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

the character of the gentlemen who bad formed the depu-
tation that had waited upon the noble lord (Lord J. Rus-
sell). Ho did not deny they were wealthy; on the con-
trary, 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. WILLIAMS thought it had been incorrecty 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 cer-
tain 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.
Mr. SCOTT said there was no doubt some difficulty ex-
isted in consequence of the present system of the governor
giving his assent t o local bills, which were afterwards dis-
allowed at home; but these difficulties were rapidly dimi-
nishing in proportion to the increased celei ity of communi-
cation which was now taking place between this country
and the colonies.

The committee divided on the amendment that the clause
be struck out of the bill.

For retaining the clause
Against it 3B
Majority —72
Mr. MIALL then moved that all the words after " colony"
be left out of clause 4. The clause made it imperative to
provide for religious institutions, whereas be thought it
should be left to future colonial legislatures to make such
provision or not, as they should deem fit.
Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the amendment. The clause
was framed in accordance with the determination of the co-
lonial legislature, and he did not think it would be right to
put an absolute lestriction on the colonies in respect to the
provision they should make for their religious institutions.
Mr. LOWE objected to allow the present Legislative
Council to fetter all future Legislative Councils.
After a few words from several hon. members the com-
mittee divided, when there appeared—
' For the amendment
Against it 65
Majority
The clause was agreed to, and also clauses 5 and 6, being
the remaining clauses of the bill.
The preamble having been postponed, the committee•pro-
ceeded to consider the various clauses in the " scheduled
bill " appended thereto, being the measure sent home from
the colony.
The clauses to 43 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 44, which has reference to the regulation of
the boundaries of the colonies, being proposed,
Mr. LOWE objected to the provisions contained in it, and
asked, how could the legislature of Port Phillip make re-
gulations respecting what the other colonies ought to do ?
Lord J. RUSSELL must own that the clause was very
defective, but was not prepared to strike it out.
The clause was agreed to, and also clauses 45 and 46.
On clause 47, by which provision is proposed to be made
for the civil list,
Mr. MULL proposed to omit from the amount the sum
intended to be appropriated for religious purposes, and
with that view to reduce the sum named from 112,750/.to
57.750/.

Mr. BALL submitted that the sum could not be consi-
dered excessive when the value of money in the colony was
taken into consideration. The colony had a revenue of
three millions, and had no debt ; and the sum proposed,
which amounted only to one-twenty-sixth part of the re-
venue, was not a subject for objection.
The committee divided. The numbers were—
For the clause
Against it
Majority —42
Mr. LOWE objected to the forty-seventh paragraph of the
schedule, contending that the civil list had been obtained
from the colonial legislature under false pretences. Ho
should therefore move the omission of this paragraph.
Lord J. RUSSELL defended the paragraph, and the
principle on which it was founded, as providing equitable
compensation for public officers in cases where they were
removed in consequence of the establishment of responsible
government.

The amendment was then negatived.
On paragraph 61,

Mr.-ADDEitLEY moved to omit the words, " or in the
said schedule hereunto annexed, D." His object was to
leave the items referred to in the power of the colonia,"
legislature.
Sir J. PAKINGTON opposed the amendment.
The committee divided, when there were—
For the amendment
Against it