14 September 1852

- --Y!l.rm l <ll'l'tl, and also between Richmond and tho Yarm. It was not di01cult to drain nn•l lw ron,irlcred that tho money would Ul well laid out.

i\lr i\ILLLl!:R " ·ould be gl:t<l to see the vote acceded to, but suggested whether the drain ing of the City of i\Iclbourne woulrl not pro­mote, in a great measure, the drt1.ining of tJw locality iu quc&tion. The Uouse had alre:lch · voted 11 s:un o! money. for a Trigonom~trical Survey of the fown, 111 order hl est<lhl ish an ctrbient sy,;tem of Sewemge, and if the sun 1

now !l8ked for was vo~crl, it. \\'ould, of cour<e. be rontinge11 t on the measure contemplaterl by the survey. He believed, fr0m wb.t h e knew of the locality, that it wou ld be easy to drain it, but thought that £3000 would no't iJe anything like suffident for the purpose.

Dr PALi\IEH was of opinion that the pre­Fent n1easure should not IJe irrespective of nny system of sewerage that might bl' adopted hereafter, nnd would therefore sug­,-n•t •hat the motion be withdrawn for the present.

;:,~.;v~ral members expressed a simila r opin ion , and the motion was consequently withdrawn.

l\U:LBOURNE AND HOBSON'S BAY TIAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. WES'l'GAR'l'li presented a petition from Ct'rtain purties rcprrsenting the J\IIel­hourne anolliobson's Bay Uailway Company, praying for leave to bring in a bill to ineor­pol :1tc the snid Company.

Leave was given to bring in the bill, which was ordC'red to he printed, and

l'.Ir " 'ESTGAR'l'H then g:l\·e notice that 1te would moYe that. it he read n fir, t time on t •e firot mectiug of the House afttr the ensu­in · ·Hli· 1n·ntn0nt. MELBOURNE l\IUNICIPAL FRANCHISE

BILL. On the motion of .i\lr FA \VKNER the

furth er consideration iu Committee of this Dill was postponed till Tucsrlay, Oct. l G. POI·n'S, HAHBOURS, AND SHIPPJNG

LAW CO~SOLIDA'l'lO~ BILL . . 'fhc A'l'TOHNJ!;Y-GENEBAL said that. as the report on this bill had only just been put into the hands of hon members, h e would move that the consideration of the report b~ po~t.poncd till to-morrow, ( this day.)

Carried. lN'l'lWDUC'NnN OF rn'\'VICTS' PTIE­

VENTION BILL. The Home rewlved itself lllt{) a Committee

for the further consideratiOll of this llill. Mr A' BECKETT proposed an alteration in

the ninth clause. 13y that clause as it stood nt pr~sent, any person su~pcct.cd of being il­i<'gally at lnrge might be sentenced by a J3en~h of J\Ingistratcs to three years hrnd lnbonr in irons. Now many a man thus sus­pected might not only be innocent of the offence with which h e was chuged, but at the same time ue unable to furnish the n_l r>gistra.te.<; with proofs that they might con­sider satisfactory. He wonlrl, therefore, pro pose to qu<~hfy the elau'e so that it mio-ht IJc hwf'ul for any Judge nf the Supreme Comt, on r eading the rlcpo:;itioDs in the case of a person so suspected, to order that such person should ue u-ic<l by a j ury. ·when once sen­tence of h ard la.honr ou the roads was passed by t"·o l\Iagistrutc,· , there wns no appeal fur the prisoner, nnd howev<>l: desirable it might be t o keC'p run away c onv1cts from om· &hore~, it mls ver,Y unrlesir:;.blo to tnke uway the right of trial hy jury from any innocent nian who might be suspected of being a prisoner of the Crowu ill egally at large.

Jl'fR. O'SllAN ASSY thought that such a course would only tend to gi,-e 'a runaway convi~t u. .double _ chan~c of escape, b)· enabllng hnn to bnbe w1tn~sscs to come up to the t;uprcme Court, and swear thnt he was :1 re~pcct.abl e man .

.Mlt A'BECKET'l' sain, that the question in every C'lsc 'rou lu be one of personal iden t't~-, 11nd thnt identity " ·as not a lways suscep­t ible of proof, hut the possibility of an inno­ceut man IJeing sent to work for three years in iron~. was a thing so f\ightfnl, that the bare possibil ity of such au occurrence ought to be prevented,

tri me of

m ar di !TI'

in b in<

I pn .rol B .f(

"

DR. P t\LMEU expressed u. ~imilar opinion, and had met with many J\IngistratL'S who were utterly unfit to be entrusted with such " power, as it was proposed to invest them wi th. lie hoJJed that t.he House would never sanc­tion u. L aw of such cnormons~tringcn :y "·ith­ont g-iring some po\rer of appeal to the D prisoner.

i\lr .FA WKNETI said that if any honorable member would briug forward a measure which would lave the e!Ycct of excluding convicts from our shores, he had no oljection to withclra\Y his support from the presmt ]~i!l, !Jut uutil that was done, he should insist on the measure being canicd out in all its stringency. At the same time he h <: d no objection to the amendment proposed by :1\Tr A' Beckett.

::Hr HUT LEDGE thought that the proposed alteration of the e>lan~e would entirely aefeat the pul'poscs for which the Bill was framed.

Dr .PALlllER n~ked if there were ~ny iust.ances of su ch stringent measures as the pre~ent one IJeing enacted.

The ATTOUNEY-Gl~l\EHAL- There were many, uut he admitted they were passed when N e~·. Su~th 'Vales wns a cml\'ict Colony. St.Ill, It must be remem­bered, that the House was now l egislut.ing for conv icts. Nothing \Yl1S easier thm1 to dcc·laim abeut the Jibe I ty of the sul j ect, and it. often happened that i1n<1ginary cases were poin ted to as real ones. lt' it were possible under the present Bill that an innocent man could be sentenced to three vcars l1ard lab our on the roads ancl pe;·fmm th~.t senten ce- h e for one, \rould have been oppo•ed to the introduction of the m easmc, but what "·as the real state of tht: case? A man is arraigned in an open Court, bdore two Justices of the Peace, nud charged with bcino- a prisoner of the Crown illegal ly at n 1urgg. h e proti?ot~ h is innocence, and says­" ti·uc: I h ave IJeen tran~portecl, uut I havo got a pardon, s~ncl me bat l•. to Van Di~men'o Land "·here I can proYC my Innocence. No\Y it was to be rem em bm·ed that t!1e express obj ect of the llill wus to get ri dof.co~wicts from thi.~ Colony, and h e woul<l nsk, 1f It \\':tS pos­sib le t h nt any two :i\Iagi~trr.tcs could IJe found to sentence a mau to three yea.rs labour in the \'Cry country from which it. was ~ought to exclude him , in th e face of hi; protesta­tions of innocence. and his desire to be sen t hu.0k to the counti·y, where thnt innocence .could I e proYccl? ~

l\u. JOHNSTON took a similnr view ofthe cnRe, and woul d consent to no alt(;ration in the Bill .

i\fr. WESTGARTH supported the clause us it ' tood, rmd on the qucotion leiug put, l\Jr A' Beck ett's amendrneut was negatived without a didsion.

'fhe remaining clausrs were agreed to, aud the Chairmnn having reported progre~s, the :il.'l.eport wns arloptcll, and the Bil l ordered to }:Jo read a third time on 'l'hursday nrxt . A D.UiiNIS'l'H.A 'I'IO~ Ol<' Cl1LlllN AL JUS-

TICE UlPllOVJ':l\rEN'l' J3ILL. On the motion of the .Attorney·Gencrnl,

this Bill was rc,\d a third time, nud passed. LAW 011' EYIDKKCE Al\IENDl\fEKT

B lLL. l\Ir A'BECI-::.E'.!.''l' h aving moved the re­

committ:tl of this B;'L, snid that loy the Court of l{cqucsts Dill persond ·w ~rc ~llowed to give eyid~nce m theu· own behalf. The House had assented to the principle, anrl h e thought it was one whi ch \l'!luld greatly facilitate the ndministrntion < f j mticc, us he wns sa tis­fied that many case~ were lost lJccau~e evi­dc·nce whi ch ;vas oul y in the hcart8 of the par ties thcmsclns could not b t' ohtained. IJ e would not go over t he <Hgumcnl s which hnd b een adduced on the occ~sion to which he hud .alluded but the House bad ndruittCld t he prin­ciple of~ muu's giviug cvidrnce in his own be· h:tlf', and why it was adoJ.>tCd In one case and denied in anotl1er wl1erc the contested ~mount of damo ges was higher, he was at :1 loss to m1clerstr.lld. He cc:rtnmly thought that the ci(<Usc which had ucen "truck out wh~n the Bi1i was. l:bt considered in Com­mitt"c should be reiuscrted, nuc.l would move an amendment to that clfect.

The discns~io~ which foll owed wns merely 11. repetition o r' what was ~aid on the second reading of the bill, aud the am~udUlent was u:tinratclv 11·ithclrawn .

'l'lte Ci-iAI!i~[A~ then r cpo1 ted prog reBs, 1111cl the adoptiou of the rcpnrt was ordcrcrl to i:c made an order of the dny for to-morrow (thi"' day).

PASSENGERS' BlLL, On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GE~E ­

RAL th~ second r eading of this bill was l'ostponed till 'l'hur11<.lny nex t.

The llou.se adjouwed at half· past seven.