THE CHRONLCLES OF EARL Y
MELBOURNE.
687
to the crushing rebutting case established, Palmer could m a k e no reply. O n e point told effectually against him—viz., that he had been himself instrumental in procuring the last preceding public procession of the St. Patrick Society, as Chairman of the Hospital Committee, which, in March of the same year, invited the Society to assist at the foundation laying of the hospital. Dr. Palmer did not soon forget the ruffling he received during the eventful year of his Mayoralty, and in a few months he abandoned the T o w n Council altogether. THE PARTY PROCESSIONS ACT.
As a consequence of the Orange freak of the 13th July, which was simply a semi-drunken ambuscade from which to attempt assassination in a crisis of intense party irritation, Mr. J. H . Plunket, the N e w South Wales Attorney-General, introduced into the Legislature a Bill to prevent Party Processions, &c. In the original draft of this measure the Masonic and Oddfellow Fraternities were specially exempted, and against this favouritism the Melbourne St. Patrick Society remonstrated—and so effectively that the exceptional proviso was omitted, and the Bill passed without it. T h e Party Processions Act remained for years on the Statute Book, and its essence is still preserved in our code under that process of legal cooking known as consolidation. It was never more than a dead letter—dead as the defunct hobgoblin it was meant to exorcise. It was never required, for from the evil of the abortive celebration sprang one good result—viz., that no other July anniversary was bug-beared by an Orange procession. Whatever annual devotions the William-ites thought proper to offer before the shrine of their idol, were gone through up to the period of the close of these C H R O N I C L E S , with unbannered windows, undemonstratively, and with outward quietness. T h e serpent of bigoted infatuations reserved its sibilations to be mingled with the orgies of the banquet-room, and not even the ghost of Orangeism ever again publicly " walked " the streets of Melbourne. There is now (1884) before the Legislative Assembly a motion for the second reading of a Bill to repeal the Act just referred to ; and, as considerable misapprehension of the origin and scope of the original Bill was disclosed during a recent debate, a few remarks in elucidation m a y not be out of place here. Though not having the good fortune or otherwise to be a "limb of the law," I may, without undue presumption, venture even as a layman to express an opinion upon the subject, for I was in Melbourne in 1846, thoroughly cognizant of the circumstances which prompted the n e w legislation, and was vehemently opposed to it. Furthermore, from information subsequently communicated, I a m warranted now in declaring that it was in consequence of a written protest prepared by m e and transmitted to him, that M r . Attorney-General Plunket cancelled the clause of exemption in favour of Masons and Oddfellows. T h e Party Processions Act was, as previously indicated, the outcome of the 1846 Orange row. S o m e such enactment was suggested in the Report on the disturbances, furnished by the then Mayor of Melbourne, Dr. Palmer. It applied to all associated bodies whose celebrations fairly came within the phraseology in which its provisions were embodied. A s one of its consequences, the St. Patrick processions were discontinued from 1846 until 1850, the era of Separation, when they were resumed in the midst of the general rejoicings surrounding the event. If they have at intervals been since continued, it is not because the law does not apply to them, but because their legality has not been questioned. T h e Friendly Societies' Act legalizes a system of protection for the working of pecuniary benefits of various kinds, but has nothing whatever to do with any sentimental, sectarian, or national element that m a y be in existence. Furthermore, should a Society transgress the rules of propriety in any manner, the Chief Secretary (I write from memory, and have not the Act to refer to) may, if I mistake not, direct the Registrar to strike it off the rolls, or, in other words, cancel the registration. As to the Act which the Grand Master of Orangeism is striving to repeal, it has never done either good or harm, and though at one time most decidedly against its passing, I a m now of opinion that, everything considered, it would be a great legislative mistake to meddle with it.
