Sitting of 25 June 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Leases and Sales of Settled Estates; Duchy of Lancaster Lands.
2° Merchant Shipping Act Amendment; Indemnity; Stock in Trade; Haileybury College.
Reported—Victoria Government; New South Wales Government; Youthful Offenders (No. 2); Christ Church (Todmorden) Marriages Validity.
3° Burial-Grounds (Scotland); Administration of Oaths Abroad.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE ECCLESI- ASTICAL TITLES BILL.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Attorney General to the petition of the inhabitants of the pariah of Blackburn, who stated that they, being loyally attached to the constitution of England in Church and State, had been greatly aggrieved by the conduct of a certain Roman Catholic priest named Peter Kay, who illegally and arrogantly assumed the title of Vicar and Rural Dean of the Hundred of Blackburn, declaring that title to have been conferred upon him by the so-called Bishop of Blackburn, Dr. Turner. The rural deanery was legally occupied, and the gift of the vicarage belonged to the Archbishop of Canterbury; but this Peter Kay had inscribed upon his door-plate the title of "rector," which he also assumed in some printed circulars. The petitioners had sent a memorial to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but having received no answer, they now appealed to the House of Commons for protection. He (Mr. Spooner) wished therefore to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State whether he had taken the matter into his consideration.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could not express any opinion as to whether the conduct of which the petitioners complained, was or was not a violation of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act; but he need only refer them to one clause of the Act, which enabled any one of them to refer the case to the Attorney General, and with his consent to sue for the penalties; and consequently, if they thought a breach of the Act had been committed, that was the course which they ought to pursue.

OUTRAGE ON A FLAG OF TRUCE AT HANGO—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any despatches had been received from Vice Admiral Dundas, stating what

71
steps he had taken to bring this occurrence under the notice of the Russian authorities, and to prevent the recurrence of similar atrocities.
SIR CHARLES WOOD: I have great pleasure, Sir, in stating to the House, that the Admiralty have this morning received despatches from Admiral Dundas, stating the steps he had taken, and also containing the most welcome intelligence that many of the persons who were, from the account of the man who was rescued by the boat of the Cossack, supposed to have been killed, are some of them only wounded and not killed, and others are not wounded, although prisoners. Admiral Dundas states, that he wrote a letter to the governor of Helsingfors, stating what had occurred, remonstrating most strongly, and pointing out what an atrocious act it was, to fire on a boat's crew under a flag of truce. He has received an answer from the governor, excusing or justifying to a certain extent what took place, declaring that the officers and soldiers said they saw no flag of truce, and that they had been irritated by vessels on some occasions hoisting the Russian flag, and, as stated in the newspapers, under colour of a flag of truce taking soundings, elsewhere. The House will remember that about a week ago, I was asked whether I had any reason to believe that that had taken place, and I stated that no report of such a transaction had reached the Admiralty. This morning I have seen the officer who commanded the gun-boat in the bay of Kertch on the occasion when this was reported by the newspapers to have happened, and he assures me most distinctly and unequivocally that nothing of the kind was ever done. The carriage which was being restored was taken on shore by a Russian boat, under the command of a Russian officer, accompanied by one of the Viper's boats, which was all the time under the eye of the Russian officer, and no soundings were taken. He says that it was utterly unnecessary to do what was reported, becaue there was not the slightest difficulty in taking the soundings of the spot in question, either by night or day. The spot at which the carriage was to be landed was pointed out by the Russian officer, and it was taken on shore by him; therefore there can be no doubt that the report is totally without foundation. I thought it desirable that the earliest communication should be made to the public of the intelligence we have received from Admiral
72
Dundas, and I believe the names of those who are dead, and of those who are alive, will appear in the evening papers. The result is that five seamen and the Finnish captain were killed by the fire of the Russians; four seamen and two Fins were wounded, and are prisoners; and three officers, four seamen, and two Fins were taken prisoners without being wounded. The black man who escaped in the boat is now alive and doing well on board the Cossack.

DISABILITIES OF MEMBERS—GOVERN- MENT CONTRACTORS—QUESTION.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether, under the provisions of the Act 22nd Geo. Ill,, c. 45, a new writ ought not to be issued for the City of London, in the room of Baron Rothschild, who had since his election entered into a contract for the public service, a copy of which had been laid before the House? In asking the question, he referred to the contract which Baron Rothschild had entered into with the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, for a loan of 16,000,000 l. He presumed that the House must be aware, that in 1782 there was a Bill passed to disable all contractors with the Crown or the Government of the day, from sitting or voting in that House. That Bill was passed to secure the freedom and independence of Parliament. Now, from the requests and representations which had been made to him, and from the legal opinions which he had received, he thought he should be justified at once in moving for a new writ for the City of London, in the room of Baron Rothschild, who had entered into this contract. But not wishing to do anything which might seem harsh or discourteous to an hon. Member of that House, he thought it right to put this question first to the Attorney General; and he should be satisfied if, in the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion, he could state that Baron Rothschild's seat was not affected by his having entered into this loan contract with the Government.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: It appears to me, Sir, that the question is one which it is for the House to answer, and not for the Attorney General. If the question should come before the House in a practical shape, it will be my duty, no doubt, considering the office I fill, to state my opinion; but I do not think I ought to answer upon a speculative question, involving

73
the right of an hon. Member to a seat in this House. If, for his own guidance, my hon. Friend wishes for my opinion, he knows that there is a certain mode by which it can be obtained.
MR. MALINSsaid, that after the discussion upon administrative reform, when the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Lindsay) had made his statement, the House would remember that several times in the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the right hon. Gentleman did, not indirectly, but one might say almost directly, charge the hon. Member for Tynemouth with being interested in Government contracts. Now, he (Mr. Malins) thought when any Member of that House, and particularly a Minister of the Crown, rose in his place and charged another Member of that House with an infringement of such an Act of Parliament as that which had just been referred to, and which was passed to preserve the purity and independence of Parliament, that was a circumstance which ought not to be passed over by the House entirely in silence, and therefore he would now put the question to the right hon. Gentleman, whether he had any reason for making a statement amounting certainly to the belief on his part that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tynemouth was interested in Government contracts?
SIR CHARLES WOOD: The statement I made, Sir, was this, that with reference to a particular vessel, she had been transferred to Mr. Gladstone by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lindsay) before she was taken up by the Government. What I did state was this, that, so far as I knew, the interest of the hon. Gentleman had been transferred; but I said that he interfered so much in the management of these vessels, that I had every reason to believe he must be perfectly cognisant of all that took place about them.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he should next day, at the evening meeting of the House, endeavour to obtain the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, without a fee—by moving that Mr. Speaker should cause to be issued a new writ for the City of London.
MR. MALINSsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, whether the subject was a question of privilege? If it were so, he should give notice to the hon. Member for Tynemouth of his intention to bring it before the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Anything affecting the seat of a Member of this House is a question of privilege.
MR. MALINSsaid, that, under these circumstances, he should bring forward the Motion to-morrow, at the evening sitting.

MILITARY ASYLUM CHELSEA— QUESTION.
COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to ask the Paymaster General whether an undertaking was not given by the late Secretary at War, on behalf of the Government, that 120 soldiers' sons should be admitted into the asylum at Chelsea, and whether only fifty soldiers' sons have been admitted: and what was the cause of the delay, and on whom the blame of it was to rest. Since he last called the attention of the House to this subject he had again been to Chelsea, and although at one end of the building in course of erection, preparations were being made for putting on the roof, yet there appeared no chance of the rest of the building being roofed for a month or two, or of its being ready for occupation for five or six months.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that the only undertaking which had been given, was a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) in the course of a debate on a Motion of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), that in that portion of the hospital occupied by students training to be schoolmasters in regiments, there was accommodation for 120 children, and that he proposed to make arrangements for the introduction of that number. It had turned out that only fifty children could be admitted into that part of the asylum, and a new building had therefore to be erected for the reception of the students training for schoolmasters. He understood that the roof was to be put on the building in about a fortnight, and that the building would be ready for occupation in the course of three months. Whether there had been any unnecessary delay he was not aware, but he understood that the plans had been altered once or twice, and that there had been some difficulty in procuring some of the materials.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask why the schoolmasters were in the asylum at
all?
MR. BOUVERIEreplied, that it was considered essential to their proper training, that they should learn to teach in

75
some school, and none other was so obviously appropriate to this purpose as that of the soldiers' sons.

EXPLANATION.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he wished to offer an explanation of a statement he had made on Friday, relative to a notice of a question given to him by the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. O. Stanley). He had on Saturday found among his papers a copy of the question in the terms in which the hon. Member stated that he had furnished it to him. He presumed that he had received the question at a time when he was engaged, had put it aside at the moment, and afterwards lost sight of it.

STATE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON; Sir, I rise to fulfil the promise which I made on Friday last, that I would to-day state, as far as I was able, the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the various Bills now in progress through the House. Their number is certainly very considerable, but any one who looks at them with a view to classification will see that a great proportion of those children whose fate is to be decided are the offspring of private members, and that the Bills in regard to which Government can claim the responsibility are a comparatively small proportion of the whole. It is, however, with the latter only that we can deal, for we do not presume to take upon ourselves to dispose of Bills brought in by private Members, and with regard to which, private Members being responsible, it is for them to judge how far they have a fair chance of being carried through the two Houses. Of Government measures there are thirty-three in different stages of progress, independent of Continuance Bills and Bills which have been sent down from the House of Lords. I should only occupy the time of the House unnecessarily by reading through a list of them. Some are measures of comparatively small interest, and cannot give rise to much discussion, and there are others of considerable importance which I think it will be essential to pass, whatever discussion may take place upon them. Among these I may mention the Bills relating to limited liability and partnership, those of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Health with regard to the government of the metropolis, the removal of nuisances, and the preservation
76
of the public health, and, of course the Bill which provides for transferring the property in the Ordnance lands from that Board, which has now ceased to exist, and vesting it in the Secretary for the War Department. These measures are essential, and we must of course endeavour to pass them. It would be better, perhaps, now to mention those which we think it would not be desirable to press on the attention of the House during the present Session. First, there is the Jurors and Juries (Ireland) Bill, which now stands for a second reading, but which my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland thinks may stand over till another Session. On the same principle the Grand Jury Assessments (Ireland) Bill will not be pressed during the present Session. It is generally understood that all the Bills connected with the subject of education, which stand for a second reading, will, if the House should agree to read them a second time, be referred to a Select Committee, not with a view of being passed this Session, but of obtaining the opinion of the Committee with regard to their individual and aggregate merits. These Bills, including that of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) and that of the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), would not, of course, be pressed further than a second reading, with a view of being referred to a Select Committee. Next comes the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. It is clearly understood, and it was stated by the Lord Chancellor in the other House, that this Bill should be coupled with a Bill for the Amendment of Church discipline. Various circumstances have hitherto prevented the Government from presenting to Parliament a sufficiently satisfactory Bill upon the latter subject; and, at this advanced period of the Session it is hopeless to suppose that the two Bills would receive sufficient discussion to justify their being passed into law. We therefore do not mean to press the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill. Then there is the Court of Session (Scotland) Bill, which, although it has reached a very advanced stage, we know has given rise to very considerable differences of opinion, and, in deference to those differences of opinion, it is our intention not to press this Bill in the present Session. So much for the Government Bills in different stages of progress. The Continuance Bills mostly relate to matters of temporary importance;

77
but there is one for the continuation of Metropolitan Commissions of Sewers, which of course, would drop if the Bill of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Health should pass, as I hope it will, for the present Commission of Sewers would then be superseded, and the Continuance Bill be rendered unnecessary. Then there are seven Bills from the House of Lords, which I hope the House will seriously consider and dispose of. These Bills, therefore, we shall not withdraw. Then there are thirty-five Bills of private Members, among which, however, is one which, although brought in by a private Member, the Government have undertaken to support—that is, the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill. That Bill is, I hope, in such a condition that the House will be disposed to pass it with such Amendments and improvements as may be suggested. That, so far as I can at present state, is the view which Her Majesty's Government take of the business before the House. I hope there is yet sufficient time this Session to carry into law those Bills which I have mentioned. At the same time I must say that at this period of the Session, and considering the importance of the Government measures under consideration, it is utterly impossible to yield to the applications which are sometimes made by private Members to the Government to give up Government days for the purpose of considering their Bills; and, therefore, those Gentlemen who have Bills before the House must take their chance and proceed with their Bills in the ordinary course.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that when he made an inquiry of the noble Lord on this subject, the noble Lord conveyed in his answer that he had made an unnecessary request for this information, and that the House were indebted to the labours of private Members for the pressure of business. The noble Lord had repeated the statement to-night, that the Orders of the Day and the Bills in progress were chiefly those of private Members, to whom were to be attributed so many calls upon the labours and exertions of the House. But he did not find that the noble Lord was justified either in the tone he had adopted the other night, or in the observations he had just made. Of Bills not yet read a second time there were twenty-eight Government Bills and seventeen Bills of private Members; of Bills in Committee there were twenty-two Government Bills and twelve Bills of private Members; of
78
Bills, as amended, to be considered, there were four Bills of private Members, and no Government Bills; of Bills not yet read a second time there were three on each side. There were, therefore, fifty-three Government Bills upon the paper, while there were only thirty-six Bills of private Members, making in all eighty-nine Bills for the House to discuss. Since he had called attention to this subject there were more Orders of the Day put down, so that, instead of seventy-six, there were now eighty-nine to which must be added the two adjourned debates now upon the paper. If the noble Lord deducted the Continuance Bills, that would not give a majority to the labours of private Members. He should like to know whether the Government intended to proceed with the Roman Catholic Chapels Bill? [Viscount PALMERSTON: "That is a Lord's Bill."] The noble Lord would of course proceed with all the other Government Bills in Committee, of which there were twenty-two. The noble Lord had given up one of the Bills now fixed for a third reading, but as time was so precious, it was to be regretted that this Bill had been proceeded with. He merely rose to show that, when there were seventy-six Orders of the Day, he had made no unreasonable appeal to the Government to say how they intended to deal with them.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he meant to take the sense of the House on his Motion, which was on the paper, that the debate on the second reading of the Education (No. 2) Bill be further adjourned until that day three months.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, the noble Lord said he would not give a Government day to any private Member. Did he intend to give a Government day to the Education Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), that being the Bill of a private Member? He (Lord R. Cecil) protested against a subject of that importance being referred to a Select Committee.
MR. IRTONsaid, that seeing the strong feeling which existed on the subject, he thought that it would be best to withdraw the Bills.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) had asked whether a Government day would be given to the Education Bills. The noble Lord forgot that one of those measures on which the others depended, was first introduced by his (Lord Palmerston's) noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

TURKISH LOAN—QUESTION.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, there was a report that the Government intended to give a guarantee for a Turkish loan. He wished to know whether this was the intention of the Government, and whether the noble Lord intended to bring the matter before the House?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I can only say that when the Government have a communication to make on a matter of this sort they will make it. But it is not the habit of the Government to give prospective answers to questions as to their intentions on matters upon which no intentions have been formed
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he hoped that the House would have ample notice if the practice of subsidising were to be revived.

SUNDAY TRADING BILL—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to know whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government intended to take any measures to induce the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex to withdraw the Sunday Trading Bill. [General cheering.]
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: If my noble Friend hears that cheer I think he will be disposed to attend to it.

EDUCATION BILL.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had understood that the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would make an arrangement to take the adjourned debate on the second reading of his Education Bill on Friday, July 6, but he found the Order of the Day fixed for that evening.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was found that hon. Members objected to the postponement of the order, and it was therefore put down for this evening.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he wished to know whether the Government meant that the House was to agree to the principle of these different Bills? Were they to agree to the principle that religion was to be made a part of education, and then agree to the principle of the Bill that excluded religion? Was the House to stultify itself by agreeing to the opposite principles of these opposed Bills? Considering the state of the Session and the feeling of the House, the noble Lord would do well not to keep these Orders any longer upon the paper.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to know if the noble Lord at the head of the Government
80
meant the House to understand that he proposed to give up Government nights enough for the debates on these three Bills? Not one of the Bills had been read a second time yet, and he could promise the noble Lord a debate of no inconsiderable length on each Bill. When the question of reading those Bills a second time came before the House he should have to offer some observations on each of them, though he might not trespass at such length upon the House as on a recent occasion. He put it, then, seriously to the noble Lord whether he could expect to carry out the arrangement he had indicated? He thought it undesirable to pledge the House to the contradictory principles of these Bills, if they did not mean to go any further. He understood the noble Lord to say that as one was a Government Bill, he proposed to carry on the debates on the three Bills upon Government nights, and he wished to ask the noble Lord if he thought it possible to give as many Government nights at this late period of the Session as would be required by that arrangement?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that they were entering upon a discussion of the principle of these Bills, which had better be deferred until the question was regularly before the House.

VICTORIA GOVERNMENT BILL.
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 180,000 l. 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 50,000 l. 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 24,000 l. for the support of their religious institutions; the Free Church had raised 9,000 l.; the United Presbyterians, 8,000 l.; the Baptists, 7,500 l.; the Wesleyan Association, 2,000 l.; the Primitive Methodists, 1,000 l.; the Wesleyan Methodists, 6,000 l. 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 50,000 l. 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 50,000 l. 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 (112,750 l., out of the consolidated revenue voted as the civil list of the colony).
MR. MIALLsaid, he should move, as an Amendment, that the figures "112,750 l." be omitted, and "62,750 l." 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 (50,000 l.)
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 3,000,000 l. 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 50,000 l., but 50,000,000 l., 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 1,000,000 l., and that in the autumn of 1854 the estimated expenditure for 1855 exceeded the estimated ways and means by 1,800,000 l. The Government, not the Legislature, set to work to pare down the excess, and cut it down by upwards of 1,000,000 l., 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 5,000 l. 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
10,000 l. and 5,000 l. for contingencies, but he ventured to assert the colonists would now consider 7,000 l., 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 500 l. 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.

NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4. (No change to be made in the Constitution without the assent of two-thirds of the colonial Legislature.)
MR. LOWEsaid, he would move to omit all the words after the word "colony" in the thirty-fourth line. The effect of

101
the clause was similar to a corresponding clause in the Victoria Bill, the only difference being that, in the Victoria Bill, no change could be made without the consent of the majority of the two elective Houses, while in the Bill now before the Committee it was provided that no change should be made without the concurrence of two-thirds of the two Houses—one nominative, the other elective. He also intended to move the omission of paragraph forty-two, as he thought it was a fair and reasonable proposition that what was made by a majority should be unmade by a majority. He would ask, with what object could such a fetter be imposed upon a colony as that what was once enacted could not be altered, save by a majority of two-thirds of the whole? It was a pregnant example of the animus with which the Bill was framed. If the Legislature were really anxious to give the colony a constitution which would be satisfactory, why did they tie the hands of the local Legislature? He had before stated that the question had not been agited before the elections, and all the petitions presented to that House, and also in the colony, had been adverse to the proposition. If the principle of a majority was good in this instance, it should apply to all cases, but not in one to require a simple majority, and in others a majority of two-thirds. A majority might be in favour of an alteration of the constitution, but not such a majority as was required to take steps for such alteration. He thought future Legislative Councils should be left unfettered to change enactments, as future Parliaments in this country were to alter Acts of preceding Parliaments.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that of eight petitions upon the subject presented to the House and printed for the information of hon. Members, only two related to this subject. Having already expressed his opinion on this subject in connection with a similar provision in the Victoria Bill, he should not go over the same ground again. He would only observe that the example of the United States of America was strongly in favour of such a provision.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he wished to correct what he believed to be a misapprehension among hon. Members. There was a material difference between the present and the Victoria Bill. The restrictions in the New South Wales Bill did not extend generally to the provisions of the reserved
102
Bill, but simply excluded the constitution of the Chambers and the qualifications of their members. He thought those who wished to guard a constitutional Legislature from rapid changes had reason on their side.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he thought that nothing could be more impolitic than to sanction the principle of enabling the Legislative body to restrict the power of the country in reforming its own institutions. He looked upon the whole course of policy which had been pursued with reference to this subject with suspicion, and should, therefore, support the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
On the paragraph of the Schedule relating to the appointment of the Legislative Council,
MR. LOWEsaid, that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies had observed, that he (Mr. Lowe) had been in favour of the principle of an Upper Chamber. But the question which was agitated in the Legislative Council at the time to which the hon. Gentleman referred was really whether they should have one House or two. They never dreamt of the Home Government letting them have two elective Chambers, and his argument was, that if they must have the nominees it would be better to have them in a separate Chamber, that the infusion would then be less obnoxious. If they were really intended to form a substantial part of the Legislature, he would point out to the Committee that no materials for such a body existed in Australia, because persons of the requisite education, who were fitted to become members, returned to England after acquiring wealth. He believed, if they established a Chamber of Peers out of the only materials they would be able to obtain, they would have a large portion of them passing through the Insolvent Court in a few years. In fact, when the Act of 1843 came into operation, three months had not elapsed before one of the twelve nominees went through the court. They could not create an aristocracy by legislation; the growth of such a body must depend on the social condition of the country, and the Government must be in accordance with that social condition. That the proposed measure was a contrivance which had been resorted to against the will of the people of the colony was testified

103
by the numerous public meetings which had been held, and by the petitions which had been signed against it, as well as by the example of all the other Colonies, which had unanimously rejected it. He knew that by the majority of the people of New South Wales the plan was regarded with detestation, and, although not with any hope of success, he felt it his duty to oppose the paragraph.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the Colonial Secretary had had this question before him so early as 1835. Canada, at that time, demanded an electoral second Chamber. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) strenuously opposed that demand, and the consequence was, that Canada rebelled. Since that period the noble Lord had been obliged to yield to every demand which was then made by Canada. The interests of the colony and of England were the same, but there was an interest in the colony which was neither that of England nor of the colony, but of a clique in that country, which was favoured by the Colonial Office in this. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would divide upon the question, that the colony might know that there was a party in that House determined, taking warning by experience, to confer a constitution which should really be in accordance with the interests of the community at large. He should have thought that the experience of twenty years' discord in Canada would have induced the noble Lord to do something to prevent similar discord in Australia. If he did not do so he would be obliged to yield in a pusillanimous manner to the demands of the colonists there.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he saw it stated, when in Vienna, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of some observations which he made with respect to his administration of the Colonial Department, asserted that when he last held the seals of that department he had provoked the Canadian rebellion. [Mr. ROEBUCK: I did not say so.] He was glad to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman repudiated any such statement. I was certainly contrary to the fact, and he did not expect him to have made it. The hon. and learned Gentleman now made a representation with respect to Canada which was greatly at variance with the history of that colony. Canada had been divided, most unfortunately, into the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. In Lower Canada there were two assemblies—one
104
elected by the people, and the other nominated by the Crown. It was he opinion of Lord Durham that the only thing which prevented the separation of Canada from the supremacy of this country was the opposition which was made by that nominated Legislative Council. He (Lord J. Russell) certainly opposed a proposition which, by making both Councils elective, would probably have hastened that separation. There was another way by which it appeared to him that both the wishes of the people of Canada might be consulted, and the interests of the Crown and the maintenance of the British dominions might be secured, and he accordingly introduced a measure for uniting the two Canadas. That measure had been attended with complete success—in fact, he knew none which had been more successful. All that the hon. and learned Gentleman contended for at that time was resisted, and we now enjoyed the happiness of seeing Canada prosperous, and united in the most loyal attachment to this country. If they now wished for an elective Council, that wish might be gratified without injury; but it was only the other day that the Legislative Council of Canada rejected a Bill for that purpose. In proposing the present measure the Colonial Office was only acting in accordance with the express decision of the Legislative Assembly, and with a view to the best interests of the colony. All that it was now proposed to do was that which the colonists themselves had decided upon, as likely to prove beneficial to the colony.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that some time ago that House had given power to the Legislature of Australia to alter their constitution, and the reason why that power was given was, he presumed, because the existing constitution was considered faulty. When that Bill was passed it appeared to him that the House relinquished its Imperial functions, and conferred upon the colonial Legislature a power which it ought itself to have exercised. If it was necessary to alter the constitution of those colonies, it was, he thought, the duty of that House to make such alterations as seemed expedient; but, instead of adopting that course, the Colonial Office said, "We will grant to an already faulty constitution the power of acting for the people of the colony." The legislative body to which that power was granted did not, he maintained, represent the opinions of the people of the

105
colony, for, if it had done so, it would not have required any reformation. The Government of this country told the Legislative Assembly to reform itself, and that step had led to consequence which were now apparent to all. That body said, "We will have two Chambers—an elective Chamber and a nominative Chamber." If that Assembly had represented the opinions of the colony he should have been in favour of yielding to their proposal, but it by no means represented the feelings of the majority of the people of the colony. The noble Lord had, in what he had just stated, introduced a fallacy, and endeavoured to induce the Committee to believe that the Legislative Assembly had acted in this matter on behalf of the people of the colony, whereas, in point of fact, it had acted entirely on behalf of itself—monopolists endeavouring to preserve their monopoly. With regard to Canada, it was all very well to say that all that had been done had been to unite the two colonies of Upper and Lower Canada, and that the effect of that step had proved satisfactory; but what he wanted to know was, if everything which had been asked for by the two colonies had not been conceded? First, the civil list, and then, a demand which at the time it was made was considered most outrageous—a demand for an elective Council. The noble Lord had been compelled to yield to Canada the demands made by that colony in 1835, and what he wished to impress upon the Committee was, that they should take warning from that circumstance, and do at once what, in a few years, they would be compelled to do. With regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord in reference to the remarks made by him respecting the rebellion in Canada, he could only now say that what he had said on a previous occasion was, that the noble Lord, as the mouthpiece of the Government of the day, had brought in a Bill which abrogated the constitution of Lower Canada, and it was that Bill which induced the colonists to enter into a rebellion—a rebellion which was, indeed, ultimately beneficial to the colony, and of which the noble Lord ought to have foreseen the consequences; and, in fact, from his not having foreseen the consequences, he had been compelled to go back from principles which he had formerly laid down. He therefore asked the Committee not to put faith in the noble Lord, who had proved
106
himself an unwise colonial legislator, and who had been the cause of much mischief and misery in Canada—mischief and misery which, by the present measure, would assuredly be extended to Australia. He entreated the Committee not to adopt a course similar to that which, in the case of Canada, had been adopted by the noble Lord, for, if it did, it, like the noble Lord, would be ultimately compelled to give way. He did not know if the course he had pursued met with the approbation of the noble Lord, but what he had stated when the noble Lord was absent he had now in his presence repeated.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the difference was, that that which could not be safely granted in the year 1835 and 1836, it was found might be safely granted, and had been safely granted, at a subsequent period. Long before he (Lord J. Russell) was at the head of the Colonial Department, or in any office whatever under the Crown, there had been disputes in the Legislature of Lower Canada, and Lord Bathurst, who was then Colonial Minister, solved the difficulty, by applying the revenues of Lower Canada when they had not been granted by the Assembly of Lower Canada. He did not think that the question could have been solved in any other way than by uniting the two provinces; and, by such union, the loyalty and concurrence had been produced which had made it safe to make those concessions which it would have been unsafe to make before. With regard, also, to Australia, it would not do to legislate for those colonies on the ground that there had been petitions and public meetings in favour of this course or that, but on some known and recognised principle.
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield asked the Committee not to trust to the noble Lord, but, he asked, whom then should they trust to? If they were to trust the people of the colony, how could their opinion be more clearly expressed than by their legitimate organ—their Legislative Council? With regard to petitions having been presented against the Bill, out of a population of about 300,000 only about 4,000 persons had signed those petitions. He regretted having said, on a former occasion, anything that could have been considered offensive to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe). That hon. Gentleman had adverted to his (Mr. Scott's)

107
services with respect to the Colonies, and he had disapproved them. That he (Mr. Scott) also regretted, but he hoped that those services, although they at present were not approved by the hon. Gentleman, would, at some subsequent period, meet with his approbation; for he believed that during his connection with the Colonies he had spoken upon almost every question which had been raised, and had, at different periods, advocated both sides of it.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he had upon all occasions voted for an elective Upper Chamber, but in this case he should certainly give his vote against the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe). He had no means of testing the petitions which had been presented; but, as far as he could judge, public opinion was as much on one side as the other upon this question. It was too late now to go into the question on which side was the preponderance of feeling—that was a question which ought to have been considered in 1850. Power had been given by the Imperial Parliament to the colonial Legislature in that year to frame a constitution for themselves, and upon that, however, they had acted; it was too late now to turn round and say, "We will not confirm that constitution which you have framed under the powers we have given to you."
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that the framers of the constitution had attempted to get for themselves an hereditary aristocracy; but there was such an indignant shout of execration throughout the colony that they were obliged to withdraw their pretensions. He had no hesitation in declaring, after a careful perusal of the dispatches, that the feeling of the colony was in favour of an elective Upper House.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he must deny that anything done by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had provoked the rebellion of 1837. The noble Lord had done everything he could for the purpose of pacifying the Canadas; and, indeed, there had never been any Colonial Secretary who had given greater general satisfaction than the noble Lord had given. He trusted the policy of this country would be to give to the colony under consideration the same government and the same responsibility as existed in Canada. Although he objected to a nominated Upper Chamber generally, yet, looking to the circumstances of the colony, he would not object to the Bill.
Motion made, and Question put, "That paragraph 2 stand part of Schedule 1."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 36: Majority 137.
On paragraph 15, relating to the division of the colony into electoral districts,
MR. LOWEsaid, that the gentleman who had prepared this constitution, not satisfied with having a nominative Upper House and a constitution that could not be altered unless two-thirds of that nominative House were willing to commit suicide, effectually packed the representation of the Lower House. He had given notice of an Amendment upon this paragraph of the schedule, which, however, he thought it was hardly worth while to move. The electoral divisions of the colony were most unfair and unequal. Sydney, which contained fully one-fourth of the inhabitants of the colony, or some 50,000 persons, returned only three members, and it was now proposed that another should be added to the number; while four remote pastoral districts, which could not contain above 15,000 inhabitants, and which already returned four members—one more than Sydney—were now to return four additional members, so that there would be eight representatives of a population of 15,000, and four representatives of a population of 50,000. He wished to observe, further, with regard to the civil list, that the colonial Legislature had appointed certain members of the Government to form a Committee to prepare this Bill, and those gentlemen had voted themselves increased salaries to meet the additional expense of living. To one of those gentlemen the Legislature, in a spirit of extraordinary liberality, had voted back Salary for eight years at the same rate, and the retiring salary was fixed at the full rate of the salary thus raised. He thought it right to mention this circumstance, in order to expose the gross jobbery which had been perpetrated.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he thought it his duty to state, after the observations of the hon. Gentleman, that the present amount of salaries of the members of the Administration who could retire was, altogether, 7,300 l. a year, but the amount voted had
been 5,900 l. It was not, therefore, fair to say that the increased rate of salaries was to be perpetually maintained.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that the Attorney General and the Colonial Secretary had

109
voted for their own salaries; and he thought a more shameful, barefaced, and gross perversion of the official privileges was not upon record.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the salaries and allowances had been settled by the Council without the intervention of the officers themselves.
MR. LOWEsaid, that some of the Gentlemen who had been referred to were upon the Committee which settled the salaries, and they voted their own salaries at the full amount. Their salaries were increased by the allowances made on account of the gold discoveries; and the Bill gave them retiring allowances, calculated, not upon the amount of their ordinary salaries, but upon this increased rate of salary.
Remaining paragraphs agreed to. House resumed. Bill reported.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL— ADJOURNED DEBATE (THIRD NIGHT).
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [2nd May], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six mouths."
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON SIR JOHN PAKINGTON moved that the adjourned debate on this Bill should be further adjourned until Monday next.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be further adjourned till Monday next."
LORD SEYMOURsaid, he thought the time of the House would be better occupied in proceeding with measures which might be brought to a practical conclusion than in resuming a discussion that could not lead to any result this Session. If this Bill were to be sent to a Select Committee, the other two Educational Bills must also be sent, and that ought not, in his opinion, to be done pro formâ, or without a decided affirmation of the principle. He therefore thought it would be better to discharge the Order. He should, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate for three months. He should divide the House, and if he failed, would repeat his Motion on Monday.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Monday next," in order to add the words "this day three months," instead thereof." Question proposed, "That the words 'Monday next' stand part of the Question."
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he
110
agreed that the second reading of such a measure as this ought not to be agreed to pro formâ. As there had already been considerable discussion upon this Bill, he thought at least a decision upon it should be obtained. If, however, the opposition which had been offered to this Bill were to be repeated on the two others—on which, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) might repeat his long and able speech—it might occupy too considerable a portion of the time of the House. He thought the best plan would be to agree to the Motion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington), who would then state on Monday what course he, upon consideration, thought it best to take in regard to the Bill.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) seemed disposed to deal with these three important measures in a very summary manner. He (Mr. M. Gibson) had introduced one of them, the Free School Bill, the second reading of which had not even been discussed yet. He thought the country would ask why all the time had been spent on these Bills, if they were now to be got rid of by a Motion for an indefinite adjournment.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he considered that every Member was pledged to forward a measure of education, seeing that at the hustings education had been a password of every one of them; and he therefore supported the Motion of his right hon. Friend.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought his right lion. Friend ought to be allowed a few days to consider what course he should adopt, and would suggest that on Monday the noble Lord (Lord Seymour), instead of renewing his present Motion, should move that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Bill be discharged.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was of opinion that the country would approve the postponement of the Bills until next Session.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he should support the Motion of the noble Lord, but urged him to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole).
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would also appeal to the noble Lord, to withdraw his Motion. He thought the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Clay) might profit by the advice which had been given as to the withdrawal of measures which would probably take up a great deal of time, but were not likely to become law.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Main Question put, and agreed to. Debate further adjourned till Monday next.
The House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.—la Railways (Ireland).
2a Spirits (Ireland) Act Amendment.
3a Stamp Duties Repeal on Matriculation and Degrees (Oxford); Charitable Trusts (1855); Consolidation Fund (£10,000,000); Spirit of Wine; Grants of Lands; Public Libraries and Museums (Ireland).
Their Lordships met; and having gone through the business on the Paper,
House adjourned till To-morrow.