The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-26 00:00:00

GIBRALTAR.

Lord J. RUSSELL, in answer to an hon. member,
stated that a despatch had been received relative to the
Government of Gibraltar which would be laid on the
table in the course of a few days.
VICTORIA GOVERNMENT BILL.

The house then went into committee on this bill.
The preamble was postponed.
The first and second clauses were agreed to after a
short discussion.
On clause three being put, which proposed a distinc-
tion between local and imperial legislation,
Mr. ADDERLEY proposed to leave out the clause
altogether.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had stated on a former
occasion 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 onetime attempted to draw. He 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 South 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 sug-
gestion, 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 incon-
sistent 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 in-
volved even a still greater difficulty, as he proposed to take
away all distinctions whatever, and leave it entirely to the
discretion of the governor to agree to any bill which he
might think fit. Now he (Lord J. Russell) 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 inten-
tions 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 acts had been disallowed by the
Government at home since 1850, none of which wore
measures of any vital importance. As an instance of the
evil which might result from the plan of the hon. member
for South Staffordshire, suppose it were proposed by the
colony to place her Majesty's forces in the colony under
some local authority, it would certainly be very inconve-
nient if the governor should be induced to give his consent
to such a measure, as by giving his consent it would imme-
diately 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 sub-
ject, and he hopedthe committee would 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. (Hear.)
Mr. LOWE 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 ho (Mr.
Lowe) knew of the parties who had made these representa-
tions, he did not consider their opinion such Es could he
acted upon beneficially by the Government at home. He
considered the clause as a relic of the old oppressive sys-
tem under which our colonies had been governed. He
firmly believed that till this clause was removed from the
bills affecting our colonies, peace and prosperity would not
long continue to exist in them. The main point to which
he objected in the present clause was that it would have
the effect of giving the governor power to give his assent
to any bill passed by the colonial legislature, and after
so giving his assent he would send the bill home to the
Government of this country, where it might be disallowed
by the Colonial Secretary, and that' which had been law
in the colony for one or two years might be repealed at
the end of that time by an act of the Imperial legislature
at home. Great evil constantly resulted from the uncer-
tainty which prevailed as to what was and what was not
to be considered as to the law of the colonies. The noble
lord the Secretary for the Colonies had stated that only
four bills had been disallowed since 1850, but it was not
the number of the bills that was disallowed which made
the grievance, but the power to disallow that produced
constant uncertainty, which caused so much evil to the
colonies. He should most cordially support the amend-
ment for the omission of the clause. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he considered that a
great deal of weight which would naturally attach to what
fell from the hon. member for Kidderminster, in conse-
quence of his great experience in the Australian colonies,
was a good deal lessened by the personal feelings and re-
collections which appeared constantly to influence the re-
marks 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) not to attach import-
ance to statements which had had been made to him by
gentlemen who were connected with the bill. He (Sir John
Pakington) thought it right that the house should under-
stand who thoseparties 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 in-
terests, 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 ; they were members of the Co-
lonial Legislative Council ; they were proprietors to the
amount of several millions of property in the colony, gentle.
men of the highest respectability, and who had taken part
in passing the bill through the colonial legislature. They
wore all aware that the hon. member for Kidderminster
had great experience in New South Wales, but ho very
much doubted if he could adduce the opinion of any other
gentleman in this country who had been interested in this
cwwoholouenitdhyeewrullhggoich would be entitled toss much weight as that of
the large body of gentlemen to whom he had referred. He
suggest to
tothneothon.
considermem it berpfroorpeSrotuothdeSetlainffeortdosphrierses,
his motion to a division, when the motion was one which
was not concurred in in opinion by the advisors of the
;for
had been expressed Crown, upon a subject closely affecting the prerogative of
for his own part he able toresistthe
prels;tbfill tthuen
viewst e Crown
wie
noble lord the
pressing his motion, he certainly Se-
cretary for the Colonies.
y would vote against him.
friend insisted on
Afr, LOWE denied that he had said anything against

.
84
Majority —26
The amendment was therefore negatived, and the words
referred to were inserted.
The paragraph was then ordered to stand part of the
bill, as were paragraphs 62 and 63.
The remaining provisions of the measure were agreed to
without opposition, and the bill was reported to the house.
NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1,2, and 3 were agreed to.
On clause 4, enacting that no change should be made in
the constitution without the assent of two-thirds of the
colonial legislature,
Mr. LOWE moved an amendment, with the view of
enabling the colonial legislature to alter or vary the provi-
sions of the constitution by the vote of a majority, in the
same manner as they might carry into effect any other
legislative enactments. It was absurd to say that a majo-
rity might not alter what a majority had enacted.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was agreed to, as were clauses 5 to 9.
On the schedule,
Mr. LOWE mored as an amendment, with a view of
making the upper chamber electoral instead of nominee.
There were no materials for such a chamber in New
South Wales. NV hy, if they constituted a peerage there,
half the peerage would go through the insolvent court in
the course of a few years. (A laugh.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said that so early as 1835 the noble lord
at the head of the Colonial Department had presented to
his:, in the case of Canada, the very question now raised
by the hon. member for Kidderminster. The demands of
Canada were rejected, and the consequeaca was that the
colony rebelled. He was afraid that the same result might
follow in the case of New South Wales.
Lord J. RUSSE FA. defended his conduct with regard to
the Canadian constitution, and contended that the measures
which he adopted relative to that colony bad proved en-
tirely successful. The proposition before the house had
been considered and approved by the Legislative Council
of New South Wales, and be thought he was justified in
adopting the recommendation of that body rather than
that of a public meeting.
The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment. 36
Against it . 173
Majority for Government —137
Mr. LOWE protested against the gross jobbery which had
been practiced by the Attorney-General of the colony and
others who, having been placed upon the committee to fix
the civil list of the colony, voted for themselves a perma-
nent increase of their salaries.
The schedule was then agreed to. The bill was also re-
ported to the house with the amendments, and ordered to
be read a third time on Friday next.
The Waste Lands (Australia) Acts Repeal Bill passed
through committee and was reported to the house.
The further consideration of the Education (Scotland)
Bill in committee was fixed for Friday next.
The Union Charges Act Continuance Bill passed through
committee.
The house went into committee on the Youthful Offend-
ers (No. 2) Bill, the several clauses of which were agreed
to.

The Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Bill was rand
a second time.
The Burial Grounds (Scotland) Bill was real a third
time and passed-

The Ch'ristcburch (Todmorden) Marriages Validity Bill
passed through committee.
The Administration of Oaths Abroad Bill was read a
third time and pasted.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL.
Sir J. PAICINGTON moved that the adjourned debate
on this bill should he further adjourned until Monday
next, statinc, that ho would in the meantime consider what
course he should take as to the future progress of the bill.
Lord SEYMOUR renewed his complaint against the
waste of time involved in this discussion, without any
prospect of coming to any definite result. He would
therefore mew) that the debate be adjourned for three
months, and if unsuccessful now he wou'A renew his mo-
tion on Monday next.
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped his noble friend would not
persist in this motion, but would allow the matter to
stand over till Monday. The question was of great im-
portance, and created a great Interest in the country.
Mr. M. GIBSON joined in the same request, and said
that the carrying of the noble lord's motion would bo tan-
tamount to throwing them out altogether.
Mr. WALPOLE suggested that the better course would
be to discharge the order for the readings of these bills.
At the same time he was in favour of postponing the dis-
cussion till Monday next.
After some further conversation, Lord SBYMOUR con-
sented to withdraw his motion till Monday.
The Stock in Trade Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed.
The Court of Session (Scotland) Bill was withdrawn for
the present session.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
The house went into committee on this
Sir G. GREY stated that the bill was to be confined to
offences of simple larceny.
Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive were agreed to.
The house thou resumed, the chairman reported pro.
gress, and obtained leave to sit again.
JURORS AND JURIES (IRELAND) BILL—JURORS
AND JURIES (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL.
The orders for the second reading of these bills were
read and discharged.
_ _

BILLS OF EXCHANGE AITD PROMISSORY
NOTES BILL.
The house resolved itself into committee on this bill.
Mr. SPOONER proposed in chose 2 that sixteen days
instead of twelve should be the limit withinwhich a debtor
should be brought before a judge.
Mr. ATHERTON opposed the amendmens.
Mr. VANCE supported it, and expressed his intention
to divide the committee.
Aftrr some discussion, in which Mr. Keating, Mr. Vance,
Mr. Butt, Mr. Walpole, and other hon. members took
part, the committee divided, when there appeared-, '
For the original clause
Against it
Majority against the amendment —23
The clause was ordered to stand part of the bill.
The other clauses of the bill were agreed to.
Mr. ATHERTON moved the addition of the following
clause :—" Every protect of a notary public of a bill of
exchange or promissory note shall be received in all pro-
ceedings under this act as evidence of the facts therein set
forth, in like manner as the protest of foreign bills of ex-
change is now received as evidence of such facts."
Mr. GLYN opposed the clause.
Mr. KEATING hoped his hon. and learned friend
would not press the clause which, if adopted, would oversot
our laws of evidence.

The clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. ATRERTON moved the addition of the following
clauses :—The holder of every dishonoured bill of exchange
or promissory note shall have the same remedies for the re-
covery of the expenses incurred in noting and protesting
the same for non-acceptance or non-payment or otherwise,
by reason of such dishonour, as he has done under this act
for the recovery of the amount of such bill or note. The
holder of any bill of exchange or promissory- tote may, if
he think fit, issue one writ of summons according to this
act against all or any number of the parties to such bill or
note, and such writ of summons shall be the commence-
ment of an action or actions against the parties therein
named respectively, and all subsequent proceedings against
such respective parties shall be iu like manner, so far as
may b; as if separate writs of summons had been issued.