on the ~ecund reading of thP Bill, that this principal electoral registrar would be an ,,fficer of Parlian:ent,

'fhe PREMIER: He "ill be virtually by reason of his sahry having to be voted by Parliament,

:Mr, TUHLEY: Every civil servant was virtually an officer of Parliament, but for all that he was under the domination of the head of his depn'tment, The hon, gentleman distinccly st!l.ted on the >ecr•n.i reading that this officer was to be clrmr of pulitic"l influence and to be an officer of Parliament, Now be said that he would be attached to the Home Secretary's Department and be under the direction of the Home Secretary, Why ··hould that be "'? He ought to be in a posJtion where he would be in depend< nt of JYlmist.rs, and not be at. the beck anrl call of the Howe Secretary, and liable to be shifted from his office if he was not a SJ,indess Cl eature who would carry out the behests of the hearl of his departrmnt, He (;>Ir, Tudey) was in favour of the appointment of a p1incipal el<ctoral re~i'­trar, providerl he was r, moved as far as possible from polit'c,,l it.fln•nce, and that he cuuld only be remov<d by a V<lte of the Assem!,ly

Mr. CHI BB wished to speak about the matter of hou.<elwld qual:tication, According to the Elections Act any per"on was entitled to have his name put on the roll if l1e

Is a householder within the district occupying any house, ware onsE:, counting house, office, shop, or other building of thp clear annual value often pounds sterling money, and has occupied the same for six calendar months. He took it that a household qualification was almost synun)'mous with a residence q ual:fication -as actual uccupation wa" rcqni1ed-aud that if a person ·was re-giBtererl in t\\ o electorates, in one for residence and in the other for hou,eholrl, his name should come <•ff one rolL He admitted thu,t there were some forms of househnld qualification where actual residence was not a sine qua non­such, for instHnCP, as a, case where a rnan rented a house on behalf of a rehtiye or friend; but, St•eaking generally, the matter was as be (JYir. Cribb) had p1evt< usly put it, T1·e arguments used a:.:ain,t the clause Ullder cnnsideration were two-first, that the time was inopportune; that they w<,re so near a gener .. l election that it was pr"ctica!ly usele,s app .. inting- a princi)Jal regis­trar becanse it would be imposS>ble for him to get to work and rlo anything to affect that election, and that, therefore, tbe appointment of mch an officer might be delayed. The other argument was that such an officer was not necessary as the rolls could be compiled by the

police, The latter argument had been advanced by the hon, member fur Rosewood and others, He thought that method of compiling the rolls w"s most unsati,fact<>ry, In the majority of the electorates they were compiled hy the police, and a large number of names were allowed tn remain on the roll,, for a conoiderable period, and there were so many other duties being thrust upon the police that their proper function was quite lost sigbt of. As to the argument that the appoiotment of this nflicer should be postponed, because he would not be able to do any good in conmction with the coming general elections, he thonght he should be appointed now so that he would be able to gain experience by watching the elections, and there would be ample uppor­tunities for g·1ining experienc" during any by­elections. Although the Bill might not be all that they might wish, it should be allowed to pass, and the proposal to appoint a principal registrar was a good one.

Mr. STEW ART: If they passed this clanse they would be initiating a new Government department which would involve additional expenditure, and before they agreed to any pro­posal which would have that effect, they should ascertain whet her tbere was any reason for it, 'l'he Bill contemplated not only the appointment of a registrar, but of'" deputy registrar, and he found from the Estimates that each registrar required a few clerks and a messeng-er, so that the expense would be comiderable, The Premier had told them that this ot!icer would have full control over the compilation of the electoral rolls, and would travel over the colony in the per­formance of his duty, but he had not told them what his salary would be, If it were necesmry to h•ve such an officer let them have him, but he had not heard a single reason for the appointment yet, It was said that the appoint­ment would be the means of doinf( away wilh a nu m her of abuses that existed. The first abuse at pre>ent was that it \\as very difficnlt to get on a rolL In the outlying parts of the c< luny it was very difficult to fiud a justice, or a railway st,itionmaster, or a cL"sified officer of the public st-rvice, (lr a schoolnlaHter, and thit:J was ~~ointed out last year; but bon. members opposite placed every impediment in the way of the abuse being remedied, They ouggested that two electors should be sufficient to atte,t claims, hut that was jumped upon by hon, members opposite, And wheu it was pr"l?osed that members uf municipal councils and di vtsional boards should be allowed to attest claim<, they were told that these men were usnally biased politic~lly; but they con Yeniently forgot that justices were appointed for no nther reason than political bias, as not more than 2 per cent, of them belonged to the ranks of Labour. He had submitted the names of sev•·ral respectable citizens to the powers that be, but they had a l been rejected because they were supposed to he connected with the democratic movement., which <>·as the one sin that hon, members opposite could not forgive. This appointment would not even touch the fringe of this abuse. The next abuse was that when a man did get his name on a roll it was exceedingly cliffic,;lt to keep it there, b"cause if he removed to the other side of the street be "'aS markeddownas ''dead," "di>qualified,"or"left.'' ()f conr-e, if this appointment would remedy such a bus-s there \\·as S"me reason for making it. He had never himself doubted the fact, but he bad bee" surprised to hear tbe Premier ar'mitting that political influence had been brought to bear upon the c .. mpilation of the roll•, for did not the hon. gentlentan contend that this appointment would removE" the compilation o£ the rolls from political influence ? But hc>w would that appointment alter the situation in any way? Those who compiled the rolls now were under the charge of

Elections Acts [13 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1491

the Under Secretary to the Home Secretary, who was responsible to the Home Secre"ary, who was responsible to that House. Bnt to w"hom would the principal electoral registrar be responsible 1 Would he Le an official of Parliament, or of the Assembly, or would he not be an officer appointed, as the Under Secretary wag, on the recommendation of the Public Service Board, and liable and subject to P•Jlitical influence, as every other public officer w.ts? How then would 1 he appointment of that officer alter the situation one iota? He believed th-,,t the Bill was bein~; passed to provide means of livelihood for a gentleman who ww;; now in an irnpecunious posi­tion-to create a billet for a gentleman who required a salary. They woulcl get no ns,;istauce from him for that, as it would only be so much monc•y thrown away. If the Government were anxious to give them good electoral Ltw, let them make it easy for a man -to get his name on the roll and hard to get it off; let '-hem "'bolish the system of plural voting, and assimilate the electoral laws with those of the other colonies ; let them, in the words of the late Premier, have "equality of citizenship."; \Vas the hon. member at the head of tbe Government game to come forward with a policy of that kind? He was not; but he came along with a small pottering, tinkering, fiddling Bill of this kind at the very end of the 'essi<m. He wa> astonished at the attack of the senior member for Fortitude Valley upon the Worker. He had always had a very high opinion of the Wm·km·'s powers of per;ua~ion, hut if the hon. member was" good example of their effects, either more capability of persuasion in the Worker or more receptivitr in the hon. member were required. Of course, where the sml was unkindly, no matter how hard the farmer might till it no crop would he raised, and in the case of the hon. member for Fortitude Valley the Worker had to deal with hard, stony, poor, barren, sour ground, and they could not be surprise::! at the result.

The CHAIR'YIAN: I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that clause 2 is before the Committee.

Mr. STEW ART : He should not sit down wit_bout referring to the unwarranted attack made by the hon. member for C.>ok upon the hon. member f.Jr Barcoo in connection with the attestation of certain claims. If a man brought to a justice of the peace a claim fille<l up, and the justice of the pe,ce not only asked him whether the statements in the claim were correct, but also put him on his oath, a; the hon. member for Barcoo had done, how could the justice of the peace be held to blame? He could imagine creatures of the party to which the hon. mcornber for Conk belonged going about the countrv setting traps for men like the hon. member for CBarcoo. He would like to ask whether the inclividnal who had filled up a claim, which h~ afterward< with­drew, h>td been prosecuted, not only for giving false informati•m, but for deceiving a justice of the peace? But he supposed the gentleman who did this was of the right colour, and nothing was clone.

Clause put and pas~ed. Clause 3 put and passed. On clause 4-" Amendment of 49 Vie. No. 13,

s.ll "-Mr. DHAKE moved the insertion of the fol­

lowing, at the beginning of the cLtuse :-In the 2nd paragraph of se(~tion 11 of the principal

Act, after the words "police magiBtrnte," the words "who is not also an electoral registrar" are inserted. Tl:e object of the amendment was to meet the cases referred to on the second reading by the hon. member for Toowoomba-the c"ses that occuered at Cunnamulla and :Yiackay, where the police magistmte was also electoml registrar, and sat on the bench to revise the list ot names objected to by himself as electoml re,;istrar. It

was not desirable that a gentleman holding those two positions should sit in judgment on his own work, and the amendm<nt simr'ly provided that where a police magist-Nte was also electoral registrar he should not sit in the revision court.

The PREMIER : In many parts of the colony it would be extremelv inconvenient if the person appointed to perform the duties of electoral registrar were debarred from sitting on the bench a"'~ police ma,~iRtrate.

i\Ir. DRAKE: Only in the revision court. The PRE:\IIER: The amendment went

further than the hon. :<entleman had represented, bec,use it was atta,ching a disqualification to a police magistrate simply b cause he happened to perform the functions of electoral registrar. It would also prevent the revision court being completed in case no other justices chose to attend, and he could not see his way to accept the amendment.

Mr. SMITH : The p:Jlice magist-rate was deprived of the privilege nf voting at elections in order that he might be perfectly impartial, and he no reascm to donbt the impartiality of police magistrates who presided over revision courts, even th<>ugh they performed the duties of electoral registrars. They knew very well th.at the court' were very often composed of magis­trates who were partimns, and it would be very unwise to prevent a police magistratefr,)m sitting, because he was the most impartial person on the bench at such courts.

M•. GLASSEY: There was not much in the argument tbat becauile a police mav,istrate had not a vote he was necessarily impartial. Did th" hon. member for Bo "en know that a District Court judge could preside ut one of those courts, and Yet had a vote? \Vould he disfranchise a District Court jud;>;e because he was allowed t-o preside at a revision court?

Mr. SMITH: I think he should be in exactly the same position as a police magistrate.

Mr. GLASSEY thought that both a police magistrate and a District Court judge shoultl have a vote, but he held that a police magistrate who was alHo an electoral registrar should not he aliowed to adjudicate on his own work. The statecn•nts which harl been made of what had occurr- d at Cunrwmu!la ami :Mack:ty furnished the stron,;est possible argument in favour of the amendment, and he trnsted it wonld be accepted by the Premier.

The HON. G. THORN thought the argnment of the hon. member f, t• Bowen was unanswer· able. In the interior of the colony the only magistrates sitting in those courts who were not hiaoed were the police magistr.,tes, and he should be very sorry mdeed t-o se~ electoral matters rem~ved from their jnrtscliction because they b:>ppened to be electoral registrotrs. Although the police magistrates in such case~ 1-1ent out or cau;;ed to be oent out to electors notices calling on them : ,, show eo use why their name; should not be rcmnved from the roll, it was on the ad vice of the police that they acted, for the police wer< the persons who marked the roll, and the fact of his having sent out the notices was not at all likely to influence the deci~ion of the police ma_g-istrat.e.

The PRE}IJER: On reflection it seemed to him rnorP aqd nl•)re unrea8onable that they should prevent <t police magistrate actiug in such case~. A po:ice rn::tgistrate i.s~ut-:d snunnnnsos, warrants, anrl other leg· d instruments ; and they might as well insist that he s\wuld not sit in u case where he had issued a summ<ms, a-; that he should not sit on a n'gistration court bt;ca,nse he was the electoral re-gistmr for the district. He did not see why hon. memlx•r,; should have any appre· hension as to the integrity of " police magistrate acting in such a capacity.

1492 Elections Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Mr. BROWNE thought the opposition to the amendment wa" absurd, seeing that the clause itself provided that if an electoral registrar at­tested a claim--,111d it was his duty to do that if the claimant so deoired~he ehould not be allowed to sit on the bench when that claim was being heard or adjudicated upon.

Mr. LEAHY : The arguments of hon. mem­bers opposite seemed to be very inconsistent, because if there "as one thing more than anuther that they had repeatedly hurled against members on the Government side it was that country magistrates could not be entrusted to deal with cases that came before the revision court. He thought hon. members opposite were making a v •ry great mistake, and were going back U]JOn all the argnments they had advanced f,lr yeaf' past. It might be all very well if they disqualified police magistrates in cases where sufficient other justices were available, but in places in the far W eRt, if they they took them away, there would be nobody left to form a court at all.

Mr. STEW' ART: The hon. member did not seem to understand the objection that had been I'!Lised. The bon. membH for Enng-gera did not object to a pnlice magi~trate sitting on the bench at a revision court, except when he abo acted as electoral regi.trar. The hon. member for Bulloo said that if the amendment "ere agreed to it would cause drfficnlty in the back cou!ltry, and there were difficultie, there aheady; but two blocks did not make a white, and therefore be was surprised that there Hhould be eo much opposition shown to the amendment. In addi­t>on to the duties of an electoral registrar in receiving claims and attending revision courts, he had duties in connection with the annual revision ot the rnlls. He had to examine the roll, inspect ratebooks, and lists of selectors and pa,toral tenants, and, generally, to obtain as much information about every elector as he coulrJ, and then jJlace the result of his investiga­tion9 against the name of the elector. If he found a man was "clisqualified," or had "left," he mar keel him to that effect; and having clone that, he hod to sencl a notice to such persr,n, informing him of the fact. He then had to make up the list, anrl see that it was publishPd in a new"p"'per, and a copy of it posted up at the court-hou'<', or some other public place. Each one of tboee steps "as necessary, and in case of necesoity he had to prove each step.

Mr. LEAHl:: \V hat clause calls upon him to prove that?

Mr. STE\V ART: If a man stated that the list had not been posted up the registrar had to prove that it had been, and if it was said that the list h"'n not been publisned in a newspaper be had to prove that also. The electoral registrar had also to receive objections; make lists of them and publish them; and when the court was called together hP had to submit to it all the informati1m he wus in po:-;sesRion (\f. Subsection l(rr) of cl 'use 23 said the court should inquire into every case in which the electoral registrar had plac-d certain marks against the name of any person, etc. But if that officer were sitting on the bene~], how could be hold an uobias0cl inquiry into his own work? It must be evident t.h:tt he ,. onld be at once juclse an•1 prosecutor. The Premier drew a parallel bet·veen the ctse of the electoral reg-is­tr.tr and that of a police nHtgistrate who issued a warrant or ~umn1ons upon a.n itlforr:Httion ; but the two Ctt>es were encirely d fferent, becan,e, wbile the police magiotra'e heard a cnmplaint and is<ued a summon" against t.be party com­plainecl of, he aft 'rward.' heard b0th parties to the caee, and decided a,'cordingly. But the electoral registrar :>ctually sat in judgment on his own wotk If the hon. gentleman wanted

a parallel it would be that of a Crown prosecutor in a criminal c•oe, who would also have the right to sit as a judge when the criminal he was prosecut­ing was being tried. The hon. men1berfor Bnlloo said that the police magistrates were supposed to hold the balance between all parties, but no one had assailed their integrity except, perhaps, the hon. member himself~by inference. The remedy f.,r the difficulty was easy-in the ap­pointment of more justices; hut on his side they had a still e1sier remedy, because they contended that the whole machinery of the electoral laws could be worked much better without the inter­vention of justices of the peace at all. He hoped the amendment would he accepted.

The HoN. G. THORN Cl)nld understand the hon. member for Enoggera proposing an amend­ment which would lead to a great deal more employment for legal gentlemen, but he could not understand the amendment being supported by the hon. member for Rockhampton Nurt.h. The hon. member should rememb8r that tbe revision courts had to be held as nearly as p lSsible simultaneously, and the only way out of the difficulty would be the appointment of more Di;trict Court judges, and the revenue of the country would g-n in that way. He hoped the Government won id stick to their clause as it was.

Mr. KIDSTO:'II : 'rhe Government were pro­posing in the 4th clause to prevent magistrates who had had anything to do with the attestation of claims from sitting upon the bench when those cl«ims came before the court. 'rh at was in accordance with the be't spirit of English htw~ that a m'>n should not be judge in hi" own case. Yet the Government objected to the amendment, because under the section which the hon. mem­ber for Enoggera proposed to amend :>n electoral registrar, who was also a police magistrate, might act alone, and fovm the whole c<mrt him­self~he might deal with objections to claims brnught before the court by himself, without anyone e].,e having a voice in the matter at all. It must be evident th:>t where the elPctoral registrar was the only person re8ponsible for preparing those cases, he ought not to be the only person to decide upon them. A case happened not long a~o in the Southern distr:ict where a flagrant injustice was perpetrated becau.;e the electoral registrar was the only magistrate present. If the Premier succeeded in defe:tting the at>1endment, that would furni>h a powerful argument for def<'ating the clause.

.Yir. GROOM it1tended to support the amend­ment. He had found in his box to-day two or three letters which he had not; yet bad time to read. One consisted of t·"'·elve pages, and com­menced with the statement that the writer had read hi> remarks on the subject in the Courier, and therefore had sent him particulars of one of the most shameful and disgracefnl case,; that could have occnrred in this or any other Briti,;h colony. The other case was where a person, whose name was at present on the roll for a certain district, but ha·j been ont of that rlistrict for three months, applied for registration in the electorate to which be had removed, a"d was rtfused because he had not been there six months. \Vould anybody ~ay those were not anomalies? In New South Wales registration was a very simple ma~ter; and in Lonrlon it had been decided by the revisin.,- barrister, in one case where there was no furni< ure in the ro• ·m occu­pied by t.he person who8e name was objected to, that a pipe and matchbox on the mantlepiece afforded proof of occupation, and the vote was allowed. That, of course, wa< cutting it. pretty fine. EvPry seRt-ion tLere were mntions of adjournment for the purpose of complaining of the conduct of electoral registrars, and he did not know where it w"s going to end. The appointment of the officer for whom provisitm.•

Elections Acts [13 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1493

W?<! ma,de in cla,nse 3 might possibly prove a remedy, and he hoped it would, but he had no other alternative than to support the amend­ment.

Mr. BA TTERSBY: In the electorate he re­presented there were four electoral diviRions and tl;!e police m"gistrate did hi' best to visit ea~h of them for the purpose of r<"Vi,ing the rolls; but if ~he revisinn court sat in two didsions in one day 1t would be ha.rd to cut him in two with a saw and put him together at ni~ ht again. There had been a lot of t>tlk on the other side for the pur­pose of electioneering, but he did not care what they said. And he did not care what the;· said in the Press alJout him. The clause as it stood was more drastic than he should like to see it and he should certainly vote against the ame~dment. He hoped there would be no further discu•sion about the matter, and that hon. members opposite would show no further irrnora,nce of what electoral registrars were. "

JX[r. DANIELS supported the amendment becap.se he did not think it right that a polio~ ll!agJstrate,. 'Yho was an electoral registrar, should ~1t 1!! a revnwn court. The clause would stop a JUStiCe of the peace who had attested a claim from sitting on the bepch, and if a police magistrate, who was an electoral registrar wa' forbidden to sit in a revision court, he ,;ould h\1-v.e ;no el{cuse for not attesting claims. An electoral regi;;trar should be b<>un•l to atte"t claims, but un~ess he was prohibited from sitting on the bench he would refu;;e to attest any elaim. He had seen claims which had been rejected not becauoe they were not pr<>perly filled up,' but because they were made out on an obsolete form; but when the claims were returned the registrar did not, as he ought to have <lone, send the claimant an up-~o:date form. He was sorry to sa.y that t)le Mllllstry seemed .to try to adopt every po%1ble means to stop men from getting on the roll.

The HOME SECRETARY: To stop men who are not entitled t" be enrolled.

Mr. DANIELS considere(! that every man who lived i~ the country and who obeyed its la\;'s was ent1tled to have his name on the roll but it appeared that the Government considered that a man was not entitled to be enrolled if he was likely to vote against them.

Mr. GLASSEY : Their contention was that police magistrates sometimes sat on the bench, and kept off the roll the names of persons who were entitled to be enrolled. There was no moral doubt, judging from the reports, that in the cases which had occu~re.d at Cunnamulla and Mackay there was part1ahty on the part of the police magistrate, who happened to be elector&] regi•­trar f<lr the district. He did not say that all police n)agistrate,; were partial. Taking them as a whole they were a fairly impartial body of men, but unquestionably there were instances in w hi eh they wore partial. In a p->ragraph which appea.red in the Toowoomba Chronicle, headed "Purifying the Electoral Rolls," it was stated that-a~ reason given by )iinisterialists against an

immedia.te appeal to the country is the neces~ity for purifying the rolls. 1 f we may judge from the recent proceedings at Cunnamulla, one may easily understand why ou-r ::.\finisterial friends are so enamoured of this purifying process. After eome further remarks on that point, the paragraph went on to quote from the Gunnarnulla Comet as follows :-

Mr. S. S. Pegg appeared for the majority of those whose names had been marked off, and .:\Jr. Sachse watched the ease on behalr of the objector (Mr. G. H. A.ustiJl, J.P.). When the Plaim of Joseph llluke came on for consideration, the dull mon0tony ot the proceedings was rudely broken. Notwithstanding that the police magistrate allowed the name of Thomas Anderson a eoa.ch-driver in the employ of Messrs. Cobb and Co.,' to n>main on the rqll, he posil;ively refused to tr<Jat tl,le

claim of Blake, which was similar in every respect to that of Andersnn's, in a likP. manner. ::\lr, Pegg referred in pretty strong terms to the gross inconsistency of the bench. \Vhy were those two claims treated differently, if it was not that the gentleman employed by Cobb and Co. was in favour of the pre"ent adminbtra­tinn and the other man waR not? Then they were told that ti i-; police magistrate was a very impartial individu.,], and he was to be rewarded by prnmotion to Ipswich in consequence of his e'treme fairness ani want of bias. Mr. Pegg, the solicJtnr, referred in very strong terms to the g1·oss inconsistency of the bench, and openly accused the registrar of exceeding hio duty and working in the interests of Mr. Story. Then the report goes on-

::\Ir. Francis J:wtly replied that it was a deliberate lie That was beautiful language to be used by a man in that po,ition, a man who should set an example by restraining himself.

An HoNOUllABLil MEMBER: Any man would have said the same under the circumstances.

Mr. GLASSEY: This impartial gentleman admitted that he was a great friend of Mr. Story. He presumed that he was a friend in more w:'lys than one-that he de,ired to purify the rolls in order that he might favour the sitting member against all competitors.

The HmrE SECI\ETARY : You dare not say that outside.

Mr. GLASSEY: The hon. gentloman would be astonished at what he would say outside, and at what he had said outside. The reporo pro­ceeded-

Xot only did he exceed his duty to prevent certain persons from getting on the roll--

J\Ir. Francis: It is a wilful lie. Another repetition of the same beautiful language. He was glad to know that there were not many magistrates who exercised their func­tions in this manner, but still there was suffici8nt justiHcation for accepting the amendment. The amendment he had given notice of was much more sweeping than that of the hon. member for Enoggera, because he proposed that in no case should a registrar sit in judgment upon his own work in any revision couet. According to this report the police magistrate had to adrLit that he was the party who instructed the police to gather information w hicb enabled him to remove such a large number of names from the roll-in order that he might accorr:plish the work he had in hand, which was to reduce the rolls so that his great friend the sitting member would be safe.

The PREMIER: Was he wrcmg in endeavouring to get information~

Mr. GLASSEY: He was right in endeavour­ing to get truthful information ; but he bad no right to act partially and allow one man to remain on the roll while he removed another who had an exactly similar claim. The reporo con­tinued-

::l!r. Pegg said it was very unfortunate that the electoral registrar and the police magistrate were one and tbe same person, otherwise he would have been able to put the registrar in the box. The police magistrate should have declined to interfere, but that would not have suiced, as thePe seventy-eight persons would have found their names left on the roll if these in{Juiries had not been made. He did not instruct the police to find out whether the persons supposed to hM·e left had actually left, but where th'ere was a doubt in his mind the police rPceived instruc­tions accordingly. He thought this was a strong justification for the acceptance of the amend­ment. In this case the police ma,gistrate only gave the police instructions upon the lines he )Vanted to work his own point.

Th\l HoME SECRETARY: That is not true.

1494 Elections Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Biil.

Mr. GLASSEY: The report said-Had he handecl over the list to the police and

instructed them to find out tht. nec-d:-nry particular, thrre would not have been any cause for complaint.

'l'he Ho;I!E SECRET AllY: That is Pegg'sown paper. Mr. GLASSEY:

But he marked the mf:'n oft' without making these inquiries. a11d it was here that the injustice was done. That was the statement made by a solicitor, and he was there to look aftc>r the inlereots of those wh<, employed him. He (Mr. Glassey) had attended courts in the old country for years, but neYer saw such jugg-lery and dishor,esty and malpractices as he had seen since he had been in the colony.

Mr. Pegg said that the electoral registrar had only given one list to the police, but he did not seek the assistance of the police with regard to the majority of those against whom objections had been lodged. He would like to know the reasons which prompted him to mark off the names or those on the list he had in his possession.

The Police :1\-Iagistrate again remmded }fr. Pegg that he was not present as electoral registrar, and refused point blauk to answer any further questions. He sheltered himselfbehind hJS pohce magistrate­ship. \V hat a piece of subterfuge to resort to, to save himself from the cons~quences of his own wrongdoing ! Assuming that this report was true, there had been an absolute miscarriage of justice.

:Mr. LEAHY: He could nr,t have been com­pelled to answer even he if had been there only as elcctorll] registrar.

Mr. GLASSEY: It was a misfmtune that he could not have been put in the box and placed on bi" oath with rega1 d to his conduct as eledoral registrar.

:Mr. Pegg said that he considered that the electoral registrar bad not ea.rried out his dutirs in a fair and impartial manner, and said that such <·onc1nct sbonld not be tolerated from an official acting in hi:01 capacity.

The Police ::\iae:istrate warmly den1ed that he was guilty of any unfairness or partiality. It was evident that there was a conspiracy on foot to have him removed from the di.:-trict.

l\ir. Pegg acrused the electoral registrar with having ulterior motives for removing the names of persona who were duly qn:t.lified to vote. It was perfectly plain what the ulterior motive was-to remove from the roll the names of those who might Le considered favourable to the opponent of Mr. Story. There was the whole c1~e in a nutshell. Then Mr. Pegg openly stated that the pnlice mBgistrate was actin;c as an agent for the sitting member. ·

The SECRETARY ~'OR PUBLIC LANDS : The statement of a paid advocate.

Mr. GLASSEY: The police magiotrate very naturally warmly Jenied H, and then Mr. Pegg formally protested against the objec,tions lodged, and gave the grounds on which he lodged them. It was then stated that Mr. ]Trances subsequentlv apologised for his outbursts of temper, and ha·d heen promoted to the position of police magistrate at Ipswich. We find a similar eaee at MHckay, "here Mr. Hasenkamp, tbe electoral registrar, persisted in adjudicc;,tiug upon claims as police magistrate, notwithstanding the protest of 1\Ir. Black and othe•·s. Both the Secretary for Public Instruction and the Secretary fnr Lands knew Mr. Black, who protestc·d stoutly against the police magistrate sitting in that case. But, the police magistrate said, "I am bere according to my appointment under the law, and here I am determined to stay." \Vhat for? To do •·xactly what the police magistrate at Cnnnamulla did-to look after the interests of his political friends bv seeing that names ,, ere removed from the roll which would m:::ke it harder for the opponents of the two sitting members for Mackay than it would have been if the rolls had been in a l'roper state. AfLer thoHe reports the evidence in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Enoggera, and the amendment he proposed

himself subsequently to introduce was conclu­sive. In the interests of those gentlemen them­se] ves it would be better to prevent them from occupying such an anomalous position, so that no one in the future could say that they had acted partially. It was altoge.ther wrong tha~ they ,,!Jould be aliowed to adjudicate upon tbmr own work.

The S~'CRRTARY FOR P'CBLIC LANDS : I never heard a more ruffianly attack upon two defence­les-1 Oi vi] servants.

Mr. GLASSEY: There had been no ruffianly at.t.ack at all. He had merely given extracts frmu ne,vspaper:5.

The SECUETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : Do you father them?

Ylr. GLASSEY: They are extracts from paperH circulated in Cnnnarnulla and elsewhere.

The SECHETARY FOR PUBLIC LANDS : It is a most ruffianly attack,

Mr. GLASSEY: It was not a ruffianly attack. Those men had acted most partially, assuming that those reports we1e true. He did not vouch for their accuracy.

The SECRETARY ]'OH PUBLIC LANDS : Why did you not verifv them?

l\ir. G LASSEY : Assuming that those reports were trur, those men were not fit for their posi· tions, and no men should be placed in a similar position in future. He hoped the amend­ment would he accepted.

At twelve minntes pas" 10 o'clock, The CHAIIti\IAN: In accordance with

Rtanding Order 171 I call upon the hon. member for Dalhv to relieve me in the ch•tir.

l\1 r. BEr,L took th• chair accordingly. The ~~ECRETARY FOR PUBLTC IN­

STRUCTION: The leader of the Opposition had taken it upon himself, not to slander in his own name, but to be guilty of what was a gre~t deal meaner than the action of a man who d1d slander another-to read from a newspaper slan­ders, and then say, "If these things be true." \Vhat would the hon. member think of news­paper slander·· rc<td about hi m self. What would he think if he said that the hon. member was called a mean·spirite<l, cowardly gasbag outside the House, and if that were true the hon. m em­was not fit to sit there. Or if he were to men­tion what he had read as to the hon. mem· ber's connection with the celebrated piano case in which a piano had been got. at an extremely low rate from an unfortunate woman. If all these things were true, then the hon. member would be no cr•dit to the House. Of all thin::s which appeared to him dastardly it was the reading- of slanders of other people when,, member will not undertake to father or assert that they were true. That was a charac­teristic of the hon. member for Toownomba. That. hon. member re,,d on every possible occa­sion some abominable calumny of somebody else from s•nne paper, which he would not father, or from some anonymous letter which he said he would merely take for what it was worth. He was sorry to find the le .tder of the Oppoeit.ion following so undesirable an example. \V bat had been all this trumped-up passion about partiality with regard tn the police magi,trate at Cunna­mulla and someone else? The bon. member read frr,m a paper that a police magistrate had act d as a political agent; that instead of doing the duty for which he was appointed had worked for a politieal party. It was his duty to inquire into the truth of •uch articles before he took the responsibility of circulating a slander. He could not imagine a graver accusation. But when the bnn. member charged the police magis­trate of Mackay with any other purpose than dealing with the business that came before him, that gentleman might safely rest upon an unblemished reputation of thirty years. Th~

Elections Acts [13 DECEMBER.] Amtndment Bill. 1495

hon. m!'mber spoke of bias and party feeling, but why d1d he quote from a paver which he knew was opvosed politically to the views he supposed were held by the police magistrate? He could quote frotH papers with regard to th•, hon. mem­ber things that would make hi.; hair stand on end, b"t he would be ashamed b do so. He would not say anytlring about t,he hon. member f•>r Too­woornba, but he would say that the Toou'aomba Chronicle was in the habit ot inserting laudatory articles with regard to one of it' old friends, and obtain from them laudatory article.; in return.

The ACTIN'<~ CHAlR~lAN: I dtem it my duty to romind the hon. member of the question before the Cot11mittee.

The SECRE'rARY F.OR PUBLIC IN­STRUCTION : As the leader of the Oppositi.m had read an article from one Mackay papr·r, be would liko to quote from the JYiackay Chronicle, which was an independent paper-

Take, for instance, J.lr. Black's attitude in connecOon with 'Mr. Hasenka.mp's prtstnce a~:~ chairman of the revit'ion coun. In objecting to the acting police magis­trate presiding at the court of which he is the registrar, Mr. Black wholly forgot that his position ·was very analogous to that of l\ir. Hasenk~tmp, save for the not unimportant diff~?>rence tllat the chairmanship of the revision court is imposed noll'ns roll:'nB on .:VJr. Ha~en­kamp by reason of his appointment as acting poliee magistrate, being inclnded by law amnng the duties of stipendiary m 1gistrate, w. ile Mr. B':1ck as.'"nredly acts in a dual capacity by witnessing claims and there fter adjudicating on them from his place on the ben<'h, where, i:Jy the way, he frequent!,. po~es as a witness, offering evidence. But the law does not compel .\lr. Blaek to sit on the bench during the reYisior. or the rol!s. Rather does the con­sensus of Parliament sny he should not be there, for does the new electoral law not forbid the pre.:'ence of any w0uld-be candidate duri11g the transaction ot electoral court business? rrhus .\1r. Black is doing exactly what he asserts )ir. Hasenkamp "hould not do. That was clear testimony from another witness that the informant, on whom the. leader of the OpposiLion leaned, had been guilty of the offence the hon. gentleman would make the Committee believe the police mogistrate had committed.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: In my opimon the line of argument lately followed ·has been quite out of order, and if pursued again I shall deem it my duty to rule it out of order.

Mr. TURLEY: It was very strange that a member of the Government was allowed to throw calumny or mud and hon. members on the Opposition side were not allowed to reply. The hon. gentleman said the leader of the Opposition did nothing but bring in the opinions of news­papers which he did not father, simply because he wished to throw discredit on somebody out­side or hon. members on the other side. What had the hon. gentleman himself ever done but follow the tactics he described ?

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: If the hon. member follows that line of argument I shall have to rule him out of order. I took the first opportunity of saying that I considered the debate bad been wanflering from the question.

Mr. 'rURLEY: If that was the ruling he would have to abide by it. The Minister had full opportunity to address the Committee, but hon. members on his side were prevented from replyhg by the occupant of 1 he chair.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: I cannot think the hon. member would make that statement deliberately on considerati.m. I have no feeling of partiality, but I have a clear and definite idea of what is in order and what is not in order, and I have no hesitation in saying that an hon. m em· ber pursuing the line of argument pursued by the hon. member would be out of order.

Mr. TURLEY : Then he was to understand that the Secretary for Public Instruction was in order, but if he pursued the same line of argu­ment he would be out of order. The amendment of the hon. member for Enoggera should recom·

mend ilself to every unbiased person. There had bAeu several caties in which the notice of hon. mernbera and of the public had been directed to the anomalous po,iLion in wl,ich p.1lice m 1gistrates and el~:ctural regis; rars were placed tllrongn having to act in a dual capacity; and the object of the amendment was to remove that ancmaly. Hon. member,; on the other side h<td 'aid t11at it was b•comiug monotonous the Wl>Y the uction of electoral r gistmrs was being br .. ught UIJ in that Chamber, and the amend­menL would prevl':nt that for the future. It would place' the electoral registra1s in a far better position than they occnpied at !Jresent. Ii the electoral registur acted upon informa­tion received, that intormation was secret; but whether he acted upon inforrnation or nut, he could mark men indiscriminately M nut entitled t.> remain on the roll. If any hon. member brought" case into a court, he v. ould immediately object if he found Lhat the police magiStrate or judge bad a personal interest in the c,,se. Yet the Government was ende>~vouring, by refusing to accept the amendment, to euabte men to dcal wit.l1 claims in re6ard to which they bad previously dealt in another capacity. The amend­ment would relieve Government otliciab fr"m all sorts of slurs being thrown upon acti,Hs which might be perfectly straightforward.

Mr. HAl\HLTUN : h was a matter for re<ret that the hon. member for B<tlonne had had to leavA through sickue8', becaus_', although the hon. member's exoneration of J\lr . .l!'rancis on the scc .. nd re ,cling had not be ·n ch<tllenged by any hon. member on tbe other side, Jet in his absence the charge had been gone into de novo.

11r. Cl:tiBB d1d not altoge,her disaptJrove of the amendment, although he thought it unneces­sary. There were very few cases in which officers acted in the dual cavacity of electoral registrar and police magistrate, and, seeing that hon. mern~ers on the other side ad vacated the compilati.m of the rolls and the collectwn of information in connection with their revision by the polico, there shm1ld be no IJI<rticular objeccion to the Bill as it stood. If the work was all done by the police, he saw no objection to electoral registrars and police magistmtes sitting on the bench.

Mr. TURLEY: The Gavernment proposal was that no justice of the peace who had witnessed a claim should sit up'm the bench to adjudicate upon that claim, and all that h<m. members on his side desired to do was to extend that principle to electoral registrars.

Question-That the words proposed to be inserted be so inserted-put ; and the Committee divided:-

AYEs, 20. :Messrs. Glassev, Dunsford, Cross, Maughan, Kiclston,

Kerr, Uardacre: Jackson, Browne, ,Jenkinson, King, Keogh, Dibley, Stewart, Turley, VV. Thorn, 3icDonnell, Dauiels, Drake, and Uroom.

NOES, 32. ~iessrs. Dickson, Chataway, Dalrymple, Philp, Foxton,

Murray, JHc.Haster, McGahan, Hood, ~!organ, Finney, )J'ewe l, Fraser, ::-ltcphenson, Oribb, Lealiy, Uollins, Oorfield, :smyth, Oaslling, Lissuer, Annear, Br~dges, Bn,rtbolomew, Grime~. Callan, Buttersby, Hamilton, Lord, O'Connell, :\ioore, and Armstrong.

Resolved in the negative. Mt'. DRAKE auggested that the Premier

should insert the words "except as hereinafter provided"; otherwise there would be a contra­diction between the clause as it stood and sub­section 2 of section 11 of the principal Act, as the clause would constitute a part1al disqualifica­tion of a police magistrate.

The PltEMIER: His attention had been directed to that matter, and to meet the difficulty he proposed to amend the clause by inserting after the word '' pereon," in the 1st line, the words "other than a polic8 magist.rate." If, however,

1496 Elections Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

the moving of that amendment would preclude the leader of the Opposition from propooing the amendment of which he had ghen notice, he would defer it till after that amendment was disrosed of.

Mr. GLASSEY hoped the Premier would not debar him from moving his amendment.

The ACTING CHAill:\IAN : I think the P,rerrlier should move his amendment first. It is evident that if the leader of the Opposition moves his amendment first, and it be carried, it might preclude the l:'remi<'r from moving his; but if the amendment of the Premier be m')ved first, whatever the result may br, it will not prevent the leader of the Opposition from moving his.

The PREMIER : He had not the slightest desire to preclude the leader of the Opposition from moving his amendment ; but it was a question whether, if that hon. member's amend­ment were carried, he could move his afterwards.

Mr. DRAKE contended that the amendment of the leader of the Opposition should be put first. What was in the minds of some hon. membeis was the case in which an alteration was proposed, and then it was moved that the whole clause should be omitted. The leader of the Opposition intended to omit only a portion of the clause. If they agreed to the insertion of cert•in words they could not afterwards omit ths portion of the clause containing those words.

The ACTING CHAII'L\U.N: I think there is ne>tbing to prevent the chuse, as amended, being finally rejected, and therefore, if the amendment of the Premier be carried, there will be nothing to prHent the leader of the Opposi­tion subseqmmtly moving his amendment.

Mr. DRAKE: The leader of the Opposition did not propose to omit the whole clause, but on•ly a portion of it.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN : I appreciate the point the hon. member has raised, but I repeat that there is nothing to prevent the Premier frorn moving his amendment first.

Mr. DRAKE: Then you will allow the leader of the Opposition to move his amendment after­wards?

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: Yes. The PREMIEit: The question of having

police mrtgi~trates to preside in •these courts had been thoroughly thrashed out, and he need not occupy any time in discussing the matter. The p0lice magistrate was the right person to preside. The disqualifica,tion wonlrl attach to other officers who had attested claims, and they should have sufficif'nt faith in police magistrates to deal with matters of this kind. H<i! moved the amendment of which he had given notice.

Mr. KIDSTON thought the Premier might g~ve them some reason for making this excep­twn. He had not heard any reason gi ,·en vet.

Mr. BATTERSBY rose to a point of ;,rde1·. It was usual after an amen•3ment had been moved to put it from the Chair, ard be hoped the hon. member for Rockhampton would allow the amendment to be pnt before he spoke upon it.

Mr. KIDSTON said there was an alternative to making this exception in favour of police magistrates, and that was the creation of a sufficient number of justices. He inferrr d from the fact that the Premier had not given any rea~on.s that he was relying upon his brutal ma]onty.

Amendment put and passed. Mr. G LASSEY : He did not intend to dic<onss

his amendment at any great length. He believed that a gentleman who took considerable interest in seeing that persons-were registered-hereferred to Dr. Culpin-bad been accused by the hon. mAmber for Fortitude Valley of tt&testing claims for the Oxley and Fortitude V alley electorates

and then sitting on the revision court. He took this opportunity of saying that sue~ a statem~nt had no foundation. The only occa.wn on w h1ch Dr. Culpin pre>ided at a revibion court was in April, 1H97. That was in connection with ihe Valley electorate; he had never presided at a revision court for the Oxlev electorate. 1f the Chief Secretary bad been induced to insert the provioiot: on account of that sup­posed abuse, be could as>ure him that there was nothing in it. The clause must prove very lllischie\'Ous, because in some parts of the country the only person a' ailable for the work was a justice of the peace, as in the case of the de ctorate of his hon. friend the member for Barcoo. He moved • the omission of the sub­section With a view of inserting the following :-

Xo electoralTe-gistrar shall act as a member of any court during the revision of any annual or bi-monthly list under a penalty of fifty pounds, to be recovered on summary conviction.

Mr. McMAS'rER asked whether it was com· petent for the Committee to omit the whole of the clause that had been amended. He did not think they could omit that which the Com­mittee had affirmed, unless upon recommittal.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: I have already given my ruling. The amendment of the Chief Secretary ha" been carried, and there is nothing to [1revent the leader of the Opposition from moving his amendment.

The PREMIER could not see that any great injury or inj nstice "ould attend the insertion of tile p"r"graph in which his amendment had already been c 'rried. The hon. member appeared to ,,gcee that the man ""ho attested a claim and afterwards acted as a member of the revision court should suffer some penalty. He was not di,;posed to withdraw the clause, but would be willing to consent t<l a reduction l'f the penalty to £25. The provision would not debar pro­vincial magistrates from attesting claims if they considered them bond fide.

1\Ir. HARDAORE : The clause, a• it stood, would include elc ctoral registrars. In places like Emerald, Jericho, and other towns in the W ~st, there were no police magie;tmtes; but there might be the elcctoml registrar, the railway statiOn­master-who might be a justice of the peace­ana perhaps only one other justice of the peace in the di.trict. It was at all times, in such places, very difficult to form a revision court ; and when the electoral registrar and the justice of the peace who had attested the claims were debarred under the clause, the result would be that they could not get a bench for the revision court at all. The clause would work out in that way, and would be hard upon those small townships.

Mr. KERR: There were some townships in the \Vest that were not so favourably situated as the places t<• which the bon. n,ember for Leich· hardt had referred. He knew a township in the Barcoo electoral e where there were only two justices of the JlL•Ce, and if one attested claims and thE· electoral regihtrar was barred under the clause, they could not get a bencb for the revi­sion conrt, at all. The amendment of the hon,. member for Bunrlaherg was a very reasonable one, and onght to be accepted.

Mr. BRO\VNE: After hearing all the argu­ments about ~he clan>e he thought it would be better to omit it altogether, but if it was to remRin in the Bill the amendment was a reason­able one. An electoral registrar who attested a ciairu, and thus a~'>isted .to get men on the rolls, was prevented by the Premier's clan se from sitting on the bench to revise those c.laims. But if he disqualified a man, or a score of me;n, he was not .debarred from sitting on the ·bench and adjudicating on those cases.

Election$ Act8 [13 DECEMBE~.J Amendment Bill. 1497

The PREMIER : Only so far as those cases are concerned.

Mr. BROWNE: In the other caseo it was the same. The leader of the Opposition asked that he should be debarred from adjudicating if he m~trked a man disqualified, and that was only fair. If a justice of the 1 eace was to be dis­qualified fr0m adjudicating on a case where he had allowed a man to get on the roll, in all fair­ness he should be clisqualitied from sitting on a case where he had clone his best to kncck a man off the roll. He believed it would be better to omit the cla.use altogether. If carried it would virtually mean that there would be nobody in the fa.r out places to attest claims.

Mr. HA]{DACRE: CJauselluf the principal Act provided that not less than two justices of the peace resident in an electoral district should constitute a registration court. If it should happen that a claim h~td been attested by one "f the only two justices available the result would be that no court could be formed on that occasion. Th~tt was what would occur in dozens of cases in the far out districts.

The PREMIER : Then you have got the police magistrate.

Mr. HARD ACRE : In many places there was no police magistrate. In his district there were four divisions-SpringsurP, Emerald, Alpha, and Rockhampton. At Rockhampton and at Spring­sure there was a police magistrate, and in the former place plenty of justices of the peace. At Emerald and Alpha th~re were only justices of the peace, and they were often difficult to get; and, as he had stated bdore, if two of them came to form the court, and one of them had attested a clain;1, the court c<>uld not he constituted.

Mr. KIDSTON : It seemed to him that the sole object of the clause was to put still further difficulties in the way of getting claims attested.

The PRE}HER: That h<>s been your text all the evening.

Mr. KIDSTON : It had been his text because it seemed the truth about the matter. He could not understand the poeition of the hon. gentle­man on any other supp,lsition. A justice of the peace who simply attested a claim was to be deb&rred from adjudicatin::; upon it, while the man who had got up all the evidence on which the court was to pronounce a verdict was to be permitted to adjudicate. None of the arguments against it seemed to have the slightest effect upon the dovernment. Their motive was to put more difficulties in the way of men getting their names on the roll.

Mr. HARD ACRE was in favour of the Bill on the whole, especially for the provision for the appointment of a principal re~istrar, but if this dause passed it would render registration courts in the country districts unworkable. Circum­stances in the country electorates were quite different from what they were in Brisbane, where half a dozen justices could be found by going clown Queen-street, and he hoped that time would be given for the consideration of the clause before it was allowed to pass.

Mr MoDONNELL agreed with what the hon. member f•·r Leichhardt had said with regard to the difficulty of forming registration courts in the country electoratecl. It was a difficult matter even now to get a justice of the peace to sign cl:>imo, and it would be still more difficult if this clame were allowed to pass. With reference to a cnarge made by his hon. colleague, :Mr. McMaster, the other night, he had received a letter from the gentleman to whom his col­league referred, stating that he had never sat and adjudicated on Oxley claims as the hon. member interjected the other night, and offering to pay .£20 to the Brisbane Hospital if the hon. mem.ber co1,1ld p1~ove that he had sa,t on the Oxley cc;mrt for registration or revisi0n.

He said the only court he bad sat on was the Valley court once or twice­he believed it was only once, and Messrs. 'White­hill, H,ode, and Verney also sat. He also stated that be had sometimes been in court when a slight informality in a claim attested by him ~ad been remitted to him by the court fur alteratwn, and such claim hacl been returned to the court and adjudicated upo11, bnt not by him. Tnat letter was signed by Mill ice Uulpin. The fact of the matter was that the statement that this gentleman ~at Olt revision courts in com' ection with claims which he atteskd himself was entirely wrong, because in the first place he was 1wt a resident of the Oxley electorate.

The ACTING CHAIHMAN: Will the hon. member make it clear what is the connection with this case and the clause before the Com­mittee?

Mr. MoDONNELL: His colleague had re­ferred to a certain gentleman, who bad conte~ted a suburban constituency, going round with a bagful of claim" which he filled in and attested, and afterwards sat on the bench when those claims were being dealt wit h. The letter he had read proved that that gentleman bad never s~t on a revi&ion court before which any claims which had been attested by him had come up. His colleague should be more careful in making charges with a view to damaging the candida­ture of that gentleman for a certain electorate.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN : The hon. member will not be in order in pursuing the subject any further.

Mr. McDONNELL hoped that the denial would receive the same prominence in Hansard as the hon. meiJ!ber's charges. With regard to the clause, he hoped it would be omitted, as it would press harshly upon people in the country district~.

Mr. MoMASTER asked permission to say a few words in reply to his colleague.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: It will certainly be out of order. 1f the ban. member does reply, he must do it very briefly. .

Mr. Me MASTER said that he had mentiOned no name. He had not even mentio11ed the name of the electorate, but his colleague had ad­mitted that he knew the person referred to, and stated that the nature of his occupation enab.ed him to go about among the people and attest claims. He n,ow .repeated that a magistrate had sat and adjudicated on clains that he had attested. His colleague had insinuated the other night that he had got his information from the hon. member for Oxley, but he had not.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I shall have to rule the hon. member out of order.

Mr. MoDoNNELL : Take up Dr. Culpiu's challenge.

Mr. Mo:\1.ASTER: He took up the challenge, and said that he had sat upon the bench when claims that be had attested came before him.

Mr. KERR hoped that the clause would be withdrawn, as it was likely to prove "the last straw" in the outside districts. If it was passed it would cause people to osk, with a united vnice, for an electoral law something like that in force in the adjacent colonies. Anyone in a Western constituency who was believed to be a supporter of a certain political party had the greatest diffi­culty in getting his claim attested, even by electoml registrars, withont such a clause as this.

Mr. GRI.MES: There were very few districts in "·hich there were not some half-dozen justices of the pe~ce, in addition to who1ll school teachers, statioi;lmasters, and Civil servants could also attest signatures. He was in favour of the clause, a" it would prevent magistrates and would,be members of Parliament from abusing t;heir posjtjqn, >!ll;ld p).aoing sitting members of

14il8 Elections ilcts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendment Bill.

Parliament at a disad V»ntage. The electoral law prevented n1Pmbers of Parliament and candidates from sitting on regiFtration courtR ; but with regard to the latter, in the eye of the law a man did not bec•nne a caudidate until he was nunli­nated, and the result was that in Brisbane and ehewhere would-be candidates bui scoured the district, filled up and l1Gte"ted claims, and then "a' on th•, bench and saw them through. That was an unfair advantage to ~ive would-be candi­dat, s, ,;ne! it greatly outweighed the few dis­abilitie-s which hon. members opposite said would b experiencorl by <'lect"rd in the far-off districts.

Mr. GLA8SEY: The boo. member for Oxlev w:>s smarting under some little difficulty that h-e had experienced in the Oxley electorate but at the same time he admitted that some penons would he inconvenienced, if not disfranchised, by t~e c!ause. In thq Croydon, Burke, and Greg·ory rhstncts there were many places where ther,· were no railway official-, no State school teachers and no Civil ·:ervan>s, and only very few justices, who could be got to attLdt claims.

Mr. LEAHY: Name one. Mr. GLASSEY: There were at least twenty

elec>orates in the Vllony where a large number of people woulrl suffer gross injustice if this clau'e were carried, and he hoped the Premier would agree to its omisRion, ur accept his amendment.

:\ir. TURLEY was surprised that the Govern­ment should insist upon this clause, but they could see the reason for it from "hat was said by the hon. member for Oxley, •. , ho contended that a po,·.ible candidate bad a great ad vantage over the sitting member because he could attest claims and then sit on the bench to adjudicate upon those claims. In bet it seemed as if some hon. members did not care what injustice was done to the people in connection with their electoral rights as long as they could make their own position secure. It was all VAry well fot• the Government to talk about their good inten­tion", but good intentions did not do awny with injustice. They would have to judge the Go­vernment by their actions, and as a matter of fact they were placing ;;till more obstacles in the way of people who Vvanted to get on the rolls. The hon. member for Leichhardt had pointed out that there were only two magistrates in his electorate, and if either witnesse,! a man's claim that claim could not be dealt with.

The PREMIER: Then create more magistrates. Mr. 'l UHLEY: That was unnecessary,

because the whole system of having claims attest• d by jn.·Jtices was a farce. The object of the introduction of the system in 1892 was to make it difficult to get on the rolls. Neither Civil servants nor teach r.; cared to atl st claims, and therefore this was an insidious attempt to incrc·asL: the difficulties in the way of \V estern men. One man had explained to him that nlthongh he had lived in an electorate for eight months he thought he was disqualified, because hP had taken a job outside of it for three weeks. It was all very well , or hem. m em hers opposite to say that th ' majority of working men were .•o vile that they would do anything to get on the rolls, but they were just as fair as any body else, and it was unfair for the Government to introduce :tn amendment which would have the effect of preventing them from exercising their rights.

Mr. HARDACRE did not think the Premier was treating the Committee fairly when he failed to come to any compromise on this impor­tant clause. He held in his hand the Western Champion newspaper, in which he found adver­tisement~ that revi~ion courts would be held at \Vindorah for thA Gr~gory, Barcoo, and Bulloo districts. There was no doubt that there were not, in a great many instances, sufficient magis-

tratec; to constitute a court without the fear of the court breaking down at any time through one of the magistrates who had attested claims having to retire. The Premier suggested the appointrnent of more rnagist.rates to get over the difficulty, but first of all he had to find men who were willing to undertake the duties, and then men who were competcut. As far a" be was concerned, he intended to stay here a considerable time before allowing the clause to pas,> in its present shape. Tbe Premier should at least make some provision that, in c:1se a jus­tice of the peace ceased to act on the bench bec;;.use he had attested the claim, the remo~ining members should be able to constitute the court. That would meet some of the objections which had been raised, and certainly the clause should not be paRsed without some such provision.

Mr. KIDS TON: When it had been abundantly shown that the clause would only further limit the opportunities which peovle in sparsely populated districts now had to get their names on the roll and when it bad not been shown that the present system of allowing magistrates who had attested claims to adjudicate upc•n them had resulted in any ,,vi!, what could be the object of the Government in trying to force that clause through the Committee? He was beginning to be rather pleased with the action of the Govern­ment and their bUpporters on the question, becausn while it could have very little effect upon the rolls that would be in use at the next general election, it would have a big effect in enlightening public opini"n as to their intentions.

Mr. DUNSFORD bad hitherto been silent on thP Bill, but it was the duty of members on his side to protest against this clause. If they ha,d increased the number of persons who could attest claims there might be some reason in putting this restriction upon magistrates who did so. It had been stated, hut not proved, that would-be canclirlates who were justices of the peace had attested claims and sat on the Bench while they were passing through.

The TREASURER : That was the complaint of the hon. member for Barcoo.

Mr. DUNSFORD: There might have been exceptional cases, but it was never wise to legislate for exceptional cases. He had never heard of any trouble having arisen at Charters Towers from justices who had attested claims having sat on the Bench.

The PREMIER: All the arguments against the clause might be concentrated into an appre­hension that there would be a deficiency in the number of justices to constitute a court. The hon. member for Leichharclt had very pertinently pointed out that if a court only consisted of two justices, and one of them had to absent himself frum the bench on account of his having wit­nessed a claim, the court would be dissolved. But that difficulty was easily removed. Some time ago he instructed the department to make out a list of the magistrates in the different electorates of the colony. That return had not yet been compiled. There was no desirB to restrict men from getting on the roll who were honestly entitled to be there, but there was snch a con­tinual representation about the manner 111 which the rolls were compiled, on account of the con­stitution of the bench, that he really thought it would purify matters if those who bad attested claims did not adjudicate on the claims they had attested. He would promi•e, if he found, when the return he had referred to was completed, that any elec'oral districts was shorthanded in the way of magistrates, that want should he remedied.

Mr. LEAHY, replying to the lH,n. member for Leichharclt, said that he knew most of the magistrates in the West, and he might inform the hon. member that there were five in the

Elections Acts [13 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1499

district of Windorah-namely, Mr. E. J. F. P. Jone", of Eulbertie; J. M. Craig, of Whitula; Mr. P. Hammond, of Ten ham; Mr. J. Vvall, of Canterbury; and E. P. H. Birt, of Keeroongoola. Then there was the overseer of the rabbit board, who a coupl~ of months ago was a mugistrate. There was a school and a telegraph officer, and a gentleman who had bought n stathn in the vicinity, and had been living there ft>r the last two months. He did not know any place that was better provided with magis­trates than \Vindorah. It bad been said that magistrates were so negligent that they would not form a court ; yet it wa' said also that if they witnessed claims that would prevent them from forming a court-:" court which they were not likely to attend in any case. Ei·en if only two justices formed a court, :ud one of them had witnessed claims that came before the court, they could proceed with the consioeration of all the other claims and leave those which either of them had attested to he considered by another bench.

Mr. HARDACRE admitted that he knew nothing per>onally about Windorah, but thought the hon. genUeman bad pretty well proved the difficulty which he had pointed out.

Mr. LEAHY: There is no difficulty in forming a bench there.

Mr. HARD ACRE: There was a difficulty in his district at any rate. Suppose three magis­trates could be got to form a court, and only two remained, if one of them had witnes"ed claims the court must be dissolved. He suggested, as a way out of the diiliculty, that a justice of the peace might sit ou the bench until the claims which he had at•estecl came up for consideration, and then he could retire" Of course that woulo necessitate an alteration in the constitution of the court, hut the clause might be poetponed and an amendment drafted which would meet the difficulty.

Mr. KIDSTON : The real objection to the clause was that justices of the peace would refuse to attest claims, as it would prevent them sitting on the bench, thus placing a still further obstacle in the way of men getting their names on the roll.

Mr. GLASSEY: The only attempt at argu­ment in favour of the clausp had been made by the h•m. member for Oxlev, and he was driven to the conclusion that the· clause had emanated from that hon. member. Evidently the Govern­ment intended to insi<t on the clause, in which case it would be :mother inducement for the people to put forth more strenuous efforts to h"'ve a thorough change in the electoral system.

The HOME SEURETARY: The chuse might limi<; to an infinitesimal extent the possi­bilities of an elector getting on the roll, but its great advantage would be that it would purify the bench by the exclusion of partisan magiK­tr•tes. He had seen justices of the peace sitting at street corners holding ~~ sort of booth for the attestation of claims. Those men were unqnes­tionably partisans, and it was undesirable that they should he allowed tn sit on the bench and adjudi<:1-te upon the claims they had attested.

Mr. JENKINSON : The gentleman wh0 had contested the Wide Bay election against him, and was an a vowed candidate for the next elec­tion, had hem round the electorate filling up 'l.nd attesting claims, and had afterwards sat on the registration and revision courts and adjudicated upon those claims. Such a thing, though not prohibited by the law, was very injudicious on the part of any intenrled candidate, and should not be allowed, as it l'ractically constituted a claim on the electors so enrolled when that person came forward to solicit their suffrages.

Mr. KIDSTON contended that every man, whether he was a justice of the peace or not, who

helped a citizen duly entitled to be enrolled to get his namd on the roll did a deed that was worthy of credit, whatever his motive might be in the matter.

Mr. HARDACHE contended in favour of ,]]owing one jnstrce, in his electorate, to adjudi­cate .

The HOME SECRETAHY: If one justice could adjudicate at one place, one should be per­mitted to adjudicate nnywhere; and if one nwgistrate could deal with one claim he could deal with all claims.

Mr. HARD ACRE did not think the objection was a fatal one. It could be provided for.

Mr. STE\V ART did not think the difficulty would be removed by the appointment of more ju"tines, because there was nn inducement to them to attest claims. In fact, they would decline to attest them in order to be qmtlified to sit on the bench.

Mr. KIDS TON again argned that the effect of the clause would be tn prevent qualified persons from getting on the roll.

Mr. DUNSFORD contended that they should do all they could to make it easy for people to get on the rolls, and he challenged hon. members on the other side to show him one case in which a justice of the peace had neglected to do hrs duty.

The CHA.IRMAN :, I hope the hou. member will confine his remarks to the clause before the Committee.

Mr. DUNSFORD hoped the Premier would agree to some compromise, or to the postpone­ment of the clause,

Mr. BROWNE: The action of the Qqvern­ment slwwed that they could noc trm;t the p~ople. Their object since 1892 had be8n to keep them off the rolls so far ns possible.

At twenty-five minutes past 2 o'clock, The CHAIR:YIAN: Under Standing Order

171 I call upon the hon. member for Bnllon, Mr. Leahy, to take the chair.

Whereupon Mr. LEAHY took the chair. Mr. HARDACRE explained how the clause

would operate to the detriment of persons who were qualified to be on the rolls.

Mr. KIDSTON pointed out that many people had no time to go hunting about for votes, so they paid someone to go round for them, and it was possible for that person to sit on the bench to adjudicate upon tho&e cases.

Mr. KEOGH thought that after the remarks of the ban. member for Leichhardt, the Premier should withdraw this portion of the clan 'le.

Mr. BATTERSBY contended that hon. mem­bers ovposite were ignorant of the provisions of the Brll, or they would not be resisting such a reasonable clause.

Mr. McDONNELL regretted that thP Go­vernment had not seen their way to medify the chuse to meet the reasonable objections of the Oppositi·J!1. He had no objection to the Bill s•> far as Brisbane was concerned; but it wonld be most unjust to outside districts to deprive justices of the right to atte,t claims and sit in the revi,ion court. He believed the Bill was a con­spiracy to unseat certain Western repn senta­tives, and that it had been introduced in order that more important measures might be rnshed through.

Mr. GRIMES referred to the ease with which "'" j'Ustice might get over the r,rovisiou excepting jmtices who attested claims from sit­ting on the revision court by quoting the case of Dr. Culpin, who claimed to be a resident of both Taringa and Fortitude Valley.

Mr. McDONN:ELL further addressed himself to the question of what constituted residence undor the Elections Act.

1500 Elections Acts [ASSEMBLY.] Amendwent Bill.

The ACTING-CHAIRMAN c~J>lled the hon. member to order for wandering from the ques­tion before the Committee.

Mr. MAUGHAN congratulated hon. mem­bers on his side for the st~J>nd they had taken to assert the rights of the r·ersons they represented. Tn his district, in conse~uence of the scarcity of justices, it had been fnquently necessary to adjourn revision courts at Gayndah. The Govern­ment should seriously con,ider the advisability of making substanti1l additions to the roll ·~f magistrateR, t>~pecialiy in the outside di4ricts. He thought it wnnH be preferable to refer such an important matter as election refcrm to the vote uf the people.

Mr. DANIELS supported the amendment as :>great improvement upon the clause proposed in the Bill. In common jus tic'· to the electoral regi,trars they should not be allowed to sit on the bi-monthly court. The amendment, if accepterl, could do no possible harm, even if it did no good.

Mr. KIDS'f0N: In view of the great im­port~J>nce of this clause he could not permit 1t to be put without the strongest protest he could make. Any attempt to lessen tbe chances of the people to be fairly represented should be resist.Pd to the last extremity. The apathy of c':rtain members representing country rlistricts was incredible. ·

The ACTING CHAlHMAN called upon the hon. m em her to confine himself to the question.

Mr. KIDSTON mov8d tht the Acting Chair­man leave the chair. It was discreditable that hon. members should lie <•n the bencheswhensuch an important question was being discussed.

1Y1r. BATTERSBY rose to a point of order. The only matter that could be discussed was that the Chairman leave the chair.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN : The hon. member is in order.

Mr. KIDS TON: The m~tter before them was of so much importance that every country mem­ber should support him in the contention that an a'ljournment should take place until hon. members had had further time for reflection. He moved that the Acting Chairman leave the chair and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The ACTING CHAIR~.1AN: I gather from the remarks of the hon. member that he is moving this motion for the purpose of extending debate. In my opinion it is moved for obstruc­tive purposes, andl refuse toputitunderStanding Order 133.

Mr. STEW ART: Ga((, gag! Brute force! Mr. KIDSTON: Can I not move that your

ruling be disagreed with? The ACTING CHA1R:HAN: No. I do not

think so. Mr. KIDSTON: There was nothing in Stand­

ing Order 133 which prevented him "'''ving that the ruling be dis1greed with. He moved the motion accordingly.

Mr. DUNSFORD concluded that the Chair­man c,mld not prevent a motion for his ruling being dioap:reed with being put.

The ACTING CHAIUMAN: I have take1;1 the best advice I can get in the Chamber, and I am adv:serl tbn.t I have taken the correct course.

:VIr. DUNSFORD : The Standing Orders did not give the Chairman pnwer toga[\' members.

Tne ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. mem­ber must not use such an 6Xpre"sion. It must be evident to hon. member• th~tt if I allowed debate on this question it would be intermin­able.

~\Ir. KIDSTON: It seemeri to him the Chair­man was appropriating to himself a power which he did not possess.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: My ruling !)annat be liscussed.

Mr. KIDSTON !l.gain contended that the Chairman had no such power as hedaimed. He moved again that the Chairman's ruling he dis· agreed wit h.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN : And I refuse again to put such a motion.

Mr. HARDACRE rose to a point of order. The Chairman was not entitled to pre:vent :ll· men\ber disputing his r.uling.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: That is no point of order. I rule that under Standing Order 133 this matter cannot be discussed. ·

Mr. STEWAR1': Gag! A dirty tool! Mr. HARD ACRE moved that the Chairman's

ruling be disagreed with. The ACTING CHAIRMAN : I refuse to put

the question. Mr. HARDACRE : The Chairrnan could not

refuse. The ACTING CHAIRMAN: If the hon.

gentleman will not submit to my ruling I wiH use the powers conferred on me.

Mr. HARDACRE moved that the Acting Chairman leave the chair.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: That cannot be put until some business intervenes.

Mr. BROW?\E asked whether it was compe· tent for the Acting Chairman to decl<tre any motion obstrncti ve and to refuse to put it?

The ACTING CHAIR:YIAN: No; only the question that the Oheirman leave the chair.

Mr. BROWNE: Since ·be had been a member of the House he had never known the Speaker or Chairman r;,fuse to put a motion disagreeing with hiR rulir•g.

Mr. STEW ART : ThiR is 'lhameful ! Tne ACTING CHAIRMAN: Order! The

h<m. member is out of order for using such language.

Mr. STJ<~WART: Gag, gagt A dirty-tool! l\Ir. BROWNE had never known the Speaker

refuse to put a motion to disagree with his ruling.

Mr. KERR svpported the contention tha.t the effect of the clause would be tu rr.ake it difficult for men to get their names on ";roll.

Mr. DUNSFORD could not agree with the clause or the amendment. The clause was a gratuitous insult to the general body of justices of the peace. He suggested, as a way out of the dilnculty, that the retirement of "' justice of the peace ohould depend upon objection to his adju­dicating upon a claim which he had attested being taken by tbe claim~J>nt or his agent.

Mr. CROSS thought the suggestion of the hon. memher for Charters Towers was a com­promise which the Government should accept.

Mr. KEOGH also nrged that the suggestion of the hon. member for Charters Tower• should be accepted as a compromise, as it ought to be admitted tbat the clause as it stood could not be accepted by hon. members.

Mr. BROWNE agreed with the hon. member for Charters Towers that the clause was a direct insult to the general body of the justices of the peace. It waR a question whether it was possible for them in that amendment of the electo;rallaws tu so far amend the Justices Act as to rPs.trict the powers conferred under that Act upon .justices of the peace.

Mr. GLASSEY regretted to bear the sta.te­ment from the other side that there wm;tld be no compromjse: He could tell hon. members .that tbHe was sufficient strength on his side to demand a rc~J>sonable compromise, ~J>nd th(tt strength would be used if necessary.

MEMBERS on the Government side: Use it! Mr. GLASSEY asked the Premier to consider

the suggestions w hi eh had been made to remove tlhe di:\ficulty, by allowing,the court to c~J>rry on :with one member for the collllideration of claims,

Elections Acts [13 DECEMBER.] Amendment Bill. 1501

in connecti·on with which one of the justices had been objected to on the ground that he had attested them.

The PRE:VliEH. was prepared to give atten­tion. to any reasonable criticism, or to any sug­gestion with >< view to a compromise, but he could not see that the suggestion of the leader of the Opposition had anything to recommend it. Its effect would be to alter the constitution of the court, and he doubted if the Speaker wonld not consider such an amendment outside tbe scope of the Bill. He intended to adhere to the clause, which was plain and intelligible.

Mr. GLASSEY regretted that the Premier could uot see his way to accept what he con­sidered a reasonable amendment. He had no desire to alter the constitution of the court, pro­viding the hon. gentleman's clause had not made it necessary; and for which clause there was no j-ustification whatever.

Mr. GlUMES: It had been stated tho,t he was the author of the clause under considera­tion, but he had had nothing whatever to do with it; he had never seen it until the Bill came to him with his other papers from the Govern· ment Printer. At the same time he was pleased when h<> saw such a provision made for preventing the scuffing of the rolls.

Mr. MoDONNELL urged the Government to accept the compromise that had been offered from hi' side.

Mr. KIDSTON did nut want any compromise to be accepted. So detestable did the clause appectr to him that he would sit there till Christmas, if by so doing he could prevent its be­coming the law. At the same time, if the clause could be so amended as to remove the additional difficulty of getting on the roll, he would have accepted it hours ago.

Mr. DANIELS was addressing the Com· mittee iu support of the amendment, when,

At 8 o'clock, Tl,e ACTING CHAIRMAN said he would

resume the chair at a quarter· past 9. At a quarter-past 9 o'clock, The CHAIRMAN resumed the chair. Mr. DUNSFORD addressed the Committee.

In the course of his remark' he suggested, as a compromise that no justice of the peace whn had attPsted a claim should he d, barred from adjudi­cating thereon unless objection was made by any of the part,ies concerned.

At half-past 9 o'clock, Mr. K[DSTON called attention to the state of

the Committee. Qnorum formed. Mr. DUNSFORD c'ontinued his remarks, and

wgain urged on the Committee the advisableness of accepting- the compromise he had suggested ..

Mr. HARDACH.E then spoke, referring to the case brought forward yesterriay by the hon. member for Barcoo.

The CHAIR;J,IAN: vVe are not now dis· cussing the motion of the hon. member for Barcoo; and I ask the hon. member to confine his· remark,; to the qnestion before the Ct>m­mittee.

Mr. HARD ACRE continued his remarks. Ttle CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention

of the Committee to the tedious re]Jetition of the hon. member

Mr. HARDACRE denied that he had been tediously repe1ting himself, and concluded his remark' by advocating compromise.

Mr. DANIELS argued at length against the clau;;e.

At 10 o'clock, Mr. STEW ART called atiention to the state

of the Committee. The CHAIRl\IAN: Attention was called to

the state of the Committee a little while ago. I am satisfied that nhere is a quorum at present in

the Chamber and its immediate precincts, and I decline to instruct the Sergeant.at-Arms to again ring the bell.

Mr. DANIELS continued his remcrks. In his opinion the question had been Kufficiently di· cu,sed. If the Gon·rnmen'; were determined to carry it through they mus: take the conse­quences.

l\lr, STEW ART argued against tLc, proposal befot·e the Committee, contending that el<ctoral machinery. like labour-eaviilg machinery, should be made as perfect as pObe>ible.

Mr. JYIORGAN rose to order. The hon. mem­ber waq not keer,ing to the question.

The CHAIR:vlAN: The hon. member is not addressing himself to the quEstirm before the Ct>mmittee, but I think he" as drawn away by an interjection from the Seeret>try for Public Instruction.

Mr. STEW ART continued his remarks until he referred to the question of federation.

The CHAIR:VIAN : The gur><tion of federa­tion is not before the C Jmmittee, and I mnst ask th<> hon. member to confine his remarks to the auestion. ~ Mr. STEW ART argued further againot the proposal, and referred to the political system in vogue in South Australia.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. lflem4er must confine his remarks to the question before the Committee.

Mr. STEW ART continued his remarks. In reply to an interjec:tion by the hon. member £or Balonne, he said that if thP Government would accept an amendment pro,iding that claims might be attested by two electors bis oppooition, and he believed the opposition of the other me1nhers on his sidP, 'vould ceaEe.

The CHAIRMAN: I call attention to tedious repetition on the part of the f,on. memlwr, and wandering away from the que"tion; and 1 warn him if he continues this line of cunduct there is only one couroe for me to take.

Mr. STEW ART maintained that he had tried to keep to the question the whole time, and thought he had done so. The Government would have :1cted whelv if they had accepted the suggestion made by the hon. mtmber for Bulloo.

Mr. BATTEHSBY thought it was time opposition to the propoeal "as withdrawn, sn that they might get through the business of the seHeion before Christmas.

Mr. ,TACKSON thought that the amendment which had been privately sugge.sted hy an hon. member on the other side mrght have been accPptcd as a solution of the difficulty. Of course if th'l amendment to be proposed by the leader d the Opposition w~re "greed to, enabling two electors to attest claims, the clause might he allowed to pa's as it s'tood. Another com­promhe would be tha-t two justices 'f the pe•ce might be »!!owed to adjnrlicate in regard to claims atte;;ted by themselveil so long as no obj<>ction was taken. 1 t was to be regretted thHt dRadlocks could not be precvented in Parlia­ment, but no blame attached to his 'ide, who had been willing to compromise the matter, and the elector.< '' ould enclorse the stand they had taken.

At a quarter past 11 o'elock, Tbe OHAIRYIAN said : In accorda•1ce with

Stat.ding 0, der 171, I will caH upon the hon. member for Dalby, 2\Ir. Bell, to reiieve me in thr, chair.

::Yir. BELL tool< the chair accnrdingly Mr. BOLES contended that the Government

should enable every man to exercise tbe francbi"e. \V hen th o police collected the namP' for the roll' there bad been no difficulty, and that Rystem was preferable h any which bad followed it.

At twenty minutes past 11 o'clnck,

1502 Elections Acts [ASSEMBLY.] .Amendment Bill.

Mr. DIBLEY called attention to the state of the Committee.

Quorum f, •rmed. Mr. BOLES opposed the clause, as it. would

tend to prevent many men getting the franchise in the country districts. If jus tic• s of the peace could not be trusted to act properly they should be removed from the commission of the peace. He also agre.·d with the view that electoral registrars should be prohibited from sitting on the re vi <ion bench.

Ml'. GLASREY urged the Premier to agree to a compromise by not bringing the Act into force until July next in order to give those who had been struck off the rolls getting on in time for the elections. He suggested the addition of the following proviso :-

Provided that this section shall not come into opera­tion nntillst of Jnly, 1899.

If that amendment were approved of by the Premier he would ask his friends to withdraw their opposition to the clause. He might have an amendment to move further on in the Bill dealing with attestation.

The PREMIER appreciated the desire of the hon. rnember to come to .some arrangement whereby further waste of time would be averted; hut it was only due to hon. members on his side, who had had to undergo a large amount of inconveflience, if not vituperation, that clause 4 should pass in its present shape. He saw no advantage to be gained by accepting the hon. member's amendment. He had no objection to disct1ss the que,tion of attestation within reason­able limits. If clause 4 was passed without amendment he was quite prepared to give lhe hon. member an opportunity of discussing the question whether clause 4 'hould come into opera­tion now or at a later period. So much feeling had been aromed over clause 4 that he did not Eee his way to accept any amendment in the clause. Possibly by tha time they had passed clause 12 they would be in a cooler frame of mind, and he was pr~pared at th>et Btage to give the fullest opportunity for discussing the suggested "mend­ment. That was the only approach he would make to the hon. member. An addendum to clause 4 would only protract the discussion.

Mr. GLASSEY regretted that the Premier could not see his way to accept his amendment. It did not matter to him where the amendment was inserted, and if the hon. gentleman would promise that he would accept it at the end of th'' Bill, he would withdraw his ovposition to clause 4.

The PREMIER: You will have the same opportunity of discussing it then as now.

l.Ir. GLASSEY : Why did not the hon. gentleman eay whether he was prepared to accept the amendment or not? The hon. gentle­man asked too much. His object was that men who were entitled to enrol:nent sh0uld not be debarred from voting at the coming elections through the want of a bench. The hon, gentle­man was always courteous, and should accept an amendment postponing the date when clan'e 4 should come into force. There was no humilia­tion in that.

The PREMIER thought the hon. member was asking him too much. A great deal of warmth had been introduced into the debate, and the merits of the clanse bad been lost sigh& of. It was only due to the hon. member~ who honoured bitH with their support that he should expect the clau'"' to pass without amendment. He was quite willing to discuss the hon, mern­her's amendment after clause 12 had been passed. He desired that every man who was entitled to the franch"se should be enabled to ViJte at the fMthcoming elections, and if the hon. member could show that they were likely to be prevented

he was willing to give him every opportunity to dis· cuss the qu• stion, entirely apart from the feeling which bad been raised by the present protracted debnte. He believed the hon. member was sin­cere in his dtsire to pass the Bill, and he asked hin1 to wuit until they c:.me to c'ause 12, when it could he discns,ed temperately.

Mr. GLASSEY : The hon. gentleman did not reject the amendment on its merits but merely hec;mse of S<l!:'e ill-feeling which had been aronsed. Did the hon. gentleman want to per­petuate that ill-feeling?

The PRgl\liER: He did not expre•s any opinion upon the amendment, but even if it were one which con< mended itself to his approval, he would in•ert it at. the end of the Bill.

Mr. GLASSEY dil not object to that, but why should the hon. gentleman de,ire to post­pone the con8ideration of the amendment in conseque,,ce of the feeling which had been aroused? Taking the dehare as a whole, it had been conducted with a large amount of gqod temper.

The PREMIER : With a large amount of menace.

Mr. GLASSEY: He was quite prepared to make the date 1st of May, instead of the 1st of July, but he wanted a promise from the Premier that hP would accept the amendment at the end of the Bill.

Mr. HARDACRE pointed out that the Premier offered them nothing, as they could discus" the amendment now. The Premier could not appoint justices in time to allow men to be enrolled in tinw for the elections, If it was found that a difficulty arose, it could be remedied after the election.

The PREMIER: At present he declined to entertain the amendment altogether, so that hon, members, in arguing upon it, were only protract­ing the debate unnecesearily. He would not allow hon. members on the Uovernment side to be humiliated merely hecause hem. meml:-.ers opposite chose to keep up a debate on frivolous and irrational lines.

Mr. HARD ACRE: The hrm. gentleman was perfectly right in refusing to allow hon. members on his side to be humiliated, and there was no desire on 1 he Opposition Bide to humiliate them.

Mr. McMASTER: You charged us with funk before, and yon want to do the same :;gain.

Mr. HARD ACRE : They made several offers last night, and they now proposed a still further concessi on. If the •y accepted the Premier's suggestion, it would enable hem. members oppo­site to come back with renewed vig<,ur.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. member that he is not keeping to the question before the Committee.

Mr. HARDACHE was replying to the Premier. The continuous Govermrlent had, prior to the ele~tinnR of 1893 and 1896, passed Acts disfranchi,ing thousand~ of electors, and they were attempting to do the same before the election next year.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN : I must point out to the hnn. member that while it is an understood thing that some latitude is allowed to the leaders of either side when they are con­ferring ns to the desirability of a compromise, it is nevertheless quite out of order for any other hon. memlwr to rl:"'fer to ~mch a C1)n1promise.

Mr. BATTERSBY advised hon. members on the other oirl e to acc"pt the Pre ~1ier's offer.

Mr. KIDSTON felt sorry at the exhibition of temper un the other sidl". He did not want the compromise which had been suggested, because he was opposed to the clause altogether. The hnn. member spoke at length in opposition to the clau~e.

Mr. J ACKSON believed that there was a fec·ling on the ot~er side that he was partly

Elections Acts Amendment Bill. [14 DECEMBER.] Mining Bill. 1503

responsible for the stonewall, because during the discussion on the Mining Bill he had, in reply to continued interjections, said that hon. members on the other side had fun ked three times alrPady after all-night sittings, and would funk again. He was acting- as "whip" of the party at the time, but he did not make the remark as "whip." If hon. members opposite regarded it as a taunt, he was willing to express his regret for the remark.

Mr. HAMILTON said that n" hon. member on his ,jde had been biased b}' the remark of the hon. member. The position was that the leader of the Opposition would not allow hon. members to expre~s their opinion upon his amendment.

Mr. DUNSFORD then spoke at length in opposition to the clause.

At 1 o'clock, The ACTING CHAIRMAN said: I shall

resume the chair at 2 o'clock. The Committee resumed at the honr named. Mr. DUNSI?ORD argued that the effect of

the clause wonld be that when the electoral claims which had to be finally disposed of at the February court, and which would represent some thcnsands of voters, came np for con­sideration, either the -justices who had att.ested claims would be hopping on and off the bench, or there would oe a whol<e~ale strike among them, and numbers of electors would, in con­sequence, be disfranchised. Such a strike would be perfectly justified, for the clause was a gratuitous insult to them.

Mr. MORGAN maintained that the clanse offered no insult to the unpaid magistracy which was likely to be resented by a strike, bnt that the· justices would simply regard it as afford­ing them relief from a portion of their dutie:s. As to the argument that the clause wonld operate to the disfranchisement of a large number of electors, if he thought that would be its effect he would certainly vote against the clause, but he did not believe it would have any such result. There were at present 103 courts in the colony :t[ pointed for the recep­tion of claims and revising the rolls. Of those 103 courts forty-nine were preeided over by justices and fifty-four by_ the paid magistracy. Of the forty-nine presided over by justices no less than thirty-six were easily accessible to police magistrates in various towns, so that all but thirteen of the total number of courts conld be presided over by police magistrates without any difficulty whatever, and in cases where the local j'1stices were disqu:>Iified an adjournment of the court could be arranged to allow of the attendance of a police magis­trate. The Home Secretary could appoint a sufficient number of travelling or relieving police magistrates to visit those thirteen places, and that would obviate any injuetice such as hem. memhere opposite feared might ensue from the operation of the clause. He (Mr. Morgan) wanted to be sure that the clause, if passed in its present form, would lead to no injustice. If the Premier would give an assurance that he would take steps to give every opportunity to persons who had applied for enrolment to be registered, he would vo~e for the clause, but otherwise he would not dn so.

The PREYUER had already stated that it was his intention to see that there was no deficiency of magistrates to pn side over revision courts in connection with claims for enrolment that would come into operation at the ensuing general election, and he could very readily prorni.-e the hon. member for ·warwick that steps would be taken by which police magistmf·es would be provided fur any places where it might be necessary in order to avoid delay in dealing with electoral claims. The clansr had not been introduced with the view of in any way affecting

claims for enrolment in time for the approaching elections, and he extremely regretted that it had been regarded in that light.

Mr. GLAS~EY had already pointed out that the clame would interfere with the courts which would be held in .February and April next, and it was on that account thalo he had 'uggested th:tt the operation of the clause ehould be po"t­poned u :dl after tbo,e conrts had Lee!' held, otherwise a l>trge number of electors mrght be disfranchised. He had proposed his amendment, not bee •n•z it wonld be of p<·rmanent utility, hut because it wou!d be of temporary utility; and he wonld sugge"t th:<t they 'hould now take adivi"ion on it, and that the Prerr,ie"'honld !l.fter­wards insert a provision postponing bhe operation of the clause.

Mr. KIDSTON: The hon. member for War­wick was the only member on the Government side who had attempted to give a rational justifi­cation of the clause, but even he. admitted that in t,hirteen cases travelling police magistrates would have to be appointed in order to enable the neces,ary courts to be formed, and said he would not support the clause without a stipul>t­tion that sufficient stipendiary magistrates would be appointed for that pnrpose. Practically, mernl>ers on that side had asked for noLbing more ; for all that th£·y asked was that tbt' clause should not apply to the two courts in J<'ebruary and April.

Mr. 11cDONNELL: If the spirit shown by the hon. member for ·warwick had been exhibited by the Governwent earlier in the debate there would have been a bett,,r progpect of settling the difficulty which had arisen. The clause practically preuluded any justice who had had anything to do with a claim frum 'itting on the bench, and he thought they should have some explanation of that proposal.

The PRE~IIER: That was thr:.,shed out last night, and the hon. member is :ww stonewalling. If this >tonewalling i• continued, I ,.m exonerated from any proruis" I have made.

Mr. McDONNELL did n•>t think it had been discus-ed previously, but he would not prolong the rlebat.P. on the qtte»Lion.

Mr. KERR quite agreed that if travelling police maKistrates were appointed that would meet the difficulty, provided the comts could Le >tdjourned, but he did not Bee how that could be done, as under the present law all courts in the colony had to be he!tl on the same day.

[The lwnr ap~ointed by Sessional Order for the meeting of the House on \V ednPsdu vs­namely, 3 o'clock p.rn.-h:>ving arrived, the sitting of Tuesday, the 13th instant, terminated.]