§ On the motion of Lord Stanley, the House went into committee on the Newfoundland Bill.
§ On the 6th clause, her Majesty empowered " to abolish the Legislative Council of the said island as a distinct branch of the Legislature,"
Mr. O'Connellrose to move the omission of those words. He said, that as he had on former occasions brought forward many arguments, unfortunately without effect, to induce the House to reject this measure entirely, he would not again press those arguments on the attention of hon. Members. He had been overpowered by numbers; but his conviction of the injustice and impolicy of this bill remained unshaken. He strongly protested against this mode of proceeding with any of the colonists, however insignificant the colony might be as compared with the importance of others. He never would consent that the constitution of any colony should be overthrown without investigation, without witnesses being examined, without individuals being fully and fairly heard against a measure that materially abridged their political rights. The annihilation of the separate Chambers of Legislation which would be effected by this bill was a proceeding that could not be 1065 too strongly condemned. Until lately, this mode of legislating with only one chamber was unknown in our colonies. It was founded on a bad principle, and that principle might be carried much further than the noble Lord wished or expected. It was at all times dangerous and unconstitutional, but it was exceedingly dangerous in relation to the time in which they lived. They knew what had occurred when all power was centred in the English Parliament. Civil war, bloodshed, and ultimately the extinction of the Crown and the abolition of monarchy were the fruits of that event. That was a precedent not to be respected, and certainly not to he repeated. He protested against the proposed alteration in the constitution of Newfoundland, and on that question he should take the sense of the House. There was not a more loyal people on the face of the earth than the people of Newfoundland—no people could feel a more firm affection for the Throne and for the Sovereign; and the reward of their loyalty was to he the annihilation of the popular part of their constitution. There was not a tittle of evidence in support of the proposed change, and he should ever contend that, in making it, Newfoundland was treated with gross injustice.
Lord Stanleyagreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was not advisable, generally, to carry on the legislature by means of one Chamber only; but under the present circumstances of this colony, where one House constantly rejected the bills of the other, he thought it would conduce to the more harmonious management of the affairs of the colony, if they were to merge the two Chambers into one. He felt confident it would be for the benefit of the colony to abolish the Legislative Council as a distinct Assembly. The right hon. Member was not correct in supposing that those in the Council who were nominees of the Crown, would be at the control of the Crown. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there were few bodies so difficult to control by the Crown as this, though they held their appointments at the discretion of the Crown; and the reason was, that the remuneration was not great, and the appointments were far from being sought after. As far as the Crown, therefore, was concerned, the right hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension of the ten mem- 1066 bers who were appointed by the Government being unduly influenced.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, that in giving his vote in favour of this clause, he did not wish to be understood as in any way sanctioning the permanent abolition of the Legislative Council. The noble Lord had at his (Mr. V. Smith's) desire, introduced a clause making this a temporary measure; it was, in fact, merely an experiment, such as had been tried in New South Wales and Australia. He did not participate in the Conservative fears of his right hon. and learned Friend, that if they abolished the Legislative Assembly in Newfoundland, the same step would follow here, and that we should proceed to do away with the House of Lords. He certainly thought there was no ground for any such Conservative apprehension. He would, however, beg to suggest, that in this clause, it would be as well to preserve the number as it already existed in the Legislative Council. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether it was meant that those of the Legislative Council who sat in the United Assembly should be moveable by the Governor from their seats in the United Assembly? He wished to know whether that was intended, as he thought the clause would have that effect? Guarding his vote by the assumption that this was only a temporary measure, he should record it in favour of the noble Lord.
§ Mr. P. Howardopposed the principle of the bill. On the principle of the recommendation of Lord Ripon, the reduction of the official men in the Assembly to three or five, would give the Government all it could desire, while so small a number could not control or overwhelm the deliberations of the Assembly. This course would be better than swamping the public voice by a side. wind, and reducing the political privileges of the people to a mere nullity.
§ Mr. Humesaid, the inhabitants of Newfoundland were unheard and unrepresented, and the House was now about to deprive them of the greatest of privileges —that of managing their own affairs. If this disfranchisement were to be applied to any one English borough, there was not a Member who would not he ready to cry out against its injustice. He was prepared to prove, that all that had been alleged against the constituencies, were gross exaggerations. The hon. Member 1067 read an extract from their petition, stating that they believed, if the constitution was to be abolished, it would be better that the affairs of the colony should be entirely managed by a committee appointed by the Government. Let them not think this oppression would be exercised without endeavours by the colonists to regain their rights and liberties. No abrogation of the constitution whatever ought to be made; and, therefore, he should, with great pleasure, support the amendment, and join his hon. Friend in his exertions to obstruct, by every possible means, the progress of this bill.
§ Mr. Wysegave his most strenuous opposition to the clause. The amalgamation of the two legislative bodies would deprive the people of Newfoundland of their just and legal rights, and would have a very injurious effect upon the other colonies of the empire.
§ The committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand putt of the bill:—Ayes 80; Noes 18: Majority 62.
Mr. O'Connellwished the number of the nominees appointed by the Crown to be five instead of ten; he should, therefore move, that the words " one-fourth " should be substituted for the words " two-fifths. "
Lord Stanley,in opposing the amendment, said that under the new constitution, he had left to the popular will a majority of the members of the council—15 to 10; but be could not consent to give to the popular will such a majority—15 to 5—as would enable it at any time to tide over the Representatives of the Crown and of the aristocratic classes.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the influence of the representatives was not:to be measured by the mere rule of vulgar arithmetic.
§ Mr. Wyseurged that some of the representatives of the people would always support the nominees of the Crown, and with so small a difference as that between fifteen and ten would give to them a certain majority on all occasions.
Mr. V. Smithopposed the amendment, but he did not exactly approve of the numbers proposed in the clause. He thought that the numbers ought to have remained the same as they now where, but he could not support so great a elimination as that proposed by the right hon. the Lord Mayor of Dublin.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the representatives of the people had formerly gained a mere majority—only just a majority—but with the ten nominees of the Crown against them, they would always be in a minority. The noble Lord had called those nominees a check, and only a check upon the people, but would the noble Lord leave to the people that which was everywhere admitted to be their right, an absolute disposal of the taxation of the colony, and prevent the nominees of the Crown froth voting on any question Of supply? The noble Lord was establishing an oligarchy, than which he would prefer that the affairs of the colony should be managed by a board sitting in Downing-street.
§ The Committee divided on the question that the words two fifths stand part of the clause—Ayes 82; Noes 21: Majority 61.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Acland, T. D. | Hogg, J. W |
| A'Court, Capt. | Hope, hon. c. |
| Allix, J. P. | Hussey, T. |
| Arkwright, G. | Inglis, Sir R. H. |
| Baird, W. | Jermyn, Earl |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Joliffe, Sir W. G. H. |
| Blackburne, I. I | Jones, Capt. |
| Bodkin, W. H. | Kemble, |
| Boldero, H. G. | Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E. |
| Botfield, B | Lacelles, hon. W. S. |
| Broadley, H | Lefroy, A. |
| Bruce, Lord E. | Lincoln, Earl of |
| Burrell, Sir C. M. | Lockhart, W. |
| Clayton, R. R. | Lowther, J. H. |
| Clerk, Sir G. | Lyall, G. |
| Corry, rt. hon. H. | Lygon, hon. Gen. |
| Cresswell, B. | Mackinnon, W. A. |
| Darner, hon. Col. | Marsham, Visct. |
| Darby, G. | Masterman, J. |
| Douglas, Sir II. | Meynell, Capt. |
| Douglas' Sir C. E. | Munday, E. M. |
| East, J. B. | Nicholl, rt. hon. J. |
| Eliot, Lord | Palmer, It. |
| Estcourt, T. G. B. | Palmer, G. |
| Flower, Sir J. | Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. |
| Follett, Sir W. W. | Peel, J. |
| Ffolliott, J. | Polhill, F. |
| Forbes, W. | Pollock, Sir F. |
| Forester, hn. G. C. W. | Pringle, A. |
| Fuller, A. E. | Repton, G. W. J. |
| Gaskell, J. Manes | Sandon, Visct. |
| Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. | Stanley, Lord |
| Gordon, hon. Capt. | Stewart, J. |
| Gore, M. | Sutton-, hon. H. M. |
| Goulburn, rt. hon. H. | Trench, Sir F. W. |
| Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. | Trotter, J. |
| Grant, Sir A. C. | Vernor, Col. |
| Grogan, E. | Wortley, hon. S. |
| Hamilton, W. J. | Young, J. |
| Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. | |
| Henley, J. W. | TELLERS: |
| Hervey, Lord A. | Freemantle, Sir T. |
| Hodgson, R. | Baring, II. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A | Plumridge, Capt. |
| Bowring, Dr, | Scholefield, J. |
| Brotherton, J. | Seymour, Lord |
| Browne, hon. W | Smith, rt. hon. It. |
| Cobden, It. | Turner, E. |
| Duke, Sir J. | Williams. W |
| Duncan, G. | Wood, B. |
| Fitzroy, Lord C. | Wyse, T |
| Hawes, B. | Yorke, hon. H. R |
| Home, J. | TELLERS, |
| Parker, J. | O'Connell, D. |
| Pechell, Capt. | Howard, P. |
§ [Second Division. We give the names on this division as the most numerous. The Members who voted on the other divisions being the same it was superfluous to repeat them.]
§ Lord C. Fitzroymoved the introduction into the clause of the words " that such Members of Council shall not vote on any question of supply, finance, or of taxation. "
Lord Stanleyopposed the motion. The tendency of the Commons of Newfoundland was to vote liberally towards public improvements. The clause was altogether intended to operate as a cheek on their too great liberality.
§ The committee divided on the question that the words be inserted — Ayes 22; Noes 79; Majority 57.
§ On the motion that the clause do stand part of the bill the committee again divided: — Ayes 79; Noes 25: Majority 54,
§ House resumed. Bill to he reported.