Queensland

Parliamentary Debates [Hansard]

Legislative Assembly

THURSDAY, 1 JUNE 1893

Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy

:Robb .Arbitration Oase. [1 JUNE.] Tre~SU1'1f Bills Bill. 49

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. Thursday, 1 June, 1893.

Pineapple Disease.-Member Sworn.-Stamp Duties Act Amendment Bill : Third reading.-Robb Arbitration Case: Formal motion.-Suspension of Standing Orders.-Financial Bi!Is: Committee.- Treasury Bills Bill.-Treasnry Notes Bill.-Treasnry Notes Advances Bill.-Elections Tribunal Act.-Stamp Duties Act Amendment Bill.-Adjournment.

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

PINEAPPLE DISEASE. Mr. AGNEW asked the Secretary for Lands-1. Has Mr. Tryon prepared any report upon the

-pineapple disease now, and for some time past, existing in the district or Nundah?

2. Will the Minister for Lands lay such report (if any) npon the table of the House?

The SECRETARY FOR LANDS (Hon. A. H. Barlow) replied­

!. Yes. 2, Mr. Tryon's report on the pineapple disease is not

considered satisfactory. The Department of Agri~ culture is now making further investigation into the disease, a report upon which, together with Mr. Tt·yon's report, will in due course be submitted to Parliament.

MEMBER SWORN. The Hon. Boyd Dunlop Morehead took the

oath and subscribed the roll as member for the electoral district of Balonne.

STAMP DUTIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

THUtD READING. On the motion of the COLONIAL TREA­

SURER (Hon. H. M. Nelson), this Bill was read a third time, passed, and ordered to be trans­mitted to the Legislative Council for their concurrence, by message in the usual form.

ROBB ARBITRATION CASE. FORMAL MOTION.

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

return showing-1. The names of counsel for the Crown in the arbitra­

tion case, Robb v. the Railway Commissioners. 2. By whom were counsel for the Crown retained. 3. The amonnts(a) of the fees marked on their respec­

tive briefs, and by whom fixed: (b) the amount of their respective "refreshers," and by whom fixed.

1893-:m

4. The full am6unt of fees paid to each of the counsel for the Crown to 30th April, 1893, and the total of all such fees.

5. The daily fees paid to the arbitrators for the Com­missioners, and by whom fixed.

6. The total amount paid to the arbitrators for the Commissioners to 3'Jth April, 1893.

7. The total amount of all cosls in connection with the arbitration proceedings to 30th April, 1893.

8. The fund from which the expenses in connection with the case have been paid.

Question put ; and the House divided :­AYEs, 22.

Messrs. Powers, Lovejoy, Fisher, Daniels, Turley, Dawson, Jackson, Burns, Fogarty, Morgan, Murray, O'Conne!l, Cadell, Leahy, Stevens, Cribb, Dunsford, Reid, Kerr, Hoolan, Hardacre, and King.

No>Os, 25. Sir T. 1\fcllwraith, Messrs. Barlow, Nelson, Toz.:Jr,

Philp, Annear, Lord, llforehead, Watson, McMaster, Petrie, Midson, Crombie, Armstrong, Agnew, Tooth, Kingsbury, Dalrymple, Chataway, Corfield, Smith, Callan, Thomas, Grimes, and Duffy.

Resolved in the negative.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS. On the motion of the PREMIER (Hon. Sir

T. Mcilwraith), it was resolved-That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended

as will admit of the passing of Bills through all their stages in one day.

FINANCIAL BILLS. CmrMITTEE.

On the Order of the Day being read, the House went into committee to consider in detail the Treasury Bills Bill, the Treasury Notes Bill, and the Treasury Notes Advances Bill.

TREASURY BILLS BILL. On clause 1-" Treasury bills may be issued

for £1,000,000"-The COLONIAL TREASURER stated that

all the clauses in the Bill, down to clause 7, were exactly in accord with all previous Treasury bills.

Clauses 1 to 5 put and passed. On clause 6-" Moneys raised under the

authority of the Act to form part of the con­solidated revenue fund"-

The HoN. J. R. DICKSON pointed out that the title of the Bill dealing with Treasury notes was " The Treasury Notes Act of 1893," whereas in the clause before the Committee it was called '' The Queensland Treasury Notes Act of 1893." For the sake of uniformity of con­struction, he would move the omission of the word '' Queensland."

Amendment agreed to; and clause, as amended, put and passed.

On clause 7-" In whom Treasury bills to be vested"-

The COLONIAL TREASURER said the clause made it imperative to vest the bills issued under the authority of the Act in the hands of trustees appointed for such purpose. It also provided-if ever such a thing was required­how they were to be got out of the hands of the trustees. The bills deposited with the trustees were not to be sold or otherwise disposed of with­out the express authority of the Governor in writ­ing, accompanied with a certificate signed by the Under Secretary to the Treasury, and counter­signed by the Auditor-General, certifying that the proceeds thereof were absolutely required to meet payments lawfully chargeable for the retire­ment of notes issued under the authority of the Treasury Notes Act of1893. The later portion of the clause provided that the Treasury bills should be deposited for safe keeping m such place and under such regulations as the Governor in Council should direct, '

50 Treaswr~11 Bills Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Treasury Bills Bill.

Mr. FOXTON pointed out that a slight error had occurred in the drafting of the clause. As at first drafted the proviso appearing at the end of the clat1se had evidently been intended to form part of the specific enactment, and pre­ceded the words " The Treasury bills so de­posited," as no previous reference to the deposit of the Treasury bills appeared in the clause. He suggested the transposition of the words of the proviso to the place they clearly occupied originally.

Amendment agreed to; and clause, as amended, passed with an amendment, omitting the proviso.

Clauses 8 to 10, inclusive, put and passed.

On clause 11-" Counterfeiting bills to be felony ; penalty"-

Mr. FISHER said that our system of correct­ing people who had made mistakes had not had the best effects. The clause provided that persons guilty of certain offences should be guilty of felony, and should be liable, on conviction, to be kept in penal servitude for life. It was necessary to deal in a humanitarian spirit with people who made mistakes in life; and he did not think persons guilty of the offences stated in the clause should be sentenced to such severe punishment. He moved the omission of the word "life," with a view of inserting the words "five years."

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Hon. T. J. Byrnes) said the clause was taken ex,ctly from the Treasury Bills Act of 1866. The offence of forgery had always been highly punished, and he trusted always would be. It was analogous to an offence against the currency which had also been highly punished, because it involved forgery of a document which might represent money. It might be a serious thing to inflict life imprison­ment, but there was a limit ; anything between life and three years could be imposed. There might be circumstances under which life im­prisonment would not be too severe. The House would not be acting wisely in agreeing to the amendment. It was an old clause, one that had stood the test of time, and no injustice had arisen under it.

Mr. HOOLAN said the amendment had been moved under the a"sumption that if they were poor they could afford to be charitable and mer­ciful. It was strange, in view of the present situation, the compilers of the Bill should hedge it round with such extremely rigorous precautions, and they would be doing themselves and the country justice if they allowed the precaution to go a little further, and add to the Bill a punishment for any person who might hereafter be a party to the circum~tances that had bmught about the present depression, and led to the present legisla­tion. If the law allowed it they should all be laid by the heels for attempting to issue such money, and when they considered that aspect of the question it was the grossest impertinence to attach such a penalty to the Bill. They did not know whether those Bills were based on sound law or not, He did not believe they were. He did not believe there was any man in the country who would attempt to forge or counterfeit anything on the Treasury while it remained in its present insolvent condition. Although he objected to imprisonment for life, yet he thought the man who attempted to forge any document or pass any counterfeit on the Treasury or any of the suspended banks would deserve either gaol or the lunatic asylum for the rest of his life.

Mr. ALLAN thought the last p:trt of the clause was somewhat anomalous, because it said a person should be liable to imprisonment for

life or for any term not less than three years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years. That certainly seemed peculiar to the lay mind, and he should like the Attorney­General to explain it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said in Eng­land there was a difference between penal servi­tude and imprisonment ; but in this country there was very little difference ; it was in the class of labour that might be meted out.

Mr. ALLAN : Was it not contradictory to have those two terms mentioned in the clause? vVould not one of them be sufficient? The judge was told that he must not give a man less than three years, and then that he must not give him more than two years.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the im­prisonment was two years with or without hard labour. There was no labour condition attached by the statute to penal servitude ; but the class of labour in either case was very little different. The expression had been in use ever since Queens­land had been Queensland. It gave the judge the option, and he did not think any mistakes had occurred under it since it had been in use.

Mr. HARDACRE said if the Attorney­General's argument was right they ought to retain on the statute-book some of those bar­barous laws which were passed in England at one time, when a man was hung for stealing a sheep. The time had come when they should reduce those severe punishments for offences against property. The real reason for them was that the laws had always been severe on any infringement of the rights of property, but not on the rights of persons. They should advance a little now and do away with what remained of those severe laws passed in the dark ages.

Mr. ARMSTRONG said what appeared strange to him was that while a judge coul~ gi_ve either two years or three years, he could mflwt no term between those two periods.

Mr. DA WSON also protested against any man being sentenced to penal servitude for life. It was a barbaroua punishment, and they should be more humane to a man who had perhaps swerved from the right track. They were con­tinually boasting of their humanity and their pro­gress and yet the Attorney-General had said that so lo~1g as the people of England did not see fit to strike some barbarous punishments from their statute-book the people of Queensland should also retain them. They should act for themselves in such matters. It was quite pos­sible for a man to swerve for a moment from the path of rectitu~e and bec~me a~enable to punishment but 1t was also qmte poss1ble for that man to bec~me a respectable member of society if he were given the opportunity of reforming. The Attorney-Generald should be equally bound to protect a prisoner in the dock as he was to pro­tect the people who employed him. The question should be pressed to a division, so that the people should know who were and who were not the friends of humanity.

Mr. DALRYMPLE said that if laws were inhuman, rascality was inhuman, too. Some hon. members did not understand the gravity of those offences. It was because it was a very grave offence against the commonwealth that it was nece~sary, under some circumstancet:t, to impose severe punishment. For tampering with the currency kings had lost their crowns ; and why should not the scoundrel lose his liberty? If a man's liberty was being used to enable him to defraud the people and injure the common­wealth that man should be locked up, because it was' humane to lock him up. There were other people entitled to be considered be· sides scoundrels-the people upon whom those

Treasury; Bills Bill. [1 JUNE,) Treasury Bills Bill. ol scoundrels preyed; and it was the duty of humane people, in the name of humanity, to prevent scoundrels committingoffenceH against humanity. But there was an alternative-the alternative between three years and life. It was quite possible that men might hand together to depreciate the currency, or rather the foundation upon which it was proposed to found the currency-that on which the people of the colony depended for their means of exchange. If they had a corrupted currency, the greatest injuries would follow. What would happen if, when men took what was guaranteed by the State as honest money, they found it was not honest money ? It was a sin against the roor man ; it was a sin against all ; and although an extreme case would seldom occur where such harm was done as to cause a judge to sentence a man to lifelong imprison­ment, yet such cases might arise. vVhere the offence did not necessitate such severity of punishment, they would imagine that the judge would use his discretion and apportion whatever punishment the prisoner deserved. He did not believe in removing punishment, for the simple reason that it was in the interests of society that punishment should be imposed. It was to keep evil-doers from doing evil. The mere fact that a man would expose him· self to imprisonment for life might stop him from committing an offence, and might stop a gang of men from committing a series of nefarious processes, which would do great harm to the community. An hon. member had spoken of the humanitarian spirit. He left that hon. gentleman to define what a humanitarian spirit was ; but apparently it was compatible with that humanitarian spirit to deprive a man of his liberty for five years, because that was the term advocated by one of those who spoke of such a spirit. If that argument was pushed to its logical conclusion they should not punish a man at all. If a man struck another on one cheek, the other should be presented to him at once; and if a man robbed another, if the robber had left sixpence, possibly that hon. gentleman would say that should be given up too. Hisownhumanitr>rian spirit led him to think that if a man deserved more than five years he should get it. One feature of the subject, to his surprise, had not been noticed. A man debased the currency-why? In order to better his condition. He was not satisfied; he desired to become a capitalist; and seeing the views held by some hon. members opposite, he was surprised they had not considered what a terrible offence that must be. A man debased the currency-why? To enrich himself. Surely that should have sufficed, according to their own doctrine, to make them willing to condemn him to imprisonment for life. '

Mr. DANIELS said it was about time that they coupled justice with mercy. The clause left a great deal of power in the hands of a judge. If a man came before the court before dinner the judge might be in a bad humour, and might exercise his power to inflict a life sen­tence; whereas if the accused happened to come before him after dinner, when he was in a good humour, he might give him twelve months or two years. There should not be such a wide discretionary margin; and five years was quite sufficient.

The SECRETARY FOR LANDS claimed that no hon. member was more opposed to cruelty than he was, or more willing to take by the hand any man who had fallen into crime by his own fault or otherwise. The Bill provided for a difference in punishment of from three years to life. When he was in Victoria some thirty years back, there was a notorious forger there who was known to the criminal classes as

"Jimmy the Penman." While that man was out of gaol there was no security for anyone's property in the shape of a written instrument ; and therefore he used to get fifteen years at a time. vVould it not be unwise to do away with their power to have a man who was so steeped in crime locked up? Such a man was unfit to be at liberty, because while he was at large he wa.> a constant menace to society. No judge who inflicted the maximum penalty for a trifling offence would be allowed to remain on the bench ; but there were cases in which strong punishment must be kept for strong criminals.

Mr. REID said the reason for the opposition to imprisonment for life was that society was framed under such conditions that men were very often driven to become rogues. Society was strong, but the individual was not so strong, and if a man debased the currency he could, under the amendment, be sentenced to five years' imprisonment. If he was such a con­firmed rogue as the man mentioned by the last speaker, and committed a second offence, he could get another five Yf'ars. There were hundreds of persons who, having made one falsA step and been sent to prison for a long term, had by association with criminals in gaol become confirmed criminals themselves. There­fore they should give a man an opportunity of reforming and regaining his place in society. SociPty had not been protected against forgers becoming capitalists in the past, and the laws which provided the severe punishments to which objection was taken were for the protection of property alone. He did not object to the pro­tection of property, but held that human life and liberty ought to be more considered. He hoped the amendment would be accepted, so that per­sons who made a false step might be given an opportunity to reform.

Mr. DA WSON said the hon. member, Mr. Dalrymple, in criticising the remarks he (Mr. Dawson) had made, had endeavoured to induce the Committee to believe that he wanted to shield scoundrels. He did not think any other member could, bv any stretch of imagination conclude from what he had said that he desired that any man who committed an offence against the laws of the country should absolutely escape punishment. Such a man should be punished, but justice should be tempered with mercy. Hitherto the laws of the country had punished men who, through blundering ,or ignorance, had transgressed, while they allowed many men to escape who did deeds that cau"ed far more harm and distress to society. If hon. members were so desirous to punish scoundrels, it would be just as well, while touching upon banking nieasures, to pass a law for the punishment of those men who were responsible for the bank smashes which had caused so much distress throughout Queens­land. His party were not a whit afraid of men forming a ring to debase the currency in order to become capitalists, and even if they did desire to prevent men becoming capitalists, they would be doing a good deed by saving them from their own sin. He endorsed the statement that their prison regulations were responsible for many of the confirmed criminals in society to-day, and believed that there were other places besides prisons where men could be contaminated.

Mr. POWERS pointed out that punishment was provided with the view of preventing people committing crime, and that it was likely that the possibility of bein;; imprisoned for life would prevent persons committing the offence referred to in the clause under consideration. One point neglected in the discussion was that over and above the judges stood Parliament. If Parlia­ment considered that a roan W!i,s in gaol who

52 'J!Teasur'!/ Bills Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] TTeaswr'!J Bills Bill.

011ght not to be there, they would step in and secure his release. During the last Parliament one Government risked their chance of remain­ing in office because they insisted that a man who wa~ in gaol ought to be released ; and, now that elections were to take place every .three years, Parliament would not be slow to remedy any such injustice. But he was perfectly certain that no judge would inflict the extreme penalty except in extreme cases.

Mr. KINGSBURY said one hon. member had stated that the particular offence which was sought to be kept down by the great severity of the penalty was an offence against property. In no sense could it be called an offence against pro­perty. The notes would be in circulation all over the colony, and the loss that would be en­tailed by forging or counterfPiting would be spread over a vast number of sufferers. A man who was capable of successful forgery would not confine himself to the forging of one note. He would forge hundreds of them, and the last holders of them would be the sufferers, and in many cases the notes might be the only property they had in the world. How so-called advocates of the people could talk about that being an offence against property passed his comprehension. He would give forgers of notes five years for each offence, the sentences to be cumulative. In all c",ses the man who started a game of that sort was a criminal of the deepest dye, and personally hlil was sorry that the maximum penalty was not· depriving him of the life he had used so badly.

Mr. MAOJ!'ARLANE said a life sentence had not always a deterrent effect. Human nature was of such a strange composition that many a previously honest man was led, in an evil moment, to commit an act which made him a criminal. The amendment limiting the penalty to five years was too small for such a terrible crime as counterfeiting notes, but if the hon. member would withdraw the amendment and make the maximum punishment ten years, he would support him. Jndgeswerenotalwaysjust. They were actuated sometimes by passion or other motives. In illustration of that, he would refer again to a case which occurred some years ago in his own electorate. The man in question was proved to have set fire to his own house, which was situated almost in the middle of the pandock, where no harm could be done to other property, and he had no benefit from the insurance ; and yet, because he made a certain interjection in the dock he was given a sentence of twenty years.

HoNOURABLE MEMBERS : Who was the judge? Mr. MAOFARLANE: Judge Lilley. An HONOURABLE MEMBER : Was the house

insured? Mr. MAOFARLANE: It was; but this man

had no interest in the insurance. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Was not his

wife in the house when he set it on fire? Mr. MAOFARLANE said that was an after­

thought, and it had never been proved, although it was known that the husband and wife had had some domestic quarrels ; but he firmly believed that the heavy sentence was inflicted solely on account of the interjection the prisoner made in the dock.

Mr. FISHER said he would accept the sug­gestion of the hon. member for Ipswich, and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by permission, withdrawn. Mr. FISHER moved that the clause be

amended by the omission of the words " for life or," and the in~ertion of the words "more than ten years nor," before the words "less than three years." He disagreed with the con-

tention that the supporters of the amendment were on an unsound footing. The power of dealing with persons who come before them, whether criminals or not, according to the spirit or temper they happened to be in at the time, had been left too long in the hands of judge•. Even the highest judges should be limited in every matter coming before them, so far as the limitation did not interfere with justice, He had no sympathy with criminals, nor did he think that prisoners proved to be guilty of offences against the law, even though the law was unjust, should escape punishment. It was necessary to protect society, but he denied that modern experience taught that the largest amount of punishment was the greatest safeguard. On the contrary, it taught that where criminals were treated with a certain amount of kindness the greatest and best results were attained. The hon. member for Maryborough had pointed out that ther_e was above the judges a Government to appeal to when it was thought that a judge had been unnecessarily harsh, but he was sorry that he could not come to the conclusion that they had always an impartial Government to appeal to. The sentiment prevailed amongst the work­ing classes that persons of high standing in society sentenced to imprisonment for life, or for a lengthened term, had a much better chance of being released than persons who had not such an influential following. The question was deeply embedded in the minds and hearts of the people, and they would like to understand why it was that persons who were equal before the law should not be treated alike by the judges, both of the higher and lower courts.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS : So they are. Mr. FISHER : They were judged by the

same law, but he denied that justice was dealt out equitably as between them,

Mr. DALRYMPLE: Then bring it before the House if you have a concrete case.

Mr. FISHER said that action would be taken, he understood, to bring a matter before the House respecting persons suffering penalties for supposed crimes which he believed they did not commit. The present was not the time to deal with that matter, but his candid opinion was that though their fathers probably did well the work they had to do, it was for them now to take a step forward and in the way of humanity, and to endeavour to show that kindly treatment even of those who had acquired a criminal habit was best calculated to induct~ them to reform and become useful to society. He intended to pres~ the amendment to a division, and if it was defeated he would only be sorry}or the opinions of those who opposed it.

The COLONIAL 'l.'REASURER said he had no intention whatever of accepting the amend­ment, as it was entirely contrary to his ideas of what was right. To listen to the arguments used in support of it, one would think it was the duLy of the State to offer facilities for the production of criminals, and afterwards to treat them with the utmost kindness. Pre­vention was better than cure, and they should listen to the lessons of experience, and not act upon vague and imaginary ideas. The experience with respect to that clause was that though it had existed for a great number of years in connection with that very subject, no offence had ever been committed against it, and hence no one had suffered imprisonment. Was it not far better to deter than to cure? Was it not better to do that than make it easy to com­mit the crime and then try to reform the criminal?

Mr, FISHER: Why not hang offenders?

Treasury Notes Bill. [1 JuNE.] Treasury Notes Bill. 53

The COLONIAL TREASURER: What was the object of penalties at all? Not for the pur­pose of making things easy for criminals ; and the fact of the law having acted in that very salutary ma'1ner was proof that it was effecting its highest function.

Mr. M ORGAN could not support the amend­ment, and would rather see the clause amended in the direction of abolishing the minimum and leaving it absolutely discretionary with the judge to fit the punishment to the crime. They had been told of the possibility of some young man falling away from grace through sudden temptation, but no such thing was likely to happen under that clause. The man they wanted to get at was the cool, calculating scoundrel who laid his plans to catch all and sundry ; the man who cared not who suffered so long as he profited. It was the Fagin of society they wanted to guard against. The Treasurer had said that that clause had never been enforced ; but while they were disturbing and changing their paper currency there was a very great danger of forgery and counterfeiting taking place. Already in Sydney, notes issued only a week ago had been forged and uttered. The object of the clause was not to get people into prison for life ; but to prevent them doing an injustice to the community generally, and he believed the clause as drawn would be more likely to have the effect of a preventative than if it were amended in the manner proposed.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause-put; and the Committee divided :-

AYEs, 39. Sir T. Mcilwraith, Messrs. Barlow, Byrnes, Philp,

Nelson, Petrie, Midson, Stephens, 1Vatson, Lord, Smith, Mcliiaster, Chataway, Dalrymple, Crombie, Armstrong, Kingsbury, Burns, Battersby, Oorfield, Fogarty, Leahy, PlunkeU, Murray, O'Conne!L Cadell, ~1organ, Powers, Duffy, Thomas, Cribb, llell, Allan, Tooth, Callan, Thorn, Grimes, Dickson, and Morehead.

NOES, H. MesRrs. Kerr, Hoolan, Hardacre, King, Jackson, Reid,

Turley, ~iacfarlane, Dunsford, Cross, Dawson, Fisher, Daniels, and Lovejoy.

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause put and passed. Clause 12 put and passed. On the motion of the COLONIAL TREA­

SURER, the preamble was omitted.

TREASURY NOTES BILL. On clause 1-" Commencement of the Act"­The HoN. J. R. DICKSON said that the

clause stated that the provisions of the Bill should be of full force and effect, " anything in the Act 38 Victoria> number 12 contained to the contrary notwithstanding." That was the Audit Act of 1874, and he wished to know how the Bill was to be read in connection with that Act. It could hardly be intended to exclude the issue of the Treasury notes from the Auditor-General's report. He did not know what was meant, unless it was intended to exclude the officers entrusted with the emission of those notes from being considered as public accountants within the meaning of the Audit Act.

Clause postponed.

On clause 2-" Government may issue Trea· surynotes payable on demand, but not to a greater extent than the amount of cash or Treasury bills in possession of the Government "-

The COLONIAL TREASURER said the clause put an absolute as well as a contingent limit upon the issue of Treasury notes. The noteR would be secured by the Treasury bills authorised

by the Bill just passed. The total amount of bills authmised by that measure was £1,000,000. This clause provided that the absolute limit of the note circulation should be two-thirds of that sum -namely, £6(36,666, in addition to any coin the Treasury might hold. The second proviso limited the issue in another way; it stated that "The amount of coin held by the Colonial Treasurer shall never be less than one-fourth of the total amount of the Treasury notes in circulation." It was not necessary that the whole of the Treasury bills should be issued at one time, and they would only be issued as occasion required. As an illustration of how the" scheme would work, he might mention that if Treasury bills were issued to the amount of £500,000, and he had coin in the Treasury to the extent of £125,000, he would then be able to issue notes to the value of £458,333. That was the minimum reserve by which the notes would be covered. The follow­ing figures would further explain how it would work:-

Coin. Bills. Issue.

.£ £ £ 150,000 600,000 550,000 175,000 700,000 641,666 200,000 800,000 733,333 225,000 900,000 825,000 250,000 1,000,000 916,666

The ultimate limit of issue would be .£916,666, which would be represented by the total amount of Treasury bills authorised, and £250,000 in coin. If any more notes than that were required there would have to be a sovereign in the Treasury for every .£1-note so issued ; but he believed that the limit fixed would be ample for some years to come. If, however, commerce increased to such an extent that the limit was reached, and the country became so prosperous as to require a larger issue of paper money, Parliament could then authorise a further issue of Treasury notes. The average circulation of bank notes in the colony for the last year or two was £550,000, and that would be covered by Treasury bills to the amount of at lea8t £600,000 with coin to the amount of at least £150,000. There might be more or less coin, but that was the minimum limit of security for the issue of 550,000 notes represent­ing .£1 each,

Mr. LEAHY thought there was an aspect of the question which had not been taken into consideration. The 2nd paragraph of the clause provided that the total amount of Treasury notes " so made, issued, and circulated as afore­said may extend to, but shall not at any one time exceed the amount of coin held by the Colonial Treasurer in addition to two-thirds of the amount of Treasury bills issued under the authority of the Treasury Bills Act." The evident intention was that the reserve should apply ouly to notes in circulation. If the notes were numbered in a similar way to bank notes, then although there were only £500,000 worth in circulation, it was possible that the number might reach £1,500,000, as provision would have to be made for notes which were cancelled, mutilated, or destroyed. It might also happen, if some of tho present bank forms were issued, as had been suggested by the Treasurer, that they would subsequently be recalled and Treasury notes issued in their place ; but as the clause now stood it would not be possible to do that, as it referred to the amount of notes " issued and circulated," not the amount · in

54 Treasury Notes Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Treasury Notes Bill:

circulation. Possibly he might be wrong in his mterpretation of the clause, but that appeared to be the mp,aning, and he would suggest that the words "in circulation" be substituted for the words " made, issued, and circulated."

The COLONIAL TREASURER said the hon. member was perfectly right in his conten­tion that the limit intended was not the amount of notes lying unused in the Treasury, but the amount in circulation. A note could not be used against the Treasury unless somebody got pos­sect~ion of it, and the object of the clause was to limit the number of notes in the hands of the public.

Mr. LEAHY : Why riot say so ? The COLO~IAL TREASURER: It was so

stated; that was the usual form of expression. "Circulated " and "in circulation" amounted to the same thing.

The SECRETARY FOR LANDS said the criticism of the hon. member for Bulloo was soml'd as far as the cancellation of dirty notes was concerned, but the words in the clause were a legal expression necessary to give the Governor in Council power to do certain thinl's which he had not power to do without it.

Mr. LEAHY said the clause only referred to notes issued; it did not say whether they were in circulation or not.

Mr. FISHER said he was still in the same difficulty he mentioned last night. If the Treasury issued 500,000 notes, and held only 25 per cent. of the amount in coin, could he cash the first note presented to him next morning? He (Mr. Fisher) doubted it, because he would be reducing his gold reserve below the minimum.

The COLONIAL TREASURER said all he could say was that a Treasurer who allowed the coin reserve to remain in that condition would be a bad administrotor. The periodical returns would act as a barometer, and show exactly what proportion the coin and the notes should bear to each other. It would be the duty of the person administering the Act, when necessary, either to restriut the issue or to get more gold.

Mr. POWERS asked where the money was to come from to keep the 25 per cent. deposit going-from the banks or the State funds? Or were the banks to pay anything at all? It was evident that whenever the notes came in it would be necessary to add more coin to the reserve.

The COLONIAL TREASURER said \here was nothing in the clause stating how the Treasurer should deal with the banks. He would have to make the best terms he could with the banks. The hon. member seemed to assume that because the Treasurer's minimum limit was 25 per cent. he was going to issue notes to the banks on a deposit of one-fourth the amount in gold. There was nothing of the kind in the Bill.

Clause put and passed. On clause 3-" Notes to be dated at Treasury

and to be payable there in specie on demand"-Mr. FISHER asked whether the Treasurer

would give the concession through the Postal Department to people residing in border towns, who might want to go out of the colony, of changing a limited number "f notes for gold without coming or sending to Brisbane?

The COLONIAL TREASURER did not think such a provision would be practicable. It was a matter the banks could deal with, and no doubt they would cash the notes. His duty was to get them into circulation and not to give cash for them.

Mr. ALLAN considered the clause a little involved. It provided that the notes were to be legal tender by all persons other than the Colonial Treasurer; but surely the Colonial Treasurer would take the notes as legal tender in payment of rents of runs, or other purposes?

The COLONIAL TRJ<JASURER ~aid the notes were to be lfgal tender by all persons other than the Colonial Treasurer. What was meant was that the Colonial Treasurer could not present his own notes. If a person came to the Treasury and wanted five single pounds for a £5 Treasury note, the Treasurer could not pay him five £1 notes, but must pay five sovereigns. Every­where else a .£5 note was good in discharge of a debt of £5, and must be accepted as legal tender. Of course, the notes would be received in pay­ment of rents or debts to any of the departments of the State.

Clause put and passed. Clauses 4 and 5 put and passed. On clause 6-" Governor in Council may

appoint necessary officers who shall give security"-

The COLONIAL TREASURER did not think it would be necessary to appoint any additi0nal officers, as those alrmtdy in the Treasury and Savings Bank would be able to do all the work required.

Clause put tmd passed.

On clause ,7-"Regulations to be made"-Mr. DA WSON said the clause provided for

the proclamation of regulations which, "Not being contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall have the force of law," and the regulations were to be laid before ParliamPnt. As the Attorney-General would be the interpreter of the Act, he might interpret it in Ruch a way that the regulations would virtually override the Act, and he would like to know whether the regula­tions would come into force before they were laid before Parliament.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL : Yes; this is the usual way.

Clause put and passed. On clause 8-" Lawful issue of Treasury

notes"-The COLONIAL TREASURER said the

object of the clause was to facilitate the issue of the notes. Instead of going to the expense of providing a series of plates for the notes, the clause empowered the Treasurer to use the forms of any bank trading- in Queensland. The banks had a quantity of blank forms, and he had ascer­tained that they were perfectly willing to hand them over to the Treasury. Those forms would be converted into Treasury notes by printing across them the words "Treasury note of the Govern­ment of Queensland, payable on demand at the Treasury, Brisbane," and signed by the Colonial Treasurer, with the date.

Mr. HOOLAN said there was supposed to be something concealed about the clause. There was an impression abroad that the Government were going to use Queensland National Bank forms. He had heard also that when that unfortunate institution suspended many years ago--

An HoNOURABLE MEiiiBER : It never suspended before. That was a different bank altogether­the Bank of Queensland.

Mr. HOOLAN: It did not much matter whether it was the same bank or not. The thing was a novelty then, but it was no novelty now. Some bank suspended years ago, and the Govern­ment of the day were in similar straits, though not quite so bad, as the present Government, and

Treasury Notes Advances Bill. [1 JuNE.J Treasury Notes .A.avances Bill. 55

they were compelled to issue Treasury bills. The Government could use what forms they liked, but he would like them to be candid and say at once whether they intended to use the forms of the Queemland National Bank.

Clause put and passed. Clauses 9 and 10 put and passed. On postponed clause 1-" Commencement of

Act"-The COLONIAL TREASURER pointed out,

in reply to remarks previously made by the hon. member for Bulimba, that a large number of the provisions of the Audit Act did not apply to the Bill. There was, for instance, a provision in the Audit Act that all moneys received should be paid into a public bank. That would very much hatflper the action necessary to be taken in carrying out the pro­visions of the Bill. They had already, in clause 5, provided all that was really necessary under the Audit Act. A st,-,tement would be publi~hed in the Grtzettc every month showing the total amount of securities, and also the proportion that existed between the coin and the Treasury bills which were held by the trustees. Clause 1 did not altogether abrogate the provisions of the Audit Act. It simply said that anything in the Audit Act not consistent with the provisions of the Bill should not apply. That was necessary, as otherwise the operation of the Bill would be very much hampered. ·

The HoN. J. R. DICKSON w;s pleased to hear the statement of the Treasurer, and quite agreed with him that it was possible that certain sections of the Audit Act of 187 4 might restrict the operation of the Bill in an inconvenient way. Still he thought it only right to call attention to the fact, so that they might have the benefit of an explanation from the hon. gentleman, because he was sure he did not intend, in his administration of the Act, that any of the safe­guards provided by the Audit Act of 1874 for the safe administration of finance should be departed from unless they were an inconvenient restriction. One of the most important pro­visions of the Audit Act of 1874 was that any officer entrusted with the charge of valuable securities or money should be considered a public accountant, and should be directly responsible and report to the Auditor-General upon all matters "connected with such administration. It was highly essential that in these, as well as in other financial operations of the Government, the fullest reports of the Auditor-General should be submitted periodically to Parliament.

Clause put and passed.

TREASURY NOTES ADVANCES BILL. On clause 1-" Interpretation"-The COLONIAL TREASURER, referring

to the definition of a "stopped bank"-" Any bank heretofore or hereafter trading in Queens­

land which bas notified its inability to meet its engage­ments, and whether it is or is not being wound-up or liquidated"-moved that the words "it is or is not being wound-up or liquidated" be omitted, with a view of substituting the words "a petition for winding-up has or has not been presented against it." It was only a verbal amendment.

Mr. POWERS sf1id most of the banks had not notified their inability to meet their engage­ments, but that they had suspended pending reconstruction. In fact one had intim>tted that it was closed pending increase of capital. They claimed to be able to pay if they were given a little time and were not insolvent. Was the Bill to apply only to banks that had stopped payment? The 1st subsection applied to all banks.

The COLONIAL TREASURERsaid "bank" meant any bank which had carried on the busi­ness of banking in Queensland, but a "stopped bank" was one which had notified that it was not able to pay. All the sto].Jped banks had noti­fied that they were closed, and refused payment of their notes and cheques.

Mr. HARD ACRE said he had a prior amend­ment to move-namely, that the words "hereto­fore or hereafter" be omitted with a view of insert­ing " which at the time of the passing of this Act has been." The measure had been brought forward to meet a special emergency, and there­fore they should stretch a little to meet that emergency; but the Bill should not be made to apply to all future institutions, which might be bubble institutions formed for the purpose of receiving the aid which the Government now proposed to give. They should not form them­selves into a charitable institution for the assist­ance of banks that might suspend in future. It would be time to deal with them when they stopped payment, and when the Government knew the circumstances under which they did so.

The COLONIAL TREASURER said he wished to insert a prior amendment-- that after the definition of " bank noteg" the following new definition be inserted:-" 'Liquidator'­Any official liquidator, provisional official liqui­dator, or liquidatur, as the case may be."

Mr. FOXTON was glad to know that such a definition was being proposed. With reference to the definition-" bank"-the word "bank" was not used in any part of the Bill, and that and the 4th definition-" stopped bank"-might be embodied in one definition.

The SECRETARY FOR LANDS : The word "bank" occurs in the definition of a stopped bank.

Amendment agreed to. On Mr. Hardacre's amendment to omit the

words ''heretofore or hereafter " in the defini­tion of " stopped bank," with the view of insert­ing the words "which at the time of the passing of this Act has been,"

The COLONIAL TREASURER did not think the amendment would be an improve­ment. It would, in a large measure, defeat the intention of the Bill. The next clause provided that if any bank which at the present moment was a live bank should stop hereafter, its notes then in circulation would have to be immediately paid by the liquidator out of the assets of the bank. That was a very necessary provision, and he hoped the hon. member would not insist on his amendment.

Mr. HARD ACRE thought that the Colonial Treasurer was mistaken in his remarks. The amendment he had proposed would only apply to any banks which might be established in the future. The banks the hon. gentleman had referred to were now trading within the colony, and his amendment would not prevent assistance being given to them.

The COLONIAL TREASURER said that even so, a bank which reconstructed was in point of fact and in law a new bank; and such an institution should be compelled to pay its notes if it stopped payment a second time.

Mr. HARDACRE: We will deal with that when the necessity arises.

The COLONIAL TREASURER: We will then require to bring in a fresh Bill.

Mr. POWERS said that the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney would be a new bank, and not a stopped bank, because it had never required to be wound up in liquidation. If

,any of the other banks were formed into new

56 Treasur!/ Not::s Advances Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Treasury Notes Advances Bilt.

banks, they also would not be stopped banks within the meaning of the Bill. In the case of the Commercial Banking Compan)c of Sydney, some of the holders of notes of the old company no doubt lived in the country districts, and they might not have been able to tender the notes they held before the reconstruction of the bank, and the new bank need not pay them, because it would not be a stopped bank.

The COLONIAL TREASURER : It will not be a stopped bank until it has stopped.

Mr. POWERS : And, therefore, the Bill would not apply to it. The old bank had trans­ferred all its assets to the new company.

The COLONIAL TREASURER: Never mind. The old company is a stopped bank.

Mr. POWERS : But if the old company had no assets, they could get nothing out of them. That was what he wanted to understand. If the Bill would only apply to the old banks, people would have to present their notes before the re­construction schemes came into operation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said if a stopped bank were reconstructed and transferred all their assets to the new company before the holders of notes claimed payment, there would be no assets to meet the notes. The holders must be on the alert to make their claims while there were assets to meet the notes.

The COLONIAL TREASURER hoped the hon. member for Leichhardt would withdraw his amendment now after hearing the argument which had taken place.

Mr. HARD ACRE thought the remarks which had been made showed the necessity for the amendment. If stopped banks were to be reconstructed on •uch an unsound basis that they might suspend payment again in a few months, they should not allow anything to pass in the Bill which would be an inducement to them to do that, and as the clause stood there was the inducement that they would get Govern­ment a;;sistance to pay their notes. It appeared to him that the Government were going to pay the notes of those banks.

The COLONIAL TREASURER: No, no!

Mr. HARD ACRE thought that was the con­struction to be put on the Bill. At any rate they should only deal with the present emergency and not anticipate any future necessity.

The COLONIAL TREASURER thought the hon. member had misconceived the scope of the Bill. The object was not to assist banks, but to help the public who held bank notes for which they could not get cash. The ban. member must admit that the public holding notes of stopped banks were suffering very great inconvenience, and that it was the duty of Par­liament to help them if possible. The Govern­ment proposed to help them by compelling the banks to pn.y the notes out of their assets. That was the object of the Bill.

Mr. HARD ACRE : My amendment will not prevent that.

The COLONIAL TREASURER : It would if a bank stopped to-morrow, or the day after.

Mr. HARDACRE could not s,ee that his amendment prevented assistance being given to the holders of the notes of any bank at present trading in the colony. It onlv applied to banks that might hereafter be established.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What is the object of making this Bill not apply to future banks?

::'l'l:r. HARDACRE said he had introduced the amendment because bubble institutions might arise, and the Government might have to pay their notes. He desired to give every assistance to the holders of the notes of existing banking institntions.

The SECRETARY FOR LANDS said the previous evening they had passed a Bill imposing a duty of 10 per cent. on notes, ~nd it was highly improbable tha~ any bank com~ng into the colony would ever rssue notes agam ; that 10 per cent. duty was quite sufficient to stop any bank issuing notes.

Mr. FOXTON pointed out, in reference to the objection raised by the hon. member for Mary­borough, that if any stopped bank assigned the whole of its assets to a reconstructed bank, it could only be on the condition that the new bank would cash the notes of the old bank. The reconstructed bank would take over that liability along with others; and notwithstanding that any­one might not be able to go to the Treasury and get value for stopped notes, they were sure to get it from the new bank, either in gold or Treasury notes.

Mr. PO\VERS said of course the new bank ought to pay them, just as they ought to pay current account depositors, and he had only drawn attention to the matter so that the public might know how they stood. The amendment of the hon. member for Leichhardt was, he thought, likely to do harm to the Bill, and he would recommend the hon. member to with­draw it.

Mr. HARDACRE said he was willing to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Colonial Treasurer's amendment in the

definition of a "stopped bank," previously pro­posed, was then agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and passed. On clause 2-"All bank notes payable to bearer

on demand to be fully paid and discharged"-Mr. DA WSON thought, in view of the

opinion expressed by several hon. members, that something should be done with regard to current account depositors.

Mr. FOXTON: It cannot be done in this Bill. It does not come within the title.

Clause put and passed. On clause 3-" Application for advance of

Treasury notes "-On the suggestion of the SECRETARY FOR

LANDS, the word "public" was inserted between "in" and "circulation."

Mr. HARDING thought the word "shall" ought to be substituted for "may " in the 2nd paragraph, so that it would read-

" The Colonial Treasurer shall l'equire such stopped bank to furnish him with such information respecting the assets and liabilities of such stopped bank as he may see fit, and such information shall be verified upon the oath of the manager or liquidator thereof."

The COLONIAL TREASURER said he had no objection.

Mr. CORJ<'IELD asked when the money advanced to suspended banks was to be repaid, and what security was to be given?

The COLONIAL TREASURER said the time of repayment would be fixed by the Treasurer. \Vith regard to the security, he referred the hon. member to the 8th clause, which made the debt a Crown debt, the Crown having priority over all other creditors.

Amendment put and passed.

Treasury Notes .Advances Bill. [1 JUNE.] TreasU1"!J Notes .Advances Bill. 57

Mr. MORGAN said the information which the clause authorised the Treasurer to obtain was with the object of ascertaining what amount of money he would be jastified in furnishing the banks with, but there was no special penalty provided for making a false· declaration.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It would be perjury, punishable with five years' imprison· ment.

Mr. MORGAN said he doubted whether the punishment awarded for perjury would be suffi· cient to meet the case. The punishment should be sufficiently heavy to make it an unprofitable thing to obtain Treasury notes under false pretences.

Clause, as amended, put and passed. On clause 4-" Authority to make advances

after investigation and inquiry"-Mr. DUNSFORD said the clause provided

that the total amount of the advances should not exceed the total amount of the bank notes of such stopped bank remaining in public circulation at the time of its stoppage. Did that include the notes of the bank in its own possession, or only the notes held by the public outside?

The COLONIAL TREASUBER: Only the notes in the hands of the public.

Mr. DUNSFORD said the Treasurer would receive bank notes in exchange for Treasury notes. "\V as there anything to prevent a bank going at once to the Treasury and demanding gold for those notes, which were payable on demand?

The COLONIAL TREASURER said that if anything of the kind suggested were to happen, the Treasurer was in a position to fight any stopped bank. As he had already pointed out, they made the advances to the banks a Crown debt, and he should at once seize all their assets.

Mr. DUNSFORD said it seemed to him that the Government intended to loan those banks some more of the people's money, and they had got quite enough out of the Government already. It was placing the banks in a position where they could not only get the Treasury notes, but exchange them for gold. He entered his protest against what appNtred to him to be a fresh loan to certain banks trading in the colony.

The COLONIAL TREASURER said that if they got possession of the gold from the Trea,mry that would be a very good asset for him to take over. He moved to amend the clause by insert­ing the word "public" before "circulation."

Amendment agreed to. Mr. HOOLAN said he would ask the hon.

gentleman whether the rumour current in the city was true that he, as Colonial Treasurer, had already seized all the available gold in one of the banks?

The COLONIAL TREASURER said he had not heard of any such rumour, and he was not aware of the truth of it.

Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 5-" Treasury notes advanced to be

applied to withdrawal of current note circulation only; penalty"-was verbally amended.

Mr. DUNSFORD moved the omission of the words "and with or without solitary confine­ment " in the penalty for an offence against the provisions of the clause. Taking society as it existed, it was sometimes necessary to deprive men of their liberty for committing crimes, but it was not necessary to try at the same time to deprive them of their reason, and the pro­vision he proposed to omit might have that effect. Solitary confinement was a relic of barbarism, and

should be swept off their statutes. They had heard from some speakers that evening that punishment such as that was necessary to prevent crime. If that was true they should have no crime at the present time, as they had plenty of such punishments provided by law. If they had not laws enough of that kind in Queensland the Government could go a long way back to the dark ages and fossick up a few of the laws of George IV. It could not be proved that such laws prevented crime. They had capital punishment to-day and they had murder to-day. They had provisions for irons for kidnapping, and kidnapping was going on to-day.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS: No, no! Mr. D UNSFORD said kidnapping and slavery

were going on to-day, and going on with the consent of the Government, and in the name of the people of Queensland. There was no neces­sity to follow up the imprisonment of a man by savage cruelties such as solitary confinement. The junior member for Brisbane North had told them he desired to see forgers deprived of their lives.

Mr. KINGSBURY : I did not say that. Mr. DUNSFORD: The hon. member said

that men who committed those crimes should be deprived of their lives.

HoNOURABLE MEMBERS: No, no! Mr. DUNSFORD : If thehon. member would

now withdraw those remarks--An HONOURABLE MEMBER: There is nothing

to withdraw. The CHAIRMAN: I call the hon. member's

attention to the fact that he must take any hon. member's denial in this Chamber.

Mr. DUNSFORD: The hon. member certainly stated that he would wieh men who committed those crimes to be deprived of their lives.

Mr. FOXTON rose to a point of order. The hon. member was not doing what the Standing Orders said he should do. He was no doubt a young member, but he had been told by the Chair­man that it was his duty to accept the denial. He trusted that would be a lesson to the hon. member not to transgress the rules of debate, and he hoped the hon. member would not aggra­vate his offence by repeating that which had already been denied.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sure the hon. mem· ber will take the advice of older members of the Chamber. I believe the hon. member has every desire to conform to the Standing Orders. I point out that words objected to must be taken down at the time they are used. No objection was taken at the time to the remarks made by the junior member for North Brisbane. If they were considered objectionable my attention should have been called to them, and they should have been taken down. I am sure all new members will do all they can to act in con­formity with the rules laid down for our guidance.

Mr. DUNSFORD said he willingly accepted the statement of the hon. member for North Brisbane that he did not make those remarks. He hoped the Government would endeavour to keep pace with the times and not allow the punishment of solitary confinement to appear on the statutes of the country.

Mr. FISHER said their position was quite clear on the amendment; they did not believe in solitary confinement any more than in penal servitude for life. They could on that amend­ment disabuse the minds of hon. members who suggested that they wished to protect criminals, as they were now just as amxious to protect the high and influential gentlemen who were guarding

58 Treasury Notes Advances Bill. [ASSEMBLY.] Treasury Notes Advances Bill.

the financial destinies of the colony as they had bean to protect the villains referred to by the hon. member for Mackay. They were now anxious that if any of those influential gentlemen were found guilty of offences under the clause they should be treated as first-class criminals; and, if it was necessary to confine them in any of Her Majesty's gaols, they should occupy proper apartments, and have their dignity carefully preserved. He would ask the Government to accept the amendment, and thus do justice to those persons who had been so badly harassed during the last few months.

The COLONIAL TREASURER did not see his way to accept the amendment, and had already given his reason.q. vVhy should they again raise a question th:>t had been decided already? It was nGt courteous to the Committee, and was not the usual practice of Parliament. He could hardly suppose it was intended to obstruct, but he could see no reason whatever in rediscussing the question.

Mr. M ORGAN thought the hon. gentleman did an injustice to the mover of the amendment. He (Mr. Morgan) knew it was intended to test the question of solitary confinement on a previous occasion, but want of knowledge of the Standing Orders c'msed the hon. member to lose his opportunity. He would like to ask the Colonial Secretary, who had charge of gaols arid refor­matories, what the exact meaning of solitary confinement was; whether an unfortunate pri­soner could be kept in a dark cell for two years, or did it simply mean that he got separate treatment?

The COLONIAL SECRETARY: It simply means isolation.

Mr. POWERS said it appeared to him that unfortunate managers and liquidators were to be Jin.ble to those penalties, while they might simply be doing what the directors told them. The question of solitn,ry confinement had not really been raised before, and therefore it was quite justifiable to ask the Government whether they would accept an amendment of that sort.

Mr. DA WSON said the Colonial Treasurer suggested that the amendment was not courteous to the Committee, and savoured somewhat of ob8truction. That was hardly a fair charge, as hon. members had shown no desire to obstruct business, but as far as lay in their power had a<.~isted the Government. The amendment was not exactly the same as the one decided before. Solitary confinement was the severest punish­ment that could be devised, and those who had written on the subject seemed to comider that no matter how great a man's mental strength might be, he could not stand the strain of sohtary confinement for any length of time and maintain his reason. It was a species of cruelty that ought to be done away with. He would urge the Colonial Treasurer to accept the amend­ment.

Mr. DALRYMPLE thought that solitary confinement for two years was an exceptionally severe punishment, but the Committee occupied rather an awkward position. They had already passed a measure containing that provision. They had authorised the infliction of that severity upon the presumably poor man who forged a cheque or note, and now all the sympa­thies of certain hon. members opposite appeared to be excited by the rich man-the would-be capitalist. It would not look well to accept such an amendment when the interests of the capi­talists were at stake, more especially in the face of one gentleman opposite expressing a great anxiety for the welfare of capitalists generally, and saying that while they were in gaol he would like to feed them luxuriously and clothe them in fine linen.

Mr. HOOLAN said the hon. member for Mackay could not excite any super-sensitiveness by imagining what he had stated. They all knew very well that it was never intended that any bank manager or liquidator, or any educated person who had been in any position of trust, should endure solitary confinement. They knew from the whole history of Australia that no high-class malefactor, who brought himself within the pale of the law by a too ready use of the pen or any of those other acts to which high-class people were driven, received any such punishment. There was no instance in which anyone who had ever been a gentleman had been on the triangles; but he could find hundreds of instances where men who had never borne the impress of gentility had been so punished. He should be very sorry to see any­one, whatever his station in life, suffer such penalties. The provision was put in simply as a blind; and if any future managers or liquidators attempted to commit any of the crimes alluded to, there were fifty means by w hi~h they could wriggle out of the penalties. No so-called gentleman would ever receive the lash or solitary confinement.

Question-That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause-put ; and the Committee divided:-

AYEs, 32. Sir T. Mcllwraith, Messrs. Darlow, Byrnes, Tozer,

Philp, Nelson, Midson, Stephens, Petrie, Watson, Lord, !ic::.\iaster, Ohatawa)', Dalrymple, Crombie, Kings bury, Armstrong, Burns, Cm·field, Plunkett, Murray, O'Connell, Duffy, Cribb, Thomas, Bell, Allan, Tooth, Smith, Foxton, Grimes, and Di~kson.

NOES, 18. Messrs. Powers, Lovejoy, Daniels, Fisher, Dunsford,

Jackson, Harding, Leahy, Stevens, Cadell, Morgan, Reid, Turley, King, Dawson, Kerr, Hoolan, and Hardacre.

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause, as amended, put and passed. Clause 6 put and passed. Clause 7 passed with a verbal amendment. Clause 8-" Recovery of amount of advance"-

having been verbally amended, on the motion of the COLONIAL TREASURER,

Mr. POWERS said that he wished to propose an addition to the end of the clause. On the previous night he had pointed out that the clause might have the effeet of relieving the shareholders from their liability for the note issue, and the Attorney-General had suggested that he might frame an amendment to prevent that. He had done so, and he believed his amendment met with the approval of the hon. gentleman. He therefore moved the addition of the following paragraph:-

The payment of any bank notes by any stopped bank or liquidator under the authority of this Act or otherwise shall not relieve a member of the bank from any liability to the general creditors imposed upon him by section 22 of the Companies Act Ameudment Act of 1889, in the event of the bank being wound up and the general assets being insufficient to satisfy the claims of all creditors.

Mr. LEAHY asked what was meant by "a member of the bank "? That was a very vague term. If it mf;ant a shareholder, let that term be used, so that they might know what was meant by the amendment. The term "member of the bank" did not occur anywhere else in the Bill.

Mr. POWERS explained that the word "member" was used because it was t-he word used in the Companies Act; but it meant share­holder.

Mr. LEAHY: That is all I want to know. Amendment agreed to; and clat1se, as amendt>d,

put and passed.

Fi11anoial Bills. [2 JUNE.]

Clause 9-" Short title"- passed with a verbal amendment.

The House resumed; and the CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee had agreed to the Treasury Bills Bill with amendments, to the Treasury Notes Bill without :tmendment, and to the Treasury Notes Advances Bill with amend­ments.

The amendments in the Treasury Bills Bill and the Treasury Notes Advances Bill were read a first and second time, and agreed to ; and the third reading of the Bills made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

The third reading of the Treasury Notes Bill was also made an Order of the Day for to-morrow.

ELECTIONS TRIBUNAL ACT. The SPEAKER announced the appointment

of Messrs. Dalrymple, Morgan, Kingsbury, Stevens, Grimes, Turley, Lord, Dawson, 8myth, Leahy, Jackson, and Stephens to be members of the panel of assessors for the trial of election petitions during the present session.

STAMP DUTIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The SPEAKER announced th'3 receipt of a messr1ge from the Council intimating that they had agreed to this Bill with an amendment, in which they requested the concurrence of the Assembly.

The amendment, which substituted the words "for every hundred pounds" for the words "per centum," was agreed to in committee.

Ordered-That such agreement be intimated to the Council.

ADJOURNMENT. The House adjourned at two minutes past 9

o'clock.

AdJournment. 59