The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-16 00:00:00

EVENING, JU L Y 16. lB5l.

applying to other colonies, which bad been dealt with in
a similar way by disposing of them under this reser-
vation? He would now briefly consider the opinion that
had been referred to on these points. Having re-
ferred to the letters patent, he would now refer to
the opinion that it was not competent to the Sovereign
to limit a constitution once granted. But they must
not take one portion of these instructions without the
other portion. They must take the reservation with
them. What was the great constitutional doctrine?
Was it not that the power of the Crown could not be
taken away except by express words, and not by intend-
ment? Was not the power of the Crown expressly
reserved? By the letters patent of 1850 a further grant
of a constitution was made, but, said the Noble Earl, as
a large portion of the population are absent at the war,
and it would not be just to allow a portion of the popu-
lation to exercise their powers, reserve the constitution
till their return, and in the mean time do nothing more
than is necessary to carry on the Government. That
was called art abrogation of the constitution. The only
grant was the greet or promise ot a future constitution,
but no one knew what it was until it was called int.()
operation, and till then it was pelf( ctly legitimate for the
existing Council to act. There was thereore, no doubt
but that the colony had now a Legislature with perfect
authori'y. Well, what was a Committee to •eo? Had
they any Bill to form, any evidence to acquire? Guild
any one deny the prerogative of the Crown to legis-
late for the colony, under the authority of the Im-
perial Parliatnstr ? Coal f anything be more injurious
than to weak-n the authority of the Crown at the pre-
sent moment in the colony ? therefore, trusted their
would vote lie ~inq the motion.
The Duke of ARGYLE said that a vote of that
House must tend to nteentein or derogate from the au-
thority of the Imperial Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He
had read these papers with the deepest attention, and
he felt he could not vote for the motion of the Noble
Earl. Not only did he object to a vote of censure on
the Noble Earl (Earl Grey), but he would say his con-
duct towards the colonists at the Cape had been marked
by a liberal, if not too liberal a policy. He thougi.t the
Governor (Sir Harry Smith) had acted in a most liberal
and conciliatory spirit towards the colonists.—(Hear,
hear.) He was in favour of legislating fur the better
government of the Cape colony; but he thought that, at
this late period of the session, it would be almost useless
to introduce a measure with that object. Looking at
fAll the circumstances ot the case, he could not give his
%Le for the motion brought forward by the Earl of
Derby.
Lord WITARNCLIFFE opposed the motion.
Earl GREY explained. He had stated that the Go-
vernment would. at their own time, and in their own
way, proceed to bring into operation that reformed con-
stitution which had been promised. As soon as the
draught ordinances could be prepared, they should be sent
out to the Cape, and Sir Harry Smith was fully aware
of the course which it was intended to take.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that nothing had
occurred in the course of this debate to shake the
opinion he had formed with reference to it from the
first, that legislation was the best, if not the only means,
of dealing with the subject. He confessed he was dis-
satisfied with the explanations the Noble Earl the Colo-
nial Secretary had given to the House. On the other
hand, he conceived that his Noble Friend near him
should afford some explanation of the scepe and objects
of the Committee which he asked for, should the House
be disposed to grant it. He had no desire to be drawn
into a piney vote, and still less to pass a vote of censure
against the Government. If his Noble Friend's object,
therefore, coincided with the course taken by the Noble
Lord near bim, it would be impossible for him to vote
with him. Considering, however, how many and how
eminent lawyers had differed in their views of the legal
part of the question, he thought, to say the least of it,
that the propriety of what the Government had done
was very questionable, and- that the subject should
be set at rest by legislation. If he understood the mo-
tion of his Noble Friend near him to have that object
in view, it should have his assent, and he could assure
the Noble Earl opposite, that he should do so without
any intention whatever of entering into a condemnation
of his policy. He believed his Noble Friend's motion
to be limited, as it ought to be, both in its object and in
its intention, and, without that belief, it should cer-
tainly not have his support.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of DERBY replied. He wished to have the
papers referred to a Committee, with a direct view to
immediate practical legislation. He could not believe
that a Committee would require any lengthened period
for consideration. And in this motion he did not intend
to involve any censure upon her Majesty's Government,
but he thought immediate legislation indispensable.
Their Lordships then divided, when there appeared—
Contents ... ..• ... 68
Non contents
Majority for the Government —6
Proxies were not called for.
Their Lordships then adjourned at One o'clock.