Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 18 JULY 1889

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

702 Motwnfor Adjou1·nment. [ASSEMBLY.] Questions.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEWIBLY. Thu,.sday, 18 July, 1880.

Payment of Members Bill.-]lotion for Adjournment­Ipswich court honse.-Qnestion.-l\Iessage from the Governo:r-as:;.ent to BilL-Formal :J.iotions.-Rock­hampton Gas and Coke Company, Limited, Act of 187-1 Amendment Bill-first rcading.-Tlie Rabbit Act of 1880 Amendment RilL-Health Act Amend­ment Bill-third reading.-Seiznre of Pollard at the Port of Brisbane.-The Cases ofl\fargaret Henry and Donald ~fcNeill.-Crown Lands Acts, 1884 to 1886, Amendment Bill-resumption of committee.­Adjournment.

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

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS BILL. The SPEAKER said: I have to report to

the Hom•e that 1 this day presented to the Governor the Payment of Members Bill for the royal assent, and that His Excellency was pleased, in my presence, to subscribe his assent thereto in tlic name and on behalf of Her Majesty.

MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IPSWICH COURT HOUSE.

Mr. BARLOW said: Mr. Speaker,-I will detain the House only for a few moments and conclude with a motion for adjournment. I

desire to read to the House the following state­ment of the state of affairs at the court-house, Ipswich: -

"During the sittings of the Circuit Court the necessity of a new court-house was urgently bronght under the notice of the authorities. On Tuesday the rain cam~ menced dropping through the roof in several places, one of t~ll"','C being immediately in f1'ont of His Honour :Mr. Justice Hartling. Ho took bnt little n0tice of the ineonvenieuce f()r some time, but at length he said,' l\Ir. Representative of' the CrO\Yn, what are you going to do about this rain t It h; droppi.ng down uvon me.' 1\Ir. King: ~I don't knmv \Yhat we can do­unless \VC provide you with an umbrella to bold ovev yourself.' His Honour: 'I don't knmv that Jnc'l.ge~ of the Supreme Court are expected to sit \vith umbrellas over them. The state of the place, and the amount of bnsinf'"''j done, seem., to shmv tll:tt it is time for its abolition. I have come up here for about tr-n yc.trs, ancl have just comn:enccd 111!r third hook, which I would probrtbly have used in Brisbane in six month:;.' "

That speaks well for the morality of Ipswich. "'If the Government bring- judges up to nn obsolete

old town like this, the len;;;t they can do is to provide n proper place for them to sit in, where they would be ont of the rain. I am certain the under sheriff is s'vamped out more m· lf'"i.' A blanket "ras then procnred, rolled, up and laid on the ben eh. rrhis partly abated the annoyance, but still the rain continued to dro1J monotonously opposite His Honour. Yesterday the nuisance was still greater. and, after removing his seat once, he was so annoyed that he adjourned the court for two hours until the trouble was remedied. This was effected by means of tarpaulins on the TOof, and several blankets being spread over the bench, and another being placad on the solicitors' and banisters' table." Then comes an editorial comment. I move the adjournment of the House in order to bring under the notice of the Government these facts.

The PREMIER (Hon. B. D. Morehead) said: Mr. Speaker,-If the hon. r;entleman puts the matter in prover form and brings it before the proper Mini8ter I have no doubt th~tt it will receive attention.

Mr. MAOFARLANE said: Mr. Speaker,-I may remind the House that frefjuently, on former occasions, I have broug-ht the matter of the Ipswich court-house before the Oommitte~ while the Esti­mates were going through. The last answer I got from the late Attorney-Goner 'J, Mr. Rutledge, was that he admitted the state of the court-house at Ipswich was bad, and that the repairs he intended to have made would carry it on for a year or two. It is really in a very dilapid<tted condition. It is the oldest court-house in the colony-I think it was built before ser•aration-and it is not only too small, but its condition is not ia keeping with the town of Ipswich. I hope the matter will receive consideration.

Mr. B~\..RLOW said: Mr. Speaker,-If no other hon. member desires to address the House, I would respectfully beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

QUESTION. Mr. TOZER asked the Minister for Lands-1. Was the recommendation of the select committee

of this House, appointLJ on :t.th October, to jnquire into and report upon the sandstone C1Uarrics of the southern dbtricts of the colony, that llle Government shall mnke some arrangement for procuring further infor­wation in tbi'} then ensuing recess, given efl'ect to by the Government?

2. If so. how, and in 'vhat. manner, and with what result! and at 'Yhat cost to the country?

3. Is it the intention of the Government to give effect to the further n~commendat·i(m of the same committee, ~That the inquiry be resumed by a select committee during the present session P

The MINISTER FOR LANDS (Hon. M. H. Black) replied-

The reply to the first question is re No;, to the third nNo."

Seizure of Pollard at [18 JULY.] the Port qf Brisbane. 703

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR.

AssENT TO BILL. The SPJ<~AKJ<~R announced the receipt of a

n1es:Nage fron1 :His l~xcellency the Gow~rnor, intimating that His J<~xcellency had, on behalf of Her M>tjesty, as"cnted to the Payment of Members Bill.

FOR~IAL MOTIONS.

The following formal motion.:J were n.greed to:-

By Mr. BARLOW-Tltat theTc be laid npon the table of the House, a

return shmving,-1. The total amount of Customs rcvc·hnc whieh 'vonltl

have been receiverl for the year cHded 30th Jnnc, lf"_d9, on dntial)lC goods imported if the Act 52 Vie. ~o. 5 had not been !)Hf'"lCd.

2. 'rho total amonnt of excise duty on beer wh-ich wonld have heen collected for the like period if the Act 52 Yic. Xo. 5 hail. uot bct:n pa~~,e-1.

3. The actual amount of excise duty on beer collcctccl for the same lleriod.

4. rl'he rcspcct:ive quanti tic~ of malt, rna..lting barley, and hops importotl into Qnecnslanrl for the tln~tncial years ended 3:lth June, lR87, 188~, l88Q, with the rates and amounts of duty thrrcon.

By Mr. MORGAN-That there be laid upon the table of the House, a

return showing,-1. The r1mmtity of "seconds ftour" imported into

the colony since the commencement of the Customs Duties Act o! l8o8.

2. The names· of the firms by whom snch "seconds !lonr" was imported, or to whom it wa'i consigned, with the weight or the consiinment or consignments in each case

By Mr. HARLOW-That the House will, on Thur~flay, the 2-Jth instant,

re~olvc itself into a Committee of the \rho le to consider of the desirableness of introducing a Bill to amend the lmv relating to auctioneers.

IWCKHAMPTON GAS AND COKE COM­PANY, LIMITlm, ACT OF 1874 AMENDiVIENT BILL.

On the motion of Mr. MURRAY, lmwe was given to introduce a Bill to amend the Rock­hampt.on Gas and Coke Company, Limited, Act of 1874.

FIRST READING.

On the motion of Mr. MURUA Y, the Bill, having been presented, was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

THE RABBIT ACT OF 1880 AMEND1:IENT BILL.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS moved­That the House will. at its next sitting, resolve itself

into a Committee of the VVhole tr) consider of the de­sirableness of introduciug a Bill to amend '!'he Rabbit Act oll880.

Question put and passed.

HEALTH ACT AMEND2.1ENT BILL. THIRD RllADIXG.

On the motion of the PREMIER, this Bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to he tmnsmittecl to the Legisbti ve Council for their concurrence, by me ~1sage in the usual forn1.

SEIZURE O:F POLLARD AT 'rHE PORT

OF BRISBAKE.

Mr. MORGAN, in moving-That an addrr«~s be presented to the Governor, praying

that His Excellency will be pleased to cause to be laid upon the table of the House, copies of a.U corrfL:pon­dence, pa.pers, etc., referring to the seizure by the

Custom authorities, at the port o! Brisbane, on the 2nd l\:Iay ultimo, of a quantity of pollard, imported as "seconds flour"-said: Mr. Speaker,-I am induced to move this motion fur a variety of reasons, all of which it is not necessary I should give the House. It is a n1attcr of history that in l\Iay last a seizure was made, at the port of Brisb;tne, of a qmmtity of pollard, which it i.s stated had been imported as seconds flour. \V e know that by the Customs DutieB Act paBsecl lPst year pollard is subject to a duty of 4d. per bushel, and that seconds flour is admitted free. \V e know, also, that there is very little demand in this colony for seconds flour. This polhtrd, I am infor1ned, was imported in bat:;s, n.nd \Vas

only diBcovered by the purest accident. A quantity of pollard which was imported as seconds flom· had been remoYed from the sheds, bnt unfortunately for the importers a rat ate a hole in Gne of the rernninlng bag~, and n. portion of the contents came out on the floor. Then the Customs authorities discovered that it was pollard, and that it had been imported as seconds flour for the purpose of evading the duty. Thes·o facts were broug·ht under the notice of the proper >tuthorit.ieo, with what result I do not know. I believe the pollard that had not been removed was forfeited. In the notices of the seiznre that have appeared in the press no names have been given, and a stigma attaches to some trading cmnpanics in Brisbane who are wrongly suspected, I understand, of being the guilty parties. If there is guilt at all it should he fastene<l on the right shoulders. There is no reason why an innocent firm should suffer in that way through the offence, if it is an offence, of another firm. It is a matter of common report that this particular firm has not only been guilty of importing pollard as seconds flour on this occa,ion, but that it has been doing so for some time. I do not know whether there is any truth in that ; but with the object of obtaining some information on which an opinion may be based, I tabled another motion in reference to the quantity of seconds flour imported into the colony since the Customs Act carne into force. I am afraid, however, that WA shall not get 1nuch information in that way, because I presume that the pollard which haJ coue in as seconds flour, will be entered simply as flour. It is a L1atter of common report in commercial circles th>tt a certain firm has for many months past been enabled to sell pollard at £1 per ton less than any other importing firm in the city could sell it at, and there is only one inference to be drawn from that. I feel some concern in this matter, not merely for the fair name of individual firms in this city, but because it is a matter that seriously affects the wheat. growers in the district from which I come. Having abolished the six­penny duty on wheat, and allowed flour to come in free, the only protection the local grower has, besides the differential mte of railage, is the 4i!. a bushel on the offal, consisting of bran and pollard. And if importers are enabled to evade the duty on pollard by importi11g it as seconds flour, the Queensland producer will be placed at a great di., advantage-a disadvantage that was not contemplate<] when the Customs Duties Act was pn-.sed lest ses3ion. Those are the rc>tsons which have induced me to table this moticn, and I hope the Premier will see his way to allow the return to be Drodncecl.

The PilEIYIIl1.:I~ ,,,._tid~: :r,Jr. Rpeaker,-The Colonid Treasurer will not be here till a later hOur, being enf{aged at present in his own office, bnt I can say on his behalf that there is not the slightest objection on the part of the Government to the production of the papers. The reason why I called " not formal " was to discover what the

704 Seizure cif Pollard. [ASSEMBLY.] Margaret Henry cfr Donald McNeill.

hon. gentleman wanted, and I thiuk his desire is a very laudable one. If some person or persons have been acting in an improper way, as stated by the hon. member, the blame should rest on the right shoulders. If the statements made by the hon. member for IV arwick are true, there is no doubt thnt this individunJ or firm should he particularised.

Mr. UNMACK said: Mr. Speaker,-I thoroughly concur in the remarks made by theh•m. member for \V arwick in his laud>Lhle desire to see that, whatever blame is to be attached to anyone, should be fixed on the right parties. The reason he gave was a good one, so far as it went, but, according to my idea, it did not go far enough. Every business man in Brisbane knows very well that there are one or two firms in the city doing business, and selling their goods right through, whatever they may be, at a rate with which no honest trader can compete. I think there is very little need for us to inquire, when we hear of such transactions, what enables them to do that, when we see that the Customs Duties Act is evaded in this manner. There is every reason to believe that extensive frauds are committed on the Customs by giving wrong weights, and in other ways, and these matters are not looked after as they should be. In that way some firms are enabled to make an illegitimate profit, which in its turn has the effect of ruining honest traders and compelling them to succumb to the mal· practices of evil-disposed persons. I hope the full name of the guilty firm will be given, so that everyone may know where the blame rests.

The MINIS'fER FOR MINES AND WORKS (Hon. J. M. Macrossan) 2aid: Mr. Speaker,-The statement made hy the hon. member for Toowong is a serious one. He says that several firms in Brisbane are enabled to sell goods at a much lower rate than other merchants, and the conclusion drawn is that they are in the habit of evading the duty. If such is the case it is the duty of business men, who sre subjected in that way to unfair competition, to inform the Treasurer of the fraud, so that he may instruct his officers to watch the importations of those firms more narrowly. I think if the hon. gentle­man will do that those firms will very soon be found out.

Mr. Mc::VIASTER said: Mr. Speaker,-It is desirable when a seizure of this kind is made that the guilty parties should not he allowed to get off simply by confiscation of the goods. I think they ought to be prosecuted. I remember a firm some time ago importing butter and cheese and selling it at a penny a pound cheaper than any other firm in Brisbane possiblv could. At last the Custom-house found out that the firm to which I allude gave false invoices, repre­senting less than the weight of the goods. I remember a drayload of butter and cheese was seized by the Custom-house on that occa­sion, hut the goods were simply confiscated, and the firm allowed to go scot-free. That firm is not in business now. I think the honest tradincr community of Brisbane boycotted them, and they had to clear out.

Mr: :UXMACK said: Mr. Speaker, -By permrsswn of the House, I wish to say a few words in reply to the remarks m>ede by the Minister for Mines and \V orks. I think it is most nnfair to ask any merchant to play the part of an informer. I think the officers of the Customs ou,,:·ht to be \Vide a \vake enough to discover those matters for themnlves. In reference to this question of m ading the cl)lty on pollard, I may add that reliable information has been obtained from Adelaide to the effect that one particular firm endeavoured, by corres­pondence, to persuade an Adelaide firm to ship pollard in the name of flour, and that the Ade-

!aide firm most honourably and firmly refused to do anything of the kind. Therefore, we may presume that some other firms may have been more successful in another direction.

The PRE~IIER : The Custom officers cannot know that firms are underselling. If they were informed of that it would he sufficient.

The MINISTER FOR MINES AND \VORKS said: Mr. Speaker,-I may, perhapr1, he allowed to say a word or two more. I do not wish any Brisbane merchant to become an infor­mer in the sense the hon. gentleman used the word "informer." But it would he quite suffi­cent for any of these merchants to sa:v to J\fr. King, or to the Colonial Treasurer, "Mr. A. is selling bran at so much per ton, while Mr. B. is obliged to sell it at so much more," or, "J\Ir. A. is selling butter or cheese at so much per pound, while Mr. C. has to sell at such a price." Then these persons would draw their own inferences. There is no dishonour in that.

Question put and passed.

THE CASES OF MARGARET HENRY AND DONALD McNEILL.

On the Order of the Day being read, the House went into committee to consider the following resolutions :-

1. That the report of the select committee appointed to consider the petitions of :Jiiss Ma.rgaret Henry and Mr. Donald :VIcXeill, and laid upon the table of the House on 5th June, 1889, be now adopted.

2. That an address be presented to the Governor, praying that His Excellency will be pleased to cause to be placed on the Supplementary Estimates for the year 18S9 the sum of £200 as compensation to :Jiiss ::\Iargaret Henry, and the sum of £150 as comp.:.:nsation to ]}fr. Donald }fcKeill, for losses, injuries, and damage re~­pectively sustained by them at the "\Vest Ipswich Rail­way level crossing.

Mr. BARLOW said, in submitting the motion to the Committee, he desired to call the attention of hon. members for'' few moments to the facts he had laid before them on the occasion of the select committee being moved for. He might state at the outset that he desired no hon. gentleman to give his vote in favour of the adoption of the resolutions upon any other principle than that which, he was sure, guided every hon. memher-a thorong·h conviction of the justice of the claim. He stated, at the time he introduced the matter, that it was only upon those grounds that he undertook its advocacy, and it was only upon those grounds that he would con­tinue to ad vacate it. The report of the select committee was already in the hands of hon. members, and it went to prove certain facts, which he thought were fully admitted by them. They were admitted, and were palpable to those acquainted with the circumstances. The finding· of the select committee was as folio ws :-

" 1. That in March, lSSS, a serious accident occurred at the West Ipswich crossing on the :Passifcrn Railway, by which the parents of the petitioner, l\Iargaret Henry, were killed under the circumstances disclosed in her petition-'' There could he no possible doubt that the acci­dent occurred, and that the parents of the peti­tioner, J\Iargaret Henry, were killed, and she h~d nothing whatever to do with causing their deaths-H ..._\._nct. that on the same occasion the peti"'ioner, Donnld ::\TcXcill, snstainert serious bodily injnrywhjch rendered it neeesF,rn·y that he be removed to the Ipswich Hospihl, a::; was also his son who was with him."

He saw the man there, and could vonch for the facts.

"2. That the said Donald :UcNeill sustained the following pecuniary loss :-Two horses at £20 each­£40; cab and ha1·ness, £60; and he incurred heavy medical expenses, and was kept nearly eight months out of work."

Oases of Margaret Hem•y [18 JULY.] r.tnd Donald MoNeill. 705

Hon. members living in the district would bear him out in saying that McNeill was seriously injured in body, that he lost those assets what­ever they might have been worth, and the loss of those assets was the cause of his being kept out of work, or partly that and partly the fact of his inability to engage in the only occupation in which he could engage, as he was a lame man and unfit for any species of hard work.

".3. That his affairs were so disorganised by the acerdent that he has been actually ruined by it.

"4. That the accident could not have happened if the West Ipswich crossi,ng had been protected by gates or a signalman.

"5. That a very large traffic is constantly pas~ing over the "\Vest Ipswich level crossing, which is not protected in any way, while the crossings at Wharf, Thorn, West, and \Vaghorn streets on the main line, where the traffic is comparatively insignificant, are provided with gates and gatekeepers." .

The last matter had been remedied owing to the courtesy of the Minister for Railways. It was a matter he brought forward continually last session ; but it had been remedied, and the traf!i9 there was now protected. On the previous occasron he stated, and he now again emphasised the fact, that the accident occurred during the 1'egime of the late Government, so that no possible blame could attach to the hon. gentle­men now in office. The report further stated that:-

HThe committee, while fully aware that by reason of the powers conferred by the Railway and Tramway Extensions Act of 1880 no legal liability attaches to the Government for the consequences of this unfortunate accident, are of opinion that some compensation should be made to the sufferers by it, and they recommend that provision be made for the due payment o! the following sums :-

To Miss Margaret Henry, in consideration of her being unprotected and unprovided for, she being the only unmarried member of a grown­up family, and havmg by the accident been deprived of both parents and a home, £200.

To Mr. DonaldMcNeill, in consideration oft he losses, direct and indirect, which he sustained by the accident, £150."

He would :tsk hon. members to consider first the case of Miss Margaret Henry. There could be no doubt that the evidence disclosed the fact that Miss Henry had been for some time in the service of an esteemed gentleman in Ipswich, Dr. Lightoller. 'At that time he (Mr. B~trlow) believed she was able to do the work of a domestic servant, but the place which she made h"r permanent home was, of course, the residence of her parents. He could state from personal observation, because he, with his colleague, Mr. Macfarlane, was consulted about the settlement of the affairs of her intestate father, that she had suffered in bodily health by reason of the deprivation of the comforts of home, and by the shock sustained by thE' loss of both her parents at one blow. He was aware that she had married brothers .and sisters, and he had even heard from one hon. member, who would probably address the Committee, that some of those parties thought they should have some compensation too, but he was of opinion that grown-up young men were quite able to take care of themselves, and that in the case of married ladies their husbands ought to take care of them. The select committee rested theirrecommen­dation on th<; fact that Miss Margaret Henry, the only unmarned member of a grown· up family, had been deprived both of parents and home. The case of Donald McNeill stood upon a some­what different basis. One of the charges brought against McNeill, either directly or ~indirectly, was that at the time of the accident he was in a state of intoxication. He (Mr. Barlow) should be able to dispose of that charge, but before doing so he wished to state that, on the occasion when McNeill took the Henrys from the railway

1889-2 X

station to drive them along Brisbane street, the main street in Ipswich, to their home, which was situated in Moore lane, near the West Ipswich railway level crossing, Mr. Henry, who had been serving in the service of Mr. Bashford as fore­man carpenter, and who was a good workman and steady man, was bringing home all his tools and belongings. Among them was a large case containing fowls, which he had brought from the Logan, and those things were all heaped up on the cab in which McNeill was conveying those people to their home. That of itself was an unwise proceeding, because MeN eill being a lame man could not have that control over the brake of the sociable that a man in the full possession of his strength might have. That baggage being piled up on the cab, no doubt it was extremely difficult to pull up the vehicle, as might have been done if the things had not been there, and the driver had had more liberty. With regard to the charge of intoxication, he had a letter from Dr. '\V. Henry von Lossberg, Government Medical Officer at Ipswich, whom he (Mr. Barlow) had per­sonally seen, and from whom he had obtained the assurance which was embodied in the letter. It read as followed :-

"Ipswich, 11th June, 1889. u A. H. l3ar1ow, Esq., M.L.A., Brisbane. HDEAR. SIR,

u In answer to your letter of 8th instant, re Donald Mc::\feill, I beg to state that I saw him a few minutes after the accident happened at the road cross­ing, ,Little Ipswich. I then ex~mined him; I found him injured, expressing pains, lamenting over his loss and the injuries his passengers received. He was per­fectly sober. I saw him again, about two hours later, at his home; he was then sober too.

n I am, dear sir, (I Yours truly,

"W. HENRY V oN LossBERG, M.D., "Government Medical Officer, Ipswich.''

Mr. McNeill was pointedly asked one or two questions on that subject by the hon. member for Stanley, Mr. O'Sullivan, which would be found in the minutes of evidence, questions 153 and 154:-

"By Mr. O'Sullivan: Were·you quite sober when this happened? Quite sober. "

" Are you in the habit of getting drunk at all? Ob, no! sir. Even they asked that in the inquiry in the police court. The Government doctor is now Dr. V on Lossberg, who attended me. rrhey asked him that question. Ho testified I had not a drop."

That statement was supported by the certificate, and by the personal conversation which he (Mr. Bar low) had had with Dr. V on Lossberg. He did not know that he could say much more on the question, except in reply to any objections that might be raised by hon. members. There was one point which had been started by some objectors, and that was that at the inquiry McNeill did not call the railway authorities to testify as to the state of the railway crossing, but there was independent testimony on that point in the Press report of .the Government inquiry which was made into the matter. In the Qu·eensland Times of the 17th of March, 1888, there was a report of a magisterial inquiry held on the previous day, "Before the police magistrate into the circumstances attending the dPath of Mr. Wilson Henry and his wife, who died from injuries received owing to a collision between Mr. Donald M'Neill's cab and the down Fassifern train," etc. At that inquiry there were present Mr. W. A. Cross, Engineer for Existing Lines, Mr. J. F. Thallon, 'rraffic Manager, and Mr. R. T. Darker, Locomotive Superintendent. He might say that the most valuable evidence the select committee had had throughout their investi­gation was that of Mr. Richard Bradfield, a gentleman in whom he had the strongest con­fidence, and those who knew that gentleman, and

706 Oases of Margaret Henry [ASSEMBLY.] and Donald McNeill.

the length of time he had occupied an honourable position in Ipswich, would know that he was a most reliable witness. He (Mr. Barlow) would read some portions of the evidence given by Mr. Bradfield at the magisterial inquiry. Mr. Brad­field said there that he "saw the cab run into the engine." He (Mr. Barlow) quite admitted that the cab ran into the engine; but hon. mem­bers must not suppose that in doing so he was making a damaging admission, because he had fully considered the case. There could be no doubt that by reason of the buildings around the crossing, and by reason of the fact that the train was not a train which ran every day, but only two days a week, it was impossible to know or see that the train was coming. His contention was that McNeill, in driving along the road, was unable to stop, n.nd that he did actually, as stated there by Mr. Bradfield in the most truthful manner possible, run into the train. Hon. members would bear in mind that that Committee was not a court of law. They were not deciding the case upon questions of law, or contributory negligence, or anything of that sort. He was simply asking the Committee to deal with the matter in an honest, straightforward spirit, and if they thought that anything should be aw:J.rded, to award that amount graciously. He thought the Committee would not take advantage of any legal technicality that might appear, because, as he had said, they were not engaged as 'a court of law. Mr. Bradfield went on to say:-

"The cab and its ocCupants were thrown over; before the collision he mu out and held up his hands and shouted. The cabman took no notice of his action; he was looking in the direction of Henry's place."

McNeill was looking directly away from the direction whence Richard Bradfield had come out to give him the warning. He quoted that to show the perfect hone<sty and uprightness of the evidence given by Bradfield. Bradfield went on to say:-

" I said to the little boy, ' Why did not your father see the train?' He answered, 'I said, there's the train, father; but it was then too late to stop.'" Mr. Cardew, of the firm of Foxton and Cardew, who appeared to watch the proceedings on behalf of the Commissioner for Rail ways, extracted the following from the witness in cross-examina­tion:-

" I heard the train whistle again as it approached the crossing; heard the train whistle when it was forty or fi!ty yards away; in the confusion which !allowed I could not say whether the train again whistled; when I rushed out to give the alarm Mc:Veill appeared to be conversing with the :passengers; this was the usual down train from Dugandan; there is a sign-board at this crossing on which are the words 'Look out for trains;' JI.IcNeill was looking in that direction; if he had been going slowly, and his horses in hand, when I first saw him, he could have 'slewed' them round, as I have seen others doing., That was exactly what did occur. MeN eill was asking Wilson Henry where they lived, and Wilson Henry was pointing in the direction of his place in Moore lane. The witness then said-

" This was the usual down train from Dngandan." As a matter of fact that was not so. It was a train that ran two days in the week. But if it was the usual down train from Dugandan he would not abandon his contention that McNeill could not reasonably be expected to see it com­ing. There was no doubt about that ; it was perfectly true. The witness was cross-examined hy Mr. Chubb, who appeared on behalf of the Henry family, to the following effect :-

" I know where Wilson Henry's house is; it is about 300 yards off, in the direction I saw ll!cXeill looking, I do not know that the train was late; there is a saw­mill on tb~ next allotment but one to the crossing; that sawm11l was at work, and there was a great noise

from it ; the sawmill has been erected since the crossing was made; I do a good bit of business in my black­smith's shop, and my anvil is often at work making some noise ; I am a wheel\vright as well, and there is the noise of the wheelwrights working; it is very likely that the noise of the sawmill. my shop, and the rattle of the cab would keep a driver from hearing a \Vhistle; there is a large brick house on the road, near the crosl:ling; about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes before the accident another train passed over the crossing; this train rnns two ~sfternoons a week ; I have witnessed several accidents being averted., Mr. Drysdale, another solicitor, who watched the proceedings on behalf of Donald McNeill, extracted the following in cross-examination:-

"I have often heard the whistle of the sa,'nnill blow; the alarm board is 2 feet by 6 feet; there is a culvert and a lamp-IJOSt at the corner of Ridge lane, which would prevent a person turning round sharply; I have seen people turning sharply round the notice­boal'd, but there has been always nearly an accident

. when it was done; my men and I have frequently averted accidents; the engine drivers do not pull up or stop 1vhen going over the crossing; the notice-board is the only notice placed at that crossing.

''By Mr. Cardew: 'l1here is plenty of room for a cab to pull up before reaching the crossing.'' vVilliam Perkins, a blacksmith, residing at '\Vest Ipswich, gave some evidence which was immaterial, and then Mr. Chubb cross-examined Charles Redesdale, one of Mr. Bmdfield's work­men. In reply to Mr. Chubb, the witness said:-

,, l\IcYeill was not going at an unusual pace; he would have had to risk his life by attempting to go round the corner ; Hancock's whistle blew about ten minutes before the accident; I have seen accidents avoided before by turning either up or down Ridge lane." It was very true to say that the accident might have been averted by turning down Ridge lane, but there must be time and room to do it. With time and room, no doubt, any accident could be averted anywhere. His contention was that McNeill had neither. Charles Redesdale was re-called, and deposed:-

"When he first saw :IIcXeill's cab, about thirty yards frmn the crossing, J.\.IcNeill was not looking ahead townrds the crossing, but on one side, as if Henry wa;; pointing out where he lived.

"By :M:r. Chubb: At the time :1\icN"eill was looking at llenry's house there was nothing on the crossing.

"By :IIr. Cardew: McKeill could not look at the house and see the train at the sn.me time." There was nothing else very material until they came to the evidence of William Augustus Cross, J<;ngineer for Existing Lines, who deposed that--

" He produced the correct plan of the place where the accident occurred; the notice· board, H JJook out for trains," on the plan was 21 feet 6 inches from the rails, and the gas lamp was 23 feet 6 inches; the lamp was close to the end of the culvert; there w~ts plenty of room for a trap to pass; there was also room for a cab (13 feet) to pass between the notice-board and the corner of 1-Iancock's fence; a person approaching the crossing would see a train as it came round the corner of the blacksmith's shop--" That was very true. By that time it would be on the top of him. If he did not see the train until that time, there would be very small chance to turn down Ridge lane, or to escape an acci­dent. The witness, continuing the same sen­tence, said :-"when the driver would be about 32 yards from the crossing ; the train would then be 33 yards ; the driver of a cart going at a m<Jderate pace would thus have plenty o! room to pull up or to turn to either side; this railway was built under the Raihvays and Tramways Extension Act of 1880." He had done his best to read to the Committee the salient points in the evidence given both before the select committee and at the magis­terial investigation. He did not pretend, and had never pretended, that those persons had anything like a legal claim. He was quite awn.re that any legal claim they might have was barred by the provisions of the Railways and Tramways

Oases qf Margaret Henry [18 JULY.] and Donald McNeill. 707

Extension Act of 1880. But he did say that in all justice some compensation was due to the parties concerned. What that eo m pensation should be it was for that Committee to say. He did not ask the Committee to pay away public money-of which they were the guardians, and which they ought to guard most jealously-in anything like a reckless or ha.sty manner; but he thought he had made out a case for some com­pensation to those persons, which he trusted the Committee would generously accord.

The MINISTER IcOR llAILWAYS (Hon. H. M. Nelson} said he considered it to be his duty to oppose the motion. He did not think a case had been made out to justify the Committee in spending public money in the way proposed. He could not congratulate the select committee on the manner in which they had taken the evidence they got, neither could he see that they had investig-ated the case in such a way as to convince anyone who read the whole of the evidence, that it bore out the report they had brought up. It was all very well for kind-hearted people to be charitable. He did not object to that at all, so long as they were charitable with their own money, but when that Committee was asked to give away public money, of which they were only the trustees, it was a different question altogether. They must see that there was some real justification for the expenditure of the money before they could vote it. The case occurred a considerable time ago, and it was fully investi­gated immediately after the accident happened. There was a magisterial inquiry, at which the whole of the facts were elicited. There was also a claim put in to 'the Government much upon the same grounds as contained in the petition relat­ing to the matter. The case was inquired into by the late Government, who decided that the payment of rr!oney, such as was asked for in the petition, was not justifiable, and they declined to give any such compensation. He failed to see that any case had been made out for re-opeuingthe question and investigating it again. Of course they all sympathised with l\fiss Henry, but before they were justified in making any payment to her by way of compensation, it would be necessary to prove that the death of her parents arose from some cause that might be attributed to the neglect of the Government in some way. The mover of the resolution had admitted that the parties had no legal claims ; and if it was simply a case of charity they had charitable institutions already established, for the main­tenance of which they had to vote large sums of money. But he did not think it was a case of charity, because he could not see from the evi­dence that Miss Henry was very badly off so far as pecuniary circumstances were con­cerned, nor was any of the family. With regard to the cabman, Donald "MeN eill, after reading the depositions his impression was that MeN eill ought to be very thankful indeed for the leniency of the late Government--that they did not put him upon his trial for manslaughter. That was the conclusion he had come to ; and he thought the evidence would have fully warranted the Attorney-General at that time in going further than a mere magisterial inquiry. It had been stated that there was no signal or other means taken to avert danger at the crossing place, but the evidence showed that MeN eill was well acquainted with it; he said in his own evi­dence that he knew the train was due, and instead of looking out for it, it was proved by the evidence that he was driving at a rate of six or eight miles an hour, and was not lo~king where he was going ; he turned his head the other way, and drove straight into the crossing, when he must have known that it was a place where he, as a cabman, ought to exercise proper precautions, and keep a good lookout. But

he did nothing of the kind, and it was entirely through his neglect that the accident occurred. Whether he was sober or not was not sufficientlv proved ; but there could be no doubt whatever that the accident must be attributed to his want of care. The hon. member for Ipswich had quoted from a newspaper, and it seemed to him a very extraordinary thing that when the depositions, taken and signed before the police magistrate, were procurable, the select com­mittee did not send for them. They did not get the best evidence obtainable, but took a news­paper report, when the depositions could have been got by asking for them. But they did not take the trouble to go to any of the Government offices, or the I tail way Department in particular, to procure infornmtion on the subject. It was to be seen from the evidence that there was no signal man at the crossing place to prevent accident, but Mr. Richard Bradfield said :-

" If ?>IcX eilt had stopped when I told him, there would have been no accident."

Mr. O'SULLIV AN: He could not hear him, with the noise of the sawmill.

The MINISTER FOR RAU.WAYS said MeN eillmust have heard him. But he was look­ing backwards ; he could not have seen a signal if there had been one, because he was look· ing the wrong way. "What was the use . of a signal in a case of that sort? The thmg was preposterous, and there could not be a shadow of doubt that if McNeill had got into impoverished circumstances he had only himself to blame for it. He (~Ir. Nelson} did not wonder that a cabman who drove in such a reckless manner, and endangered the lives of his passen­gers, lost his business; and he could only s:;ty, "Serve him right." He had no sym~athy w1th him more than with any other blunder.mg tr:;tdes­man or professional man who lost h1s busmess through his own action. The evi~ence. quoted frnm the newspaper differed matenall.Y m sor:'e points from that given before the pohce magis­trate. Mr. Bradfield "aid :-

H Before the collision occnl'l'ed I ran out of my shop, shouted, and held up my hand to the cab. rr~e c~brnan took no notice of my action; he was lookmg 1n the opposite direction towards the sawmill.n The witness then described how the pole of the cab ran into the engine, and went on to say that he henrd the whistle of the train when passing the Little Ipswich platfprm-

" As the train approached the crossing it gave two whistles as usual ; the train 1vas whistling the la~t time I heard about forty or fifty yards away; the tram was the usual passenger one from Dugandan ; there is a sign board at the crossing, and on it is written-~ Look out for the train.'" andif--

Mr. HYNE : At what speed was the train going-?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS : Very slowly.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN : The cab was going about as fast n.s the train.

The MINISTJm FOR RAILWAYS said Mr. Cross in his evidence stated :-

"A person approaching the crossing would see the train as it appeared round the corner of blacksmith's shop, about thirty-two yards off; the train wo:uld then be thirty-three yards from the crossing. r11hls would allow ample time for a person having proper control over his horses to pull them and escape collision." That was Mr. Cross's evidence, verified by the police magistrate, and it was very different from what the hon. member for Ipswich read out of the newspaper. A good deal of the evidence the hon. gentleman had read, was not sustained by the depositions. McNeill himself said:~

" 1 heard no whistling of any kind. I knew the half­past 5 train was due; I was looking for it, as it was the proper time, I was sober."

708 Gases qf Margaret Henry [ASSEMBLY.] and Donald 1licNeill.

The man said in his depositions that he knew the t~ain was coming, he was acquainted with the hne, and he was expecting the train · but the rest of the evidence went to show' that instead of looking for it he was allowing his horses to go at the rate of six or seven miles an hour, and was not looking for the train at all. Under those circumstances he intended to vote against the resolution.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN said that it was impossible for him to add anything to the very able speech made_by the hon. memberfor Ipswich; but he was astomshed at the speech delivered by the Minister for Railways. Probably that hon. gentleman had spoken so warmly with the intention of taking the blame from himself and from the Railway Department. The hon. gentleman said that the wonder was that McNeill was not put on his trial for manslaughter, when it was found that he was not dead. The man was at the very jaws of deat~; . he had lost his property, had nearly lost h1s hfe, and he had ten children to support, and that was the charity he got from the head of the department which actually caused the dl)ath of those people. In proof of that, it was certain that now there was a signalman who received the paltry sum of 15s. a week, and now there was not the len.st fear of any accident. If that man had been put there before, the accident would never have occurred, and what was the aood of tu~nfng round and saying that the m~n was drlVmg recklessly? Surely MeN eill's life was as valuable to him as life was to anyone else. The man had been a cabman for years, and nothing had ever been heard against him, and now it was asserted that he was a reckless drunkard. He had worked for him (Mr. O'Sullivan) for many years, and he had never seen any drunken­ness about the man, who was a white man like anyone else about there. His children would suffer from the results of that accident and he was quite snre that he was suffering 'himself as he was confident the man would never b~ better. He had been compelled to sell his little property in North Ipswich to pay his doctor's bills, and his children would suffer. The case was a most deserving one. Of course the Minister for Railways pitied the unfortunate woman for whom £200 was asked. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) also pitied her, but he pitied the man a great deal more, as he had a htrge number of children to support. In reality Miss Henry had lost nothing. Certainly she had lost her parents and her home, but she ha.d no one to support and she was of age and able to support herself while the unfort~mate cab~an with ten children' to support was crippled for nfe. He would be very glad if the Committee would grant the paltry sum asked for, although he was aware, like the mover that ther~ was no legal claim, as the Bill under ~vhich the hne had been constructed had provided that no compensation could be claimed in such a case. That ;vas a bad way of doing business. If MeN e1ll were a drunkard, he (Mr. O'Sullivan) had never seen him drunk, and it was clear that he had not been drunk at the time of the accident. A_s to his not hearing the blacksmith calling to h1m, there was a roaring sawmill on one side of him, a train on the other, then there was the n?ise of the blacksn:ith's forge, and the noise of h1s own cab, and 1t was quite possible under those circumstances that the man had not heard. · Sometimes they could not hear hon. members speaking in that Chamber. He hoped that the Committee would not throw out the motion.

Mr .. TOZER said that he had not intended speakmg at all upon the motion and he only spoke on account of the very pointed remarks of the mover to him in connection with the matter.

His pri;nary sympathies had been entirely with the motwn, but recently he had visited Ipswich at the time of the show, and while there charges had been practically levelled against him, as a member of that committee, with conspiring with other hon. members to give the public money aw~Ly to an undeserving man. He had then felt that it was absolutely necessary to make further inquiries, as the charge was made almost universally, and he had gone out to examine the locality in order to try and form an impression of the merits of the case. He was quite neutral in the matter. He accidentally met the man Bradfield, whom the hon. member for Ipswich had mentioned as being the person upon whom he based the claims for compensation; and that man had given him a very different im­pression from that produced by his evidence taken before the select committee. From what Bradfield had told him he was of opinion that McNeill had no claims upon the sympathy of that Committee. Bradfield, in the presence of the g·entleman with whom he (Mr. Tozer) was driving-Mr. Norman vVilson-stated distinctly that Mcl'\eill was not sober. He had then asked Mr. Bradfield why he had not stated that to the members of the committee, and his reply was that they had taken very good care only to ask questions to suit themselves. Then he had said that he would consider it his duty to state that fact to the House, as he had thought from Mr. Brad field's evidence that MeN eill was entitled to some compensation. With regard to the crossing, he quite agreed with the hon. member for Ipswich that it was very awkward for persons driving there who were strangers to the locality, as they could not be aware that a train was coming along, but he could not understand a man who had been driving a cab in Ips­wich for some time meeting with an accident. :From the evidence he had gathered that it was ><;n unusual train ; but he had met a lady who hved at Dugandan, and she had at once told him that it was the usnn,l train. In fact, he had been assailed all round; and coming down from Ipswich with a Jot of strangers, he had happened to express his difficulty as to what he should do in <;J.ealing with the question, and persons in the tram had :volunteered the opinion tha.t there was no moral claim for the sympathies of that Committee in the case of McNeill. They seemed to be persons from the electorate of the hon. member for Ipswich, and the im­pression he had formed was that what the Minister for Railways had stated was correct­that it was very fortunate for MeN eill that he had not been put upon his trial for manslaughter. He believed this, that unless he happened to get into some particular circle in Ipswich, he never could hear one word in favour of McNeill. In fact he had heard many persons say that when they had sent down to get a cab, they had said, "Be sure you do not get the man who caused the death of those persons," because the impres­sion they had formed was that he was a careless man. He (Mr. Tozer) had determined to sift the question as to whether the man was intoxicated, and he asked a very well-known gentleman whether there was any truth in the statement that the man was sober, and he said, "I believe he was sober on that one day, but that is the only occasion on which I have known him to be sober, and the probability is that it was through that fact that the accident arose." He could assure hon. members that he was stating not what he heard from one, but what he had heard from twenty persons. He was perfectly sure the hon. members for Ipswich and Stanley were actuated by that large feeling of sympathy which they h"d for all persons, and no doubt desired to benefit that man. It had been stated that the young lady in question was the only

Oases of Ma1iJaret Hem·y [18 JULY.] and Donald McNeill. 709

unmarried one of the family, but she had n, sister who no doubt had just n,s strong feelings in regard to the death of her father and mother.

Mr. BAHLOW: She is married.

Mr. TOZER said in many instn,nces that was not an unmixed blessing. Sometimes the girls who had POt husbands were rather better off in that particular, but, as far as he could understano, except for the loss of father or mother, there was no financial loss. As far as he was informed there was some gain to the members of the family after the father's and mother's death. He under­stood that the children had come in to some possessions. As far as he could understand the member for Stanley, he argued that MeN eill had the greater claim to consideration on account of the loss of his horses, and because he had been in the hospital, but it was rather strange that the Committee should assess the damages sustained by McNeill at £150, while the lady, who was nr•t present at the accident, was to get £200. So tha~ there was clearly a difference of opininn somewhere. However, he felt he had clone his duty in mentioning the circumstances that had come under his notice. So far as he was personally concerned he should like to see the country pay in all case~ where there was really a deserving claim, but in a country like Queensland, in which necessarily there had to be many railway crossings unprotected, he felt it necessary to raise his voice in a case of that kind, because he was certain that if the House once admitted the claim they would have hundreds of others brought forward on the first opportunity.

Mr. GLASSEY said be quite .endorsed the remarks that had been made by the hon. member for. W:ide B!"f when he .said that during his periOdiCal v1s1ts to IpswJCh he must get into some particular circle to find out certain things. That was a sentiment he entirely concurred in, but he was bound to confess that there were few members of the House, with the exception nf the hon. gentleme~ ':vho represented Ipswich, who more frequently VlSlted the town than himself. He thought also that he came into contact with as large a number of people as his bon. friend the memberfor \Vide Bay, butofcourseclid not get into that particular circle to which the hon. mem­ber alluded. Since the accident, and prior to it, he had on many occasions come in contact per­sonally with the person to wham reference had been made for a claim for damages, Donald MeN eill, ltnd he said with all truthfulness, more particularly as he did not indulge in drink and had no desire to screen any person who did, that be hltd never dnring the last few years, on a single occasion, ever seen that man the worse for drink. He thought, there­fore, there must be some prejudiced persons in the town of Ipswich who had giYen the information to his hon. friend the member for Wide Bay, which would induce him to bring forward such arguments as he had done against the claim of MeN eill. He (Mr. Glassey) sincerely :md earnestly hoped that when the Committee came to deal with financial questions generally the same care and consideration would be taken in regard to the expenditure of public money as was shown on the present occasion. He in variably found, and he wished strongly and firmly to empha­sise the fact, that when the claim of an individual who seemed to occupy a humble position in life was put before the Committee, the most wonderful and economical notions were set up with a view of protecting the financial institutions of the country; but when claims were made by persons in higher circles-persons who had drawn high salaries for a series of years, and who should under ordinary cir­cumstances have made careful and prudent and proper provision for themselves, those claims were

met with a ready and willing hand and without mnch question. vVhen, however, a paltry claim of £150 was made on behalf of a man with ten children who had lost his all, then, of course, hon. gentlemen were seized with wonderfully economical notions about protecting the Treasury.

Mr. BARLOW : His youngest child is four years old.

Mr. GLASSEY said if there was no legal claim, he hoped that a moral claim would be recognised. He did not for a moment wish to insinultte that the gentleman in charge of the Rail way Department was a man void of sympathy and human feelings. He was perfectly per­suaded that he possessed both, but he seemed to consider that if in the discharge of his official duties he granted the request now made, which in his (Mr. Glassey's) opinion was a most reason­able request, further demands would be made upon him. He had read the evidence, and gone most carefully into the case. The evidence, perhaps, had not been sifted to the fullest extent that the Minister for Railways might like, but he thought that those gentlemen who took upon themselves the duty of inquiring into the matter did so with a view of arriving at the truth, and with all due respect to the opinion which had been expressed by the Minister for Railways, he maintained that they were imbued with one feeling alone, and that was, so far as they could, to arrive at a correct and just conclusion in the matter; and having done so, they now recommended the granting of relief in accordance with the motion that had been moved by his hon. friend, Mr. Barlow, He hoped, notwithstanding what had been said, that the Committee would not allow any Iittle prejudice with respect to a person indulging in drink swerve them in that matter, but would Yote freely n,nd fearlessly irrespective of the

/epinions some Ministers of the Crown might have. He supposed the question would not be dealt with as a party matter, and he hoped it would not. \Vhether it was or not he would give his vote freely and honestly according to the dictates of his conscience, for what he believed to be a just and legitimate claim on behalf of a most deserving person who had lost his all, and was precluded from earning a livelihood and maintaining himself and those dependent upon him. He thought also that the sum of £200, which was asked for that young girl who had lost both her parents, was an extremely low figure to propose to give her in lieu of her nearest and dearest relations and her home. He felt bound to say further that, had that girl happened to belong to a higher circle of society, a very much larger amount than a miserable £200 would have been asked for her ; and he could not help thinking that, if it was asked, there would be a re­markable unanimity on the part of mem­bers of that Committee . to grant it. He hoped the Committee would be actuated by higher and nobler feelings than to refuse that miserable paltry £350 asked for those people. Under all the circumstances the demand was extremely reasonable, especially when they rem em be reel the neglect of the Rail way Depart­ment for years in connection with that crossing; and that when it was fonnd a serious accident had occurred, a person was put in charge of that dangerous place. If a person had been in charge of that spot prior to the accident no such claim would now have to be made. Seeing that the Railway Department had been lax in their duty to protect persons at that place in the paRt, though perhaps there was no legal claim against them, they had a moral responsibility in the matter. He hoped the Committee would take that view, and be actuated by generous feelings

710 Cases of Marga1•et Henry [ASSEMBLY.] and Donald McNeill.

on that occasion, and grant, with a free hand and ready will, the reasonable request made on behalf of those people.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Hon. J. Donaldson) said they had just listented to a very interesting sermon, for that was all he could call the speech o£ the hon. member for Bnndanba. There had not been a single attempt to refer to the facts of the case and the hon. ;nember had given no argu~ ment whatever m support of the claim before them. He had not the sliahte't bias him­self in the matter; but he rem:mbered the time the accident occurred, and had heard a gceat deal about it .. He certainly could not compli­ment the committee that had inquired into the case. It appeared to him that the statement made by Mr. Bradfield to the hon. member for Wide Bay had a great deal in it, and that the com­mittee only asked rtuestions that they thought would be answered in favour of the claim.

Mr. SA YERS : "\V e will tell you about that directly.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN ; It is a disgraceful state­ment, and I do not bel!eve Bradfield ever made it.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL said he could only say that he had read the evidence accompanying the committee's report and the ~onclusion he came to on readino- it' was that very leading questions, to say the least of them we;·e asked. He had nothing to say upon th~ cla1m made on behalf of Miss Henry, and he did not intend to direct his remarks to her case, as she was not at all responsible for the accident that had occurred. But, eo far as MeN eill was concerned, the case was different. lHcN eill was entirely responsible, and it was a great mis­ta!m that he had not been put upon his tnal for manslaughter. It was a matter of common report in Ipswich that the man was not at the time capable of driving his cab. 'I·he hon. member for Wide Bay was not the first to make that assertion. There were other member.s of. the Committee who conld sE<y the same thmg 1f they chose to speak upon it, and members who knew a little more abe>ut the man than the hon. member for Bundanba. He was n?t going ~o mention ~heir names, but perhaps it chd not smt them to d1vulge all they knew with regard to McNeill. Apart from the evidence given before the committee, it had been proved conclusively that if MeN eill had exercised the slightest caution he had plenty of time to pull up before the accident. First of all he had no right to npproach the crossing at the speed at which he was dl'iving, and he should have been able to he>tr Bradfield when he warned him. If he had only kept his eyes about him the accident would not have occurred. Why should he look on one side only? The hon. member who brou"ht the motion before the Committee did not ~ay that the train ran into him ; as a matter of fact he actually ran slap into the train. ·with reo-ard to the loss McNeill was mpposed to have ~'us­tained, there was no evidence whatever that he was the owner of the cab and hor,es. "\V as ~here any evider:c':' whatever that they cost lnm a smgle sh11lmg? He thought it ought to be within the knowledge of some hon. m em hers that he did not own the cab a,nd horses at all, and that he only hired them. There was no evidence to show 'that he had paid anything to the owner for them. There was evidence that he subsequently bourrht a cab and horses, and his having to seil his IJlace was attributed to that. When asked the CJ.Uestion the man actually could not give the value of the cab he was driving, and said that that informa­tion was contained in some papers he had sent to Mr. O'Sullivan ; but he said the horses were

worth about £20 each-a very high value indeed for horses. He (the Postmaster-General) was parti­cularly anxious not to speak long upon the sub­ject, because hon. members might think he wished to talk the matter out. He had not the slighest desire to do that ; but he would certainly oppose the motion so far as his own vote was concerned, and so far tts MeN eill's claim was concerned. He confined himselfto that. It had been alrettdy admitted that MeN eill had no legal claim, and he was confident he had no moral clai1n.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN: The girl has a moral claim.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL said he was not speaking of the woman's claim at all, but entirely of MeN eill. He had every reason to believe that the assertions made by the hon. member for "\Vide Bay were perfectly true, and under those circumstances he did not think the Committee would act fairly in the interests of the public to pass that vote or any portion of it, so far as McNeill was concerned.

Mr. G ANN ON said he happened to know a little about that site where the accident occurred, and he also knew a little about MeN eill. He could bear out a great deal of what had been said by the hon. member for Wide Bay with regard to McNeill's habits of insobriety. He had known him for many_.Ye>trs as the driver o~ a coal cart and as the dnver of a cab. He m1ght say that he had seen him slipping about the Ipswich station looking about for passengers as lively as he did before the accident. He wished to let the Committee know that the man had been a cripple for many years, so that he had not been crippled by the accident, as the hon. member for Ipswich and the hon. member for Bundanba had said

Mr. BARLOW said he explained that McNeill was a cripple, and therefore could not use the brake as well as if he had not been a cripple.

Mr. GANNON said he knew the place where the accident hrtppened, and he knew that any or<linary driver could save himself and his horses from accident at that place. He knew that the man was a careless driver, and that he was, until lately at any rate, in the habit of getting drunk. He had seen the man with horses when he was incttpable ; and he had gone so far as to threaten to have him prosecuted for cruelly ill-treating a horse. 'fhat was the sort of man for whom the money was asked; and he trusted that the Committee would not be hoodwinked into giving him· any money at all. He agreed with the Minister for Rail ways that leading questions had been put to the witnesses, and that the rail way authorities not having been called as witues3es was a fatal objection to the adoption of the report.

Mr. SA YERS said that he was one of the select committee appointed to inquire into the matter, but he did not think it could be said that he was biased in any way, because he was a total stranger to the parties at the time the committee was appointed. Since that time he had vi,ited Ipswich for the purpose of inspecting the crossing where the accident took place, and he came to the conchmicn that it was dan­gerous to life. He also ascertained that a large number of accidents, though not fatal, had taken place there previously. He took exception to the statement that leading questions had been put to the witnesses. He was certain that he put no leading rtuestion wilfully, and he did not think any other member of the committee had done so e\ther. Unfortunately the committee was not appointed to make a judicial inquiry, but only to ascertain whether any damage had been done to the parties, and whether the

Cases cif Margaret Hem·;y [18 JULY.] and Donald McNeill. 711

Government ought to pay anything in the wn,y of compensn.tion. He referred hon. members to question !J4, put to Mr. Bradfield, which he did not think could be called a leading question:-

" Do you wish to give the impression to tlw committee that if ]icli"eill had been another man-that if there had been another driver besides McXeill-this accident would not haYe happenecl? I could noti give that impression.''

If that was n, leading question at all it was put with the object of getting the witness to give all the particulars he knew. And he was certain that if the witness had given the slightest indication that MeN eill was in a state of drunkenness, the committee would have acted upon that evidence. It would be seen that when the amount of compen­sation cn.me to be considered by the Committee he moved an amendment, which the hon. mem­ber for Gympie, Mr. Melior, seconded, to the effect that £100 would be sufficient; but the other members of the select committee thought the amount ought to be £lf>O ; so that they were not unanimous in regard to the amount of com­pensation that should be paid by the Government to MeN eill. Some of the members of that select committee were inexperienced in such matters, but they tried to get at the truth as far as lay in their power. He had heard rumours outside ; but he did not take any notice of them, nor did he ask any particular witness to give evidence. The mayor of Ipswich was invited by the secretmy to the select committee to give evidence, and other witnesses came also ; but the committee were prepared to hear any other evidence. The Government were aware of the appointment of the select committee, and if they had thought it necessary to produce evidence on the other side the select committee would have been glad to have heard that evidence. The hon. member for Stanley, J'vir. O'Sullivan, knew more of the circumstances connected with the case than any other member of the select committee, and of course he asked a large number of questions; but any other member who wanted further enlightenment did not hesitate to put questions to witnesses. The select com­mittee came to the conclusion that the Govern­ment should grant £200 to Mis.> Henry, because she had suffered through no fault of her own, and since the death of her father and mother she had been unable to earn her living as she had done previously ; n.nd he thought the country would agree with that recommendation, even though the Government were not legally re­sponsible. Whether MeN eill was to blame or not was another question. He thought it would be a very small loss to the country, and only a just and righteous act, taking in consid~ra­tion the fact that both the girl's parents had been killed, to grant the amount asked for. He did not say that the Government were to blame ; but if the Government had taken the pre­caution to have a signalman at the crossing, the accident would not have happened. He believed that the Government were to a certain extent responsible, and that they believed the crossing to be a dangerous one, because since the accident they had placed a man there. The select committee were unani­mous with regard to the amount that should be granted to Margaret Henry ; but they were not unanimous with regard to the amount that should be granted to MeN eill, though they n,]] considered that he had suffered loss. They did not know what the Postmaster-General had just stated- that the horses and cab were not his own-hnt he supposed that McNeill was liable and had to pay for them. Every penny of money he had went to pay for the repair of the cab and for the loss of the hors~s, and he was virtually made an insolvent, and his house had been sold, He did not think

it was a good thing to bring up in that Committee things that mi((ht have been heard outside, about a man's bemg drunk or sober. There were all sorts of views upon those questions. Some men were never drunk, at least they would say they were never drunk, and someone else mi~ht say they were if he had seen

_ them take a glass of grog. When a state­ment was made that a man was an habitual drunkard there were lots of people ready to believe it, whether it was the fact or not. If Mr. Bradfield hn,d given the slightest hint to the committee that such was the case when he came forward as a witness, if he misled the committee, or had anything that he wishad to state to the committee, there was no one who would not have been anxious for him to have volunteered any statement. In fact he was asked if he had any statement to make. Question 94 gave him that opportunity. He would read that question once more, and also the two following-

" Do you wish to give the impression to the corn· mittee that if McNeill had been another man-that if there had been another driver besides McNeill-this accident would not have happened? I could not give that impression.

"Are you under the impression that the accident could not have happened to anybody else? That is, driving as fast a.s he was, and taking no more notice where he was going--?

"Anybody would have come to the same accident? Yes." The hon. member for Wide Bay had 8tated that that witness was only asked questions which would bring favourable answers. But when he was asked that question, if he had been as anxious as he said he was to inform the committee of the facts 0f the case in regard to the driver of the cab, MeN eill, he could easily have given his answers in a way which would have given the com­mittee a hint that the:man was not sober. The hon. member for Gym pie, Mr. Melior, asked him-

'' This Cl"Ossing· has been a source of danger since the railway was opened? Before; when the ballast train was running.

~~Do you know if any representation was made to the council about the danger of it? I do not know, unless by ~lr. Barlow. I have said nothing to anybody but the newspaper. I have gone to the Queensland Times to have a 'jar.' Another accident nearly happened.''

The hon. member for \Vide Bay wished the Committee to believe that the gentlemen con­ducting the inquiry only asked the witnesses leading questions, and wanted answers favour· able to McNeill. He most unhesitatingly said that wn,s not true, and the Committee must be of the same opinion. \Vhat they were there for, was to get as near the truth as possible. They never tried to suppress any answers that were given by witnesses.

Mr. MACF ARLANE said he was anxious to hear the expressions of opinion from the mem­bers of the Committee, before he said anything on the subject before them, but time was flying, and unless he spoke then hemightnot have another opportunity. The Minister for Railways had done exactly what he expected him to do-he made the hest defence he could for the Treasury. He seemed to say that persons had no claim unless they could prove that the Government were negligent in any matter that could be attended to. He thought that the Government had proved that they were negligent, from the very fact that they had appointed a flagman to the place which was unprotected before the accident. That was an admission that they had been negligent, and an admission of their lia­bility. Some one was liable ; no one denied that an accident had taken place. There was a difference of opinion as to the liability of the driver; but there could be no difference of opinion in reference to the persons who occupied the inside of the cab, Mr. and

712 Cases of Margaret Henry [ASSEMBLY.] and Donald MoNeill.

MrP. Henry, who were well known in Ipswich. They had lived in Ipswich for many years, and were highly respected. The man was returning from a long absence from his family, at the work he was engaged in on the railway, and was going home that night speaking of the pleasures of life that they should enjoy in future when he had retired from his work. While speaking of that they were both ushered into eternity. They could all imagine the sufferings of the girl if they put themselves in her position. Whatever blame, if there were any, could be attached to McNeill, there was this to be said in his favour : that bad that place been protected the accident would not have happened. That was a very strong argument in favour of McNeill having some claim upon the Government, the want of that protection which was due to every citizen -that they should not be exposed to undue risks. Most hon. members knew that the rail­way actually crossed the main street of Ipswich. It was the same as when hon. members crossed the lobby. They had all to cross it, and they could imagine how dangerous it would be if a railway train ran across it. Up to the time of the accident people were exposed to that danger, but since that time they had been protected by a flagman. He thought the Government were liable ; but he was not going to say to what amount. If they arrived at the amount of damages sustained, it was their duty to award that amount of money. In certain circles they might find McNeill blamed, and that right roundly-in fact, his son threw all the blame upon him. There was no doubt about that. But there were a great many people who sympathised with him, and said that he was entitled to be reimbursed the amount he had lost, from the fact that he would not have lost his cab and the horses if the rail way had been protected. He was not going to defend MeN eill ~~;n the plea of sobriety. MeN eill was not a teetotaller, and there were a great many people who were not teetotallers, but who would deny that they were ever drunk in their lives. Hon. members ofthat Committee would say they were never drunk in their lives, although they might have drank a good deal more than MeN eill drank on the day the accident took place. His argument was that there had been negligence on the part of the railway authorities, and those authori­ties would get out of the difficulty with more grace and more honour to themselves by the Committee allowing the motion to pass, rather than declare to the country by opposing it, as was well said by the hon. member for Bundanba, that a poor man received very little protection in the Committee in the matter of claims. Some two years ago he advocated the claim of a man who lost his life at the new station at Ipswich while it was being erected, and that claim was rejected by Parliament; yet the man's wife was left a widow, without any protection or any means to carry on. That decision was spoken against a great deal in Ipswich, from the fact that the woman was in poor circumstances, while on the following year another case, not so deserving, was attended to in a different way, and the claim was allowed. He hoped the Committee would consider the. matter and graciously pass the amount which had been pnt down for that girl. She had a very good claim indeed. He knew her before the accident took place, and he could assure hon. members that since the accident she had not appeared the same girl at all; she was downcast and sorrowful, and the very blood seemed to have left her cheeks. She was evidently suffer­ing very greatly on account of the terrible loss she had sustained in the death of both her parents. He hoped something would be done for the girl and also for MeN eill.

Mr. HYNE said he intended to support the motion simply because he believed the whole blame lay with the railway authorities for not having protected the crossing. The only C?n­clusion anyone reading the evidence could arrive at was that the crossing was dangerous, and that the attention of the Government had been several times called to the fact. He had some experience of open level crossings. They had some in Maryborough, and every day he expected to hear news of some terrible accident at one of those crossings. It was only within a few weeks past that a new kind of locomoth:e with high sides had been sent up there, and It was simply impossible for the driver of that engine to see what was going on in front. ?'he engine often ran into his yards, and the dnver had several times asked him to intercede with the authorities and get him a watch boy for the engine. He was glad to see that a watchboy had at last been granted. With regard to Mr. Bradfield, that gentleman had done morA to injure his own character by the statement he had made to the hon. member for Wide Bay than he {Mr. Hyne) would care to injure his character.

Mr. TOZER: It was my duty to mention what I was told.

Mr. HYNE said he did not refer to the hon. member for Wide Bay, but to Mr. Bradfield. Mr. Bradfield distinctlv stated in his evidence that trains went up ·the incline where the accident occurred at a speed of ten miles an hour. At question 81 be was asked-·

"By the Chairman : Do you think that the train we together saw the other day, going up the incline, was going more than ten miles an hour? I should say about ten miles an hour."

Was not that too great a speed to travel over a level crossing? He thought it was. Then, again, at question 82 he was asked-

" By Mr. Sayers: In your opinion, 1\ir. Bradford, if there had been a signal~ man and gates at that crossing, the accident would not have happened, I would ask P It could not have happened, if there had been a man with a fiag there."

Those were the answers given by Mr. Bradfield, and yet he made the extraordinary statement which had been mentioned by the hon. member for Wide Bay. He {Mr. Hyne) hoped the Com­mittee would go to a division on the question, and that hon. members would consider the matter from a humane point of view. It was no good to say the accident would not have happene~ if the cabman. had been sober. It was an acci­dent, for no man would knowingly run into .an engine with a pair of horses and a cab at the nsk of losing his life, and it would not have happened if the crossing had been properly protected.

Mr. DRAKE said he only wanted to refer to questions 117 and 118, asked by the hon. member f<fr Burke, Mr. Hodgkinson, in examining MeN eill. There they had the following evi­dence :-

"By 1Ir. IIo1gkinson : You held a license at the time? Yes.

"How long did you hold that licen<e before the accident? Four years."

That was a somewhat important fact in connec­tion with the case, especially in view of the conflict of evidence they bad heard with regard to the sobriety of MeN eill. Magisterial inquiries were almost always conducted by the police, and if that man had a bad record as a cabman the police would have known of it, and it would have come under the notice of some member of the committee. How then did the matter stand ? There was not a single word in the evidence taken before the select committee, or in tlmt given at the magisterial inquiry, so far as be

Oases oj Margaret Henry

understood from the quotations read by the hon. member for Ipswich, Mr. Barlow, to show that McNeill was in the habit of taking drink. Then they had the testimony of the hon. member for Bundanba, that he knew NcNeill for four years, and had never seen him drunk. The man might taste drink occasionally, but he (Mr. Drake) thought the very fact that McNeill had held a license for four years, went to show that he was not in the habit of taking drink. Then again, there was the evidence of Dr. VonLossberg, which should certainly have great weight with the Committee, that at the time the accident happened MeN eill was sober, so that on the question of sobrietv, the balance of evidence was in favour of the" conclusion that he was sober when the accident occurred. He (Mr. Drake) intended to support the motion on the ground that there had been some omission on the part of the State. It had been clearly shown that there was an omission to put a flagnum there to look after the crossing, and even if there had been any fault on the part of the cabman-he did not know whether there was or not-it was probable that if a flagman had been stationed at the crossing the accident would not have happened.

Mr. CAMPBELL said he was very glad to hear the hon. member for Ipswich, Mr. Barlow, speak so highly of Mr. Bradfield as a witness. That just bore out the statement made by the hon. member for Wide Bay, and also a statement made to him (Mr. Campbell) by Mr. Bradfield. He dirl not know Mr. Bradfield, and was not aware that he was a witness in the case ; but the subject cropped up in the railway train, and Mr. Bradfield said to him, "Well, if the committee gives McNeill anything they ought to be ashamed of it." Bradfield then told him that he had given evidence in the case. He (Mr. Campbell) said, ""Why, was MeN eill drunk?" Bradfield replied, "Of course he was." He asked, "Why did you not state that to the committee?" 'Bradfield answered, " I was prepared to do so if I was asked the question, but they took good care not to ask me that." He (Mr. Campbell), was very much surprised at that statement. The minutes of evidence showed that the hon. member for Ipswich, Mr. Bar low, asked Bradfield the follow­ing question:-

" \Yhat do you think about the n.ccident-you saw it? If iYicXeill had, stopped when I told him there would have been no accident."

One would naturally think the next question would be, "·was McNeill sober?" But the committee strictly avoided that question. He had a great deal of sympathy with the girl who had been bereaved of her parents through the negligence and culpableness of McNeill, and he hoped the Committee would take her case into consideration, though he did not say they should vote the amount recommended by the select committee. He thought they should give her something.

Mr. HODGKINSON said that of course the Government and those who were not in favour of the motion sought to make out that the select committee had not done their duty. It was a very favourite course to pursue under some circumstances-" If you have no case, abuse the other side." Possibly, if he were in the place of the Minister for Railways, he should consider it his duty to protect the public purse. He was surprised that a gentleman with a pro­fessional training like the hon. membor for \Vide Bay, should attempt to cast opprobrium on the committee by repeating a lot of tittle-tattle he had heard at Ipswich, and which was never laid before the committee. Would hon. mem­bers take Mr. Bradfield's evidence as given before a select committee of the House, or would

and :bonaid McNeiil. 7i3

they accept the tittle-tattle collected by the hon. members for Wide Bay and Aubigny? Upon what authority should the hon. member for Aubigny attempt to upset the report of the committee by repeating something he had heard in a railwaycar­riageregardingthemanMcN eill? It was distinctly sworn that on the day of the accident McNeill was sober. Was that sworn evidence to be set aside by the little tittle-tattle which hon. mern hers might hear in rail way carriages or elsewhere? Could it be believed that any member of that committee entered upon his duties there with a view of exercising an unjust charity at the expense of the country? He considered that those people were entitled to some gratuity, even admitting that McNeill had contributed to the accident by his negligence. It was per­fectly well known that the danger of that crossing had been repeatedly brought under the notice of the Government; and the fact that since the accident the Government had taken steps to protect it, was a distinct recognition on the part of the Government that the accident was due, to a certain extent, to the danger attached to the crossing, and that they were guilty of negligence in not having protected it before. The com­mittee recommended the award to the girl be­cause she was in a somewhat different position from her sisters ; she was in a delicate state of health, and had not the chance of settling in life that her sisters were supposed to have. It could certainly not be contended for a moment that she was in any way contributory to the accident, and she was entitled to some award because of the failure of the Railway Department to do a duty they should have performed. He also thought the man McNeill was at any rate entitled to the cost of the horses and vehicle destroyed. It was no busine,,s of the committee to investigate the man's title io those horses. They were in his possession at the time, and if anyone had a claim to them, he could recover the amount from McNeill. All the committee had before them was that the man was in possession of the property, and they held that he had established a claim against the country for compensation for the loss of it. Let the matter be put to the vote, and whichever way it went, he shoulc1. be _perfectly prepared to abide by the decision of the Committee.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN said it had been pretty freely hinted that the select committee which sat on the case were biased, and he thought it was hardly a charitable thing for hon. members to say that a committee appointed by the House was biased. So far as he was concerned, his answer was simply that, as far as the man Henry and his family and his sister were concerned, he had never known or spoken to them. The sym­pathy he had with them was the sympathy which sprang from his nature; it was the same sym­pathy which he felt for all in misfortune, black or white, here or in any other part of the world. With regard to the hon. member for Wide Bay, whom he had known from a boy, and whom he esteemed highly, he denied his right to go to a witness who had been examined by the com­mittee, and ask him private questions when he was not on his oath. The inference to be drawn from that was that the committee had not sought to ascertain the exact truth about the matter, and that they had recommended their award on insufficient evidence. \V as it likely that the hon. members for Burke, Charters Towers, or Burrum knew anything personally about those people? And he himself had as little knowledge of them as they had. It was not a very creditable thing for an hon. member to come forward and tell them that a witness examined by the committee stated to him that he could have said the man was drunk if they had asked him the question, but that they

1i4 Cases qf Marga1·et Henry [ASSEMBtY.] anrl .bonald McNeill.

took care not to ask it. It was a gross libel by either the one or the other. The members of the committee had no personal object in view, and he felt sure that the hon. member who brought the matter forward, Jlilr. Barlow, did so from charit­able, manly, and upright motives; and the man who would throw any aspersions upon the char­acter of that hon. member would find that he was striking at the wrong person. Then the Po5tmaster-General, also, had been gossiping and getting little whispers behind the corner. What business was it of the Postmaster-General to say that although JlilcN eill had the horses in his possession at the time, he had not paid for them? Had that hem. gentleman never obtained anything on credit? Perhaps he was independent in that direction, but as far as he (Jiilr. O'Sullivan) was concerned, he had often had to obtain things on his word, and had found people charitable enough to wait until he was ready to pay them, which, somehow or other, he had always hitherto managed to do. The hon. gentleman appeared to have been told that the horses were not JlilcN eill's, and that the cab was not his; that he was really driving for hire. That was no part of the case, and he did not think they should go into those little private matters in that Committee. With regard to the remark of the hon. member for Aubign:v, he would say that omission was not evasion. That hon. member said that the ques­tfon which ought naturally to have followed a certain question was whether JlilcNeill was drunk or not. But if the committee forgot to put that question, did it amount to e.-asion? Could it be said that they did not ask the question pur­posely? The most likely way to get willing m em­hers of the House to sit on select committees, and spend a great deal of their time there, was not to a~cuse them of bias when they brought up their report, and not to impute motives to them. If any motives of thn,t kind were imputed to him he should refuse to act on those committees. He had wasted a great deal of his time during the course of many years attending those com­mittees, and that was the first time ever such n, charge had been made against him-that he was, biased in favour of people he had never laid his eyes on, anddidnot evenlmowthat theywereali.-e, such as the woman in question. MeN eillhe acknow­ledged he had known for the last ten or twenty years at a ci vi! distance, hut he had no more re­gard or sympathy for him than he had for any other citizen. He had found MeN eill as good a citizen as anyone else, and h0 co•rld ~ay openly that he had never seen the man drunk ; he might have been drunk, but he (Jiilr. O'Sullivan) never knew it, and he was certain that he was not drunk on the occasion referred to. MeN eill had worked for him on several occasions; he had found him as good a man n,s any in Ipswich, and he contributed ns much to the revenue in supporting his wife and ten children as any man in the. colony. And if he did drink, whatever he drank he had to pay taxes for ; and in the face of the opposite opinions that had been given, he considered that McNeill was vastly more entitled-if they were going to act upon charitable m uti ves--to the sum asked for thn,n the woman was. Hon. members could not accuse him of being much against the women ; like all Irishmen he loved ,the women, and while he said that this woman was entitled to compensation, she was no more entitled to it than MeN eill was with his houseful of helpless children.

Jlilr. TOZER said with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Bnrke, he should be content to" jowkand let the jaw gang by," as the Scotch said. With regard to what the hon. member for Stanley had stated, he (Jiilr. Tozer) had never insinuated, nor had he accused the committee in any way of want of care or

partiality in dealing with the :natter. The select committee had had one Witness before them, upon whose evidence, as explained by the hon. member for Ipswich, they particularly relied. He (Jiilr. Tozer) did not know anything- about that witness, but while he was looking at the place, a man came up upon whom he had never set eyes before, and this man turned out to be the witness in question. He (Mr. Tozer) deemed it his duty, as a member of that House, to fortify his opinion upon the matter before voting away the money of the country, and no observations of hon members would deter him from doing his duty in the future.

Mr. BARLOW said he did not know whether the matter would be decided that night or a month hence, but he could only say that he had acted bona fide throughout. His life was as precious to him as the life of any body else ; perhaps more so, and he had frequently allowed McNeill to drive him about at various times during the last four years. And he was perfectly satisfied that the man was sober on this occasion. That appeared from evidence that could _not be impugned. As for the charge of trymg to hoodwink the Committee, it was entirely nn­founderl. He might state that it was arranged that the hon. member for 8tanley should put the questions about intoxication, so that the evidence should appear on record. He (l\fr. Barlow) had clone his best in bringing forward the claim, which he believed to be bona .fide, and he would now leave it with confidence in the hands of the Committee.

Mr. SALKELD said he felt that he was placed in a very delicate position in regnrd to that matter, and he should endeavour to put himself right by explaining the vote he intended to give. He intended to v?te for the £20~ for Miss Henry, because he beheved she had a nght to it and he would give his reasons for holding that' opinion. The other case stood in a di:fferent position. In the first place he would pomt out that nearly the whole, if not the whole, of the railway from Ipswich to Harrisville was left open to the public, and for a great distance it ran alon~ the main road. He was not in favour of raih~ays crossing streets o;: run?ing alm;g main roads, without any protectwn bemg prov1ded for the public. In the case of a level crossmg, a person coulrl wait until a train ,passed, but when it was travelling along the main road, where there was no protection, it wol!ld ,,verta~e him, and if his horses got fnghtened lns life might be placed in great danger. He (Jiilr. Salkeld) nearly lost his life in that way on one occa,,ion, and he had the greate~t difficulty to hold the horse until the tram passed. That opened up the wide questi<:>n of fencing rail ways in and of preventing rall­ways being made along main f roads: He believed the crossing in question at I ps wrch was a danger inasmuch ·as although a person might know it 'was there-he knew it was there, and yet on one occasion he could only pull up wit~in a few yards of it and if a train had been commg he would have h~d great difficulty in avoiding it. \Vhatever might be said with regard to thP case, it was quite clear that Jlilr. and Mrs. Henry were not to blame ; there was :10 evidence of negligence on their part. Jlilrss Henry had suffered great loss, and, morally speaking, was entitled to the claim. \Vith regard to JlilcN eill he did not wish to say any­thing, except that, on the face of it, there was an appearance of contributory neglect, and he (Jiilr. Salkeld) should like the motions to be put separately. He did not think it was right that they should be put together, because many hon. members might be inclined to vote for one who would not vote for the other.

Crown Lands Acts, i884

'rhe HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFJo'ITH said it would not make the least difference if the first para­graph was omitted altogether. The important part of the business was the adoption of the second resolution.

Mr. SALKELD moved, as an amendment, that the first resolution be omitted.

At 7 o'clock, The SPEAKER said: In compliance with

the Sessional Order the House will now proceed to the discussion of Government business.

CROW::"'r LANDS ACTS, 1884 TO 1886, AMENDMENT BILL. .

REst:MPTION OF COMMITTEE.

On this Order of the Day being read the Speaker left the chair, and the House went into committee to further consider the Bill.

On subsection 2 of clause 3, as follows :­u Grazing Farms.

"(2l ·with regard to grazing farms so much of section forty-nine as is contained in the words 'Applications shall take priority according to the order of their being lodged with the land agent' mul in the pro­viR a to SllCh section is hereby repealed, and the following provisions are substituted in lieu there­of:·-

" Every applicant shall, in his appliPation, state the annual premium (if any) in addition to the rent specified in the proclamation which he is prepared to p:1y for the lot for the first five years of the term of his lC"lSe in tCc event of there being competition for the same.

The first year's premiun1 so stated. shall aecom~ 1mny the application.

If the application is withdrawn, the premium shnll be forfeited.

" Subject to the llrovisions next hereinafter contained, applications shall take priority according to the onler of their being lodged with the land agent.

If two or more applicants shall be tJre~ent at the time of opening the land agent's office, the applica~ tions lodged by them shall be deemed to be lodged at the sn,me time. In such case the applicant who has in his applic:ation offered the highest premium shall be entitled to priority.

rrovidell that in case the highest premium offered shall ha.ve been offered by more than one of such last. mentioned applicants, the right of priority shall he determined by auction behveen such applicants, in the prrl'lcribed manner.

The premium shall be a<lded to and be deemed part of the annual rent."

On which the Minister for Lands had proposed an amendment, by the omission of the word ''annual" in the 17th line-

Mr. HYNE said that the discussion on the pre­vious night had been upon the three systems of dis­posing of those grazing farms-the premium sys­tem proposed in the Bill, the ballot system, and the auction system. It had been pretty well shown that the auction system had worked in such a manner that it was not thought advisable to continue it. The arguments put forward by both sides of the Committee had proved thatcon­clusively. The only argumenG against the ballot system was as to the manner in which sl'!pposed applicants had put in dummy applications. They could contend with that evil, and grapple with the di.fficulty, if those dummy applications were ]JUt m to such an extent that a b01u£ fide applicant had a very small chance of obtaining the land he desired. There was a clause in the Land Act of 1884 which would meet the difficulty if it were only enforced, and he was surprised that it had not been enforced. Clause 134 of the Act of 1884 stated :-

"Any person who fraudulently evades, or attempts to evade, any of the provisions of this Act, or other­wise commits any fraud thereon for the acquisition of land, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, on con­viction thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for a period of not more than two years."

to l886, Anieniiment Bill. 7i5

The next clause provided-" Lands acquired by any evasion of, or fraud upon

the provisions of this Act, shall be forfeited to tbe Crown." The difficulty that would be made would be that they might be asked how they could tell whether an application wasadummyoneor not; but he would suggest that in any case where suspicio;n existed the applicant should have to appear m person before the land was allotted to him. That would get over the difficulty. The Premier had stated that it was right for the Government to obtain as much money for the land as they possibly could, .and he was right as far as he went; but that was a ng~t which could be purchased too dearly, because rt was not always the man who could afford to pay the most money who would make the best settler. He thought that the premium system would have a tendency to frighten men of small means, ~vhen they knew that capitalists were likely to put in applications. After hearing all the argu­ments he must decidedly adhere to the ballot system, because he thought it was the most favourable in every respect. That was, of course, only his opinion, and he could not see why the clause he had quoted had not been enforced, when a lot of false applications or "clashers" were put in. He had several times thought that if the Government were sincere and really thought that the LandActof1884was so very bad, they should propose to withdraw it altogether n,nd bring in another Act? He was sure the discus­sion would never end on the 1884 Act, and the only way to end it would be for the Government to bring forward another measure. Perhaps they were waiting to show the public that the Act was as bad as had been sug­gested. He could not forget a stateme?t made by the Postmaster-General when the Brll was introduced. He said the Government were determined to show the public that the Act was bad, and that the present Government pro­phesied that it would turn out a failure. If such antagonism as that was shown to the Act, what chance was there of it being made a success? The land a"ents all over the colony would of course see th';.t the Government desired it to be n, failure. Like master like man, and those agents would not put themselves out of the way to make it a success. He was sorry to hear the Postmaster-General make that statement. He had not the exact words by him.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL : I do not think you quote me correctly.

Mr. HYNE said, at all events, he quoted the hon. gentleman's meaning.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL: I do not think so.

Mr. HYNE said he did not intend to misquote the hon. gentleman, but the words made an im­pression on his memory at the time. The only safeguard that they had against officers pot doing their duty was in the Act being. f~rrly administered, and he congratulated the Mmrster for Lands on the open way in which he h~d introduced the Bill. The hon. gentleman sard he was introducing the Bill to make the Act of 1884 work>tble according to the intentions of the framers, and he gave the hon. gentleman credit for being sincere. He thought it was acknow­ledged that the hon. gentleman had done. his best to administer the Act and make rt a success, but still while open antagonism was shown by the Government, it was a dangerous example to set to the various officers ·in the branch land offices throughout the colony. They knew very well that an unfavourable report would be more acceptable than a favourable one. Referring to clause 3, if the question went to a division he should vote for maintaining the ballot system, He had not heard anything

716 Crown Lands· Acts, i884 [ASSEMBLY.] to i886, Amendment Btlt.

against that system, whilst the auction and pre­mium systems gave the best chance to the man with the longest purse.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS said the clauses to which the hon. gentleman referred, clauses 134 and 135, would not in any way apply to the case of so-called "clashers." The present Act actually legalised what was being done. Tho~e clauses would not in any way prevent dummy applications, and it was in order to prevent the present irregular practice that he desired to make the present improvement. It was not an illegal practice, but it was irregular, and should he put a stop to. As he had before told hon. members, he could not at present point out the same glaring breach of the intentions of the Act, as far as grazing farms were concerned, as he un­doubtedly could with regard to occupation licenses. But they were likely to have such a large number of applications for grazing farms in the future, owing to the improvement of the seasons and owing to the confidence he believed the public had in the grazing farm system, that he desired to have a uniform system, and to ensDre that the bona fide honest selector who went to a great deal of trouble to get land thrown open to selec· tion in grazing farms should have a fair chance of acquiring the land he looked for.

The HoN. ~IR S. W. GRIFFITH: By paying a heavy premmrn.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS said he wished the Committee to understand that that provi­sion would certainly not apply to more than 5 per cent. of the applications for grazing farms. It was only on the one day at a parti­cular hour when a number of farms were thrown open for selection in a district that there wou-ld be a rush of applications. After the first day there would still be grazing farms open to selection, and anyone could select one. It was only in the event of a number of applica­tions being put in for one grazing farm that the )Jremium provision would have any effect, and the person offering the highest would get it. If there were two or more applications offering the same amount of premium, the grazing farm would be put np to auction, but only amongst those two or three persons offering the same amount of premium. The matter was excessively simple. He could quite understand that hon. gentlemen oppo­site should be extremely suspicious of any attempt to interfere with the Land Act of 1884. He was glad to hear the hon. member for Maryborough say that he believed he (the Minister for Lands) had endeavoured to administer that Act in accord­ance with the wishes of the framers of it. He had given careful and close attention tu the 1884 Act during the last twelve months, and he could assure hon. members that all the amendments he proposed in the Bill before them were the result of his conviction that the Act of 1884 would be improved by them. It was not by any means his intention or wish that that Act should be upset, and hon. members should bear in mind that he had not, since he had had an oppor­tunity of closely considering the Act; been so persistent in his opposition to it as he had been formerly. He sincerely desired to make a good workable Act of it, and if hon. members opposite were suspicious of the intentions of 'the Government side with respect to it he could not help that. In bringing forward the Bill before the Committee he did so believing that the amendments proposed in it would facilitate the more efficient working of the Act of 1884, and give effect to what the framers of that Act intended. Hon. gentlemen opposite had said that if the Go­vernment did not believe in the Act they should bring in a new one. It might be easy to repeal the Act of 1884, but it was not easy to bring in a new one, and he thought that in the present

state of the colony nothing could be more detri­mental to its interests than to be constantly re­pealing their land legislation. He believed the present Act was capable of being improved and made a workable measure for, at all events, a few years longer. He desired to do that, and if the Committee was not with him he could not help it, and he should still continue to administer the Act of 1884 to the best of his ability, so long as the duty was entrusted to him. With regard to the agents referred to by the hon. member for Maryborough, who might think that an adverse criticism of the Act of 1884 would be favourably received, he could assure the hon. member that if he thought any officer in the Lands Department had that idea in his head, and made unfavourable reports of the working of the Act thinking he would please him (the Minister£ or Lands), or the party sitting on his side of the Committee, he would not very long remain in his position. He would at once remove him, 9,nd he would consider that he had the support of hon. members of the Committee if he dealt with such ~ man in a summary way. The question was, whether the proposals he now made would be an improvement upon the Act if passed. He still adhered to the opinion he had expressed on the previous night, that the amendments he proposed in the Bill before the Committee would improve the Act of 188·1, and would not prejudice in any way what might be called the interest of the working man. The poor man, as a general rule, did not go in for a grazing farm. He felt he was perfectly justified in asking the Committee to divide upon that question. If he lost he would be sorry for it, and if he gained he would consider that the Committee had taken a step in the right direction. With regard to occupation licenses his opinion was very firm on that point. He hoped the Committee would look at the question from the same point of view as he did, and he could not say any more at present.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH said they were willing to give the Minister for Lands every credit for the most excellent intentions, and he was very glad t0 hear the statement the hon. gentleman had made as to the manner in which he administered the Land Act; but good intentions were not a sufficient reason for altering the law. The hon. member was actuated by the best intentions, but he ought to show the Committee how his good intentions would be given effect to by the amendment he proposed. Surely it must occur to the hon. gentleman himself that he had contradicted himself in the short speech he had made. In the first part of it, which was the only part that was at all argumentative, the hon. gentleman said he did not like the idea of a man who bad taken the trouble to find out a good grazing farm, and get it surveyed and proclaimed open for selection, being pre­vented from getting it, and the hon. member said he wished to give him a fair chance to get it. But what mode did the hon. gentleman propose to enable that man to have a fair chance of getting the land? By paying a premium for it; by betting in the dark on his chance of getting it. That was· the hon . .:rentleman's remedy ; and how would that help the man who discovered the selection ? It seemed to him the argument tended the other way. The hon. gentleman had failed entirely to show any connection of cause and effect between the difficulty he had men­tioned and the proposal he had m:tde to remedy it. How would the hon. member's proposal give the intending selector a better chance than the present system gave him? The hon .. •gentleman said afterwards that the proposal would not apply to more than 5 per cent. of the applications for grazing farms. Did the hon. gentleman not see that he was cutting down the other part of his argument altogether by that statement? It

Crown Lands .Acts, 1884 [18 JuLY.] to 1886, .A1nendment Bill. 717

had been pointed out on the previous evening that there were very few cases in which there was com­petition for grazing farms, and there would be fewer if a sufficient number of farms were thrown open. The statement was, in effect, that, except in a few cases, the system of premiums would be inopera­tive, and in 5 per cent. of those cases the man who had the best right to the selection would not get it without paying a hea,vy premium. He really did not believe that the hon. gentlema,n himself saw how the clause would work. The hon. gentleman had said that it would only take effect in the case of first applications, but whether there would be more than one applica­tion would not be known until the lands office was open. It must be remembered tha,t the application ha~ to be put in before that.

The MINISTER FOR MINES AND WORKS: No.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said the • correction was right, but the application had to

be prepared before tha,t, and the man, when preparing his applica,tion and making up his mind as to the amount of premium he would tender, must do so antecedently to the opening of the door of the lands office, when he would not know whether any other applications would be put in or not; so that in every case, if a man desired to get a selection, he must offer a premium. If it turned out that there was no competition, he would get his premium back ; but the point was that, in every case where a man applied for a grazing farm, he would have to tender a premium. Was it any encouragement to selec­tion to say that every man who wanted a grazing farm should put in a tender for the premium he was prepared to give for it? What elements would he have upon which to make his calcula­tion as to what was a fair thing to give? He would be asked to make a calculation in the dark, as he would have no idea who would compete with him, or whether anyone would do so. If he knew that five other persons were competing with him for a grazing farm he might be in a position to gaugA their desire to get it, and make his calculation in that way; but he could have no such knowledge in preparing his application. The argument that the clause would benefit the Treasury had been abandoned, and so he nP.ed not dwell upon that. The clause was simply to enable the highest ten­derer to get the selection, but each applicant would be entirely in the dark as to who would be compet­ing with him, while he would have to offar a pre­mium in every case, if he desired to get the farm. Let any hon. member put himself into the position of a person intending to apply for a grazing farm at the present time. After selecting the farm which he thought was likely to suit him, he filled up his application and took it to the office, with the amount of the first year's rent aud the survey fee. But, under the pro­posed scheme, a man who desired to take up a grazing farm would have to enter into a calculation, without data, as to how many people were likely to apply for the same farm ; whether they were likely to be people with money, and, if so, how much money; and how much he could afford to stake. Hon. members could see how unfairly that might work. A man might anticipate that there would be ten other applicants, and might be prepared to stake £100, or even £200, though that might be more than he could afford; and after all it might turn out that there was only one other applicant who offered a nominal amount or nothing, so that he would have paid his £200 for nothing. He dared say that many other defects would be found in the working of the scheme proposed ; but the defects he had pointed out appeared on the face of it. Every man who wanted a grazing farm would be

hampered in making his application in tha~ way, and it would tend materially to discourage that kind of selection.

Mr. GLASSEY said that previous to the closing remarks of the Minister for Lands he was under the impression that he did not attach very much weight to the question of tendering ; but now tl:at the hon. gentleman proposed to divide the Committee on the question that impression had disappeared. He had always understood that there was a great desire on both sides to encourage the kind of settlement that was essentially neces­sary for the well-being of the country-namely, the occupation of the country by agriculturists and small graziers, in the interests of their families. But how did the Government pro­pose to encourage that class of settlement? By offering the highest inducements to those who had the most cash ; and that being the case the Government must necessarily defeat their own object. He was well aware that persons with limited means could, and did, take up grazing farms. In many parts of the country, especially in the Central and Western districts, where there was little scope for their families, persons working on the railway line made strenuous efforts to obtain small grazing areas, with the view of finding occupation for their children who were growing up. But supposing two persons made application for the same area, the person with limited means must go to the wall. Disguise it how they might-and the Minister for Lands had clothed it with various garbs to show the questio11 in its best light-even with its Sunday clothes on-the person with the longest purse must of necessity secure the holding. He did not see why anything should be put in the way of men of limited means acquiring holdings of, ,say, 2,560 acres or upwards. They were not bound to fence or improve for the first three years and they could even get an exemption for another year; so that persons with limited means could take up grazing areas, and, in addition to improving their own position, find an outlet for their families. He was convinced that if the question came to a division, a solid front, however small, wonld be offend on his side in the present instance, and on every occasion on which an attempt was made to block the small man from obtaining a holding in the colony. Notwithstanding all that had been said by the Minister for Lands with regard to bogus applications, he did not think the hon. gentleman had made out a case applicable to grazing farms. And discuss the question how they might, hedge it round with all the safeguards the Minister for Lands could invent, the final outcome of it would be that the men of means would of necessity obtain those grazing areas. Then the 104th clause of the Land Act, pro­viding for compensation for improvements, had received a considerable amount of attention and 'abuse both inside and outside that House. In the event of the pastoral lessees being dis­turbed during their lease, of course they received compensation, and at the end of their tenure it was stated there was a large amount of com­pensation to be paid, a,nd the .State would find itself handicapped to such an extent that it would be unable to get rid of those men. The great cry in every country where landlord and tenant existed, and he presumed the landlord in the present instance was the State, was in favour of giving a tenant the best means of utilising his land to the.best purpose, and of giving him liberty of action to make certain improvements, and, in the event of his being disturbed, those improve­ments should be paid for. There was nothing wrong in that. The unfortunate part of the busi­ness was that in some of the older countries, parti­cularly in Ireland, the tenants'own improvements had been taxed by the landlords, but he, as an Irish­man, was pleased to be able to say that a few years

'718 C-rown Lanrls Acts, 1884 [ASSEMBLY.] to 1886, Amendment Bill.

ago, through the action of a wise statesman, some measure of relief had been afforded to those people, and they were no longer taxed for the improvements they made. When questions of that character arose, they had to be met and debated. His opinion was-and he did not care whether a man was in humble circum­stances or whether he was a large squatter-that if a man made improvements and was disturbed by the Crown or by a landlord, he was entitled to compensation. If he had made a substantial improvement in the shape of a dam, or a wetl, or put down a bore, or anything which would benefit the tenant who succeeded him, he should be compensated. Nothwithstanding all that had been said of the difficulties that surrounded the question, that broad sense of justice should prompt the State to give the squatter what was fairly and legitimately due to him. He would venture to say that the scheme put forth by the late Government, in the Land Act of 1884, was the proper one ; and any person imbued with a spirit of fair play would not withhold compensation that a squatter was entitled to in the event of his being disturbed before his lease expired, or at the end of his term. He did not know what might be the intentions of the Minister for Lands, but under the proposed clause the man who had the largest means would be able to secure the land ; and, so far as his side of the Committee was concerned, if the question went to a division, beaten as they might be, they would offer a solid front to anything likely to cripple a man who was not well off.

Mr. HUNTER said the Minister for Lands, in introducing the clause, read a number of appli­cations that had been received for occupation licenses, anrl gave the Committee to understand that a similar principle would be applied to appli­cantsforgrazing farms, when they might be more in demand. A very easy way to get over that would be, in the event of there being more than one appli­cant for a particular farm, to call the applicants together, and let th•.lm ballot personally for that farm. The successful man should be compelled to reside on it for three or six months. That would do awity with all those bogus applications, because no matter how much money a man haJ, he would not be willing to put in an appli<-,l.tion for a grazing farm unless he was prepared to live upon it personally, in the event of his being the successful tenderer. In any case it would not do a great deal of harm whether more than one man tendered or not, if the successful applicant were compelled to live on that farm for a certain period of time, and no matter what improvements he put upon it, he should ha,·e no power to transfer the farm for a certain period. In such it case it would not be possible for "clashers" to come in ; they would put a stop to bogus applications, and there would be no reason for the clause before them whatever. Certainly no reason had been given by the Go­vernment as to why the clause should be adopted. The only nrgument was one which applied to occupation licenses; but the bottom having been knocked out of that, there was no argument before the Committee to substantiate the clause.

Mr. HAMILTON said it was a very singular thing indeed for the framers ef the present Act to object to the amendment on the ground that the person with the longest purse would get the land. That was the effect of the law as it stood at present, and the amending Bill proposed to reduce the facilities for dummying. The leader of the Opposition stated that the amendment would discourage grazing selectors ; but he believerl the reverse would be the effect. The clause in the original Act appeared to be made in the interests of the squatter-of the mono-

polist squatter-and he would show how that occurred. A squatter, in the first in"ltance, re­ceived an indefeasible lease for half his run, and in oome cases the other half was divided into grazing farms. He had been credibly informerl that in some cases the squatters, wher,t they found per­sons, bona fide selectors, commg ronnel them, watched them, ani! as soon as they put in an application they put in their applications anrl swamped the others out with their rlummy appli­cations, and the chances were twenty to one against the bona .fide selectors obtaining the land. The squatters had the longest purses, and a cer­tain amount of cash had to be put in with each application. The bmut fide selector would try it a few times, and then go away disheartened. The squatter would get a 20,000-acre grazing farm for a year and a-half, for one year\< rental, because the rent was due at the end of December, and it had to be paid by the 31st of March; and even if the rent were paid within three months after that the squatter could get the land back. Therefore, he could have the use of the land for grazing purposes for a year and a-half simply by the payment of one year's rental, and it paid him to do that in order to oust the bona fide man. During that term no one had to reside there. It was not necessary to occupy it, and it was not necessary for the squatter to fence it. There was another argument in favour of the prem in m system, and that w'ts that the bmu1 fide selector who intended to take up land and hold it for thirty years could afford to pay a higher premium than the squatter who perhaps only wished to holrl it for a year or two. It harl been stated that evening that squatters had opposed the Act of 1884 when passing the provisions re­lating to grazing selections. Certainly squatters did oppose that measure, but they did so in the interests of the country. It was the monopolist squatter who was in favour of the grazing selec­tion clauses, because it enabled him to monopolise more land than he was entitled to. The proposed amendment would facilitate settlement, because it would pay a man who intended to take up a grazing farm for thirty years to offer a higher pre­mium than the squatter who simply wanted the land for a year and a half, anrl because it also provided that the land must be occupied within three months after the application was granted, while under the present Act the grazing farmer was not bound to reside on his land till three years after he took it up. It had been said that squatters were not allowed to compete, but that was nonsense. He had known instances where squatters had done so, of course, not in their own names. One squatter had informed him that in the district where his run was, the wor.3t country was classed as agricultural land and the best as grazing land, and that he had got persons in his interest to take up large blocks of magnificent agricultural land which were classed as grazing areas. His reason for doing that was that in a few years it was likely he would be able to sublet it to farmers, or if he did not, that during the next thirty years those persons who, like himself, had taken up such lands would become such a power in the country that at some future time they would, by reason of the interest they possessed, be able to squeeze a Government and convert their holdings into freeholds. On the previous evening the leader of the Opposition referred to the Clermont affair, and spoke of it as if the squatter in that case wished to keep out some objectionable man in that district. That, however, was not the case. The fact was, that in that particular instance a number of persons applied for the land for the purpose of levying blackmail on the squatter. The hon. gentleman also said he could not understand how so much wa; paid at that time. He (Mr. Hamilton) had been informed that a sum of £25

Grown Lands Acts, 1884 [18 JULY.] to 1886, Amendment Bill. 719

did duty a number of times. The applications were so numerous that the commissioner could not give receipts to all the applicants. He was therefore satisfied with the men showing that they had the money. One man showed him the £25, and then passed the money on to another, :tnd so it went round until it did duty for about twenty-five men.

Mr. M ORGAN said when the Bill was under discussion on the second reading, he exp~essed the opinion that that subsection was 0ne of the most objectionable provisions in it, and he pointed out that if taken as it was worded in the Bill there would be very great doubts in the minds of in tending applicants for grazing farms as to whether the premium was to apply to the rent for the first year only, or to the rent during the currency of the lease. He did not object to the premium applying during the currency of the leuse ; that was less objectionable than if it applied to the first year only. In fact, of the two evils he thought the one originally contem­plated was the lesser. Now, however, the Minister came down with the clause amended so as to restrict the premium to the first year's rent. That intensified the evil that would ensue if the cluuse were passed ; it would give the man of means, the capitalist, a still greater udvantage than he would have under the clause as originally introduced. He did not think the clause could be at all justified except on the one ground of increased revenue from the land. If they were prepared to admit that that was the only end and aim of their land legislation, it wou.ld be nnnecessaTy to pass the clause. But their chief aim was not to get revenue from the land; they wanted to settle people on the land who would put it to its best use, and he maintained that the man of means was not always the best man to put upon the soil. They would find a very much larger percentage of speculators among capitalists than among poorer people, who acquired land for the purpose of making a living out of it for them­se! ves and families. Of all the systems which had been in force in this colony for dealing with rival applications for a particular piece of land, he thought the one now proposed would prove the most objectionable. He believed that if the Minister for Lands polled the people of the colony generally on that clause he would find an overwhelming majority against it. Through­out Queensland there was, he was perfectly certain, a very small moiety of people who would vote in favour of that tender system. He knew what the feeling was in the Southern part of the colony, and by reading the opinions of the Press upon that Bill he a] go knew pretty generally what was the feeling throughout the colony. He might almost say that the Press was unanimously opposed to the introduction of the tender system. But, not only would they have the tender Rystem under that clause; they would also have linked with it, and running in double harness, as it were, the old objectionable auction system, because, if two people tendered for a piece of land, and it proved that the premium they offered was the same, they would then have to compete one against the other at auction. There could be no doubt that the ballot system was the most popular with the selecting class. If the Minister for Lands would look through the reports of the officers of his department for a number of years, and study them, he would find that any reference in support of the auction system was very rare ind~ed, and it would be admitted that, though there were serious objections to the ballot system, it was preferred by the great bulk of the people. Certainly fewer people would speak in favour of the proposed tender system than would speak in favour of the ballot system. To show the feeling that existed in the Southern part of the colony with regard to that tender'

system-or premium system, which was the same thing-he would quote from the Dalby Hemld of June 19th a portion of a report of the proceed­ings of a deputation which waited upon the Chairman of Committees, the member for the district, two days previously. A deputation of the hon. member's constituents waited upon him with reference to various matters, and in the course of the proceedings the Land Bill, which had just then been laid on the table of the House, was referred to. He would quote the remarks of Mr. McKeon, a selector, whom, he supposed, the Postmaster-General would call a "boss cocky." It was the opinion of a selector, and he thought the opinions of men of that class ought to have some weight, especially on matters which applied espe­cially to themselves. 'fhe quotation was rather a long one, but it was worth giving :-

" Mr. FRANcrs :McKF.oN roS't) to ventilate a serious grievance which involved all and every selector. He referred to the issue of about fifty notices of ejection by the Minister !or Lands to selectors who were unable to ray up the last year's rent on or before the date of grace, viz., 30th June. In his opi~ion, this action wn.s as bad as those eviction notices in Ireland, and smacked of the same diabolical regime. The last calamitous and nnllrecedented droughts had decimated flocks and herds, and made sad havoc amongst the selectors' cattle and sheep. The banks were putting the screw on, n.nd, to crown the di:.:aster, the Minister for Lands had issued a ukase, that those who could not pay would be ejected from their holdings, and tbe land resumed by our paternal (?') Government. He urged that it was absolutely neces­sary that a Tenants Relief Bill should be introduced and passed by a resolution of the House for the purpose of granting extension of time to those selectors that were in arrears. }Ir. )fcKeon then called attention to the inir1uitous CrmYn IJands Act Amendment Bill intro­duced into the Legishttive Assembly on the 11th instant by the Minister for JJands, which had for its main object to abolish the 49th section of the Land Act of 1884. He stigmatised this action on behalf of the 1Iinister for Lands as a gross 'political job,' the perpetration of which meant ruin to the average selector. Under this Amendment Act tbe land would be allotted to those who offered tbe highest premium. in addition to the rent, which system was infinitely worse tban the abolished auction system. He ()Ir. McKeon) could not find words enough to denounce the iniquity of this proceeding; it 'vas nothing but a barefaced attempt to play into the hands of land-sharks, syndicates, and land-grabbers. He now asked l\1r. Jessop. as member for Dalby, would he stand by and see the struggling selector perish, or would he use his vote and influence to prevent this obnoxious Bill becoming law. 1\Ir. McKeon further advocated the holding of a properly advertised mass meeting, of town and country persons, to protest against the action of the present Minister for Lands, and to allow Mr. Jessop a chance of giving an account or his stewardship to the electors of his con­stituency.

"Mr. JEssor was very glad that an opportunity had been given him to express his sentiments on the subject. When he was told of it this morning by the mayor, he told tbe mayor point-blank that there was no such thing, but when the Courier was held up before his eyes he had to give in. He would now assure the selectors, once for all, that he would oppose the passing of that obnoxious clause tooth and nail; in fact, that clause must come out, and the deputation could rely upon bim and his friends that no stone would be left unturned to block this portion of the measure.''

As the Chairman would not h•we an opportunity of reading that extract to the Committee, or of ex­pressing his views upon the clause, he (Mr. Morgan) had done him the f::Lvour of reading it; and he entirely agreed with the sentiments both of the Chairman and of Mr. McKeon. A good deal of weight should be attached to an expression of opinion of a man like Mr. McKeon, who belonged to the selecting class, who knew where the shoe pinched selectors, and who knew that the operation of the clause would render it far more difficult for him to select land for his own sons, if he had any, than under the existing system. That was the opinion of the selecting class in the Chairman's district; and he could say for his own part of the colony,

720 Crown Lands .Acts, 1884 [ASSEMBLY.] to 1886, Amendment Bill.

the extreme South, that opinion was unanimous in condemnation of the proposed tender system. In the debate on the previous night hon. members on the other side chose to regard grazing farmers as. men of means, and scouted the idea of those who might be described as poor men being possible applicants for grazing farms ; ani! the hon. mem­ber for Bowen said a man would require to have from £4,000 to £6,000-and the Premier a pp lauded the statement-before he could go in to select a grazing farm of the maximum area of 20,000 acres. But all their grazing farmers were not 20,000-acre men; and for his own part he would say that if they could get men to select smaller areas it would be much better for the colony. A~ a matter of fact, in the settled districts, the majority of those farms, as the Minister for Lauds knew, were thrown open in blocks offrom 4, 000 to 10,000 acres. Nearly all the grazing farms that hail been thrown open in his part of the colony had rangeil between those two figures. He referred to the Warwick, Stanthorpe, Ingle­wood, and Goondiwindi land agents' districts. Who were the men who selected those grazing farms ? There had not been as many selections as he could have wished, or as there woulil have been had the land been made available with reason· able despatch. It was not so made available. He knew of one case where a squatter's run was divided under the Act of 1884, one-half being resumed for settlement on the recommenda­tion of the commissioners ; but that had not yet been made available, because the Sf[Uatter used to make periodic discoveries of gold-bearing reefs upon it, and so arrested the proclamation of those grazing areas for selection. He knew several young men who wanted to select land on that particular run, and who were driven out to the back blocks to get land for that very reason. The object of the squatter was to protect himself, and it was a legitimate enough device.

The PREMIER : Tell us the squatter's name. Mr. M ORGAN said he had written about the

matter to the Lands Office, and he had told the members of the Land Board.

The PREMIER : But the Committee want to know this squatter's name.

Mr. MORGAN saHthat perhaps it would not matter if the Committee did not know. He would tell the Premier or the Minister for Lands. He had written to the Lands Office, and the matter was on record there.

The PREMIER: But why not make it public? Mr. M ORGAN said it was a legitimate device

enough ; there was nothing immoral about it. The HoN. SIR. S. W. GRIFFITH: I suppose

you mean according to the average morality of his class.

Mr. M ORGAN said that by that means settle­ment was checked. But there had been a consider­able number of grazing farms selected in that por­tion of the colony, and they had ranged from 4,000 to 10,000 acres in area. They had not all been taken up by capitalists. He did not think that in the whole lot of selectors in that part of the colony there was one man who had anything like £4,000, let alone £6,000, of capital at his back. They were what might be fairly called poor men; they were the sons of men who had, fifteen or twenty year; ago, taken up selections of from 2,000 to 4,000 and 5,000 acres for grazing purpose" ; ftnd having done pretty well and reared families of sons, they were now in a position to select land under the grazing clauses of the Act of 1884 for those sons. He knew one family of four sons who had selectP.d 16,000 acres-four blocks of 4,000 acres each. Those four young men were tackling each selection in turn, fencing them in, the timber being on the ground, all they required being the wire, and

they would have them fenced long before the three years expired. Then their father would give each a small flock of sheep to stock their land, and they were the very best class of settlers they could have-the very class that was contemplated when the Act was introduced. He knew other families, and yet others, who would have done the same thing if the land had been available, so that it was absurd to say that that part .of the Act of 1884 could only be taken advantage of by rich men. Poor men had taken advantage of it, and would continue to do so unless they were prevented by that iniquitous tender clause. The hon. member for N undah last night said that he saw no objection to the clause; that the Government c:<lled for tenders for the construction of railway rolling stock; that the trustee in an insolvent estate called for tenders for the purchase of the bankrupt stock; therefore it was a good thing to call for tenders for blocks of land when thrown open. But such an argument was ridiculous; there was no parallel in the cases at all, unless the Government were prepared to admit at once that their sole aim was to get revenue-to get as much money as they could out of intending s8lectors, not caring where the money came from, or what became of the men who paid it to them. That was the position of a private individual who called for tenders. Of course, in regard to rolling-stock, the Government wanted to get it at the lowest price. But the object of the Government in laud legislation was not only to get money but to settle people on the land, and he main­tained that they should give the poor man the same right as the rich man to make application for those grazing farms. The effect of the clause would be, as stateil by the leader of the Opposi­tion, to deter settlement under the grazing area clauses of the Act of 1884. The Premier had told them that he believed numbers of people would come here from New South Wales to take up grazing farms ; he qualified that afterwards by saying that those people were to a large extent speculators ; and they certainly would be speculators to a still larger extent if the poor men were to be placed in compei.ition with the moneyed men. He appre­hended that under that clause the squatter would exercise very great power to keep grazing selectors off ; at any rate, he would make the strongest possible effort to protect the best spots on the resumed half of his run. And no matter how they might deny or denounce the moral aspect of the question, there was no doubt whatever that amongst squatters ftnd selectors, it had come to be regarded as a perfectly legitimate thing to use "clashers," and every other means to succeed in getting the land they wanted. The proposed tender system would not stop "clashers" or dummying. The :Minister for Lands hail not discovered how to stop dummy­ing yet ; and the clause would put power into the hands of the capitalists as against the small men, which the legislature should never consent to give to one individual as against another. The effect of it would be that they would have more speculative applications and less bona fide settle­ment than theyhadunderthepresentsystem. He hoped the Committee would steadily set its face a"ainst allowing the clause to pass. There was a d~ep-rooted and a well-grounded sentiment throughout the colonv against it. The Minister for Lands had not yet shown that the bonti fide man who really wanted to settle on the land would be able to get it. If a man discovered a par­ticular piece of land that he wanted, he would have to apply for it to be thrown open ; it would then be made available to the whole country side, and the result would be that that man would be placed in competition with as many speculators as he was before.

Crown Lands Acts, 1884 [18 JULY.] to 1886, Amendment Bill. 721

HoNOURABLE ME>!BEBS of the Opposition: More.

Mr. MORGAN said that there was not the slightest additional guarantee that he would get the land. If he happened to be a poor mnn his chances would be very much diminished, and n,ccording to the showing of the Minister for Lands himself that was not the object he had in view. 'rhe hon. gentleman said he wanted to protect the bon<t .fide S8lector ; but he would not do it under that clanse. If the uonii .fide man had a long purse, and was prepared to outbid all competitors, he would get the land; bnt if he had· the misfortune to be a poor man hit~ chances would be diminished rather than increased.

The PREMIER said he was not going to reply to the lwn. member. He only wished to to put on record a remark that had fallen from the hon. the leader of the Opposition. A remark was made to the effect that some person whose name had not been divulged had been guilty of what to his mind was a dishonourable action­that man being a pastor:>l tenant-whereupon the leader of the Opposition said, "The average morality of his class." ·

The Hox. Sm S. W. G RIF:FITH : What I did say was, "I suppose you refer to the average morality --"

The PRB;MIER: "Of his class."

The HoN. SIRS. W. GRIFFITH: Y"'s. Mr. MORGAN said perhaps it would be just

as well to have that matter cleared up. He had not made any charge against the runholder referred to ; in fact, he had stated that in his opinion that particuhtr runholcler was justified in protecting what he considered his own interests.

An HoxovnAmE ME>mEn : I do not think so. Mr. MORGAN said perhaps the Premier

did not know all the circumstances of the case n,ncl he set up imaginary wrongs for the pu/ pose of hanging a threadbare argument upon them. There was no charge, either moral or legal, made against the lessee. If the hon. gentleman was particularly anxious to have the name of the run and of the lessee he (J\1r. M:organ) would give them to him privately.

The PREMIER: Why not give them to the Committee?

Mr. MORGAN said he did not think it riaht to httve the gentleman's name bandied about."

Mr. A.RCHER snicl he could not allow the interjection of the !ton. the leader of the Oppo­sition to pass unnoticed. He (Mr. Archer) did not agree with all his squatter friends with respect to the Act of 188-1, but he must say that after many years' experience of them he had alwa:y:s found them r1uite as honest as a~y other class m the commumty that he had dealt with. He thought their average morality would com­pare favourably with that of the body to which the hon. gentl'eman belonged, although he had heard nothmg agamst the h<,n. gentleman himself. He must say that the lessee who descended to the trick just described by the hon. member for \Varwick, was a man whose morality he held to be very low indeed. ·what they .were no,,· discussing was as to whether premmms were to be demanded upon gr::czing farms. He had previously stated that he was not m~JCh enamoured of the plan, but it was a very difficult question to decide-it was a mrttter of choosing the lesser of two evils. If every man were perfectly honest he would withstand the premium system most decidedlv but unfortu­nately they were not all honest, and ~nfortunately there were a great many men who were so mean that they would not even refmin from blackmailing their own friends to bene-

1888-2 y

fit themelves. He fancied that the advan· tage in the system was that any person wish· ing to acquire a grazing area would have to name the premium he was prepared to pay for one year. A man might not only have sufficient money to pay a premium, but to stock his grazing farm, if he got possession, without any trouble, and that was the man who would be pounced upon for blackmail. But he was sorry to say that the blackmailers would condescend to squeeze anyone whom they thought they could get in their power. He could fancy a man who '\Vn.s anxious to get a grazing farm, and those people watched when he went to look at the land, and when the day came for applying for the land it was not at all unlikely that they would come up to him and ask what he was prepared to pay as their price. If premiums were to be put in, however, the genuine applicant might tell them that they could tender for it, as he was going to offer a premium and they could do the same. The men who did not want the place would not do that, as they would lose the premium if they happened to secure the land, and would not then take it up. People would be mulcted far higher by persons determined to blackmail them than they would be by offering a premium, which would at any rate be a benefit to the State.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH: That was not the case with grazing farms.

Mr. ARCHER said he should like to know if the hon. gentleman said that could not be done.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH : I believe it never has been done.

Mr. ARCHER said that it could be done very simply. He would much rather, if a man had to part with his money, see it paid to the Govern­ment as a premium than see him dole it out to half-a-dozen blackmailers. He believed that the clause as it stood, instead of being detrimental to the man who wished to get a grazing farm, would be a protection, as he could be certain that blackmailers would not put in a tender with a premium, as they would lose the money they had paid. There had been a great deal of talk about having the poor man settled on the land, but he did not see the use of that. He did not see that it was better to get the poor man than the man who had the means of fully stocking and im­nroving his farm. The truth was that, if he had to choose the people of Quefmsland, the people he would like to see on those grazing farms were the men possessed of the means of stocking and making the best use of their land. He did not say that they should add to the size of the graz­ing farms-in fact, 2,560 acres was the smallest area.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH: There is no n1iniinnrn.

Mr. ARCHER said that the grazing farms would be according to the capital of the people who wished to have them, and he could think of no greater misfortune for a man to meet with, than to take up a larger area than he had sufficient capital to work to the best advan­tage. It would only mean poverty to him. The more suited the grazing farm was to his capital, the more likely was he to be a prosperous man. S8eing that any man who wished to haven, graz· ing farm would be mulcted one way or another, he believed that he would be blackmailed less by allowing him to tender with a premium than he would be if he were offered naked to those ruthless harpies who would try to blackmail him, although they might previously have been his friends or intimate acquaintances. On that account he did not believe that the subsection would be any detriment to those who wished to have grazing farms, as had Leen represented;

722 Crown Lands Acts, 1884 [ASSEMBLY.] to 1886, Amendment Bill.

and, although he might have to object to some other parts of the clause, after due consideration, he . w~s prepa.red to vote for the premium, bel!evmg that m stead of being against, it would be m favour of the selector.

The HoN. SIR S. W. GRIFFITH said that :>t last they had had an argument adduced m fav'?ur of the proposal, and it was quite refreshmg to hear an argument used, because up to the prese.nt they had only had good intentions ; but he considered that argument was insufficient to justify them in making a change in the law He would point out to the hon. member fo~ Rockhampton that his argument was not applic­able. The hon. gentleman said he would have the cla?~e to protect the bonrJ firle selector from black­mailmg. They had had various reasons adduced on the previous day. One was that it was to aid the Treas~ry. Th;n they had that it was to keep out dumm.Ies, but It had been pointed out that it would assist squatters' dummies-if there were such people. But it was plain that dummying by the pastoral tenants under the Act would b'e futile. Now it was to protect the selector aaainst the blackmailers. Where were those blackm~ilers? They. had heard the previous clay who they were m the case of occupation licemes, but he had not heard that there were such persons in the case of grazing farms. What "OOd would •t blackmailer gain by trying it? bA man eithe;. wanted the selection for himself or he did not. If h_e wanted the land he would do his best to get It~ but they could not call that blackmailing. If he drd not want the selection for his own use but only to. ~nnoy some other person, then hm; would reqmrmg the other to prty a premium help him? If he wished to get money from the other man by threatening to put in an application how would requiring a premium prevent that?' Let h<l'n. members remember that the applicant must pay the survey fees and the first year's rent in cash as the law stood at present. There never had _been a case of blackmailing in regard to grazmg farms yet, so that the amendment was to deal wi~h a purely imaginary evil. Suppose a blackmarler were successful in his application. He would have to pay down the survey fees and the first year's rent, and he would then have ~o occupy the land, which he could not sell until he had fenced it-in fact he could do nothing with it. He could not even sell it to ~he man whom he had been tryina to black­!llail. H; must occupy it himself, a;d improve !t wrth h:s own money, and when he had fenced It take ~Is ch!'nce of selling it, the only other alternative bemg . to forfeit all he had paid. Was there any mclncement for blackmailers to do that? Supposing he were successful in his applicati'?n he would lose all the money he had depos!ted, a?d would get nothing for it, and bl~cl<!llarlers drd not go on that principle. The Prii)-Ciple upon which he had always heard blackma!lers worke~ .was to extort something by threatenmg c_mnpetJtiOn, but in the present case the b~ackmarler _co'-!ld get nothing; and after spenclmg money m Improvements, by the time t?e fencing was completed, at the end of which time he could sell, perhaps the other man would have gone away. That argument would not do abou~ the premium going to be a protection to the bona fide settler, as there was no inducement to the blackmailer. No one had seriously attempted to answer the arguments adduced by hon. members on the Opposition side, that it would compel every applicant for a grazing farm to put down a cash bonus.

Th~ MINISTER FOR LANDS : Quite the opposrte.

The HoN. SIRS. W. GRIFFITH said that the hon. gentleman did not understand his own pro­posal. He did not know what his proposal was.

It compelled the applicant to put down a cash bonus, and he (Sir S. \V. Griffith) said that was a clear discouragement to the selector. That was the certain operatimi of the chmse, and what were the reasons given-to protect the settlers aO'ainst an imaginary evil, an evil which the more it was cliscussedthe.moreit was found to be purely imagi­nary. He said that a change of that sort, which was condemned by the whole public opinion of the colony, oug·ht to be supported by some ar"'u­ment. They might fairly ask that memb~rs should !(ive some arguments to show that at least they unclerc,tood it, and did not vote for it simply because they were asked to do so by the Govern­ment. Ko one had :1ttemptecl to argue the matter except the hon. member for Rockhamp­ton. He had pointed out that the hon. member's answer was inapplicable, and then the Minister for Lands said the clause was purely optional. The clause said :-

"Every applicant shall, in his application, state the annual premium, in addition to the rent specified in the proclamation, which he is prepared to pay for the lot for the first five years for the term of his lease, in the event of their being competition for the same."

The PREMIER : If any. The HoN. Sm S. W. GRI:B'.FITH said the ap­

plicant must do it in every case. If there were two apphcants and one said, "I will give a shilling," he got the lanrl. Unless he knew that there was n? other. applicant at the office he must put in h1s premrum. The more the system was discussed the more clear it became that it only limiterl and hampered the selector. The effect would clearly be to hamper the selector, and would therefore tend to prevent the land from being occupied by selectors, and to that extent it would be for the benefit not of the selector but of those who held the land at a mere nominal rent at the present time. That was the only clear effect of the clause-to benefit the present holder of the land. Surely a change of that kind ought to be for the benefit of the selector-the class of persons for whose benefit the land had been resumed from the pastoral tenant? It had been resumed for the purposes of settlement, and now they proposed to hamper the selector simply becctuse there was a case of Llackmailing at Clermont. He really hoped that the Committee would have some bettter reason than that given. There mi!(ht be good reasons still to be brought forward. He was open to c?nviction, but the argnments up to the present trme were all one way.

The PR!~MIER said the hon. gentleman put on one srde the reason why the Act of 1884 was introduced into that House. He would remind the hon. gentleman that the floating of the ten million loan was based upon the revenue which it was ~ssumed would be derived from the Act of 1884. But now the hon. gentleman put the question of revenue on one side altogether. The hon. gentleman knew that very well, and yet he spoke as if the revenue from the Crown lands was not to be con­sidered at all, and as if they were not to get the best possible revenue that could be derived from the public estate. It would be fresh in the memory of some hon. members of the Committee, who were members of the House in 1884, that the late Hon. Mr. Miles insisted that the interest on the ten mil:ion loan was to be paid out of the revenue derived under the Land Act of 188-±. That was one of the main reasons for the intro­duction of that Act, and one of the main reasons which foolishly induced many hon. members to vote for it.

The HoN. SIRS. \V. GRIFFITH said the hon. gentleman had gone off in another rlirection alto­gether. The Ministerfor I"andssaid that the clause was well intentioned, although he did not know how it would operate; the member for Rockhamp­ton said it would protect the selector from the

Grown Lands Acts, 1884 [18 JULY.] to 1886, Amendment Bill. 723

blackmailer; and the Premier now said that it was introduced for the purpose of putting money into the Treasury and extracting more money from the unfortunate grazing selector. IV ell, the ques­tion before the Committee was clause 3 and not an attack upon himself. If the hon. gentleman's speech was intended to be in favour of the clause, he asked that it should be sup­ported on the ground that it would put money into the Treasury; but the board should re~ulate that in fixing the rent. He would not a~swer the ridiculous assertions of the hon. member about the ~,":nd Act of 1884 paying interest on the ten rrullwn loan. The objects of that Act were explained plainly enough. It was not brought in to pay interest on the ten million loan, but to encourage settlement. Certainly the revenue to be derived from it was over­estimated, but that had been frankly admitted, and it bud been expected that the pastoral tenants would pay a very much larger rent than they hud been asked to pay by the Land Board. That, however, was not the matter they were discussing. The question was whether the'y should hamper that class of selectors to wham the pr~>;ent Government had always been strongly opposed, and he, for one, would look upon any legislation, coming from the party now in power, in that direction, with great suspicion. Their traditional policy had been in every way to trammel and ha':1[Jer these selectors, and now they had a pro­positiOn put forward the result of which must necessarily have that effect, and a provision the only re~ommendation of which was that it was bnught forward with the best intentions.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS said the hon. gentleman asserted that that provision would hamper the umu1 fide selector. He contended that it woulrl do nothing of the sort, but would give him a channe of getting the selection which he wanted, and which he had been debarred from getting up to the present time. The hon. gentleman seemed to argue as if there was no land open for gTazing farms at the present time. On the 31st December there was no less than 4, 700,000 acres actually open for selection as grazing fanns, not one single farrn of \vhich would be brought under the provisions of the eh use.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH: Then wlmt is the use of it?

The MINISTER FOR LANDS said it was to apply to future selections and do away with a grie;-ance likely to exist when freqh farms were thrown open, and nothing more. Now the hon. gentleman was rather disingenuous when he said he (the Minister for Lands) did not know what was in his own Bill. The hon. gentleman quoted from it, and in a rather evasive manner left out two very simple words, but two words which were most important in their bearing. The hon. gentleman would lead the Committee and the country to believe that it was ahsolutely necessary that every applicant for a grazing fa~!': must temler a preminm. That he (the i\bmster for Lands) contended was not correct. The hon. gentleman said he (the Minister for J,ands) did not know his own Bill, and then read the clause, and actually omitted the two words "if any."

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH: That is not correct.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS said that was what the hon. gentleman did, but he would read the clause so that there should be no mis­take.

"Every applicant. shall, in his applicatirm, state the ~nnual vremium rif any) in addition to the rent specified 1n the proclamation which he is prepared to pay for the lot for the first ti ve years of the term of his lease

1 ln the

event of there being competition for the same."

Those two words, "if any," were the words which the hon. gentleman omitted to read.

The HoN. Sm S. W. GRIFFITH: You did not give me time to read more than the first few words.

The MINISTER :FOR LANDS said the hon. gentleman was disingenuous when he read the clause, and when he said it was abso­lutely necessary in future that every applicant for a grazing farm must put in a premium. There was no necessity whatever for him to do anything of the sort, and he had shown the Committee that at the present time there were 5,000,000 acres of land, and good land, open for grazing settlement in farms of all sizes. Now, with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Warwick about a certain run on the Downs which should be thrown open for grazing settle­ment. That land had been surveyed for some time and was ready to be thrown open. He was not quite sure that it had not been thrown open, but at all events the department had waited, at the request of the Mines Department, for a certain amendment in that Bill to become law before throwing it open, for the reason that the land had been reported, whether rightly or wrongly he did not know, to be auriferous. He was bonnd to protect the interests of all classes, and they saw the difficulty that had arisen when miners had endeavoured to get acces., to mines on grazing farms. He thought when they could give miners a better title to the ground than they at present had, that it would not be judicious, no matter who wanted the land, to throw open for selection grazing lands that were likely to contain valuable mines. As soon as a clause in the Bill, which the leader of the Opposition had himself stated was well drafted, became law, and the miner again ac­quired the right he formerly possessed to mine upon Crown lands, then such lands as the hon. member for IV arwick had referred to would be thrown open to selection.

Mr. SALKELD said it was evident that the statement of the hon. member for Warwick was correct, aH the Minister for Lands had recognised the case at once. vVith respect to the con­tention that persons would not have to put in a premium when applying for grazing farms,.he would point out that on the first day on which new lots were thrown open they would have to put in a premium in every case unless they were certain that there was no one else competing with them and putting in a premium ; and he asked how were they to know that ? They could not be certain of it at all. The only reason given by the Minister for Lands for the clause was that in the case of applicants for occupation licenses certain abuses had occurred, and that bogus applications were put in in order to defeat the bond .fide applicant. He would like the Minister for Lands to tell the Committee how many applications for grazing farms had been de­cided by lot. The cases given with respect to occupation licenses did not apply, and were dragged in to bridge over the difficulty. Could the Minister for Lands tell the Committee how many bogus and how many genuine applications had been put in for grazing farms, or could he tell them how many applications for grazing farms had been decided by lot. In ccnnection with the irregularities referred to in respect of occupation licenses, there had evidently been an evasion of the Act, and that was a thing which the Minister for Lands could rectify, and which the Act gave him power to rectify, as the Act provided that the applications should be accom­panied by the annual rent. When the leader of the Opposition spoke of that, and asked whether £8,000 had been put in in the Olermont case, he was told that would be explained, and someone

724 Ct•own Lands Acts, 1884. [ASSEMBLY.] to 1886, Amendment Bdl.

said it had been done by cheque. The mem­ber for Cook had informed them that one £25-note did duty for twenty-five persons, and that was about the number in. \Vhen such things as those were allowed by those administering the Act, it was no wonder irregularities occurred. It was the only security that bon<i fide applicants had against blackmailers, that the application should be accompanied with the first year's rent, and the provisions contained in the Act of 1884 to )lrevent blackmailing were substantial and sufficient in every way to prevent it. An appli­cant under the Act had not only to put down the first year's rent with his application, but he could make no use of the selection for three years, and until he had fenced it in, and who was gving to tell him that persons would blackmail on those conditions ? The proposal in the Bill before them would not protect a bon<i fide selector from a single blackmailer, as the blackmailer could put in a premium as well as the b01ui .fide selector, and the clause was more likely to increase the evil than to remedy it. The object of the cbuse was to enable the man with the big pocket to come into competition with the man of smaller means .. It was a mistake t•) say that no poor man went lll for grazing farn1s because, as he understood it, povbrty was a comparative term, and though a man might not be able to compete with a wealthier man, he might be able tn take up a small grazing farm. He might have stock enough and means enough to take it up, but he might have nothing to spare to enable him to compete with the wealthy man who would be brought against him under the clause. So far as occup<ttion licenses were concerned, there was no dispute about the clause applying to tl<em, >"Is they were only temporary occupations, and the Government might put them up to auction if they liked.

Mr. GOLD RING said that on first reading the clause he was opposed to it, and he had heard no argument to cause him to change his mind. He did not see how the putting in of a premium with an application for a grazing farm was going to affect blackmailing at all. Some of the remarks he had heard made with respect to squatters were, he thought, uncalled for. He had had a few years' experience amongst them, and he thought the umul fide honest thinking squatter was of greater benefit to the select0r of a grazing farm than anyone else. In most instances the selector who took up a grazing farm had, perhaps, sufficient money to fence it in with his own labour, and after that he had to find the capital to stock it; and in many cases. to his own know­ledge, the neighbouring squatter had given the selector cattle on very liberal terms, so as to enable him to work his selection with benefit to himself. The squatters often supplied those men with cattle, sheep, and horses, and kept them for a considerable time in meat and otlwr rations. That was done especially where the selector was a man who did not try to injure the squatter to whom his portion of the run originally belonged. It had been remarked that the premium svstem would stop blackmailing, but he did not "agree with that. So far as his experience went, it was known long before a selector a pp lied for a selection that he intended to do so, and the p~obabilit:~• was that some blackmailer would go to lnm and would say that unless he gave him £00 or £100 he would oppose him. The hon. member for Rockhampton remarked that the bone( jide applicant would tell the blackmailer that he could do as he liked, because he intended to offer a pro· mium. That might be the ca8e in some instances, but the probability was that in most cases the selector would ask the blackmailer how much he would take for not putting in an application. And if the bond .tide selector was anxious to get a particular selection it would probably pay him

better to silence the blackmailer than to offer a premium. It had been stated that the premium system was intended to realise as good a price as possible ; but that might be done by making the rent higher. ·

The POST;i1ASTER - GENlmAL : How would you clo it ~

l\Ir. GOLDRJKG sai<l the rents were decided by the board. Let the bucLrcl charge a half-penny an acre more. That would be hotter than asking for a premium. If the land was not worth more rent the uon<i fide selector would not put in any application at all. He dul not agree that a grazing area could be taken up by what was com­monly called a poor man, because there were so many expenses in addition to the fencing and stocking. Probably the selector would ha' e to find water, and it was well known that sinking for \Vater or conserving it by meanR of darns was 111ost expemive. As he FCLid before, he was opposed to the system of premiums, and he intended to vote against it.

Mr. ISAJ\1BEHT said it was somewhat diffi­cult to understand the arguments ad ''anced in favour of the clause. The Premier said it was revenue that was wanted, but the :Minister for Lands said he was anxious to foster l1ontZ jirlc settlement. He would rather take the ver"ion of the Minister for Lands, but the remedy that hon. gentleman proposed was anything but adequate. That hon. gentleman gave in,,tances of many applications being sent in, of which only two or three \vere genuine; and one hon. member asked how the land agents knew that the rest were dummies. If they looked closely at the statement they would find that those wholesale dummy applications had lwen made in the outside districts, where the squatters ruled supreme and tried to prevent selection by small graziel.', In other dist.ricts, where bon<O fide applicat.ons were more numerous, those dummy applications could not come in so well. He knew of ar 'nstance in which the half of a run had been resumed, and the origin'lJ holder got :1ll his sisters, his cousins, and his'aunts to send in a-pplications for grazing fanns ; but, fortunately, the bowl .tide applications were so numerous that the dummies were unsuccessful. They knew from past experience of what took place before settlement was made easy--how land rings were formed to attend auction sales, and when outsider, commenced to bid the prices were run up so t,hat the outsiders were dis­heartened from attending, and the rinf( generally secured the best land, which they afterwards sol_cl at high figures to actnaloonco fide settlers. And 1f the clause now under consideration passed into law there would be a repetition of th>et kind of thing. If the Government were really anxious to remedy the evils complained of, andatthe same time im­prove the revenue, they need not introduce a system which would cause additional doubt and risk to the bona fide selector. Let them make a distinction between the applicants. Let them offer applicants who would actually reside on the land the same advantages as were formerly enjoyed by l1omestead seiectors. Before the Act of 1884 was passed, that class of selector had a preferential right of selectic~n. . \Vhen land was thrown open the apphcatwns of homestead :;electors were considered before those of other selector>' and after six months the !>end w>es open for the selectors Hho might put their bailiffs on their selections. That would do away with all the in;aginary. evils. They had it on very good author1ty that 1t was not only the capitalist who would oppose settle· ment. The Minister for Lands, when he was criticising the Land Act of 1884, said that he noticed that when times were bad and employ ment was scarce, settlement went on apace,

Orown Lancls Acts, 1881 [18 JuLY.] to 1886, Amenrlment Bil.l. 725

People coulcl find nothing to do in the towns and they went on to the land. That was a proof that it was not alw,ys capit"'l th"'t was reauired. The more they favoured uonc! fide selectors the mure revenue and settlement there would be. There Yiao nothing >'0 conducive to the re­venue at\ proper settlement. It was a well· known f"'ct th[lt, in the outside districts par­ticularly, some squatters h"'rassed the selec­tors in every imaginable w,y, and he would give the Committee an instance. He was sorry that there was no l1rovision to meet such cases in the amen<ling Bill before them. 'Vhen the Act of 1884 was passing through the House most hon. members objected that the squatter had the right to impannel, bnt the grazing selector had not and by that imponnding the grazing selecto; wa~ n1uch harassed. Last year a ()'razing­selector came to Brisbane and applied" to the member for hiN district for assistance. He had taken up tt grazing selection on Jl.foolboolaman run, between Bundauerg and l\Iount Perry, and had written a letter to him (Mr. Isttmbert) in German, which he had tmnslated into English, as follows:-

"Gillen's Siding, 2nd July, 1889, "DEAR :Jilt. Is.urmmT,

>~I tal\:C the lihertv of applying to you for adYice ana. help in the tronbles I have through ~Ir. Barton with my grazing selection. In order that you may unrlersLanU the affair, I have to make a somewhat lengthy explanation, \Yhich is as follows :-Laflt vcar, in l\Iarch, I applied for a grazin~ farm, which was granted to me in .:nay. As soon as it 'vas surv.:yed, I com­menced with the improvcmcnt4-c1caring. sphttina­fcncing, etc. \Vhen the fence was ~tbont half erectel'i was informed that Jlr. Angustns J~arton hntl Hent a vctition to 1lle Kolan Divbdonal :noarU, prote,,tin~; tl1at my scl0'_'tion eontained too mnch, or the only wa.ter, and that it. lay beL1vecn his station and the gold­field reserve, and that the ~:rid petition hacl re­ecivcd the concnrrencd of~ the members of t.he Kolan Divisional Boartl. rrhis occuri ..:d in the m1cld1c of October last, when I tool( my cattle from the ::\Ionnt rcrry re ·<~rv\J and brought t~1em to my vad­dock on the said selection. However I had the cattle hardly a '\Veek in the lJatlrlock, when ~Ir. I~arton sent hi.s nmnftger with blackl" ::md coolies, who tore up my fence and drove my cattle a. distance of four miles to tlw station late in the eYening at B p.m. The cnttle lJein~ very poor from 'vant of water and grass were 1:nthlt..::<sly drivcu aud hunted with dngs, so that they fell down aml tumblcrl over each other. Xext day I went to the station to see after my cattlf', and to illllHire about the rettson why they had driven away the snme. On demanding ' m~r ·cattle (about 1:.1:8 head! ::\:Ir. Darton claimed £60 clriYing expenses. As I considered snch a demand as improper as his whole pro­eeding notion~ to1vard me, I left the cattle nnd went to J3ri~bane, and through theinflncnccofseveralmembeTs of l)arliament I obtained the confirmation or 111\r selection in tlle 1)eginning of ?\ovemberl:tst. At the tinie when my fence 1vas torn up and the cattle <lrivcn away·, 1\lr. Bartoll maintained that the selection, not yet being confirmed, :Yas still on his run, ana therefore lmd a perfect right to lnl]_)Onnrl my cattle, anrl to claim damngu:. He also clmmed £:WO for damages caused through the improve­ments, fencing, &c., I lutd already made, bnt I took no 11ot.ice of this. Jfr. Barton_kept the eattle knocking abon~ the head st:1tion, and then let them run, and UIJ to this day I have not one-fourth of my cattle back, nur can I find out where they arc. Is it possible that an A1~s~ralian squatter should have such po,vers and lH'lVlltges as to harass selectors in such an outraO'eous manner as is the case with me? Xow, although I got the confirmation of my selection, :J.Ir. I~arton is not sa.thdicd, but has resorted to all sorts of stratagems to harns.s and 1·uin me. In l\Iarch he impounded sixty-five head of my cattle and sent them to the Gin Gin pound. which cost me over £15. I don't know H they 1vere takC'n out of the paddock, or trom the reserve, as tllo fence is fre(p1ently and wilfully dr~otroyecl, whrre the cattle of course can get out which necessitates daily attention on my pa~t. 'l'h~ selection contained originally 3,870 a.cr,-,s:, and the rail­way pHsses through the middle of it. I1ut not content with this, J.Ir. Barton manipulated the Kolan Di"risional Board, through 1vhose instrnmentalit:r he got two roads three . chains broad surveyed and resilmed through my selectwn. Two roads hardly fifteen chains apart in such a small selection, whore none, or at least one, is

not required, is, in itself, a proof that it is done out of pure spite, and to drive me away. I have paid the ~:;nrvey fees and the annual rent of £33, and, besides this, I have already made improvements to the value of about £360, and, through the bvo roads, I will be obliged to erect and keep four licensed gates, unless wiser counsel prevails in the Land Office, as from the divisional board I can expect but small mercies. Mr. Rarton is such an expert in making friends by his generous hospitalities, that he eau get anything done he may desire. For instance, the roads through my land were marked off by the head stockman of)!r. nart.on~ and that fixed the direction of the roads complained of. If l\fr. Barton is successful in this, I have no doubt he will operate on the other half of my grazing selection, lying on the other side of tbe 1·ailway. By the sucond 1·oad, all the water is cut off from 1ne. I suppose this manceuvre will go unchecked, until I an1 lnnnbugMed off my land, unle~s you can induce the I.ands Department in Brisbane to put a check on these proceedings, who, I am sure, are totally misinformed on the "l ubject throup:h the misleading statements of l\fr. Bm·ton, representing, I believe, that the wnterhole in my Jand is the only water thereabouts. But it can be prOY!~Hl that there is plenty of water fron1 1\ir. Barton's station to six or eight miles beyond my selec­tion. Trusting you will be able to induce the antho~ rities in the Lands Department to save me from these 1nolestations on the part of 1\'Ir. :Barton,

"I remain, "Yours, etc.,

''JACOll Th!UI.LE.R.''

He was pleased to be able to tell the Committee that wiser counsels had prevailed in the Lands Department before he inquired about the matter, and he found that the officials in the department could see through that chicanery, and at least one road was ttt once disallowed. But that case showed how the poor grazing selector was annoyed, and troubled, and almost driven out of his wits when he came into the sacred presence of the supreme squatter, and he hoped the oftcers of the Lands Department would keep their weather eye open and protect the grazing selector in a proper manner. Let the Minister for Lauds reconsider his proposals, and if he was anxious, as no doubt he was, to encourage the uon'! fide settler, let him propose such an amendment of the Act as would give bontt fide selectors, who would reside on the land themsel vetl, similar privileges to those formerly enjoyed by the homestead selector. When land was thrown open, let it first be thrown open to such applicants as would reside on it themselves, and then to those who would per­form the conditions by bailiff. If the lands were only thrown open to uont! fide selectors who would reside on them themselves, then all the difficulties in connection with that matter would vanish.

Mr. MELLOR said he rose chiefly for the purpose of saying a few words in reference to what the Minister for Lands had stated about keeping back certain su pposecl mineral lands from selection. He really could not understand why those lands were withheld, seeing that the mining pro visions of that Bill would be retrospective in their operation. Surely there must be some other motive then for not throwing those lands open to selection, and very likely it had some connection with the tender system proposed to be adopted in that Bill. He might say that he was opposed to that system; it was us bad as the auction system, and would not be as acceptable to the country as the baJlot system. A great de<1.l had been said in reference to the large amount of money that would be required to successfully work a grazing selection. He believed that eight­tenths of the selections that had been taken up up to the present time ranged from 3,000 acres tJ 8,000 acres. It did not require such a large amount of money to go on to those grazing farms. A man on taking up such an area could begin work hy employing a little labour on it, and fencing it in, and he could

726 Crown Lands Acts, 1884 [ASSEMBLY.] to 1886, Amendment Bill.

always get assistance from monetary institutions when once he had the land. He could therefore work his way with a great deal less capital than had been stated. The Premier had said that the principal reason why that Bill had been intro­duced was to bring more money into the Trea­sury. But their great aim should not be to raise a revenue from the land · their vrimary object should be the settlement ~f the people on t~<; lands of the colony. The grazing farm :r-ro­VIS!Ons of the Act of 1884 had perhaps not been very successful hitherto, but that was on account of the disastrous seasons the colony had experi­enced, and there was every probability that there would be a very different tale to tell in the future. He must admit that, in some instances, the Land Board ha~ not put the value on the lal)d they ought possibly to have done, yet he thought they should leave the valuation of the land to the board, and then let the competition for the land be decided by ballot. The Minister for Lands had spoken of t.he p~inciple of competition as applied to occupatiOn 1hcenses, but occupation licenses were altogether different from grazina farm leases. He (Mr. Mellor), believed it wobuld be almost better to sell occupation licenRes by auctio_n, as the land in the colony was nearly ail occup1ed, and there was very little fresh land to discover. Of c?ur~e, jf a person went to a great ?eal of trouble m findu;g out some fresh country, It would. be v~ry unfair to compel him to cmn­pete for It agamst some other persons at auction. He hoped the Minister for Lands would withdraw that amendment, as he believed it would be better left out altogether, and leave the system of selection as it existed at present under the principal Act. That system had worked very satisfactorily, and it would be very detrimental to settlement in the future and would prevent people from inspecting' and selecting land, if they knew they had to compete with others and }!ay a premium on the rent specified in the proclamation. If a man desired to get~ particula~ piece of la:>d, he would perhaps :>ot obJect to payi!lg a pr~mmm for the first year If he could afford It, but If he could not afford it settlement would not take place. It would b~ very much better for the country if they let matters rest as they stood at present. \Vith reference to the matter he mentioned first he would like to know whether the Minister' for Lands was withholding those lands from selection because the clauses that were here in reference to mining were not yet in force.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS said he thonght there had been a complete discussion of the question on both sides of the Committee. It had not been treated ::sa party question, and some hon. members on his own side of the Com­mittee had expressed themselves as opposed to the clause. . It would be !!lore satisfactory to take the vowe of the Committee on the question a!ld get o;t with the BilL It was not a very VItal q:nestwn one way or the other, and it was not fair that very much more time should be wasted on it. The Land Act of 1884 had been discussed almost from beginning to end, and he thought they should now come to some conclu­ion on the question.

Mr. DRAKE said that before the question was put he should like to give his reasons for the yote he intended to give-against the sub­~echon. If tb ere was anything that would !nduce hon. members to vote against the clause, It would be the letter that had just been read by the hon. member for Rosewood. If the state­ments contained in that letter were true it re':e!l-led a most hard case of oppression. The Mmister for Lands was not present during the reading of th_e whole of the letter. If he would read it--

The MINISTER FOR LANDS : I know all about it. There is nothing in it.

Mr. DRAKE said he was glad to hear that the statements contained in the letter were not true. As to the clause itself, its effect woulcl be to create some uncertainty, especially in the case of a man coming into the colony with limited capital who wanted to take up a small grazing area. Jl,.fen of that kind could calculate how much it would cost to fence and stock the bnd, but what they could not calculate would be the amount they would have to pay as a premium to get the land. The clause would really introduce a form of gambling for the land; the !tpplicants would be betting and "bluffing " with each other to see which would get it. As to the extent of the operation of the clause there seemed to be a difference of opinion. The Minister for Lands said it would not come into opera­tion often-only now and then-on the first day, or the first hour of the day, and so on. If that were the case there certainly would not be that accession to the revenue which the Chief Secretary appeared to expect from it. If there was to be any increase of revenue from it, it must he on account of the clause coming into operation very frequently, and from a good number of people taking up grazing areas being compelled to pay a premium. \Vith regard to 1the remarks of the hon. member for Rockhampton about the blackmailer, though no doubt that hon. member was speaking in the interests of the small graziers, he did not think he could claim to be speaking their sentiments. If the clause was to have the effect of making the applicants pay so much more for their grazing farms as to make a considerable accession to the revenue, then he thought that if those who 'vere going to apply for grazjng farrns were con­sulted, they would say they would much rather take the chance of the blackmailer, who had never been seen, and who had only been described on second-hand hearsay evidence, than be sub­jected to the extra payment of a premium.

Mr. DALRYMPLE said it was evident that there were still many hon. mPmbers who, even after the lucid explanation of the JI,.Iinister for Lands, did not understand the working of the proposed clause. For instance, the hon. member for Fassifern said it would be continually necessary for men who proposed to select land to offer a premium, and asked how would an intending selector know whether any other applications had been put in. Nothing was more simple. When an intending selector went to the land office he would first ask whether htnd wns open for selection. If there was any, he would put in his application without any premium. The clause would really apply to very few cases, only when exceptionally favoured areas were thrown open for selection, when there might be applica­tions which would clash. They had to admit one of two things : either the competition would be between bond fide selectors, or it would be between a bonn fide selector and a mala .firle selector, and the effect of the clause would be against the man who had no intention of permanently holding the land, but who merely wanted it for a short period, until he was compelled to comply with the provisions, that was a period of three years. It was quite evident that the bona fide selector who intended to hold the land for thirty ye;crs would be able to pay the premiums-which would not be a very large :;cmount if distributed over a period of thirty years-while the man who merely wanted it to depasture cattle upon it for a short period might be prevented by the premium from enterim; into competition for it. There was an objection to auctions, and there was an objection to lot--especially in a House which

Grown Lands Acts, 1884 C18 JULY.] to 1886, Amendment Bill. 727

had only very lately been endeavouring to put down the totalisator-which was certainly a form of gambling. Under the present system -the system of lot--it was impossible to do awny with the money power. It was very easy under the present svstem for an unscrupulous man of means to obtain land over the head of the uond, fide selector. All he had to do was to engage a number of people, and advance the money to accomp"ny their seVPral applic"­tions, which would be lodged in the office. If the man-he would say the squatter, as he was generally held up as a kind of "Boney" in those cases-engaged ten men to put in ten applica­tions, the chances in his favour would be ten to one. That was under the present system. It was true that any application of his to become the owner of the land was quite unnecessary. It was impossible to acquire land improperlv there were too many conditions and safeguarcl~ · but however anxious they might be to do ~way with the moneyed power, it was obvious that the present Act did not do it. It was quite possible for the squatters to keep selectors out at present, lllld taking all things into considera­tion, more especially as he had pointed out that it would tend to prevent the selector from being opposed by persons who did not intend to reside permanently on the land, and would "ive him a better chance in that direction, he

0did

not think the clause was open to all the objec­tions that had been taken to it. Personally, he thought the Government would do wisely to withdraw the clause, because, although a g~eat deal had been made out of it, it would affect such a small amount of selection that he did not think it was worth while disturbing public feeling with regard to it. He believed the objections made to it had been urged much more strongly than was necessary.

Mr. SAYRRS said he did not believe in the clause. It had been generally admitted that the duty of the Government was to try and settle people on the land, and he believed the Minister for Lands was using his best endeavours to do so according to his lights. But after what had been said that evening-, and after the remarks of Mr. McKeon, a selector of Dalby, and who was well qualified to give an opinion upon the cbuse, had been read by the hon. member for \Varwick, he thought every hon. member should give the objections to the clause due weight. The reason why he objected to the clause was because something of the same kind had been tried on the gold­fields-that was the auction system. If the proposed system was tried on the goldfields, and a piece of ground was thrown open to corn­petition by lot or by premiums, what prospect would the ordinary miner have against the owners of the adjoining land? None whatever; becau,;e not only would the owners of the adjoin­ing land be able to outbid him, but they would know the 'alue of the land better than he did, and have means of working it that he would not have. He a'•sumed that the same arguments applied to a grazing farm selector. A man went on the resumed portion of a run and found a piece of land of 4,000, !5,000 or 10,000 acres that suited him ; if he applied to the Land Board or to the Minister to have it thrown open to selection, then the fairest way of <lealing with him was to let him have a prior rii)"ht to the sele~tion, in the s"me way -that mmers had to takmg up lancl. Having expended time and money and energy in finding the !and and taking the nececcsary steps to have 1t thrown open, he should have the prior right to it, and let the board assess the fair value of that land to the country, allowing a fair margin for the selector to live upon. By that means they would do away with both the lot and

the premium systems, and encoura.ge settlement, because the applicant would know that he had the prior rig-ht and that no one could deprive him of it. That system had done well in mining. The first applicant for a piece of land, whether it was worth £20,000 or nothing had the prior right to it ; no one could go above him ; the annual rent was £1 an acre, and if another man was worth a quarter of a million of money, or owned the richest mine in Queensland, and was willing to pay £2 an acre or more for that land, he could not compete for it and get it. That system had helped to develop the mining industry to a large extent, ~nd why not apply the same principle to the public lands. It would do away with competition, and the clashing, dummy­ing, and blackmailing business. He could not agree with a premium being offered. If the same principle were applied to mining matters the poor man would have no chance of success. It would simply retard mining, and in the way he had mentioned it would retard the settle­ment of grazing farms. Even in the district he belonged to men had taken up grazing farms. In one instance he knew two or three brothers, one of whom had taken up 20,000 acres on the resumed portion of a run, and the others were working on the goldfield providing money to fence in and stock the selection. Those men had been brought up in the bush in the adjoining colony and would make first-class settlers. He knew others on the goldfields who had made money, and had taken up grazing farms as a legitimate way of investing their money ; but if people had to coinpete and pay premiums it would do a great deal to prevent them from taking advan­tage of the grazing farm provisions of the Act. It had been stated, and he believed rightly, by hon. members on the other side, that the legiti­mate squatters were not averse to the bona fide grazing farmer going upon the resumed portion of their runs. They had accepted as a fact that the Crown had thrown open a certain portion of their runs, and that they had got indefeasible leases for twenty-one years for the remainder; and they were quite willing to assist any bona .fide selector in taking up 10,000, o~ 15,000, or 20,000 acres on the resumed portwn. He hoped it would not· go forth to the country that they had supported that clause. He knew as· a fact that the country thought that that clause had been inserted for the purpose of preventing the bona fide grazing selector ... from obtaining land. He thought that, if a man intended to select a farm for grazing purposes, every facility should be given him. The Minister for Lands had said that the man who went out and prospected and found a piece of country was debarred under the present Act from getting­it, but he (Mr. Sayers) thought the fairest way would be to say that the man who found the country, and requested the Minister for Lands to throw it open for selection, and to have it assessed by the board at a fair and reasonable rent, should have the preference in taking up that land. If there were more than 20,000 acres there would be plenty for the others, but they should not make a man pay a premium for what his own industry had discovered. If people believed thnt that was the way they were to be dealt "ith, there would be far less induce­ment for them taking up land. No one would go and look for land, but they would wait for someone else to go to the expense, and then they would compete against the discoverer. The pioneer should have the preferential right to take up the land, the same as with regard to a mining lease.

Mr. O'SULLIV AN said that the clause had been fully debated. He thought it was a bad one, and that it would be advisable for the Minister for Lands to withdraw it. It would be impos­sible for any hon. member of that Committee

728 Crown Lands Acts, 1884 [ASS !!;MBLY.] to 1886, Amendment Bill.

representing a farming district to vote for it, because he could not make his constituents believe but that it was intended for capitalists alone. By the speeches which had been made it had been clearly shown that it would be of no value to the revenue ; and for that reason the'better plan would be to withdraw it. Of course they all had Land Bills in their heads, and there was scarcely a man who had not a way of his own of dealing with the lands nf the colony. Some farmers who had been settled on the lands of the colony for a great many years, if they could not see their way clear at the present time, saw that at some future day they might acquire, either for themselves or for their sons, a sufficient sum of money to take up and stock one of those grazing farms. Every well-to-do farmer in the colony looked forward to th,t, and it would be a great misfortune if they took it into their heads that because there was a premium to be paid it would prevent them frGm taking up a grazing farm. They could not possibly make their consti­tuents believe that that was not intended to keep them out, and allow larger capitalists to come in. That might not be the intention of the Minister for Lands, but they could not prevent their con­stituents from believing that that was the case. It would be advisable now that so much debat­ing had taken place, and the subject had been well thrashed nnt. to withdraw the clause and get on with the Bill.

Mr. McMASTER said that he did not wish to give a silent vote if the question came to a division, and after the expression of opinion on both sides of the Committee he hoped the Minister for Lands would withdraw the clause, which was an objectionable one. The Min­ister for Lands had been unable to state­or at any rate he had not stated-whether any bogus applications had been put in for grazing farms. Now, if there were no bogus applications, what was the use ofthat clause bein« introduced? They had heard a good deal about blackmailers, but that clause would assist blackmailers, inasmuch as every applicant had to send a premium with his application. True the words "if any" were in the clau8e, but a man wishing to obtain a grazing farm, and knowing that there was such a provision as that, would not run the risk of putting in an application without a premium, because hP. would be under the belief that some­one else might put in a higher premium, and then he would lose his premium.

The MINISTER FOR LANDS: He will get it back then.

Mr. MoMASTER said that he would get it back, provided he was not the highest tenderer, but he would not get the land that he applied for ; but if he should be unfortunate enough to be on an equality with another, the blackmailing did not cease with the premium, because then the land would have to be submitted to auction, and the man with the most money would get it. Some hon. members might think that two men would not be likely to put in the same premium; but they had heard of elections where two men were equal, and the returning officer had to give a casting vote. It was possible that two men might put in exactly the same amount, and then the man with the small capital would lose the land. He might have sufficient money to take up and stock the land, and comply with the regulations, but he might not have enough to pay a premium of £50 m· £100. The clause would be a very objectionable one to the man with small capital, and it would mean that those with large capital, or with mone­tary institutions at their backs, would prevent men of small means from competing with them. ·If the present Act worked well with the ballot system, why should they not let the matter

alone ? It was more satisfactory for a man to know that he stood some chance by the ballot­box than to have to compete with men who could command £10,000 to £20,000, while he had only £3,000 or £4,000, or perhaps only so many hundreds. It would not encourage people to settle on the land if they were to be asked to pay a pren1inm. The system was a \Vrong one alto~ gether, and it would be far better to leave the law as it was, and decide the matter by ballot.

Mr. HYNE said when speaking that evening he quoted from memory a speech of the Post­master-General, who interjected that he was being misquoted. He had taken the opportunity0f looking up the hem. gentleman's speech and would now set himself right by reading the exact words made use of by the hon. gentleman. On the in­troduction of the amendment the hon. gentleman in referring to the leader of the Opposition said-

If He \Yill criticise us becansc we have not gone in for something more severe, because the Land Act~. l88·1r to 1886, have been freely condemned by the party now sitting on this side. I know the ground he 'vill take up; but the GoYcrnment can reply that they are making the measure more perfect than it is at present, and the country will have an opportunity of judging whether the criticisms we have passed on the lJand Act in the pnst are true or not. 'rime will tell whether we 1tre right or not in our criticism." That was the quotation he referred to. He quoted from memory, but, notwithstanding, he thought the construction he put on the words was right, for a little further down the leader of the Opposition said:-

" '1_1hat is your motiye, I suppose, in trying to make it worse.

"The PosT)fASTJ<~R-GEN.ERAI.: Our motive is to make H better; and I am sorry that the hon. gentleman should make such a statement.

"'l'hc HoN. Srrr S. "\V. GRIYPITII: Your main object is to show how bad it is ; and the amendments tend in that direction." That was pretty well impressed on his memory, that they were determined to show the public how bad the Act was. He hoped the hon. gentle­man• would accept the explanation he had given.

Mr. GRIMES said during the second reading of the Bill he expressed himself as unfavourable to the clause, and he was still of the same opinion. He still thought it would be the means of deterring personsfromselectinggrazing farms. They had heard that numbers of applicants were likely to come from the other colonies and take up grazing farms, and he trusted the Minister for Lands would not, by pressing the amend­ment, put any obstacle in the way of selection. They were anJ<ious to see grazing farmers settle on the land. They were anxious to have young men in the colony take up selections under that part of the Act, and if they asked them to put in a tender stating how much they were j.Jre­pared to give, it would lead to a suspicion that their tenders would hereafter be used against them when rents were to be re-assessed. He certainly thought that the evil to be remedied was not so great as to require ~uch an amendment. They had heard it mentioned several times that the squatters had no objection to the bond fide selector, but from the letter read by the member for Rosewood, there certainly seemed to be a strong objection on the part of somP squatters to selectors taking up those areas. They had heard of instances in which n•ost harassing and annoying action had been bken to prevent selectors from continuing on their land. Such action, he thought, was shameful on the part rtf any indi­vidual, and he saw nothing in the clause to prevent any squatter who did not wish for settle­ment setting up a man to bid a very high pre­mium to prevent selection. They would find that the clause would deter selection, and he trusted, therefore, that it would not be insisted upon. He intended to vote against it.

Grown tands Acts, 1884 [18 JULY.] to 1886, Amendment Bill.

Mr. CO\VLEY said as a grazier in a small way, and as one who wonld very likely take up " grazing f~trm, he had no objection to the clause. It w~ts well known that land varied very con­siderably in v~tlue, and,. if he die! go in for a grazing farm, he should take good care to thoroughly ex,tmine the bnd. He would much ratber pay n1ore for a good grazing fartn than tttke a bad one at " very low price. It was impossible for the Land Boarrl_or their officers to exan1ine thoroughly every grazing £ann thro,vn open to selection in this colony, and some farms would be much more vahmble than others. He said that a man who understood his business should thoroughly examine the farm he intended to apply for, and if he die! that he would be able to fix a fair value, and would not object to give that value for it. Therefore, he would have a better oppor­tunity of getting the land he required than if he truRted to lot. F nder those circumstances he should certainly vote in fa your of the clause.

Mr. ISAMBEHT said the Committee ought to be thankful to the hon. member for Herbert, who had put the meaning of the cbuse in the briefest possible manner-namely, that the men who hat! the longest purse would get the land.

Mr. MACFATtLANE said the Minister for Lands mu:ot be pretty well satisfied that the Opposition side of the Cornrni ttee, and anum ber of members on the other side, were opposed to the clause; but the JYiinistry must not run away with the idea that they were opposerl to any amendment

, of the Laml Act. Hon. members on that side had shown that they were not opposed to amend­lUents, as they agreed to an HMI ending Dill t\\ ,> years ago. 'fhere were 1nauy aJnendinelltB in~ clmkd in the Bill that he thoroughly approved of. 'When the Act of 188-! was pasBed, no douht the Government anticipated a much grei'tter reYenue tlmn they h"d recei' eel, but hon. members on the GovernnlP.nt side now acknowl{-<1ged tbat the Act had fulfilled the object for which it was pa,,:ed. It was intended to do justice to the whole country, and if everything had turned out as anticipated, it was an Act that was calculated to do a great amount of good. It was expected now tbn..t a. great nun1ber of gmzing hrms would be bken up, 1tnd th:1t showed that the Act was beginning to be under­stood. ::\Iany things had conspired to make the Act a. failure, such as the drought nnd want of knowledge on the part of many people. The drought h~tcl now disappeared, and the Act was being· better und :rstood, and people were coming to see that they could take up land on ad van­tageous terms. · \Vhy not give the Act a fair chance, now that a good prospect \•'as before the country? \\~hy not allow graziers to take up grazing farms under the original clause of the Act? If the Minister for L~mds would do that and withdraw the propm·etl clause, he thought it would be found that the original Act would answer all purpoi:'ecl.

The MIXISTJ£H FOlt LA:NDS said he had already state<l that he was prepared to take the voice of the C'lmmittee on the subject, and he did not look upon it as a party rr,,e,,tion at all. Hon. members opposite mmt have heard the proposal opposed by supporters of the Govern­ment, and he had not the least expectation of carrying it, but he pref.··rrecl to take an honourable defeat and go on with the Bill. ·with regard tu the working of the Act itoelf, he harl made an carnec,t endcwour to make it a good Act, and within the last twelve months there hac! been more selection of grazing and agricultural farms than they had had in the preceding three years. He would do anything he could to make the grazing farm provisions a success in the future, if he was spared to do it. "When he made the statement

that the amendment he proposed would have a beneficial effect, he made it in all sincerity and after rnature consideration, nnd not with any d(;.;ire to hamper the poor man or benefit the S'Juatter or rich man. He hopetl hon. member.; would ~o to a. vote on tho question, which was not of great importance, and did not afiect n 'it" I principle of the Bill, and let them go on with more important matters in the Bill.

:Mr. BUCKLA?-JJ) said he g:we the Minister for Lands every credit for a cleoire to carry out the Land Act of 188-1, and settle peO]Jle upon the land. The main object of the introduction of the Act wr" to settle people upon the land, and he hoped the hon. gentleman would accept the advice of the hon. member for Stanley and withdraw the chu,e, as he was certain a larg·c number of would-be selectors would not bo inclined to put in applications for grazing far~ns if they founrl they would have to compete With wealthy capitali .ts for them. For those rea;;on,, and for the reasons he harl assigned up0n the second re~tding of the Bill, he would oppose the premium clause.

Mr. MORGAN said he sincerely hoped that before a rlivision was taken something in the nltture of a compromise would be effected or that the clause would be withrlrawn. It was all Yery well to s:ty it would not be a party vote, but there were some members no doubt who wonlcl hn ve regard to p>trty allegiance in a vote of that kind. He hoped not, as he thought the clause a mistake. If he was sure it would not be a p:nty vot(•, he would have no objection tf) go to a cli vision upon it, but he would prefer to sec the MinLtrr for Lands withdraw the dause.

Mr. GllOO:U said he would like the Cmn­lnittee tt) understand whnt they were going to do, because if they divided on the que;tion _tl~en Lcfore the Cmmnitt· e they would be diVIclmg upon th<~ amendment propo·,ed by the :\linister flJr Lands to mnit the word "nnnual ,, awl 11ot UJJOll the whole subsection. It would J,e as well for the J\Iinister for Lands to make what amendments he intended to make upon the sub­section, and then let the Committee divide upon the snt-,sction as amended

The J\IINIST.ER l<'OR LAXDS ea id the hon. member was right. The question before the Committee wns that the wore! " annual '' be omittecl, and the omission of that word would not negative the whole of the subsection.

QuPstion-'l'hat the word "annual., proposed to be omitted stand part of the subsection-put and neg~ttived.

On the motion of the JYIINISTEit l<'OR LANDS, the subsection w:ts further amemlecl by the omi.,sion of the words "for the first five yeMs of the term of his lea'e " in the 2nd paragraph ; the omission of the wurds "fir"t year's " in the 3rcl p<tragraph ; and by the omission of the words "the premium shall be added to and be deemed part of the annual rent" in the last paragraph.

Quc3tion- That subsection 2, as amen<led, stand part of the clause-put; and the Com­mittee divided:-

An:s, lU. ~1ossrs. :XC'l:')on, ~Horehearl, )Iacros~nn. Black, Cascy.

Donnldson, L\UllSllllll'C, rnttison, Adam~. Ln~·a, ];itt.le· R IL Joncs, Corfielfl, Battcrshy, Cowley, ll:unilton, Archer, Lissncr, and Palmcr.

XoE.s, 3.3. Sir ~. 1'1-. Griffith, Messrs. Gln.~scy, Groom, Darhr,Y,

Horlgkinson, Is::tmbert, Poxton, Unmack, rroz:cr. Hyuo, ::ncJfaster, O'Connell, :Jicllor, O'Snllinm, Bncklaml, Crombic, Gannon. Stephens, Campbell, :Yurrn~·. \Yatson, Plnukett, Da.Irymple, Philp, :Jiacfarlane, ){organ, :Xorth, Powers, Saycrs, l\iurphy, :5,11keld, Grimes, Golclt'ing, Hunter, and DrR.ke.

Question resolved in the negative.

7;~0 Trustee Bill. [ASSEMBLY.]

The MINISTER FOR LANDS moved that the Chairman leave the chair, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Quec;tion put and passed. The Houge resumed, and the Committee

obtained leave to sit again on Tuesday next.

ADJOUR~l\IENT.

The PREMIRR said : Mr. S[Jeaker,-I move th~t this House do now adjourn.

Question pnt and pas~ed. The House adjourned at eighteen minutes past

10 o'clock.

Trustee Bill.