§ Order for Committee read.
§ House in Committee.
§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3. (Provisions of former Acts respecting the allowance and disallowance of Bills preserved.)
§ MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he should move that the clause be omitted. He did so, because he had given notice of moving the insertion of a paragraph in Schedule one which was directly opposed to the clause. The purport of his Amendment was, that any Bill which had passed the Council and Assembly should be presented to the Governor of the colony in the first instance, who would have the power to declare his assent thereto, and, in case of his giving his assent, the Bill should be final. But, in the event of his withholding his assent, or reserving the Bill for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon, then such Bill should not have any force or authority in the colony unless Her Majesty's assent should be signified within eighteen months after the passing of the Bill. When all the stages of legislation by the colony which were recognised by 81 the British constitution were gone through and the Bill was so far complete, it appeared to him that it ought not to be subject, after several months had elapsed, to a second revision by the Crown. Such, however, was the law as it now stood, and this third clause provided for the preservation of that law. All persons with whom he had conferred were of opinion that it would be advisable to remedy this defect, which he should seek to do at a future stage by proposing the insertion of the paragraph of which he had already given notice. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had told the colonists that this was a theoretical and not a practical grievance: but he (Mr. Adderley) would tell the noble Lord that the colonists regarded it not merely as a theoretical, but a real practical grievance. He would mention an instance as illustrating the complaints made by the colonists. In New Zealand a Bill had been passed for the erection of a lighthouse in Cook's Straits; and during the interval of sending that Bill home to England for the approbation of the Crown, and of its returning to the colony several shipwrecks had occurred for want of that light. Suppose the noble Lord, for himself and his successors, could guarantee that the right of interference on the part of the Crown with the Colonial Legislature should never be exercised, even the existence of such a right would without doubt paralyze the energies of the colonists. He claimed, therefore, on the part of the colonies, that the power should be expunged from the Bill, and the other objects of the clause would be provided for by the paragraph he proposed to submit to the House at a later stage. He did not attempt to draw a distinction between local and Imperial subjects, but he thought the power of confirming or non-confirming should be left to the Governors of the colonies, who, if they were fit for their posts, must surely be able to exercise a just and proper discretion on such matters. He, therefore, moved that the clause be omitted.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he had already on a former occasion stated that there would be great difficulty in making a distinction between Imperial and local legislation for the colonies, and he owned that he could not, notwithstanding the high authority of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Works, see the force of the discrimination which he had at one time attempted to draw. He 82 thought, too, that even if we were to make such a distinction it would be more hurtful than beneficial to the colonies. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) had said that there were many cases which appeared to be of an Imperial nature, but upon which local legislation had acted very beneficially. He instanced the case of the "Canada rebellion claims;" but if the House were to adopt the suggestion, and make the distinction which had been laid down, it would still be necessary that the Governor of the colony should send home the Bills in order to receive the sanction from Government. But on the other hand there might be cases which would trench so much upon the prerogative of the Crown as to be inconsistent with our legislation, which would be a serious evil if left in the hands of the colony without any supervision from the Home Government. To avoid the difficulty of discrimination, the plan proposed by the hon. Member involved even a still greater difficulty, as he proposed to take away all distinctions whatever between local and imperial subjects, and leave it entirely to the discretion of the Governor to agree to any Bill which he might think fit. Now he begged to say he was not disposed to place such unlimited confidence in the Governors of our colonies as that which the hon. Member proposed to place in them. It might often happen that, with the best intentions and with the soundest judgment, the Governor of a colony might find popular opinion so strong, that he would be unable to resist giving his assent to any Bill which might be brought before him. Now, with respect to the grievance alleged to be connected with the present plan he found that only four Bills of the New South Wales Legislature had been disallowed by the Government at home since 1850, none of which were measures of any vital importance. As an instance of the evil which might result from the plan of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire, suppose it were proposed by the colony to place Her Majesty's forces in the colony under the command of some local authority, it would certainly be very inconvenient if the Governor should be induced to give his consent to such a measure, as by giving his consent it would immediately become law. From all he had heard from persons with whom he had had any communication, he did not think any strong feeling existed in the colonies on the subject, and he hoped the Committee would 83 agree to the clause, and not take away from the Crown the exercise of that prerogative which he considered to be exceedingly useful in the Government of the colonies.
§ MR. LOWEsaid, he had no doubt the Gentlemen with whom the noble Lord had been in conference were ready enough to surrender this particular point of the liberties of the colonists in consideration of the great advantages they were themselves to receive. He thought that the noble Lord ought not to allow himself to be influenced by any statements which had been made to him on this subject, as, from all he (Mr. Lowe) knew of the parties who had made these representations, he did not consider their opinion such as could be acted upon beneficially by the Government at home. The noble Lord's observations showed a remnant of that wretched spirit which first granted the power of local Government to the colonists, and then would not resolve to treat them as possessing that power, but instead set up all kinds of checks and counter-checks which prevented the colonists from using the power at all. The state of the law which the noble Lord proposed to perpetuate was this:—When a Bill was brought before the local Legislature the Governor might either refuse his assent, grant it, or reserve the Bill for Her Majesty's assent. Nobody objected to the power possessed by the Governor of vetoing a Bill, or to his reserving it, if he thought the subject was not a fit one for the consideration of the colonial Legislature; but the practical grievance complained of, and which was very great, was that, after the Governor had given his assent to the Bill, the Home authorities should have the power of negativing it. In fact, the Government reserved to itself two alternatives, while the colonial Legislature had only one. What was the consequence? Why, that certain Bills became the law of the colonies, and people acted under that law, and lent money upon the security that the law, after being assented to by the Governor, would receive the assent of the Home Government; but, when the Bill reached this country, the sanction was refused, and it ceased to be law all at once. The noble Lord said that only four Bills of the New South Wales Legislature had been disavowed since 1850, but the principle was the same as if all had been disavowed, for people did not know what law might not be revoked, and consequently they did not 84 know whether to act upon it or not. He recollected one case in which 180,000l. had been advanced upon mortgages, but, in consequence of a particular Bill being disavowed, the securities became worthless. The noble Lord said the Bills disavowed were of minor importance. He disagreed with him, for one was the Vagrant Act. The Australian colonists were much aggrieved by convicts coming from Van Diemen's Land and representing themselves as free emigrants, and getting into places of trust and confidence in consequence. Many of those men were of the worst class of offenders, and had been twice or thrice convicted, but when the colonial Legislature passed a Bill requiring that such persons should be registered, Lord Grey not only vetoed the Bill but cited it in the House of Lords as an instance of the extraordinary folly of the colonial Legislature in interfering with the Royal prerogative. He would ask the noble Lord himself, or any one connected with the Colonial Office, whether that question had not since assumed such serious dimensions that they would be glad to return to the state of things which existed when that Bill was vetoed, or if they had accepted it as a sort of compromise? No doubt there might be cases of Imperial concern, affecting the prerogative of the Crown and the privileges of that House, which it was the duty of the Governor to reserve, but he could not assent to the doctrine that a person sent out with the confidence of Her Majesty could not exercise his duty without being subject to have his assent overruled in the Colonial Office. Even if he made a mistake It might be remedied, because a colonial Act might be repealed by Parliament, but if the Imperial Legislature did the mischief, it was irremediable by the colonial Government. For these reasons he would give his support to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire for the omission of the clause.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he considered that a great deal of the weight which would naturally attach to what fell from the hon. Member for Kidderminster, in consequence of his great experience in the Australian colonies, was a good deal lessened by the personal feelings and recollections which appeared constantly to influence the remarks which he addressed to the House on the subject of colonial matters. The hon. Member had thought it right to tell the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) 85 not to attach importance to statements which had been made to him by Gentlemen who were connected with the Bill. He (Sir J. Pakington) thought it right that the Committee should understand who those parties were to whom the hon. Gentleman had referred. He had referred to a body of gentlemen intimately connected with the Australian colonies, and who in consequence of that connection had associated themselves together to attend to Australian interests, more particularly to the progress of this Bill now before Parliament. These gentlemen were in number between seventy and eighty; they were intimately connected with the colony; several of them were members of the colonial Legislative Council; and all were proprietors to the amount of several millions of property in the colony, gentlemen of the highest respectability, and who had taken great interest in the passing of the Bill through the colonial Legislature. They were all aware that the hon. Member for Kidderminster had great experience in New South Wales, but he very much doubted if he could adduce the opinion of any other gentleman now in this country who had been interested in this colony, which would be entitled to so much weight as that of the large body of gentlemen to whom he had referred. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Adderley) wished, on the part of the colonies, to discover some mode of discriminating between matters of colonial interest and Imperial importance. Now, in a despatch alluded to on a former occasion, he had expressed an opinion that the Government with which he was connected would be perfectly willing to recognise such a distinction if it could be discovered, and at the same time he expressed his sense of the difficulty of drawing such a measure. He agreed with Earl Grey in the opinion which his Lordship had expressed in a despatch in 1852, that it would be inexpedient to place this power in the hands of Governors of colonies, because, if it were done, they might at times be exposed to a degree of pressure from the local authorities which would place them in a very difficult position. He had given the best consideration to the proposal of his hon. Friend, and, though he admitted that it was one mode of solving the question, and that it was well worthy of consideration, yet he submitted that it would not be prudent to press it to a division, since it did not meet with the approval of the advisers of the Crown upon a 86 question which directly affected the prerogative of the Crown.
§ MR. LOWEsaid, he must deny that he had said anything against the character of the gentlemen who had formed the deputation that had waited upon the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). He did not deny they were wealthy; on the contrary, it was because they were wealthy, and possessed of such enormous property in land of a particular description, that their opinions were not entitled to that weight which the right hon. Baronet appeared to attach to them.
§ MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought it had been incorrectly stated that by this Bill the prerogative of the Crown would be affected. That, however, was not the object of the Bill. It was not the prerogative of the Crown which was concerned, but it was the power of Her Majesty's Ministers to do certain acts, upon many of which, in all probability, the Crown was never consulted, and probably knew nothing whatever about it. We had already gone too far in the matter of interfering with the Government of our colonies. It was now high time to allow our colonial Legislatures full exercise of the rights which belonged to them. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire.
§ MR. F. SCOTTsaid, there was no doubt some difficulty existed in consequence of the present system of the Governor giving his assent to local Bills, which were afterwards disallowed at home; but these difficulties were rapidly diminishing in proportion to the increased celerity of communication which was now taking place between this country and the Colonies. He did not believe that there was any really practical and substantial grievance existing which the proposed Amendment was calculated to remedy. The cases in which the Crown exercised its veto were of exceedingly rare occurrence; still the veto of the Crown was an absolute right, and he agreed with the right hon. Member for Droitwich that they would place the Governor in a very difficult and invidious position by investing him with this power.
§ MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he felt bound to press his Amendment to a division.
§ MR. J. BALLsaid, that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) had stated his case as if acts done between the period of a measure of the colonial Legislature receiving the assent of the Governor and of its being vetoed by the Crown were 87 ipso facto invalidated; but the hon. Gentleman was too good a lawyer not to know that all such Acts were good and binding in law. There were many cases which might arise in which it would be greatly for the interest of the colony that the Acts of the colonial Legislature should be revised by the Home Government. If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) were agreed to he did not see how responsible Government could be carried on, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not sanction it.
§ MR. LOWEsaid, he wished to state that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies had paid him a compliment which he did not deserve, for it was his opinion—and it was an opinion entertained by the best lawyers in the colony—that the veto of the Crown invalidated all acts done during the time between the Governor's assent and the veto of the Crown; and, in point of fact, the colonists had had recourse to various expedients, such as passing an Emergency Act, to remedy that evil.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 38: Majority 72.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 4. (Power to repeal and alter the provisions of the reserved Bill.
§ MR. MIALLsaid, he would move to leave out the words from "Colony" to the end of the clause. As far as could be collected, this Amendment was meant to negative the provisions in the Bill relating to public worship in the colony. He objected on principle to any payment out of the funds of the colony for the purpose proposed. The money was to be distributed among ministers of various denominations. This was a seeming homage to the justice of the case, but in point of fact the provision itself was not founded in justice, for it only embraced Christians, and not Jews. Besides, there were three or four denominations in the colony who absolutely repudiated all grants for religious purposes, and of course would refuse to participate in them. As the matter at present stood, it would be necessary for the colonial Legislature to have an absolute majority of both Houses upon the clauses and schedule of the Bill; he would therefore move the omission from the clause of the words which imposed this condition.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the 88 colonial Legislature said there were certain things with regard to their constitution and civil list which they wished should be only altered by an absolute majority. Now, they would have by this clause the power of taking away that restriction altogether, but he could not see that any objection could be raised if the Legislature thought it desirable that matters of this importance should only be altered by an absolute majority, and not towards the end of a Session when, perhaps, Members were returning to their homes, and a very small number might carry such alterations. He was now only contending that the colonial Legislature should manage matters in their own way.
§ MR. LOWEsaid, it seemed to him that what the noble Lord was contending for was not that the colonial Legislature should manage matters in their own way, but that the present body should fetter the action of all future Legislatures, and prescribe to them the conditions on which they should exercise the power intrusted to them. It was a matter of practical experience that in the case of Canada, the most extreme difficulty was found in getting together the absolute majority required. They had to hunt up the Legislative Council there from every quarter, and were obliged to pass the Bill through two or three stages in a single day, in order to accommodate one old gentleman who wished to get away but whose presence was necessary to make up the number required. If this condition of an absolute majority were the constitution of the colony, it might be very well to leave it alone; but why should this Legislature, improvident and unsatisfactory as it had proved itself, be empowered to tie the hands of all future Legislatures in this way.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should support the Amendment, the object of which was to get rid of an obnoxious clause in the Bill, by which 50,000l. a year was to be levied in the colony for religious purposes. There was the strongest feeling in the colony against this grant; and nothing would go further to sow the seeds of religious discord among the inhabitants. Dr. Perry, the bishop, stated that the objection to the grant was public, unanimous, and entire. The bishop himself was opposed to it, as were the whole of the Dissenters. He believed the measure was carried solely by the influence of the nominee Members of the Council. He was of opinion that 89 the religious necessities of the colony would be amply provided for on the voluntary principle. Every persuasion was ready to maintain its own form of worship; and a petition signed by 13,000 persons had been presented against the grant. The English Independents of Victoria had contributed 24,000l. for the support of their religious institutions; the Free Church had raised 9,000l.; the United Presbyterians, 8,000l.; the Baptists, 7,500l.; the Wesleyan Association, 2,000l.; the Primitive Methodists, 1,000l.; the Wesleyan Methodists, 6,000l. Where there was such a general disposition in favour of voluntary effort nothing could goad and vex the people more than to saddle them with a compulsory grant. He implored the Committee not to fetter the colony in this way, but to give it a chance of doing what was right. The time was coming, if it had not come already, when the only influence we could exercise over those countries would be one of opinion. Let us seek not to impair this, for we might, should reverses overtake this country, have to look for succour to those distant colonies, as an aged parent relied for support on his children.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that, although he objected to the clause altogether, he could not vote against this part of it, for he considered the provision made for religion a valuable part of the measure. He could not concur in the view which hon. Gentlemen opposite took of this question, though he quite agreed with them in thinking the colonial Legislature had displayed a very liberal spirit in passing this Bill, but in no part of their proceedings had they done themselves greater honour than by making this handsome provision for the maintenance of divine worship in the colony. He should presently move the omission of the clause altogether, but upon entirely different grounds to those stated by the supporters of this Amendment.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) had totally misapprehended the facts when he said that the colonists were altogether opposed to the grant for religious purposes, and that the measure was carried by the influence of the nominee Members of the Council. The fact was, that on the first division the numbers were twenty-nine to ten, and afterwards, upon the Vote of 50,000l. in the schedule, the numbers were twenty-five to four. If the colonial Legislature chose to vote a large 90 sum for the purposes of religious worship, he saw no objection to such an application of their revenues; but if they thought fit at any future time to withdraw that grant, it would be in their power to do so. He certainly did not agree either with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) or the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall) in thinking that a grant for religious worship was in itself so objectionable that the colonial Legislature should be debarred from making it.
§ MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, the question was whether the future action of the colonial Legislature should be circumscribed. The Legislative Council was to consist of one-third nominees, and he would put it to the Committee whether, that being the case, the real feelings of the colonists could be represented? They would have no power of rescinding this Vote of 50,000l. without sending the Bill here, which he thought was an unnecessary difficulty thrown in their way.
§ MR. MIALLsaid, the noble Lord stated that the colonists must be in favour of the grant for religious worship, because they voted three to one in favour of it. That was the strongest argument in favour of his Amendment, because all he wanted was to leave the colonists free action in the matter; and if they were so decidedly in favour of the grant, as the noble Lord supposed, they would no doubt affirm it.
§ MR. F. SCOTTsaid, that by this Bill both branches of the Legislature were to be elective. The argument of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. A. Pellatt), therefore, did not apply to this Bill, whatever application it might have when the New South Wales Bill was before the House.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 40: Majority 25.
§ On the Question, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill,"
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would now move to omit the clause altogether. He hoped that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) would reconsider the wording of this clause, which in its effect would be an interference with the desire of the colonists themselves. That was a proceeding which he considered to be wholly unnecessary and impolitic on the part of the Imperial Parliament. This clause, as it was worded, he contended, would, 91 if adopted, be an interference on the part of the Imperial Parliament to nullify a measure adopted by the colonial Legislature. In the Victoria and New South Wales Acts the colonists had very wisely and properly adopted certain securities, so as to guard against any hasty alteration or repeal of those Constitutional Acts. The clause which the Government had introduced into this Bill no doubt respects those conditions, but what he particularly objected to was the following words in the clause—"unless the said conditions shall be repealed or altered by the authority of the said Legislature." He contended, by the introduction of those words, that the Government were in effect doing away with those securities. The noble Lord, in reply to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall), said he was unwilling to remove the restrictions which the colonists adopted. Now, he (Sir J. Pakington) asserted that this clause did remove those restrictions. It seemed to him that, by the introduction of this clause, they would enable a bare majority in the colonial Legislature to repeal the conditions set forth in the 61st clause, thereby doing away with the restrictions themselves. The hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies deprecated that House setting itself up against the decision of the local Legislature. He (Sir J. Pakington) should like to know what the meaning of this clause was, but that that House was setting itself up against the decision of the local Legislature? In respect to its bearing upon the civil list, he would remark that, if the civil list be found burdensome to the colony, if it be objected to by the colony, or if any portion of the constitution be objected to, he thought that in a freely-elected Legislature, such as this would be, there would be no difficulty in obtaining the majority which this Bill required. As for the example of the United States, which had been referred to, it should be recollected that the United States very wisely required an absolute majority of three-fourths, with the view of guarding against any precipitate alteration of their constitution. He would appeal to those who were anxious to get rid of the securities enacted in this measure to say whether they had ever heard any expression of opinion in the Colonies in support of such a view? He was most confident that in Victoria nothing of the kind had been heard. No portion of that colony had ever expressed a desire to alter this or any other part of the constitution. 92 On the contrary, in the Address from the Legislative Council of Victoria, which was received here in February, the strongest expressions were used to urge the Home Government as soon as possible to pass this Bill, which had passed the colonial Legislature by decisive majorities, and which had given general satisfaction to the colonists; and there were no grounds whatever for supposing that any alterations in it were desired by the colonists themselves. He therefore could not think upon what grounds the noble Lord thought it necessary to establish a dangerous precedent by calling on the Imperial Parliament to reverse the decision of the colonists in a matter interesting only to themselves, and in respect to which the opinion of their representatives had been strongly expressed. The Committee would be acting most inconsistently in adopting this clause, inasmuch as it was generally admitted that the Colonies should have the privilege of dealing with their own local affairs. Well, this colony had done so; by the desire of the Home Government they had enacted a constitution for themselves. It was sent home, and now when it came before them certain hon. Members find a particular clause which did not suit their own views, and, forgetting all their former arguments, they endeavour to induce the Imperial Legislature to reverse and to do away with that which had been adopted by the will of the colonial Legislature.
§ MR. J. BALLsaid, he must contend that the clause was essential, in order to carry out the principle which was recognised by the right hon. Baronet himself. The object of the clause was simply to remove any doubt as to the limits of the constitution of the colony. This clause was absolutely necessary to give life and operation to the 61st clause. The clause would not have the effect of superseding the will of the colony; it would only clear up a question arising from Clause 61, which otherwise would be left obscure. There was no desire on the part of the Government to interfere with the wishes of the colonists; and it was only intended by the present clause to remove any doubt which might arise as to the limit of the power of the colonial Legislature, and, by making this clear, to avoid any discussions which might otherwise arise upon this point.
§ MR. F. SCOTTsaid, that in such a case as this he considered that it would 93 be better to have a disabling instead of an enabling provision. The colonial Legislature had expressed but one opinion upon this subject, and that was that they did understand their own mind, and wished the Imperial Parliament not to interfere with their desires. The Government were bringing forward a measure which was calculated to give rise to that which they wished to prevent—namely, a collision between the colonial Legislature and the Imperial Parliament.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was his opinion that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwitch (Sir J. Pakington) was under some misapprehension in regard to the legal effect of this clause. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the 61st section would bind the future colonial Legislature. But that was not so. The 61st section was a mere brutum fulmen as against any subsequent act of the colonial Legislature. There was nothing whatever in the section that would prohibit anything subsequently introduced into the colonial Legislature to repeal its provisions. The fourth clause, however, gave a certain operation to the 61st section, without which it would have no operation at all. The stringency of the words was no doubt relaxed by the words that follow, namely, "until" and "unless," but not until the Royal assent had been given could any alterations be considered. The effect of the 4th clause was to convey to the Legislature the power, at a future time, of making alterations in the provisions of the constitution; but the Legislature would be under the necessity, first, of passing a separate and an independent Bill, repealing the prohibition contained in the 61st section; and after that Bill had received the assent of the Crown, then, and not until then, would it be able to address itself to the question of the alterations. The binding effect of that prohibition was the simple result of the 4th clause now under consideration, without which clause the 61st section in the colonial Bill would be utterly useless for the purpose of prohibiting a simple proceeding by the colonial Legislature of this nature, namely, a Bill being brought in, the first clause of which might contain the prohibition of the 61st section, and the second clause of which might propose alterations and amendments in the constitution, as established by this Bill. He would, therefore, earnestly advise the right hon. Baronet, even for the purpose which he himself had 94 in view, to withdraw his Motion altogether, and leave the matter as it stood.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that not being a lawyer he would not presume to question the soundness of the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he certainly should have thought, as the object of the Bill was to enable the Crown to give its consent to the colonial Bill, that when the Crown had given its consent to the colonial Bill, that 61st clause would be binding on the colony. He was sorry to say that the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman did not remove his objection, and it seemed to him that if words were necessary in order to remove doubts with regard to the validity and real meaning of the 61st section, the words so added by the Government ought to have been added in accordance with the wishes of the colonists, and as to what those wishes were there could be no doubt. They desired that which the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary himself had recognised on a former evening as a wise and prudent provision, namely, that there should be no light and hasty tampering with a constitution which had once been adopted. If, therefore, explanatory words were necessary to give validity to that wish, and to the 61st clause, why did not the Government add words to this effect—that a bare majority should not reverse the conditions, and that those conditions should not be reversed except by a majority which was equal to that by which the colonists demanded any change in the constitution.
§ MR. LOWEsaid, that the Bill, as it now stood, seemed to give the colonial Legislature the power of which his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General wished to deprive them; but the matter appeared at present to be involved in great confusion. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) taunted them with inconsistency in not carrying out the will of the colonists; but this was not a question of the will of the colonists. They must distinguish between the colonists and the colonial Legislature; and it was ridiculous to suppose that the colonists would wish to put voluntary fetters upon their own powers.
§ MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he would suggest that if the Government would not consent to the whole provision being struck out, and it was necessary to give effect to this 61st section, that the majority should be an absolute majority of the colonial Legislature.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he 95 thought the clause carried out the intentions of the colonists as far as they had been expressed. If they agreed to the right hon. Baronet's proposal, they would be going beyond what had been done by the colony, because, supposing the 61st clause remained alone, the future Legislature of the colony would have power to repeal that clause. He did not think it would be wise, after certain restrictions had been enacted by the local Legislature, to carry those restrictions further than they had been carried by the colony.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would not press his Amendment; but he wished to have some further explanation as to the necessity for two Acts of the colonial Legislature.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought it was necessary for the Legislature to have two separate legislative measures, and that the first, enabling them to proceed to the consideration of the second, must receive the Royal assent before they can proceed to consider the second. The prohibition must be rescinded before the consideration of the alterations could be entered upon; and that appeared to be the intent of the language and the effect of the Bill.
§ MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he feared the clause would place the colonial Legislature in a position of greater ambiguity than they were now.
§ Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 5 and 6, being the remaining clauses of the Bill.
§ The Preamble having been postponed, the Committee proceeded to consider the various clauses in the "Scheduled Bill," appended thereto, being the measure sent home from the colony.
§ Clauses 1 to 43 inclusive, were agreed to.
§ Clause 44 (Boundaries of the Colonies).
§ MR. LOWEsaid, he must beg the attention of the Committee, even at that late stage, to the provision which they were now asked to sanction. By this 44th section the Legislature of the colony of Victoria enacted that if the Legislative Houses of the colonies of New South Wales, Van Diemen's Land, or South Australia should hereafter petition Her Majesty to alter their boundaries, it should be lawful for Her Majesty, by any order to be made with the advice of Her Privy Council, to comply with such petition. Now, how could it enter into the mind of any man to conceive that the Legislature of Victoria could have power to pass such 96 an enactment as this? Could it be maintained for an instant that that clause was valid; and, if it was not so, why should it be retained in the Bill?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would admit that the clause appeared to be very defective; but, nevertheless, he was not prepared to expunge it.
§ Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 45 and 46.
§ Clause 47 (112,750l., out of the consolidated revenue voted as the civil list of the colony).
§ MR. MIALLsaid, he should move, as an Amendment, that the figures "112,750l." be omitted, and "62,750l." be inserted. His object was to render the section more in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the colonists, who were entirely opposed to the indiscriminate endowment of all religious denominations. Religious grants were highly objectionable in principle; and he, therefore, wished to expunge the vote for public worship contained in schedule D, part 8 (50,000l.)
§ Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out the words "one hundred and twelve thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds, and insert the words sixty-two thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds."
§ MR. J. BALLsaid, he did not consider the amount excessive, regard being had to the value of money in the colony, and the fact that the revenue of the colony exceeded 3,000,000l. The matter was, however, peculiarly one that ought to be left to the Colonies to decide. Some persons supposed that this sum was voted for the Church of England in the colony; but that was not the fact, the Legislature having voted a certain sum for public worship, which was to be apportioned among the different religious denominations.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should support the Amendment, believing that the people of Victoria were really opposed to this grant.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the question of religious endowment in the colony as a principle was not involved in this vote; if it had been, the hon. Gentleman would be quite justified in his opposition to it. What the hon. Member said was, that he was so persuaded of the superiority of the voluntary principle, that he would not allow the colonists to have any opinion on the matter. He said, he had no objection to their voting this sum at any future time, but he would not admit that they now represented the colonists. 97 He (Lord J. Russell) had heard of the tyranny of the Colonial Office, but never before had he heard of such tyranny as was involved in this Amendment. The effect of the hon. Member's proposition was to take away money which had already been voted by the colony, on the ground that the Members who had voted it, though elected by the colonists themselves, did not represent their opinions. The House of Commons certainly was not justified in going to that length. If the people of Victoria by a great majority had appropriated a certain sum for the purposes of religious worship it was the duty of Parliament to leave that sum in the Bill, and it would be in the power of the colonists, if at any future time they should be of opinion that the voluntary principle was the best, to send Members to the Legislature determined to get rid of this vote.
§ MR. MIALLsaid, if the colonists had done what was under consideration in a proper manner, Parliament would not now be asked to sanction it; and when he was asked to say "aye" to a proposition from which he dissented, he chose, in the exercise of his discretion, to say "no." He was willing to leave to the colonists the fullest power of voting, not merely 50,000l., but 50,000,000l., if they liked, for religious purposes next year; but believing that the colonial Legislature had exceeded the limits of its authority, he considered that there was no tyranny in the course which he had proposed.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the hon. Member misunderstood the proposition to which he was asked to say "aye," which was substantially that the colonists should be allowed to spend their own money in the way they preferred. It was clear from the numbers by which this scheme was supported that the elective portion of the colonial Legislature was in favour of it.
§ MR. HADFIELDsaid, he must deny that he wished to interfere with the free agency of the colonists. When this colony was reformed it would be time enough for it to say what it would do.
§ Question put, "That the words 'one hundred and twelve thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds,' stand part of the paragraph."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 29: Majority 42.
§ MR. LOWEsaid, he thought he could prove to the satisfaction of the Committee that this civil list was obtained by fraud 98 and misrepresentation, and that the colonists themselves, if they were represented in that House, would be the first to oppose it. In a letter addressed to him in April last by Dr. Thomson, one of the gentlemen who settled the civil list, it was stated that the schedules of the Bill were extravagant in the extreme, induced by the excited feelings of the time, and accepted as a compromise with the Government party as the best bargain that could be made, the Colonial Secretary having assured the Legislature that he spoke the sentiments of the Duke of Newcastle, and that the home Government would send back the Bill if it were sent home without a civil list. That was a false representation on the part of the Colonial Secretary, because he had seen the Duke of Newcastle since the second reading of the Bill, and his Grace said he never wished there should be any civil list at all. On a former occasion he had shown that the expenditure of the colony in 1853 exceeded the revenue by no less a sum than 1,000,000l., and that in the autumn of 1854 the estimated expenditure for 1855 exceeded the estimated ways and means by 1,800,000l. The Government, not the Legislature, set to work to pare down the excess, and cut it down by upwards of 1,000,000l., reducing most of the departments by a third, and some by more than a third. He therefore considered he was justified in inferring that the colonists would, if they could, reduce this civil list in equal proportion. It was better not to pass it at all. It was better to send it back to the colony for them to deal with it according to their reduced means and reduced ideas. By doing so the colony would not be without a civil list, as it had a civil list under the Act of 1850, and Parliament would not raise the question of vested interests between the colony and the Colonial Office. To show the extravagant way in which the schedule was framed, the gentleman who went out as Colonial Secretary, after it was determined to give the colony responsible Government, and therefore with the understanding that he would have no retiring pension, was removed at the end of eighteen months' service, and was to receive by this Bill 5,000l. as indemnity. The gentleman who succeeded him, if dismissed after a less period of service—as was very probable—would be entitled to a pension of two-thirds of the salary for life. The Governor's salary was to be 99 10,000l. and 5,000l. for contingencies, but he ventured to assert the colonists would now consider 7,000l., all included, ample remuneration for that office. The principle of mixing up the civil list with the constitution was extremely bad, because it would be made the means of buying votes, and under these circumstances he hoped the Committee would reject that part of the Bill.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he considered the colonial Legislature was the best judge of the proper salaries to be paid these officers, because they would know the duties to be discharged, the value of money, and the price of provisions and other things in the colony. There was one principle which had been recognised in all these colonies as a fair one—that persons appointed to offices on the faith of their being permanent, and removed by the change to responsible Government, should be entitled to some compensation. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) objected to that principle. He could not agree with him, and should certainly support the decision of the colony.
§ MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he considered the reply of the noble Lord a conclusive answer to the hon. Member's argument, that the Bill had been for an entire year before the Government, and the general expression of opinion from the colony had been one of impatience that there was so long a delay in giving effect to their unanimous wishes.
§ MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the civil list for the colony of Victoria was part of the contract between the Crown and the colonial Legislature, and that Legislature was honourably bound to make such a civil list as the circumstances of the colony required. But what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) objected to was, that the whole of the civil list in the colony had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, and that, after the people of the colony had recovered from the intoxication of the gold fever, they would be the very first to oppose it. He supposed they must submit to the clause, but he looked forward to a means by a subsequent clause to give the necessary power to alter the civil list.
§ MR. LOWEsaid, that the public opinion in the colony was not in favour of the civil list; and he believed the colonists would gladly agree to its reduction. Putting, however, this question aside, he had one 100 word to say to the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. F. Scott), who had felt unnecessarily offended at some observations which he (Mr. Lowe) had made. That hon. Gentleman had said that he (Mr. Lowe) had shown a very unprofitable and wasteful disposition in the expenditure of the public money. But he (Mr. Lowe) believed that he could show that the hon. Gentleman had himself been a party to a much more wasteful, a much more useless, and a much more improvident expenditure when he sanctioned and accepted the payment of 500l. to himself as the agent and representative of New South Wales in the House of Commons.
§ Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 48 to 60 inclusive.
§ Clause 61. (Legislature of Victoria may not alter the constitution established under the Act, or the schedule thereto annexed marked D, without an absolute majority of the whole number of the Legislative Council and Assembly.)
§ MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, to leave out the words referring to the schedule, so that the civil list might be subject to alteration without the proposed restrictions.
§ Amendment proposed, in lines 6 and 7, to leave out the words "or in the said Schedule hereunto annexed marked D."
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that no stipulation had been made by the home Government—neither under Lord Aberdeen nor Lord Derby—that so large a civil list should be adopted as a condition for the enactment of the Victoria constitution.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the paragraph."
§ The Committee divided:Ayes 84; Noes 58: Majority 26.
§ Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.
§ House resumed; Bill reported without Amendment.