[BILL NO. 199.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 22 July 1862)

§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE
, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the circumstances which had led to the original grant of the loan of £200,000 to the colony had been so recently fully discussed in that House, that he need not trouble their Lordships with any repetition of them. He looked upon this Bill as the complement of the measure of 1854. It would carry into effect the proposal of his noble Friend (Lord Taunton), and be attended with two important results. It would provide a certain fund, by which measures of importance of a local character might be carried into effect at the discretion of the Government; and, further, it would accomplish another most desirable object—namely, that of placing the Governor in independence of those who voted the supplies.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, he was not going to oppose this Bill, which he thought had become necessary in order to carry into effect the recommendations of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Taunton); but there was one point on which he should be glad to have some explanations from his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department. As he understood the measure, its object was to sanction the application of certain money to be raised under an Act which the colonists were intending 660 and expecting to pass, and which he had no doubt they would pass. But this Bill would not come into operation till the colony should have passed that Act. The noble Duke had suggested that it might be expedient for the colonists to avail themselves of an Act which they passed in 1860, and in respect of which a doubt had been raised. Sums of money were raised under that Act for the expenses of the census and other important objects. Owing to the doubt raised in respect of the measure of 1860, no payments had been made under it. He did not see in the Bill before their Lordships any provision by which a retrospective operation could be given to it, so that payments which had already become due might be made by the colonial Legislature. Would not a retrospective operation be necessary in order that payment might be made of certain liabilities incurred under the Secretary of State's Warrant?

§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE
said, his noble Friend was quite right. This Bill would not have a retrospective operation, but the omission was intentional. It had been considered that in a measure introduced by the Imperial Government it would not be right to interfere with money already in the hands of the colonial Government. He was not sure that the time for sanctioning the colonial Bill referred to by his noble Friend had expired. Either in the Bill which the colony would pass consequent on this measure or in some other Bill the colonists would insert a provision having a retrospective effect, in order to appropriate the money raised under the operation of the colonial Bill, in the case of which the sanction of the Crown had been suspended.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
observed, that in the course of the correspondence the objection was taken by the Treasury that in all these cases it was necessary that the legislation of the Imperial Parliament should precede that of the colonial Parliament; and what he wanted to know was whether this Bill gave its sanction to retrospective legislation; for if not, would not the same objection again occur when the colonial Legislature passed their Bill? He wanted to know whether the present Bill gave sanction to retrospective legislation.

§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE
said, he had ascertained that there would not be upon the part of the Treasury any objection to give the sanction of the Crown to 661 the appropriation of the money which had accrued during the two years; and he should, therefore, himself feel authorized to give the sanction of the Crown without again referring to the Treasury.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
was delighted to hear that the Departments had come to terms.