iLtgi.slatHH ca:ouncH.

Adjowrnrnent.
(1 l\fAY1 1888.]
ADJOURNMENT.
TRAINING·SHIP ''VERNO~."
Mo~ion
(Sir HENRY PARKES) proposed:
That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. McELHONE: I wish to take this
opportunity to thank the Secretary for
Mines for a donation of £2 to the St.
Vincent's Hospital. The hon. member forwarded me a cheque for that amount, and I
sent it on to the officers of that institution
as a donation from a good Samaritan.
Mr. SCHEY : I wish to express my
dissatisfaction at what I consider to be the
reticence and discourtesy of 'the Minister
of Public Instruction, with reference to
certain questions which I have put respecting the training-ship Vernon. This
is not the first time that I have had reason
to put questions on the paper on the subject, and on all occasions I have been met
by the Minister of Public Instruction
with the greatest reticence and discourtesy.
To-day the hon. member practically said
that he would not furnish the information
asked for. He said that the information
was not at hand, and that it does a great
deal of harm to ask these questions.
This is a matter of great public importance. I spoke privately to the Minister
on the subject, and told him that there
was a matter of public importance coming
out of it; and I am sorry that no information can be obtained. It is discourteous
to hon. members to flatly refuse to give
them information. It is within my knoll'ledge that the information for which I
have asked can be readily obtained ; and
I do not think that such reasons as I have
heard ought to stand in the way of an
inquiry into the working of the institution.
Mr. INGLIS : I am ::;orry that I have
been so misunderstood that the hon. member should accuse me of being discourteous or reticent. That is not my nature.
I have always fmdeavourcd to be as open
and courteous as possible. If the bon.
member will make application in writing
respecting any matter under my administration it will afford me great pleasure to
give him the fullest information. The
hon. member has misunderstood the answer which I gave to-night. I simply said
that the superintendent of the Venwn was
under the impression that such questions
might militate adversely to the future
placing in life of the unfortunate boys.
It is acknowledged on all hands that the
First Readings.
4351
boys are well-trained on the Vemon. It
is absolutely impossible under such a system as is in force in connection with the
Vernon to follow the boys into their after
life, to find out whether they are good or
bad. No possible system could do that ;
yet that is what the hon. member wants.
The percentage of boys who turn out well
stands in proud pre-eminence compared
with that of any similar institution on the
face of this planet. I cannot see that any
good result can follow from asking such
questions, whether they are prompted by
c~riosity, malice, or any other wrong motive. I do not attribute any such motive
to the hon. member; but the matter has
that aspect in the minds of unthinking
people, when they see the questions and
do not know the reasons for the answers
given.
Mr. HAYNES : I desire to inform the
Premier that to-morrow I intend to ask
him questions respecting the proposed
military review at Melbourne ; and as to
Sir Graham Berry's agitation fot· the exclusion of foreign men-of-war from the
ports of Australia.
·
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 12·41 a.m. C\Yednesday).
iLtgi.slatHH ca:ouncH.
Wednesday, 2 llfay, 1888.
Assent to Bills-First Readings-Answers to QuestionsLeave of Absence-Ohristian Chapel Land Sale BillCriminal Law Amendment Bill (second rcading}Public Works Bill.
The PRESIDENT took the chair.
A SSE NT
TO BILLS.
Royal assent to the following bills reported:Consolidated Revenue Fund Bill (No.4).
Victorian Coal-mining Company's Extension Bill.
FIRST READINGS.
The following bills were received from
the Legislative Assembly, and read the
first time : Vine Diseases Act Amendment Bill.
Silverton Tramway Act Amendment
Bill.
4352
Answe1·s to Questions.
[COUNCIL.] 0Timinal Law Amendment Bill.
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
Mr. SIMPSON: I wish my hon. friend,
1\:lr. Creed, to be good enough to postpone
all the questions standing in his name
until this day week.
Mr. CREED said that he thought
ample notice had been given of the questions to enable them to be answered, and
it was due to the House that some explanation should be given as to why the answers bad not been furnished. However,
as the Repn;sentative of the Government
asked him to postpone his questions, he
had no alternative but to withdraw the,rn,
and give fresh notice for next week, which
he would do.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
Resolved (on motion hy Mr. TRICKETT):
That leave of absence be granted to the Hon.
"William Hilson Pigott fo1· the remainder of the
session.
CHRISTIAN CHAPEL LAND SALE BILL.
Bill read the third time.
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
SECO::<D READISG,
Mr. SIMPSON rose to move :
That this bill be now read the second time.
He said : I wish to point out to the House
the state of the law at the present time,
and the necessity which exists for its
amendment in the direction contemplated
by the bill. Under sections 446, 44 7,
448, and 449 of the Criminal Law Amend.ment Act for certain offences which are
-named in section 446, the magistrates
·dealing summarily with those offences
have power to inflict the punishment of
whipping, and the punishment of whipping
is regulated by section 44 7 :
For boys, the number of strokes inflicted
shall not exceed eighteen-and for youths the
number shall not be less than six, nor more than
·twenty-and the number of strokes to be inflicted shall in each case be specified by the
court, with the place of inflictioi!. In every
·case, the offender shall be kept in custody for
·not less than six, nor more than ninety-six hours
after conviction, in such place as is aforesaidand the whipping shall be inflicted during such
custody, and not less than six hours after conviction.
Section 448 provides
that any boy, or youth, prosecuted under the
four hundred and forty-sixth section, may-if
it appears to be his first offence-be discharged
· after six hours' detention, upon some approved
person on his behalf entering into a recognisance,
in not less than twenty nor more than forty
pounds, for the offender's good behaviour during
the next six months.
Then section 4.49 provides for the whipping of persons above the age of 18 who
are guilty of .the offences mentioned in
section 446, and the section goes on to
say that these offences
if committed by a male person apparently of or
above the age of eighteen years, shall be ec1ually
an offence, punishable under that and the then
next section by detention in custody, and by
whipping-And, in the case of any such person,
the court may order a number of strokes not less
than ten nor· more than thirty.
Amongst other offences mentioned in section 446, for which the punishment of
whipping may be inflicted, I may mention
one or two:
(a) who, in company with any other person,
commits any wanton or unprovoked assanlt-01·
(b) in any public place, or in \'iew thereof, exposes his person, or commits any other indecent
act, or uses obscene or blasphemous language-or
(c) in any public place, or in view thereof,
writes or marks upon any building, pavement,
wall, hoarding, fence, scaffolding, or any footwayor road-way, any obscene or disgusting word,
or form, or sign-or
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ii
(f) wantonly destroys, damages, or disfi~ures,
or attempts to destroy, damage, or disfigure,
any portion of a public building, statue, work of
art, or pedestal, or structure, belonging thereto,
or any tombstone, or monument, in any cemetery
or churchyard-or
(g) cruelly maims, wounds, or injures any
dumb animal.
The magistrates, having power to punish
any person who commits these offences, and
some others mentioned in section 446, have
power to say, and must say, that the
offender shall be kept in custody for not less
than siJC, nur more than ninety-six hours after
conviction, in such place as is aforesaid-and
the whipping shall be inflicted during such custody, and not less than six hours after conviction.
The sum and substance of the section is
this, that it applies equally to the punishment of whipping on boys, youths, and male
persons above l 8 years of age. The punishment must be inflicted within ninety-six
hours. The offenders can be kept in custody for the period of ninety-six hours,
and at the end of that time, whether the
punishment of whipping has been inflicted
or not, the offenders may walk out of the
place of their confinement., and are altogether free. It becomes necessary, now,
to inform the House that in another sec-
Oriminal Law
[2 l\Ln:, 1888.]
tion of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act-section 440-thcre is a provision to
this effect :
In all cases of summary conviction, the person
convicted - -
And, of course, the convictions I have
already spoken of are summary convictions.
may appeal to the next court of general sessions,
appointed to be holden in the district where the
cause of complaint arose-or, where the day of
sitting is within ten days, then to the next
court but one after the conviction-Provided
that such person shall give to the prosecutor,
nnd also to the clerk of the convicting justices,
a notice in writing of such appeal, within three
days after such conviction-and shall either remain in custody until the sessions, or shall
within eight days after the conviction, enter
into a recognisance with two sureties, before one
of such justices, conditioned to appear at the
sessions and prosecute such appeal, and abide
the judgment of the court thereupon, and to pay
such costs as shall be awarded.
So that if a person convicted under the
sections whicli I have mentioned chooses,
as he may, to gi\'e notice of appeal,
the effect of his giving notice of appeal, although he enters into no recognisances whatever, either by himself or by
-sureties, is to prevent the punishment of
whipping from being inflicted upon him.
The appeai cannot be heard until the next
<fUarter sessions are held at Darling hurst;
.-and, in all probability, inasmuch as the
·quarter sessions are only held every two
months, the appeal will not be heard until
long after the ninety-six hours, during
which the punishment of whipping has to
be inflicted, has expired. In remote country
places, where the quarter sessions, I am
sorry to say, are held only twice a year, if
a person is ordered· to be whipped, and he
-appeals, the hearing of the appeal cannot,
as a matter of course, come on untilloug
after the expiry of the ninety-six days
during which the whipping may be inflicted. So that any man, by giving
notice of appeal, absolutely escapes thll
punishment of whipping. "When this was
brought under my notice, and it was
•brought under my notice in reference to
one particular case, really a very bad case,
where the man escaped the punishment of
·whipping, I thought it necessary to endeavour to put the law upon a proper footing,
.::mel to provide that people convicted of
-offences well deserving the punishment of
'Whipping, might not escape by simply
Amendment Bill.
4353
gl\·mg notice of appeal. It has got
abroad-! fancy because of the point haYing been taken in one particular case-at
r- ll events it is known that there is this
rlaw in the law; and the House may depend upon it that unless there is an amendment of the law, if a person is convicted
summarily of the offences to which I have
referred, and ordered to be whipped, he
will, as a matter of certainty, give notice
of appeal. The punishment of whipping
will be suspended, the prisoner will remain
in the lock-up, where he has to serve this
period of detention, that is four days, after
which he will walk out, and if the punishment of whipping is ordered by the chairman of quarter sessions to be inflicted it
cannot be inflicted. The preparation of a
bill to amend the law has been a very
difficult matter.
Hon. members c:w
hardly realise, from the statement which I
have made, the very great difficulty that
there was in putting the matter right.
It required great consideration and great
care, and a great deal of trouble has been
taken to endeavour to put the law on a
right footing. I think it right to mention,
in order that hon. members m~ty not be
unclet· a misapprehension, that when I
said just now that if a person gives notice
of appeal, the punishment of whipping is
suspended, I do not mean that as a
matter of absolute law the punishment is
suspended. The mere giving notice of
appeal does not suspend the punishment
unless some act of Parliament says that it
shall; but no government, in a ci\·ilised
community, having the public interests to
deal with, would order a man to be
whipped when he has given notice of appeal, although, as a matter of law, they
might have the right to do it. If a man
thinks himself aggrieved by a sentence, and
the law gives him the 1·ight of appeal, it
would be almost an unwarrantable and
indefensible proceeding, I should think,
for any person in authority to inflict the
punishment upon him whilst the appeal
was pending. As a matter of fact, therefore, although not as a matter of law,
the appeal does prevent the punishment
ft·om being inflicted. The bill provides
that any person convicted of the offences
which I have mentioned sl1all, as a conclition of his having a right of appeal,
enter into his own recognisances, not with
any sureties, before a ju:>tice of the peace,
4354
Criminal Law
(COUNCIL.]
to appear at the quarter sessions, and
abide the judgment of the court, and pay
such costs as shall be awarded. It is not
likely that any costs would be awarded at
all. Hon. mem hers will see that a person
need not enter into recognisances with
sufficient sureties, as a matter of course, if
he chooses to remain in prison for the full
period of the sentence, that is, for four
days. But it is provided that, to give him
a right of appeal, the prisoner shall enter
into his own personal recoguisance to appear and abide by the judgment of the
court. It is necessary that I should explain why such a provision as that is in
the bill. Unless a provision of that kind
is introduced a man who gives notice of
appeal does all that the law requires at
present, and that will suspend the punishment of whipping. He may go to prison
for the ninety-six hours, and then at the
end of that time walk out. At Darlinghurst the chairman of quarter sessions
may confirm the sentence if he thinks fit;
but the man is not there, and if he was
there the chairman of quarter sessions
could not legally order the whipping to
be inflicted. The object of rendering it
necessary for a person to enter into re- ·
cognisances is that he may be under an
obligation to appear when the appeal comes
on. If he does not, then tho judge will
order the recognisance to be estreated.
Probably the consequences would be nil,
as the man might have no means. It then
becomes necessary to deal with the case of
a man who, having entered into a recognisance, does not appear ; because you
cannot make a person appear simply by
requiring him to enter into a recognisance.
There is, therefore, a provision in the bill
that the chairman of· quarter sessions, if
he upholds the conviction, may order a
warrant to issue for the apprehension of
the man who has defeated the law and
suspended the operation of his punishment
until by law it cannot be inflicted. Subclause II of clause 3 says :
If the appellant is not before such court at
the hearing of the appeal from any such conviction a,s aforesaid, the court of general sessions
(without prejudice to any proceedings or reme ..
dies by the sureties (if auy) of such appellant,
and also without prejudice to auy powers of the
Crown), may, if the conviction shall be affirmed,
direct a warrant to be issued for the apprehen~ion. and bringing of such appellant before any
JUStlce of the peace.
[ M1·. Simpson.
Amendment Bill.
I do not think it desirable that the warrant should be for the apprehension of tl1e
person to be brought before the next court
of quarter sessions, because even in Sydney
that court would not be held for nearly
two months, and in a country place four
or five months might elapse before any
sitting of the court of quarter sessions took
place ; and it would be unjust that a man
should be detained in custody during the
whole of the interval between his apprehension and the sitting of the court. Not
to make the proceedings too harsh, there
is a provision that when an offender is
apprehended he should be brought before
a justice of the reace; but that justice of
the peace is to have no discretion in dealing with the matter further than to order
the defendant by writing under his hand
to be whipped at such time and place as
he may appoint, within ninety-six hours
after such person has been brought before
him. Practically, it comes to this : A
man is convicted before the justices, and
he gives notice of appeal after he has been
ordered to be flogged. The flogging must
take place within ninety-six hours ; but
the notice of appeal suspends the operation of that part of the punishment. He
does not appear at the court of quarter
sessions. The chairman of the court, if
the appeal be dismissed, then issues a
warrant for his apprehension. If he is
apprehended, say at Bathurst, he will be
brought before a magistrate there, who
will order in writing under his hand that
the punishment is to be carried out in the
Bathurst Gaol within ninety-six hours.
The man therefore would not escape what
we must presume to be a well-deserved
punishment. If the offender appears before the court to abide the judgment of the
court, and if the conviction is upheld, there
is a provision to this effect :
Where the conviction htts been affirmed by
the court of general sessions, any punishment
of whipping ordered by the convicting justices
may be adjudged by such court to be c~rried out
at any time within thirty-six hours after the
making of the order on appeal in any case where
the appellant is at the time of' making such order
before the court.
The effect of that is this: If a man is convicted at the Water Police Court, and
gives notice of appeal it suspends the
whipping. He remains in gaol four 'clays.
He afterwards appears before the court at
Darlinghurst, and the judge says, "I order
01·irninal Law
[2 MAY, 1888.]
you to receive the punishment of whipping
within thirty-six hours." The punishment
will then be administered. Another case
is that of a person who does not remain in
prison at all, but who enters into a recognisance to appear, and obtains two sureties.
Such a person does not remain in a place
of detention, but is liberated on account
of the sureties having entered into a bond
for his appearance. That offender is dealt
with in the 2nd clause of the bill. The
man appears in pursuance of his recognisances, say, at Darlinghurst. The judge
affirms the conviction, and orders the
whipping to take place within thirty-six
hours. But if the man does not appear,
then the chairman of quarter sessions issues his warrant, and the man is apprehended and ordered to be punished within
ninety-six hours in the place where he is
taken into custody. I have now given
the whole sum and substance of the bill.
I have endeavoured to explain it as clearly
as possible apart from legal technicalities,
and to convey to the House what is the
present state of the law, what are its defects, and how the bill proposes to remedy
them.
Question proposed.
Mr. JACOB : I rise to a point of order.
I do so with very great diffidence, because the measure, the second reading of
which the hon. and learned member has
moved, is one which is very much required. The defects in the law to which
the hon. and learned member has referred,
are very serious. When the Criminal Law
Amendment Act was being passed I drew
attention to those very matters through
the press ; therefore I think it very necessary that the act should be amended in the
direction in which the hon. and learned
member proposes to amend it. The bill,
however, contains provisions outside the
order of leave, and is not in accordance
with the standing orders. I therefore feel
it my duty to call attention to the matter.
I have mentioned to the Attorney-General
that such was my opinion. The hon. member obtained leave on the 25th April
to bring in a bill to amend the law relating to
appeals from summary convictions in certain
cases, under the Criminal Law Amendment Act
of 1883.
The hon. and learned member then presented a bill entitled " A Bill to amend
the Law relating to Appeals from Sum-
Amendment Bill.
4355
mary Convictions under the Criminal
Law Amendment Act of 1883 in certain
Cases." Those hon. members who have
listened to the hon. and learned gentleman's speech will have noticed from his
observations that the main purport of the
bill is not to amend the Criminal Law
Consolidation Act with regard to appeals,
but to amend the sections in the act which
relate to whippipg. It is laid down in
" May," page 539, that
in preparing bills care must be taken that
they do not contain provisions not authorised
by the order of leave, that their titles corres.pond with the order of leave, and that they are
prepared pursuant to the order of leave, and in
proper form, for if it should appear during the
progress of a bill that these rules have not been
observed, the House will order it to be withdrawn.
Then, standing order No. 121 says:
No clause shall be inserted in any such draft
foreign to the title of the bill ; and if any such
clause be afterwards introduced the title shall
be altered accordingly.
·whereas the provisions of the bill are
clearly to amend the Criminal Law
Amendment Act of 1883, so as to allow
a whipping to be carried out after conviction on the appeal being dismissed. In
section 446 there is a provision which
allows magistrates in certain cases to adjudge whipping, and then the whipping is
to be carried out :
The offender'shall be kept in custodyfornotless
than six, nor more than ninety-six hours after
conviction, in such place as aforesaid-and the
whipping shall be inflicted during such custody,
and not less than six hours after conviction.
It has been explained by the AttorneyGeneral that the whipping can be evaded
by giving notice of appeal; no person can
be whipped after the ninety-six hours have
expired. The object of the bill is to enlarge
the provision in the section, so that if there
is an appeal against the ~entence the court
of quarter sessions can order the whipping
to be carried out at another time than
that provided for under the act. That is
quite different from the order of leave.
It amends the sections of the act relating
to whipping, and not the sections relating
to appeals. No person could possibly imagine by the title that the object of the
bill is to amend the " whipping" sections
of the act.
Mr. SmPSON : 1\fy hon. friend was good
enough when I came to the House this
afternoon to call my attention to the point
'---, -......-
......
~
. ....
~
·--r· •...,
~-
C'1·iminal Lcno
4:356
[COUNCIL.]
which he has raised. I then endeavoured
to convince him, and I am sorry to say
without effect, that the bill does not exceed
the order of leave. I submit. that the bill
is in order.. What is the leave 1 I obtained leave to introduce a bill
to amend the 'law relating to .appeals from summary convictions imder the Criminal Law
Amendment Act of 1883 in certain cases.
And is not this, I ask, a bill to amend the
law relating to appeals from summary convictions 1 lf it is, then it is within the
order of leave. If it can be said that it is
a bill which does not deal with appeals
from snmmary convictions under this act
in certain cases, then it is not within the
order of leave. The appeal sections of the
act, as I have endeavoured to point out to
the best of my ability, give a man a right
to ·appeal, and if he exercises the right,
then he defeats altogether the punishment
of whipping. It is proposed by the bill to
amend the sections in such a way that by
giving notice of appeal, although he may
suspend, he shall not defeat, as he does
at present, the punishment of whipping.
Therefore I submit, and submit confidently,
that it is a bill in all its provisions
to amend the law relating to appeals from summary convictions under the Criminal Law
Amendment Act of 1883 in certain cases.
Sir WILLIA~I MANNING: I think that
the Attomey-General is quite right in his
contention, because really the whole thing
turns on "appeals," and nothing else. If
it were not for the appeal, the whipping
would be inflicted within ninety-six hours,
and there would be an end of it. But because the appeal is· made the difficulty
ari~;es.
·what is provided in tl1e bill i>J
that the appeal shall not have the effect of
enabling a man to escape altogethet·, that
in case of its being upheld there will be an
end of the matter; but that in case of the
appeal being dismissed, he shall receive the
very same punishment, not a stroke more
<>r less, than he would have had if he had
not appealed. The whole thing turns on
the appeal, and absolutely nothing else
that I see.
lYir. R. E. O'CONNOR : I would point
<>ut that there is not one section in the
bill which enables anything to be done
except by the court of appeal. Certain
powers are given in regard to punishment,
under the act, and all these powers are to
.be exercised by the court of appeal, or by
[ ,)[?·.
Simpson.
Amendment Bitl.
justices in sowe way under the authority·
of the court of appeal. It is because of
the way in which appeals are granted that
the whole difficulty has arisen. If there
was no appeal there would be no difficulty; but as the appeal has the effect
practically of letting the offender off the
punishment of whipping, it is necessary to
alter that part of the act which deals with
appeals. This part has been altered by
the bill. Its object is to enable the appeal
court, when the case comes to it, to carry
out the punishment which has been ttdjudged by the court below. I submit that
the bill is clearly within the order of
leave.
1\'Ir. H. C. DANGAR : I should like to
say, in support of what has been so ably
argued by those who do not sympathise
with the objection, that even if thei:e
were nothing in the objection-and I do
not think there is-it would be quite possible•for the House to alte1· the title of the
bill to provide for the case stated by my
hon. friend.
The PRESIDENT : I understand the hon.
member, Mr. Jacob, to say that where the
bill exceeds the order of leave is in the
sub-clauses of clause 3 ~
1\ir. JACOB : My principal point is that
clause 3 giv.es power to defer the whipping
beyond the time fixed by the principal
act. It is enlarging that part of the act.
'l'he PRESIDENT : I may point out that
the argument of the hon. member, l\1r.
H. C. Dangar, wonld hardly apply in the
present case. New clauses may be introduced into a bill at different stages, and its
title may be amended; but at the introduction of a bill, as our standing order says
in concise form :
No clause shall be inserted in any such draft
fm·eign to the title of the bill ; and if any such
clause be afterwards introduced the title shall
be altered accordingly.
I should be obliged, if I were to uphold
the objection of the hqn. member, Mr.
Jacob, 'to direct the bill to be withdrawn.
It seems to me, mi looking through the
bill, that the clauses sufficiently relate to
questions of appeals to enable it to be gone
on with as it is. 'l'hey do not seem to
amend the Criminal Law Amendment Act
of 1883 substantially further than what
arisns. in the appeals under the act, and,
therefore, I think that the bill is in order.
.,.....
--l.-;-a~·~..._-----···
L2
lVIAY, 1888.]
Amendment Bill.
435i
Sir WILLIAM MANNING : There is
Sir WILLIAM MANNING: The very
no doubt that the bill is a proper one to thing which the hon. member thinks is
pass. \Ve are not now considering whether done by the bill, I want to have done.
i.t is desirable ot· unde3irable to have whip- Under sub-clause r of clause 3 there may
ping.
The legislature has determined ·be a great difficulty, and certainly there
that in certain cases there shall be whip- will be under sub-clause III. The flogging,
ping; but a flaw has arisen, by reason of if the conviction is affirmed, is to take
the appeal sections making it possible for place within thirty-six hours. That may
a man to evade that which the law never be very. practicable in the ca~e of Darlingintended he should evade. It is our duty hurst, because, I suppose they have a
now to carry out the law which has been flogger at hand who could carry it out
passed by the legislature. I do not think within the time. But if it happened at
that we can go into the abstract question some remote court of general sessions,
as to whether whipping is desirable or where there is no flogger at hand, there
undesirable. I assume that the policy of might be very great difficulty in carrying
the law is that there shall be whipping in it out within the time. But under subcertain cases-that is, if the magistrates clause II if the man does not appear on
think that the ofilmce is deserving of that his recognisance, what then 1 He is to be
punishment; and if so, it is our duty to see taken before a magistmte wherever he is
that that which the law intended shall not caught, and that may be at a place 500
be evaded by any· defect in the act. I
miles off in the remote bush, and the
think that the principle of the bill is good; magistrate is to order the infliction of the
but I am afraid that it will require a great punishment within thirty-six hours, and
deal of alteration in Committee. It will be probably it could not be done.
Mr. SIMPSON : \Vithin ninety-six hours !
almost as easy to drive a coach and four
through the bill as through the existing act.
Sir WILLIAM MANNING : I beg my
Let us look, first of all, at clause 2. It pro- hon. and learned friend's pardon ; within
,·ides that a man may, on his own recognis- ninety-six hours. Even witl1in ninety-six
ance, evade the whipping. \-Vel!, he gives hours it could not be done at the distance
his recognisance, which he can do at once, where he happened to be caught. I think
:mel he evades the whipping; and when the it will be found that we shall have to go
ninety-six hours expire he walks out.
very carefully through the clauses to see
1\Ir. H. C. DANGAR: Not without giving that after all a person may not have an
an extra recognisance !
opportunity of evading the law. If he is
Sir WILLIAM MANNING: I beg the kept in custody, unless he gives bail, he is
hon. member's pardon ; the Atto{ney- at hand andean be dealt with. If he gives
GenP.ral says he can, and there can be no bail and does not appear the bail can be
doubt about it.
estreated ; something will be done towards
Mr. SmPSON : He can walk out at the securing justice to the country. In that
end of t.he ninety-six hours !
case I should go a little further. If a
Sir WILLIAM MANNING : That is man has given bail and his recognisance
the very thing I a,m desirous of providing is forfeited, and he cannot be found, it
against.
is fair to assume that he has cleared out
1\ir. H. C. DANGAR : Does the hon. and of the country, and we are well rid of
learned member mr.a.n under the bill, or him. I think ~hat we should go through
under the existing act 1 I do not so read the details of the bill with ,-ery great
the bill !
care.
Mr. SIMPSON, in reply : I shall be
Sir WILLIAM l\J.ANNING: If the
hon. member thinks that the man ought very much obliged to my bon. and learned
not to be allowed to walk out l1e had friend, Sir William Manning, if he will
take upon himself to improve on .the bill.
better support the amendment which I
intend to propose. But if the bill stands If there is any:omission in the bill, and it
.as it is, the man can certainly walk out can be supplied ·by my hon. and learned
friend, or by any other hon. member, I
at the end of the ninety-six hours.
1\ir. H. C. DANGAR : Then I do not shall be only too glad to accept it; but I
understand the meaning cf the words in do not think that there can be any imth'e clause !
provement on the bill-I am not speaking
13 s
4358
Criminal Law
(COUNCIL.]
in any spirit of egotism-because I have
thought it out in every possible way. It
is the result of very great consideration.
I am qnite aware that if a man gives
notice of appeal and enters into a recognisance, he, at the expiration of the sentence of ninety-six hours, will walk out.
Unless there be an amendment made in
the b:lll increasing the original sentence,
the offender must, as a matter of course,
when the sentence is up, walk out. But
if the House will take upon itself to say
that two magistrates shall have the power
to order the man to remain in custody for
more than ninety-six hours, or until he
gives a recognisance, well and good. That
may possibly be done; but it will be an
alteration of the present state of the law.
The legislature has thought fit to say that
ninety-six hours shall be the maximum
time during which a man shall be detained
in a place of detention. Then the suggestion probably may be that you are not to
give a man the right of appeal unless he
enterH into his own recognisance, and has
two sureties, who bec'Jme bound for his
appearance at the next sessions.
Sir WILLIA~I MA~Nnw: Unless he
abides where he is to receive his punishment!
Mr. SIMPSON : Suppose a man is sentenced to be imprisoned in some place for
ninety-six hours, and suppose he abides
there until the next sessions are held, then
the chairman has no power to order him
to be punished, as far as the whipping is
concerned. The time within which it had
to be inflicted is past and gone; he might remain in gaol for two months or five months;
but he would get no whipping after all.
The object of the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was that persons guilty of the atrocious offences
punishable by whipping should not be imprisoned for a long time ; but that they
should be whipped speedily, and allowed
to go away and earn their living instead of
being a charge upon the state. Every
man sentenced to a whipping has a right
of appeal; but it would be very hard to
say that a man sentenced to ninety-six
hours' detention, and forty-five lashes
should remain in gaol, perhaps four or
five months, until the appeal is decided.
There is an extraordinari provision in
section 440 of the principal act relating to
appeals, which, if construed literally, would
[Mr. Simpson.
Amendment Bill.
require that every man who gives notice
of appeal, and who has not entered into
recognisances with two sureties for his
appearance, shall remain in gaol until the
next sessions. No judge, however, is likely
to so literally construe the section. I hope
that the second reading will be carried ;
and I shall only be too glad to accept any
amendments which would make the bill
more perfect.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read the second time.
In Committee:
Clause 2. Every person convicted of any
of the offences mentioned in the four hundred
and forty-sixth section of the principal act
as amended by the act fortl;l-seventh Victoria
number eighteen, who desires to appeal from 5
the conviction, shall, to entitle him to appear
therefrom, in addition to; and within the
time, limited for giving n9tice of the appeal,
pursuant to the four hundred and fortieth
section of the said act, enter into his own 10
recognisance before any justice of the peace
conditioned to appear at the sessions and pro·
secute such appeal, and abide the judgment
of the court thereupon, and to pay such costs
as shall be awarded ; but such recognisance 15
shall not entitle the appellant to be liberated
on bail unless he shall also have entered into
the recognisance with two sureties mentioned
in the said four hundred and fortieth section.
1\:lr. H. C. DANGAR was sorry to
hear the hon. and learned member, Sir
William Manning, say that he was afraid
that a coach and four might he driven
through the bill. If that were so, we
might save ourselves the trouble of discussing it further. His view of the clause,
however, was that it was quite sufficient
to carry out the object in view, which was
to prevent a man from evading the punishment of whipping by giving notice of
appeal and then disappearing. The 440th
section of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act provided t.hat a convicted person might
appeal to the next court of quarter sessions, and this -clause provided that he
should enter into his own recognisance to
prosecute the appeal and abide the judgment of the court. Nothing was said about
detention for ninety-six hours. The hon.
and learned member, Sir William Manning,
was under the impression that after the
expiration of ninety-six hours the prisoner
could walk away, whether he entered into
recognisanees or not ; but he did not understand how, under the 440th section, that
could be done. He thought the difficulty .
might be met by inserting after " such
Criminal Law
(2 l\Lu, 1888.]
recognisance shall not entitle the appellant
to be liberated on bail " the words "pending such appeal." The whole end and
object of the bill would be defeated if a
person sentenced to a whipping was entitled
to walk away after ninety-six hours' detention merely on entering into his own recognisance to appear to prosecute an appeal.
Sir WILLIAM MANNING said that
certainly after giving notice of appeal the
man could walk away after the expiration
of ninety-six hours, or whatever the term
might be, because the only order for his
detention was one directing him to be detained for a certain time, which could in
no case exceed ninety-six hours. If, therefore, it was desired that a ma.n who gave
notice of appeal should also abide the result
of the appeal, we must either provide that
he should be detained until the appeal was
heard or find sureties for his appearance.
Possibly the Committee might consider it
sufficient to liberate the man on his own
recognisances, because in the event of his
disappearing, it might be concluded that
he had .left the colony, and that we had
entirely got rid of him. He moved :
That the clause be amended by omitting the
words after "appeal," line 13, to the word "also,"
line 17, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the
following words :-"Provided that he shaJl be
detained in custody to abide the result of such
appeal unless he shall sooner."
ivir. SIMPSON : This is an amendment
which I cannot accept. The effect of it
would be that a man who was sentenced
by a magistrate for imprisonment for
ninety-six hours in some house of detention, and within that time to be flogged,
might give notice of appeal ; and if no
one was willing to become surety for him,
he would have to remain in gaol, perhaps,
for months, as it might be some months
before the next sitting of the court of
quarter sessions took place. It seems to
me that that would be very unjust. Such
an amendment ought not to be passed.
It would be far better to take away
the right of appeal altogether than to
say to . a man, "You have a right of
appeal ; but if you have no friends who
are willing to become bail for you, you
must remain three or four months in
gaol." It is pt·actically taking away the
right of appeal altogether. If a man is
. sentenced to thirty-six hours' imprisonment, and to receive twenty lashes, and
Amendment Bill.
4359
the next sitting of the court of quarter
sessions takes place within ten days, his
appeal will not be heard until the next
sitting of the court of quarter sessions
after that. The man might, therefore,
have to stop in gaol for a long period.
There are towns in the colony where the
quarter sessions are held only twice a year.
It is 'the intention of the Government that
that state of things shall not continue
much longer; but it exists at present ;
and a prisoner ·who had been sentenced
might have to wait many months in one
of those towns before his appeal could be
heard, if he happened to be sentenced
within ten days of the sitting of the court.
It would be better to do away with the
right of appeal than to pass this amendment.
Mr. R. E. O'CONNOR said that it
seemed to him that unless the amendment
was carried the bill would to a large extent fail to achieve its object. The cases
to which the bill applied were principally
cases of youths from 10 to 18 years of age.
The term of imprisonment was merely a.
nominal one, the main portion of the
punishment of such offenders being the ·
whipping. If the bill were carried as it
stood, it W{}nld allow offenders to escape.
An accused person, who was sentenced t().
ninety-six hours' imprisonment and a whipping, if be entered into sureties would be ·
bound to appear at the next quarter sessions, and receive sentence. But a person
who did not care to enter into sureties-who gave notice of appeal-would simply
walk out of gaol after his ninety-six
hours' incarceration had expired, and he.·
would never appeat· again; consequently·
he would escape the whipping portion of·
hi~ punishment altogether.
It might be
an advantage to the country that some
persons should leave the country and not.
return to get their whipping ; but, if the
act was to be carried out, it seemed anc
absurdity to put provisions in the bill
which placed a person who provided sureties in a worse pesition than a person
who stayed in gaol for the short time for
which he was sentenced, and then walked
out practically a free man. The AttorneyGeneral seemed to think that there was
some hardship in telling a prisoner that, if
be could not get the sureties required he
must remain in gaol until the next quarter
sessions. But was that in any way different
4360
C'1·iminal Law
[COUNCIL.]
.Amendment Bill.
from the policy of the law generally, as
Mr. SIMPSON : If hon. members quite
regarded persons convicted of offences 1 understand the effect of the amendment,
Sometimes when a point of law was taken, as I assume they do, and are prepared to
n prisoner was liberated ; but in· no _!::ase vote for it, they must take upon themwas a prisoner liberated before ]w had selves the t·esponsiLility of practically
found sureties. He must enter into a doing away with the right of appeal. A
hond for his appearance to receive sen- man who is convicted, and sentenced to
tence when ca.lled upon. When a man be impri;;oned and flogged, if he wishes to
was committed for trial, be was supposed appeal, will probably have to remain in.
to be innoceut until he was proved to be gaol five or six months after the expiration
guilty; but he must enter into recog- of his sentence. I admit that the amendnisances to appear and staild llis trial. If ment has this merit, that it ensures the
the amendment were not carried, it would detention of the man until the appeal is
be just as well to throw the bill under heard; but it .does that at the expense
the table, because all that a prisoner who of the liberty of the subject. These ofhad been sentenced to be whipped would fenders, bad as they may be, are entitled
l1ave to do in or·c.l.er to escape would be to to be dealt with under just and equitable
say, "I will gi\·e notice of appeal, and laws. A person who is sentenced, and
stay in gaol four days."
who wishes to appeal, will be compelled
Mr. H. C. DANGAR said that although to remain in gaol, unless he can get two
l1e did not like the form of the amendment, persons to become sureties for him. This
he agreed with what had fallen from is certainly one law for the rich, and one
the bon. and learned member,·l\ir. R. E. for the poor. An hon. member has stated
O'Connor. The language of the 440th that if the amendment is not carried, the
section of the act stated that a person in bill may as well be thrown aside. But I
case of a summary conviction might ap- do not agree with him. There is a propeal to the next court of general sessions vision in the bill, that· if a man does not
to be holden in the district. He thought receive his whipping when the appeal
that tl1at was a. Yery vague expression, as takes place, a warrant shall issue fot· his
the districts were very large. He did 1iot detention; and in whatevet· part of the
anticipate that there was any strong pro- colony he is apprehended, he will receive
bability of men being detained in custody his punishment.
any great length of time. He did not
1\ir. CHARLES : Could you get him back
think there would be so much risk of long from a neighbouring colony~
detention as the Attorney-General had
Mr. SIMPSON : If he gets into anotl1et·
suggested. He admitted the importance colony, let him stop there. We shall be
of the liberty of the subject in matters of well rid of him.
this sort, though we must not forget that
Mr. H. C. DANGAR said that the
persons convicted under these sections of warrant could only be issued in case oi
the criminal bw, would be persons who the appellant not appeari~1g to prosecute
had committed very gross offences, and we his appeal. He saw nothiug whatever in
ought not to strain our sympathy too far the bill providing for the case of a man
in their favour. Nothing should deter who did not submit himself to undergo
us from saying that such offenders should his punishment.
l\Ir. SIMPSON : I should like to put
be brought to justice, though, of .course,
they should be allowed an opportunity to hon. members right in regard to this
appeal. It was shocking to think that matter. Sub-section 1 of clause 3 says that
these offenders h•td been able to evade where a conviction has been affirmed, the
their just punishment under the _Criminal chairman of quarter sessions may adjudge
Law Consolidation Act, and he was very the sentence to he carried out at any time
much afraid that unless we adopted some within thirty-six hours of the making of
amendment of this sort the same thing the order on appeal. These appeals are
would continue in the future. Perhaps generally heard at the conclusion of the
the appeals might be dealt with in a more ordinary criminal business of the court.
summary way than was provided for in Suppose that a man appeals to the cout't
the bill.
He intended to support the at Darlinghurst, and he comes before the
amendment.
court in pursuance of his recognisances,
[ jl£1·. il. E. O'Conno?·.
Pttblic Wm·ks Bill.
[2 1\lAY, 1888.]
then the judge says, " Here you are; I
order you to receive the punishment of
whipping within thirty-six hours." It is
necessary in order that that punishment
mav be carried out that sub-clause III shall
lJe passed. What would be the use of a
judge ordering a man to receive the punishment of whipping within thirty.six
hout·s if no power was givPn to detain
him in custody until such punishment
could be inflicted 1 Sub-clause m, therefore, provides the means of dealing with a
man who appears before the court. If
the man does not appem·, he will be dealt
·with under sub-clause II of clause 3, which
provides fot· the issue of a warrant. All
that it is necessary to do will be accomplished by the bill, if the amendment is
not carried.
Amendment agreed to ; clause, as
amended, agreed to.
Bill reported, with an amendment.
PUBLIC WORKS BILL.
In Committee (further consideration resumed from 25th April, vide page 4162) :
Clause 23 (Incorporation of provision of Lands
for Public Purposes Acquisition Act).
Sir WILLIAM MANNING would
like to have the assurance of the AttorneyGeneral that he had gone through all the
sections mentioned in the clause, and seen
that they were rightly incorporated in the
bill.
Mr. SIMPSON : I have very great
pleasure in informing my hon. and learned
friend that I have gone through all the
sections, and it was no light matter either,
~nd that I think it is advisable that the
clause should remain as it is. These sections of the Lands for Public Purposes Acquisition Act must either be incorporated,
as they have been, or else they must be
re-enacted. If they were re-euacted, there
would be a great deal of space taken up,
and I do not know that any good purpose would be gained. I think that the
·sections are incorporated in a way which
cannot very well be improved upon.
Clause verbally amended and agreed to.
Clause 24 (General provision as to compensation for lanLl, howsoever taken or acquired).
J\'Ir. CH.ARLES moved :
That the clause be amended by the omis:
si0n of the following words:-" Provided always that the said magistrates, arbitrators,
.Public Wm·ks Bill.
4361
surveyors, valuators, and jury in ascertaining
such purchase money or compensation shall
take into consideration and give effect to
by way of set-off or abatement any enhancement in the value of any land belonging
to such owner adjoining the land taken or
severed therefrom, as well a~ any oth.:r benefit
or advantage which such owner may or shall
obtain by the construction of the authorised
work. But in no case shall this proviso operate
so as to require any payment to be made by such
owner to the constructing authority in consideration of such enhancement of value or benefit or
advantage as aforesaid."
He thought that the pro\'ision was a very
objectionable one. It authorised the valuators to deduct from the value of any land
that was taken for railway purposes the
benefit which might be derived by the
owner from the construction of the railway; but this might be very unfair to
l1im, as the line might run zig-zag through
his farm and emerge at a corner without
giving any advantage whatever to him.
There might be no railway-station on the
man's land ; the land would be damaged,
and he would get no more benefit, perhaps
lesH, from the construction of the line than
would people in the locality whose land
was not taken. It would be manifestly
unfair to make one man pay for what
might be damage clone to his land and let
those who were benefited go free. If the
enhanced value of the land was to be
taken into consideration by the valuators
let it be assessed according to the distance
from the station. That would allow an
owner to .get fair compensation for the
damage done to his property.
1\Ir. SIMPSON : This is a new provision I quite admit. It is not in the acts
that are repealed by the bill; but it seems
to me to be a very fair provision. Suppose you take a man's land, he gets a certain amount of compensation; but if his
land iR increased very mucl1 in value-if
land which is wocth £500 becomes worth
£3,000, why should not that be con;;idered?
\Vhy should an owner get full compensation for the land that is taken from him
without the valuators taking into consideration the enhanced value of the land 1
If great benefit is clone to ;t man's land by
the construction of a public work it is a
very fa.i.t· thing that the enhanced value of
the land, by reason of that work, should
be considered in arriving at the amount of
compensation. That is the only object of
the clause.
4362
Public Wodca Bill.
(COUNCIL.]
Mr. MACINTOSH thought it was a
very necessary provision to make, considering how landowners had endeavoured to
fleece the Government in the pasL. He
did not think that any landowner would
he victimised by the operation of the clause.
He thought a jury were quite as capable
as any landowner of judging as to whether
any benefit had accrued to land from the
construction of a railway. Supposing the
Government were to resume a strip of land
5 feet wide on the northern side of the
General Post Office, and give the propertyowners a frontage to a new street, would
any one say that they would not be conferring a benefit on those people~ The clause
afforded every protection to owners of
property, and it would prevent monstrous
claims for compensation from being made
against the Government.
Mr. W. H. SUTTOR could not see what
necessity there was for departing from the
provision in the present Railways Act.
In estimating the purchase money or com·
pensation to be paid for land under that
act, it was provided in section 45 that the
arbitrators
shall assess the same according to what they
shall find to have been the value· of such lanrls
e§tate or interest at the time notice was given of
such lands being required and without reference
to any alteration in such value arising from the
establishment of such railway and other works.
Mr. R. E. O'CONNOR said that the
clause introduced a new principle as far as
the taking of land for railway purposes
was concerned. He thought it was a very
desirable principle to introduce. The interests of a person through whose land a
railway was constructeu were fairly treated
by the bill, because he had compensation
not orily for the amount of land taken, but
also for
the damage (if any) to he sustained by the owner
of the lands by reason of the severing of the
lands taken from other land'S of such owner or
otherwise injuriously affecting such other lands
by the exercise of any statutory powers by such
authority.
With regard to the case put by the hon.
member, Mr. Charles, the jury or arbitrators would take into consideration by how
much the land was damaged by reason of
the severance of the property, and on the
other side of the account they would consider whetber the lands that were left had
been in any way benefited by the construction of the railway. He objected to that
Public Works Bill.
part of the proviso which provided that
t.he valuators should take into consideration "any• other benefit or advantage"
which an owner' might or should obtain by
the construction of the work. It seemed
to him to be putting wide and indefinite
power.> into the hands of the arbitrators
and magistrates which they ought not to
have. He would· ask the hon. member,
Mr. Charles, to withdraw his amendment
in order to enable him to move an amendment in the proviso.
The Cn,URMAN : If the hon. member,
Mr. Charles, will withdraw his amendment,
I will put the question for the omission of
the words of the proviso from " provide~"
to the word "therefrom," in line 40.
Then if the Committee agrees to retain
those words the hon. member, Mr. R. E.
O'Connor, can move his amendment.
Mr. CHARLES said that he was willing to adopt the suggestion made by the
Chairman. The bon. member, Mr. Macintosh, seemed to think that the magistrates
had full powers, but their powers extended
only to £200. The matter was not to go
befoi·e a jury ; if it were, he should have
no objection. The arbitrators would have
to fix the compensation, and he had very
little confidence in arbitrators. An arbitration case, in which he was interested,
cost him £400, whereas if the case had
gone before the Supreme Court, the cost
would not have exceeded £200. He considered ai:bitration to be the worst possible
form of settling disputes. As to the in•
creased value given to land by the construction of a railway through it, an equal
va.lue would be given to all the land in the
neighbourhood of the railway, and why
should only the man whose land was taken
be made to pay for an advantage which
his neighbours enjoyed as well as himself~
He knew of one case where a railway ran
for 2} miles through a property, while the
nearest station was 3 miles off, so that
the property owners within a radius of
3 miles from the station were quite as near
to the station, and were quite as much
benefited, as the man whose property had
been taken. He ~new of other cases in
which the railway had totally destroyed
property ·through which it passed, and
conferred no benefit whatever upon the
owners.
Amendment withdrawn.
.Public TVm·ks Bill.
[2 MAY, 1888.]
Amendment to omit the words from
"provided" to "therefrom," line 10, proposed.
Sir WILLIAM.MANNING said that
the broad question was whether there
~hould be any allowance against claims for
compensation for land taken ~ The first
Railways Bill which was passed in this
country contained a clause to the effect
that those through whose land a railway
was taken should have charged against
them any compensating advantage resulting from the railway being taken through
the land. Soon afterwards it was proposed to construct a railway to Darling
Harbour. This railway would pass through
land belonging to Mr. John Harris, who
claimed as compensation for the land taken
something over £100,000. The amount
allowed was, he thought, £103,000 or
£104,000; but it was considered that the
land would be so enhanced in value that
£93,000 was deducted from the amount,
so that the amount actually paid was comparatively small. If what the hon. member, Mr. Charles, was contending for had
then been the law, the Government would
have had to pay the whole £100,000 odd
instead of £10,000 or thereabouts. Afterwards a new act was passed, and this provision was struck out, so that from that
time anybody whose land was taken by
the Government for railway purposes,
though the value of what remained to him
was enhanced tenfold, had received compensation to the full value of the land
taken. In the case of Mr. Harris, the
deduction for enhanced value was not actually made, because the railway for which
the land was taken was not then carried
out, and therefore the enhanced value did
not accrue. Now it was again proposed
that when a man's land was taken for a
railway, and the remainder was enhanced
in value, he shoulil not be entitled to compensation for what brought him a great
deal of benefit: 'Vhen the last act was
·passed it would seem that the claims of
property prevailed over the public interest;
but now it appeared that the public interest was again to prevail over the claims
of property. There was no dou.bt a great
deal of abstract justice in the contention
of the bon. member, Mr. Charles, that
other persons whose lands were not taken
were also benefited, and that if one should
contribute the others should; but, although
Public Wm·ks Bill.
4363
that was very good in theory, it was not
practicable. But when the man whose
land was taken made a claim for severance,
we could take hold of him and ask him
what harm had been done to him, and
whether, inste3:d of being injured, he had
not been greatly benefited.
He had no
doubt that there were many cases in
which land which was worth £1,000 had
been increased in value to £10,000
by the construction of a railway. The
object of the bill was to prevent that.
It was distinctly provided that in no case
should a man be made to pay, although he
might benefit by the railway to the extent
of twenty times the value of his estate.
He thought it was a true principle ; and
he had held that opinion ever since the
Rail ways Act was passed. He was glad
the other branch of the legislature had that
given effect to the principle in this bill ;
and he hoped that the Council would agree
to it.
Mr. NORTON said that if the clause
were carried, it would affect owners of property very unjustly and unequally. In
his judgment, the argument of the bon.
member, Mr. Charles, was perfectly correct.
Owners of land might sustain immense
damage in consequence of a railway passing through it. It was true that the
owner of a property through which a railway passed might be compensated by the
increased value of the land ; but the adjoining owners might receive as much or
even more benefit.. Why should the man
through whose property the railway went
be compelled to pay for the benefit which
he derived while the adjoining owners paid
nothing ~ Very great harm had been done
in the case of the Harris estate. He
doubted whether in that case the owners
of the property received any benefit whatever. The advantage arising from a railway was so difficult to compute that the
only way of arriving at the amount that
should be paid for land that was resumed
was to resort to arbitration. The clause
gave to those who were to decide as to the
amount of compensation to be allowed a
very great power which ought not to be
intrusted to them. A good deal might
depend upon whether an owner of property was popular or unpopular. SomE
of the owners of property at Pyrmont whc
made claims fer the resumption of theit
land were unpopular, and they got nothing
4364
.Public Wo1·ks Bill.
. (COUNCIL.]
''vhile others got large compensation. Great
injustice was done in that instance.
. Dr. GARRA.N thought that the House
would certainly neglect one of its duties
if it allowed any wrong to be done to the
legitima.te claims of property ; but he could
not see that•by this clauseanysuch.wrong
was clone. The bill provided for the valuation of properties which cwere to be resumed, and we were bound to suppose that
·the ntluation ·was to be a fair one. If
the valuation was a fair one; the owner of
the property could not· lose. He possibly
might not gain ; but if thE; amount of
damage was equalled by the amount of the
benefit which
obtaine';:l, he' could not be
said to· be placed in a worse position than
before through his land being taken. No
injustice '~ould be· done, and no wrong to
the rights of property. It was no argument to say that some of the neighbours
of the owner of the land, which was resumed, might be .benefited to a gt·eater extent than himself. \V e could not do complete justice in cases of this kind: All
that we could do was to avoid doing an
injustice. If we could carry out the principle of abstract equity, our course would
be to make a pre-rail way valt1ation in the
district, and compare it with the post-railway valuation; but·in legislating we could
not carry out abstract theories· like that.
A -great mariy people, besides landowners,
might gain by the construction ·of a railway. Storekeepers, publican<;, contractors,
teamsters, and others, might gain by it ;
but we could not follow all these people
up and say : "You have gained so much
by this railway that we will take so mucl1
off your hands." The state could not follow up the gain which it caused to people
by public expenditure. If it could we
should not need any loans. \Ve should
be able to defray the cost of our public
works out of the proceeds cleri\'ed from
the increment in the value of propert.y.
It was to be presumed that the valuators
·would make full and fair allowance to the
owners of property for the· damage they
suffered from the resumption of their
lands. Reference had been made to the
claims which had been prefP-rred in connection with land resumed at Pyrnwnt;
but in that case the Government were too
stupid to complete the railway after the
resumptions had been made ; and the
owners said : "You have not carried out
[ Jl£1·. Nm·ton.
he
Pi£blic ·wodcs Bill.,
your pin·t of the 'contract, give· us the
value of our land." ·The result was that
they got their land increased in value, and
they got the money too/ • i.-:'1 · ·· • •J
. · Qt~e'sti(:m.::_Tht the \voi·'cls~proi1 dsei:fto
be omitted stand part of the clause -put.
The Committee divided:
··
Ayes, 19; noes, 7 ; majority, 12.,
AYES.
Creed, J. M.
Dangar; H. G.
Davies, J.
Dodds, A .....
Garran 1 pr.' A ..
Halliday, W.
Humphery, F. 'T.
Joseph, S. A.
Knox;)!;.
:Macintosh, J.
Manning,, Sir Willia,m
Moses, H.
.,
Roberts, R.: H.
;Rundle, J. B.
._I
Simpson, G .. B. ·
Vickery, E.
White, R. H. D.
'l'elle1·s,
O'Connor, R. E.
Trickett, W. ~·
NOES.
Ha,y, Sir John
Suttor, Vi'. H ..
Hill, R.
:Moore, C..
Shepherd, P. L. C.
Charles, S.
Norton, J.
'l'elters,
Question so resolved in .the
affirma~iv~.
Amendri:ient (by Mr. R. E. O'CoNNOR)
agrf)ed to :
·
That the following words be omitted from the
clause:-" as well as any other benefit or advantage which such owner may or shall obtain."
Clause, as amended, agreed .to.
Clause 25. Notwithstanding anything in
the last preceding section,. the compensation
to be paid for and in respect of any land acquired or taken for railway or tran'tway purposes huder this act, at any time within five 5
vears from the time when. such land was
alienated in fee by the Crown, whether absolutely or conditionally, shall be a ·sum of
money, for each acre or portion of an acre of
such .Janel, equal to the amount of purchase 10
money paid per acre by the grantee,, or to the
amount of deposit per acre paid by the conditionar}mrchaser for such laud (as the case
may be), together with a sum not exceeding
one hundred per centum on the· amount of 15
such purchase money or deposit; and, in addition thereto, the value of any improvements, of whatever value the same may be,
then being upon such land, such value to be
ascertained by appraisement under the pro- 20
visions of the Crown Lands Act in force for
the time-being.
·
l\fr. CHARLES said that no provision
whatever was made to compensate a landowner for the severance of his property by ·
a railway going through it. More harm
might be done by the. severance of a property than. the value of the land taken
amounted to. He moved :
Pttblic Wo1·ks Bill. .
[2 l\IAY; 1888. J
• That the following words ·be added to the
clause:-" together with compensation for da·
?Tiage by severance."
l\ir. SIMPSON: The hon. member is
now endeavouring to introduce something
entirely new into this clause. The clause
is founded to a great extent on the provisions of the 37 Victoria, No. 18, which
is an act to authorise the acquisition of
land for public purposes. There is a
similar provision in that act, under which
land ttlienated from the Crown within five
years is to be valued in a distinct and
definite way, in order to ascertain the
amount of compensation to be awardP.d.
Hon. members will see that where the
land is taken within five years of its
alienation from the Crown a sum equal to
the amount of tl1e purchase money is to
be paid, with 100 per cent. added. Surely
100 per cent., in addition to the purchase
money, is enough to award to an owner
of land which has been purchased from the
Crown within five years.
Dr. GARRAN said that tha~ amount of
compensation might not be sufficient in all
cases. A free selector might have 100
acres of land, and a railway might be
carried through the centre of it, dividing
it into two small farms, which separately
could not be profitably worked. The Government might only actually take2 acres of
that land, and they coulclsay, "we will give
·you £4 as compensation," although £50
worth of damage might have been cbne by
the division of the property.
Mr. H. C. DANGAR thought that the
amendment ought to be amended by the
insertion of the words " if any," so as to
n~ake it read, "together with compensation for damage; if any, by severance."
l\fr. CHARLES would agree to the alteration.
Amendment amended and agreed lo.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Part III (As to the Acquisition of Land, and
ascertaining and assuring the payment therefor,
and of compensation for injuries in respect
thereof, &c. The Lands Clauses Consolidation
Act provisions). ·
Amenclment(by Mr. SniPSOl<) proposed:
That the words "The Lands Clauses Consoli. dation Act provisions" be omitted from the
heading.
Mr. H. C. DANGAR said that these
words were quite inapplicable to this part
.of the bill. The provisions in Part III of
. Public Works Bill.
4365
the bill had reference almost exclusively
to the construction of rail ways, and not to
the acquisition of Janel.
lVfr. SIMPSON : My hon. and learned
friend is mistaken. Clause 19 says that
any land required for any authorised work
may be taken under the Lands for Public
Purposes Acquisition Acts, or under the
provisions contained in Part III ; and
Part III contains certain provisions with
regard to the method of ascertaining the
amount to be paid by way of compensation.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 (Power to enter on and take lands).
1\Ir. CHARLES said that this clause
gave the Government power to enter upon
.and take lands for any purpose. They
could also remo?e materials and alter the
courses of roads and l'ivers. They might
enter on land and cut down and remove
valuable timber. On some land of his,
when a railway was being made, timbe1·
was cut down and burnt at unnecessary
distances from the line. He moved :
That the following words be added to the
clause:-" the constructing authority to pay a
fair compeJ!sation."
1\:[r. SIMPSON : The hon. member has
evidently not looked through the whole of
the bill, or else he would have seen that
clause 34 is word for word the same as
the provision in the present Railways Act.
Mr. CrrAHLES : I shall be satisfied with
that!
Amendment., by lea,·e, withdrawn ;
clause agreed to.
Clause 38 (If parties fail to treat or in case of
dispute compensation to be settled as aftermentionecl).
l\fr. HU:l\IPHERY thought that there
was no reason why, if an owner of land
failed to prove his claim within twelve
months, he should be denied the right to
prove it later. I£ a man's land was taken
he was entitled to compensation, and he
should not be limited to anv time within
which to present his claim. • He moved :
That the clause be amended by the omission
of the following words :-"Provided that if no
claim be made within tweh·e months after such
notice as aforesaid by the party entitled to make
such claim, the same shall be deemed to have
been waived and abandoned."
Mr. H. C. DANGAR thought that the
amendment was a good one, and ought to
be assented to, because it often happened
that the owner was ont of the country, o.r
4366
. P~~blic Wo?·ks Bill.
. [COUNCIL.]
utterly ignorant of what was being done.
At the same time, he thought that there
should be some limit to the time within
which the Government should be called
upon to pay compensation in cases of .this
kind.
Mr. HuMPHERY: Make it six years !
1\fr. H. C. DANGAR thought that
three years would be a very fair limit. He
hoped that his bon. friend would adopt
that suggestion.
The CHAIRMAN : As the amendment has
not yet been put from the Chair, it will be
competent for the hon. member to adopt
the suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment (Mr. HuMPHERY) proposed:
That the words" twelve months" in the proviso be omitted with n. view to insert in lieL1
thereof the words "three years."
Mr. SIMPSON : I feel it my duty to
oppose the amendment. It is a very important amendment, and I trust that hon.
members will not consent to it without
carefully considering what the effect of it
will be. Now, according to the previous
clause, the notice must either be served
personally on the owner, or left'at his last
usual place of abode. If the owner is
away from the colony, the occupier can
be served with the notice. No sensible
man who owns property would leave the
colony without ·leaving some one here to
look after his interests ; and if the notice
be served on the occupier, it will find the
representative, and he can then put in a
claim. But if there is no occupier, the
notice has to be advertised three times in
one or more of the daily newspapers in
Sydney, and then the owner is allowed
twelve months within which to put in a
claim. Surely that is enough ! But if we
extend the time, a person who may have a
claim for £100 may keep it back in the expectation of the land becoming worth a
large sum of money. At the expiration of
two or three years, he may put in a claim ;
and the Government will have to get all
their witnesses together. The only people
who can speak as to the value of the land
and the amount of damage done to the
property will be scattered far and wide,
and it will be utterly impossible for the
Crown to get their witnesses. In nearly
all acts of Parliament there is a certain
limit of time provided within which claims
shall be made.
[Mr. H. C. Dangar. '
P.~tblic
Works Bill.
Mr. TRICKETT : There is a similar provision in the present Railways Act!
Mr. SIMPSON : My bon. friend reminds me that it is the law at present;
but, apart from that altogether, it is provided in nearly all acts of Parliament that
claims for compensation shall be made
within a certain time. vVe know that
people whose lands are taken for railway
purposes, or any other public purpose, endeavour in the majority of cases, to get
the largest amount of compensation they·
can from the Government. The Government are the protectors of the people of
this country, and therefore thP-y are bound
to see that claims shall be heard of, and
made within a reasonable time. I think
that twelve months is a reasonable time.
I feel it my duty to ask hon. members not
to consent to the amendment.
Mr. NORTON said that assuming the
greatest neglect on the part of the owner
of the land, why should he be robbed of
hill p'roperty ~ The land was taken for
public purposes, and the Government
could well afford to pay for it.
Mr. R. E. O'CONNOR said that the
Attorney-General had no~ shown that the
Government would suffer if the period
were made three years instead of one
year. If claims had to be made within
one year, irreparable injury might be done
to individuals; but three years 'vould give
ample time, and no damage could be sustained by the Government. The question
to be determined. being the value of the
land at a certain time, no difficulty could
arise from allowing claims to remain in
abeyance for three years. If there should
be any difficulty, the owner of the land
would be at the same disadvantage as the
Government. The argument of the Attorney-General, that a person might defer
making his claim until the land had increased in value, was beside the question,
because the value assessed would be that
which the land bore at the time when it
was taken.
Sir WILLIAM :ThiANNING said that
if the present Rail ways Act fixed the period
at twelve months, there was no reason
why it should be extended to three years.
He could understand an exception bei!fg
~made in the case of a person who was
absent from the colony; but with regard
to persons in the colony, he thought
twelve months long enough. If the term
Public Wo1·ks Bill.
[2 MAY, 1888.]
were made three years in their case, they
might allow their claims to sleep until the
land had increased in value, and then
trust to clever counsel to persuade a jury
to award a larger sum than the value of
the land at the time it was taken by the
Government.
Dr. GARRAN pointe_d out that Australia was a large place, and the Government might take. a piece of land which
was unoccupied, and the owner of which
was away in some part of the continent,
where no notices could be served on him,
and where he would not see a newspaper
containing the notice. Why should that
man, because he had gone to an outlying
part of the country, where he was doing
good service in turning a desert into
occupiable country, have no compensation
for land of his taken by the Government 1
He thought three years a far more reasonable tl)rm than one year.
Mr. H. ·c. DANGAR thought that
while a period of twelve months was long
enough for persons residing in the colony
to make their claims, a longer term should
be allowed to absentees, of whom there
were now a great many.
Question-That the words proposed to
be omitted stand part of the clauseresolved in the negative.
Question-That the words proposed to
be inserted be so inserted-proposed.
Amendment(by Sir WILLIAM MANNINO)
agreed to:
That the question be amended by omitting
the word " three" with a view to inserting in
lieu thereof the word " two."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 41 (Method of proceeding before justices for settling disputes as to compensation).
*
*
*
*
Provided always that, if
the amount awarded by the justices shall be
one-fourth less than the amount claimed, the
owner of the land or person claiming compensation shall pay t'l the constructing authority the
costs of and occasioned by the inquiry.
Mr. CHARLES thought the proviso
manifestly unfair. Why should not the
matter be dealt with as in a court of justice, and the costs go with the verdict~ If
the amount awarded exceeded that offered
by the constructing authority, the constructing authority should pay the costs ;
hut if it were less the costs should be
borne by the claimant. He moved :
That the proviso be omitted.
Public Works Bill.
4367
Mr. SIMPSON : My bon. friend, Mr.
Charles, has asked why the mattershould
not be dealt with in the same way as in a
court of justice 1 It is dealt with in the
same way. It is proposed in the clause
that the matter shall be dealt with just as
it is now, and has been for years past
dealt with in courts of justice; those courts
of justices being magistrates' courts. There
is in spirit the same provision with regard
to actions tried in the Supreme Court
before jurors, and there is in spirit, though
not in actual words, a similar provision in
respect of claims determined by arbitrators.
Mr. CHARLES : Only with regard to rail-ways!
Mr. SIMPSON : No doubt; but if the
principle is a good one with regard to railways, it is a gcod one with regard to other
public works. The object of the proviso is
to prevent people from being unreasonable
in their demands, and refusing to accept
fair compensation. If the constructing
authority makes a reasonable offer, which
is not accepted, and the arbitrators or
justices award one-fourth less than the
amount claimed, the owner of the land
must pay the constructing authority the
costs incurred in defending itself from an
unreasonable and unfair claim. This has
been the law under the Railways Act ever
since that act was passed.
Mr. HUMPHERY said that the injustice of the proviso would be apparent when
he instanced a case which might occur. A
claim might be made for £4,000. The constructing authority might offer £1,000,
and the arbitrators might award £3,000.
In that case, the claimant would be substantially successful, yet he would have to
pay the whole of the costs. In the case of
private differences referred to arbitrators,
the arbitrators decided how the costs should
be awarded. It was in their discretion to
say whether the costs should be borne
equally by the claimant and the defendant
or whether the claimant or the defendant
should pay the whole of the costs. He
· thought it would be fair and reasonable to
amend the clause as proposed by the hon.'
member, Mr. Charles, and when the Committee came to deal with the 51st clause,
which dealt with cases referred to arbitration, he would move that it be amended so
that the costs should be borne as the arbitrators might direct.
4368
..
.Public Wo1·ks Bill.
[COUNCIL.] .
Sir WILLIAM MANNING said that
if it was the case, as stated by the Attorney-General, that the provision in this
clause was-contained in the existing Railways Act, it was time that it was altered.
He could understand that where the Government had offered a,sum of money, and
the sum awarded was more 'than that sum,
they should pay the costs just as they would
in a court of law. If a man were sued for
.£1,000, and tl1e defendant tendered £500,
and the jury did not awardmorethaJ1£500,
the plaintiff would have to pay the costs.
If they awarded more, however little, . the
other party would have to pay. 'l'hat ~vas
the principle recognised in courts of justice; but there was no such principle recognised in this .clause. He did not know
whether this provision was intended to
apply to a case in which no offer was
made; but why should not the Government ascertain the value of a property and
make an offer, and then secure,the costs if
the parties refused to take it:
l
Mr. H. C. DANGAR said there was a
temptation on the part of valuators ·to
settle disputes not entirely on their merit-s;
but with reference to the decision as to
the costs. If a margin of one-fourth was
allowed there might be a temptation to
bring the claimant just within or just
without the .limit, those deciding' the matter having an eye as to the question of
}Jayment of costs. -He did not see why
the matter should be taken -out of the
harids of arbitrators.. Of course it was
desirable to prevent exorbitant· demands
fot· compensation from being made; but
he thought that any practical person would
say that if the matter were left to the discretion of the arbitrators or the justices,
there would be a sufficient check on the
evil habit to which he had referred. As
regarded the provision which had bct::n
inserted in the Railways Act, he paid no
attention whatever to that. If any mistake had been made in passing the Railways Act we ought not to repeat that mistake now. Being of opinion that there
were many reasons why the adjudication
as regards costs should be left to the discretion of the justices, he should vote for
the amendment.
Mr. R. E. O'CONNOR said that there
were strong reasons why the clause should
stand as it was. It was not intended in
the great majority of. cases that matters
Pnblic TVin·lcs Bill."
should be brought to trial at all. In most
instances no do'Ubt the parties would :tri:ive
at a fair result without any trial whatever. He did not see any hardship· in
compelling a party in· a case that went
into court to consider carefully of what
v3,lue he could prove his land to be. If a
margin of one-third wa.s allowed between
the valuation of the two parties, he thought
that that would be a fair thing.
1\fr. CHARLES could not see why the
cases· should not be settled in the same
way as any ordh-iary claim that went to
the Supreme Court. 'If 'a man made an
umeasonable claim in the Suprel:ne Court,
the jury 'vould not alli:riv' it': 1 ~Iany cases
could be cited in ,\·hich the Government
l1ad maCle offers, and· the ' arbitrators had
given·larger sums than the Government
had offered.·· Another matter that must
be· COnsidered W<tS, that there might be a
tribe of hungi·y parties running after the
Govern-ment to get the position of arbitrators. There was no discretionary power
allowed with regard to costs. Those deciding the cases were bo\md to consider
what was a fair value for the land·; and,
because the parties had claimed one-fourth
more than they received, they were to be
co'mpelled to pay t-he costs. This looked
like an attempt on the part of the Government to force people to accept their offers,
whether they liked t~~m or not.
Sir WILLIAM MANNING pointed
out t~at the justices'had jurisdiction up
to only £100; but a man might make a
claim for £200, and receive· an award of
only £100; yet in that case he would be
compelled to pay a,ll the costs, ever~ though
the land was taken against his will.
M'r. 'SIMPSON':' It' is 'true that the
justices have jurisdiction up to only £100;
but if a man chooses to make an unjust claim, that does not affect the principle. If a man chooses to make an unjus(;
claim, and his claim is reduced by onefourth, is it nnf;tir that he, after having
refused a fair offer, should pay the costs~
It is a principle of htw that a person
who is in the wrong in bringing about
litigation, should pa.y the costs. A man
who makes a claim that has to be reduced
by one-fourth, is in the wrong. I do not
object to the amendment suggested by the
hon. member, 1\fr. R. E. O'Connor, and I
would accept the limit of one-thitd.
P~tblic
Works Bill.
[2
MAY,
Mr. CHARLES said that the fact of a
claim being for a small amount, made the
principle for which he was contending all
the stronger. If a man claimed £200 for
a piece of land, and received only £100, it
was unjust that he should have to pay the
costs, which pt·obably might amount to
£120. Thus, the unfortunate person would
be done out of the whole value of his property.
Mr. JOSEPH hoped that the hon. member, 1\:Ir. Charles, would withdraw his
amendment, in. order that the one suggested by 1\:Ir. R. E. O'Connor might be
moYed. The Attorney-General had asked
if it was unfair that a person who made,a
claim which was .reduced by one-fourth
should have to pay the costs? He most
decidedly said that it was unfair.. It would
not be unfair, however, if; the proportion
.were fixed· at.th~·ee-!ifths, or even at twothirds. He thought that if the margin
providedin the claus.e were altered ,from
one-fourth to two-thirds, that would b\l
very fair.
l\ir. NORTON said that the AttorneyGeneral had spoken about the injustice of
the claims that were made ; but did not
every one know that it was a most difficult thing to value land in the colony?, He.
was quite certain, that claimants whose
iancl was taken would be placed at a very
great disadvantage if .the clause were
allowed to s.t~r~d., H,e sh~uld vote ,fot· the
omission of the proviso altogether. He
thought that the question as to whether
the margin ought to be one-fourth. o1· onethird was not worth talking about. If it
was made one-half tl_1ere might be something in that.
Mr. W. 'H. SUTTOR said that he had
seen a great amount of injustice done by
the Government in resuming land for
1mblic purposes. Their officers did uot
care what costs the Government had to
pay, and thoy. dragged witnesses all ovet·
the country, their plea being that they
could not depend upon local witnesses.
He had seen crowds of witnesses b.rought
into court, and all swear the same thing
one after another.
Question-That the words proposed to
be omitted stand part of the clause-put.
The Committee divided:
Ayes, 13; noes, 12; majority, 1.
1888.]
P~bblic
Works Bill.
4369.
AYES.
Davies, J.
Dodus, A.
Garran, Dr. A.
Halliday, ,Y,
Hill, R.
Jos.;ph, S. A.
Moses, H.
~
O'Connor, R. :E.
Roberts, R. H.
Simpson, G. B.
White, R. H. D.
'l'elle1·s, , 1
Macintosh, J.
Trickett, '"· J.
NOES.
Charles, S.
Rundle, J. B.
Dangar, H. C.
r i:ihepherd, P. L. C.
Hay, Sit· John
Vickery, E.
Knox, E.
Humphery, F. T.
'l'elle1·s,
Manning, Sir vVilliam Creer!, J. M.
Norton, J.
Sn~tor, Vi'. H.
,-e.
Question so 'resolved in 'the affirmati
Amenclment (Sit· WILLIAM MANSING)
agreed to :
That the following words be added to the
clause:-" Unless 'the constructing authority
shall hav,; offered a less amount than ·the sum
aw~rde~."
,
Clause, as amended, agreed to .
Clause 47 (If either arbitrator refuse to act,
the other to proceed ex pw·te ).
Mr. TRICKETT said that it would be
necessary to alter this clause, in order' to
bring it into conformity with clause 43.
In that clause, power was given for one
of the contesting parties to appoint anothe.!' arpitrator·; but in this clause it
was provided that in cases where more
than one ai'bitrator was appointed, and
either 'refused to .act, or for seven days
· neglected his duties, the other could pl:oceecl with th_e work alone. He thought
that -it would ,be well to postpone this
clause for further consideration.
Mr. SIMPSON : I am not clear at present that the clause requires any amendment, but as it possibly may, I will consent to its being postponed.
Clause postponed.
Clause 51. (r) All the costs of and incident
to any such arbitration as settled by the
arbitra_tors shall be borne by the constructing
authority, unless the smn awarded by the
arbitrators shall be: the same or a less 5
sum than shall have been offered by the constructing authority, in which case each party
shall bear his own costs incident to the arbitration, ailCl the costs of the arbitrator3 shall
be borne by the parties in equal proportion. 10
(II) If the sum awarded shall be
one-fourth less than the amount claimed, the
whole costs of and incident to the arbitration
and award shall be borne by the claimant,
and the arbitrators shall direct the payment 15
of the same accordingly.
Amendment (Mr. Hu~rPHERY) proposed:
That the wot:d "one-half" be sul:stituted for
the word " one-fcurtl~,'' ,line 12.
4370
Public Wm·ks Bill.
[ASSEl\:IBLY. J
:Mr. SIMPSON : It is far better that
we should have an agreement between
this clause and a clause relating to the
same subject that we passed a short time
ago. I promised to recommit that clause
with the view of substituting "one-third"
for "one-fourth." If the hon. member will
now propose "one-third" in place of "onehalf," he will make the clause consistent
with the other clause when it is amended
on recommittal.
Sir WILLIAM MANNING thought
that sub-clause n was inconsistent with
sub-clause 1. He did not see how the two
could be reconciled. What was the meaning
ofsub-clausenaftertheprevioussub-clause ~
Mr. SIMPSON : It seems to me to be
perfectly clear. Under sub-clause I, if the
sum awarded by the arbitrators be the
same sum as, or a less sum than, the constructing authority offered, then each party
shall pay his own costs. But under subclause n, if the claim is unreasonable or
much larger than it should have been, and
the amount awarded is one-fourth less than
the amount claimed, then the whole of the
costs shall be borne by the claimant. . It
is really consistent with the previous subclause. It is following out and adhering
to the proYision in 22 Victoria, No. 19.
Mr. H. C. DANGAR said that one
sub-clause provided for the sum offered,
and the other sub-clause for the amount
claimed. He hoped that his hon. friend,
l\Ir. Humphery, would consent to "onethird" being inserted instead of "one-half."
Mr. HUMPHERY : I will consent to
"one-third."
Amendment, by leave, amended by substituting "one-third" for "one-half," and
agreed to; clause, as amended, agreed to.
Progress reported,
House adjourned at 9"·51 p.m.
~sstmbl}!.
Wednesday, 2 May, 1888.
3Lrgislatib£
Board of Technical Education-Leave of Absence--Police
.Magistrate at Parramattar-lhe South Waratah Mine
-Supply of Water at Ashfield-Queen-street, Sydney
-Sydney and Suburban Hydraulic Power Company's
Bill-Third Readings-Deputy-Chairman of Committees-Government Railways Bill-Adjournment
(State of Public Business-Chinese-Railway Rate for
Minerals).
Mr.
SPEAKER
took the chair.
Leave of Absence.
BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
Mr. KETHEL asked the MINISTER OF
PUBLIC lNSTRUCTION,-(1.) Is it a fact
that the leases of the principal premises
now occupied by the Board of Technical
Education for teaching purposes expire in
October next, and cannot be renewed except on terms very unfavourable to the
board 7 (2.) I£ so, will the Government,
in view of the urgent necessity for better
accommodation for the many and increasing classes under the board, take. steps to
provide other premises or land on which
suitable premises can be erected for carrying on the operations of the board on the
expiration of the present leases 1 (3.) Is
it the intention of the Government to
bring in a bill this session for the incorporation of the Board of Technical Education, or to adopt other means for the promotion and extension of technical education in the colony 7
Mr.INGLISanswered,-(1.) In respect
to question 1, the Government is aware
that the lease of the buildings occupied by
the Board of Technical Education will expire in October next. (2.) The subject
embraced by the second question ,is now
engaging the attention of the Government.
(3.) The Government is desirous of effecting improvement in the system of technical
education with the oqject of rendering it
more sound, more productive of good in its
operations, and more popular; but I cannot promise to introduce a bill to deal with
the matter before the next session.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
Sir HENRY PARKES: It has been
reported to me that the hon. member for
Kiama, who holds the office of Chairman of
Committees; is still suffering very severely
from illness. I am informed by his friends
that the case is so serious that the best
ground for hoping that he may recover is
that he should have entire rest and change
for some period. I am sure bon. gentlemen
will all regret to hear this rather sad intelligence. To enable 1\'Ir. Cameron to
obtain this uninterrupted rest, and that
change which his medical advisers say is
indispensable to the re-establishment of his
health, I wish to move, with concurrence :
That leave of absence for three months be
granted to Angus Cameron, Esquire, member for
Kiama, and Chairman of Committees, on account
of serious illness.
Question resolved in the affirmative.