The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-05 00:00:00

THE SUN,

found that wherever they had appointed legislatures
with two chambers, one et them was always nominated.
Now they had an extensive colonial empire. They had
but in the provinces of
B”'rititoisnl:7in Norththe EastA erlicnad,ieesit'am pies of a legislature with
two chambers. If, however, they looked to the . West
Indies they would find that neither in St. Lucia nor
Trinidad was there a second chamber. In most of these
colonies he admitted that the upper chamber was nomi-
nated; but he contended that there were peculiar rea-
sons for
,tee councils being so nominated,. -which reasons
could not in any way apply to the case of New Zealand.
In the West Indies the Counciloonstiiuted not only the
upper house of legislature, but they were also members
of the Privy Council and the Executive Council
of the governor. Now, no one could suppose
that the Executive should be elected. The
council of Jamaica was cotneesed of eleven persons,
three of whom were ex officio, and the eight other
members held the chief offices in the executive depart•
ment. There were reasons why the council in these
places should be a nominative council. But what was
the course taken by the House of Assembly in Canada?
They passed a resolution, declaring that the council did
not possess the confidence of the country, because it was
nominated, and they prayed that it should be elective.
Then they had the provinces of British North America
and New Brunswick. In British North America he
could not say that the people so entirely acquiesced in
the form of their constitution as the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had represented. Last year, in New Brunswick,
the House of Assembly passed a resolution, and pre-
sented an address tothe Crown,
in Which they said that
the Legislative Council ought to be made an elective
council. He did not know whether their, prayer had
been assented to, bat ho know that the Governor of
New Brunswick had last year prepared a measure
upon the subject, the consideration of which the
council postponed until the present year. New-
foundland, too, had last year presented an address in
favour of a responsible government and an elective
council. In Canada there was kept up a constant
state of antagonism between the two chambers. As
an illustration of this state of things, he referred to the
measure on the subject of the clergy reserves. Would
it be believed that in nine consecutive sessions the
House of Assembly had passed a Biil for the seculari-
zation of clergy reserves, and ten times it was stopped
in the Legislative Council. Such a state of things was
owing to the fact of the Legislative Council being nomi-
nated. If they were not nominated the Bill would have
passed.—(" Hear, hear," from Sir J. Pakington ) These
were reasons which were calculated to make them doubt
whether the precedents relied upon by the Right Hon.
Baronet were of such weight, and whether the present
was not a good opportunity of trying the experiment of
making the Upper Chamber in New Zealand an elective
body.
Mr. WALPOLE said there was one illustration in the
remarks of the Hon. Gentleman, and one observation
which were sufficient to justify the Committee
in adopting the clause. The object of an up-
per chamber was to form a safety valve
against crude and hasty legislation; to prevent the le-
gislature from reflecting too rapidly the premature opi-
nions of the people, while at the same time it raised an
effectual barrier against any pressure of the Crown upon
popular liberty. If . that was the object of a second
Chamber, as he apprehended it to be, then the very de-
fect attributed to the clause under discussion by the
Hon. Gentleman opposite was an additional reason why
the Committee should come to a vote its its favour. In-
dependent of that, however, the precedents furnished by
his Right Hon. Friend afforded sufficiently ground for
the adoption of the clause. It was perfectly right and
proper that the political institutions of all parts of her
Mejesty's dominions should be assimilated, and he (Mr.
Walpole) was astonished to find that censure was cast
in colonial matters upon those institutions which, ,as ap-
plicable to this country, were always the subject of so
much praise. but which Hon. Gentlemen were generally
only too willing to abandon as applied to the colonies.
And he would add that if it was wished to encourage
the best class of emigrants from the mother country to
the colonies, that object could not be better effected
than by securing to them all those laws, habits, usages,
and customs which they enjoyed in the home they had
left.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY agreed with the Right Hon. Gen-
tlemen that, to give something analagous to the House
of Lords, would be to give encouragement to the best
class of emigrants. He did not object to a second body
in colonial legislation; but he asked the Government,
was there no other mode of creating it than that pro-
posed by the clause, which was the blot on the Bill?
There was no resemblance to the House of Lords in the
council proposed in the clause. The best qualification
would be a large property one, not dependent either
upon the Governor or upon election. The system of
nominees wae, in his opinion, the worst that could he
imagined. The moment a man became a nominee he be-
came a suspected person in the colonies.
Mr. ADDERLEY thought the nomination of the body
in question for life was the saving clause of the Bill. In
reply to the Right Hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Adderley)
begged to say that every principle in the history of
English colonization was in favour of an elective upper
chamber. Tee colonies of North America had had
such a system, and they were the first colonies in the
world. The statement of the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman that the constitution et the Cape of Good
Hope, in respect of this feature, was sub judice, made
him (Mr. Adderley) tremble; as the withdrawal of
that feature would convulse the whole colony, seeing
that it was the most popular in the constitution. He
hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman entertained no view of
altering that constitution. If the clause, however, were
to be a sine qua non of the Bill, he (Mr. Adderley)
would not object to it; though he certainly would prefer
an elective upper chamber to one named by the Crown.
Lord J. MANNERS supported the clause. It seemed
to him that Hon. Gentlemen, in expressing their views
on colonial constitutions, were too apt to look upon them
as perfect productions rather than as experiments. The
objection urged against the Upper Chamber in New
Zealand might be also urged against the popular assem-
bly of that colony. The question to be decided, how-
ever, was, would these colonial institutions effect the
same object as the :Analogous institutions in thg mother
country. The highest duty of statesmen in these days
was to provide constitutions for the colonies calculated
to effect the same results as had been obtained by similar
means in this country, and he (Lord J. M.anners) be-
lieved that the constitution under discussion would pro-
duce a chamber far more independent than any that had
been suggested by Hon. Gentlemen opposite. For these
reasons he hoped the Committee would accede to the
principle of the clause.

- Mr. V. SMITH. was astonished at the change of tine
in her Majesty's Government. If there was ene thing more
certain than another, it was that the elective principle
was the most popular in the colonies. This was what
would make the constitution of the Cape of Good Hope
the model for all future colonial constitutions. He (Mr.
V. Smith) was surprised at the horror of the Right Hon.
Baronet at American institutions, when he saw the Bill
contained a power of creating six email republics. All
that was wanted was a double assembly for the purposes
of deliberation, and if the second was formed on a Alf-,
ferent principle of qualification from the first, that was
all that was wanted. In every colony nomination had
been the main question of dispute, and he (Mr. V.
Smith) implored the Government, therefore, to re.con-
rider the question. If they did not do so, it would be
the duty of the Committee to assert at all risks the elec-
tive principle adopted by that House.
Mr. MO WATT said the consequence of not making
the upper chamber elective was this—that instead of
our colonies being the outlet for our sobs and daugh-
ters, 99 oat of every 100 emigrants went to the
Ucited States instead of going to our fine colonies.
Tice explanation of this circumstance was this—that
we had been accustomed to legislate for our
colonies, oven to the minutest matter, instead of
leaving our colonies to manage their own internal affairs.
Until we altered our system, and gave the colonies
real self-government, instead cf talking about it, our
colonies would never prove a relief to the mother coun-
try. The American system of election had worked well
—no man could deny that; and that was the reason
why he had alluded to America and the American in-
stitutions—a circumstance which had given so much
horror to the Right Hon. Gentleman. He would not
take up the time of the Committee in exposing the ab-
surdity of ooreparing this House of nominees to our
House of Lords. Is resembled the House of Lords only
in matters and qualities which were neither useful nor
suited to the interests of the colonists. Ho was not
without hope that the Right Hon. Gentleman would lay
aside all idea of his being committed to this Bill; and, as
the Right Hon. Gentleman had not had much official ex-
perience, he could hardly feel hurt at a proposition to
alter one part of the measure.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to know whether it was desired
by theorists in this country, or by the colonists, the es-
tablishment of a bastard House of Lords in the colony—
for a real House of Lords was impossible. He asserted
that the nomination principle tended to exclude landed
proprietors and respectable persons. The lauded pro-
prietors were all in the elected House, and were nearly
all democrats. He was satisfied that no gentleman of
character would bo found to sit in the nomination
Rouse—the colonial House of Lords. There would be
nothing but clerks, adventurers, and that class of per-
sons brought into notice by Mr. Thackeray—" Snobs."
It the people were trusted, they Would repay theconthfie-
dence reposed inT them. Distrust the people,and
worst consequences would follow. It was this distrust
which had produced the rebellion in Canada; it was the
proposition fora nominative council which had nearly
produced rebellion in Australia, stud would, he antic&
pated, produce discontent in New Zealand. He contended
that only one House was expedient and necessary.
sir W. MOLESWORTH would move that the clause
be omitted.
Sir J. PAKINGTON denied that he wanted to create
six republics in the coloan
y The Bill had been discussed
in a very fair spirit, nn
h.e hoped the spirit would pre-
vail '
throughout.
The Noble Lord the M, mber for Lon-
don had adverted to the question of a nominated chum-
her, andahough ho had not spokeariie
velrlypider
for h
decidedly,
said,
though inclined to agree with' ,still
he did speak in favour
owfth p
. Grey: in prelerriug
an elective upper chamber, still he dd+.'li'ietfeelLdoi:dpobseadd
to endanger the Bill on that points The h Noble
listened
stated that in distinct terms. (Hear.) al
attentively to the discussion but had heard nothiner
support the statements that the principle of a nornulat: d
chamber. was disapproved of
by the colony. On the
contrary, the petitions which he had laid en the tehle all
said that as the Bill was, sci the petitioners hoped it
would pass. He would remind the House that not only
Canada and :the West Indies were legislated for on the
acme principle, but two years ago, when a new constitu-
tion for the Australian colonies was under discussion,
that constitution was re-constituted on tee principle of a
single chamber, but also that the principle of nomination
was to be still retained, one-third of that single chamber
being nominated. lie retained the hope that the House
would continue to act as it had hitherto done, and that
differences of opinion would not be permitted to iuterefere
seriously with the mom.