The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-12 00:00:00

THE SUN,

suspend the laws until that constitution could be re-
, peale,i. The next was the constitution for Australia,
passed in 1847, which was rejected by the colonists
inermelves, becau,e it went to deprive them of a portion
of their franchise. Now both these constitutions con-
tained the principle of a double chamber, and he asked
the Noble Earl on what grounds he had altered the
opinions he then held. The Noble Earl had asked the
ads ice of the governors of the various colonies in that
part of the world, and they unanimously pronounced
in favour of a double chamber, and stated that the
colonists themselves were not opposed to that system.
But the Noble Earl was like the hero of Pope's " Ja-
nuary end May,"
" Fans and determined in his mind was ho
As men who ask advice are wont to be."
And so, though advised to adopt the system of two
chambers, his mind was made up to haze but one. If
they inquired into the state of advancement of the co-
lonists they would find that they were capahle of con-
ducting their own affairs. He would show their Lord-
ships that in the whole history of the colonies, and in
that of the United States, the principle of a second
chamber was preferred to that of is single one ; and
they had it on the authority of the Committee of the
Privy Council, that they would, had it rested wi;th them
to recommend, have advised the institution of a seconl
chamber. But that was not all, the Government were
about also to give a constitution to the Cape of Good
Hope, and the Noble Earl, now at the head of the Colo-
nial Department (Earl Gre)), proposed to give the people
of that calony a double chamber. When their Lordships
recollected the disturbances that took place at the Cape
—when they reflected that the people of that colony had
actually set themselves up in arms against the power of
the Government, it must seem to them as somewhat
strange that the Government in that case yielded to
violence—that which they refused to the more orderly
and more intelligent people of Australia—a constitution
with a second chamber. Was that-consistent?—was it
not strange ?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then re-
ferred their Lordships to the colony of Newfound-
land, referred to by Lord Stanley. as having got two
chambers. True, as the Noble Lord had said, they
had been amalgamated for a time, and resolved into
one, because of some petty differences ; but those
differences having been obviated, the two chambers of
that little colony were again restored, and were now in
existence. He apologised to their Lordships for tres-
passing thus at length on their Lordships' time; but
there was one thing to which he felt bound to call their
Lordships' attention—the prayer of the petitions of the
people of Australia; and if there was any one thing for
which more than another the colonists prayed, it was
that their institutions should be assimila•ed to those of
the mother country. He believed, in a colony which had
no antecedents, and which had no history to tall back
upon, the surest way to give- strength was by the estab-
lishment of the elective system; but the most conserva-
tive system would be by the adoption of a second cham-
ber. He asked the Noble Earl if he felt comfortable at
his proceedings? and he would tell the Noble Earl and
their Lordships, should they pass this Bill, that the co-
lonists would elect such a democratic chamber under it
as would, perhaps, cause strong feelings of regret in this
country. The Noble Lord concluded by moving, as an
amendment, the adoption of a double chamber.
Earl GREY said the Noble Lord had gone into the
question of colonial constitutions at great length—mix-
ing up with it some very harmless banter and pointless
jokes—but he had not touched the real question; for he
had not shown how it was possible to separate the Le-
gislature of New South Wales without flying in the face
of the whole of the colonists, who in all their petitions
deprecated the slightest change. The House of Lords
existed in this country alone of all the countries ot the
world; it grew oat or the habits of the people, and it was
as impossible to create it as it would be to create one of
those magnificent oak trees which shot out their roots
in all directions. He asked the House, therefore, to
support him on the plain and simple principle of nut dis-
turbing the existing institutions in the colonies.
Lord ABINGER said the Bill was not an affirmation
of the existing state of things in the colonies, but the
introduction of an entire change in their institutions.
The result of the Bill would be the creation ot a single
democratic chamber, and the production of great discord
and dissatisfaction in the colonies. Of the two modes of
governing the colonies, the Noble Earl had undoubtedly
adopted the worst.
Lord LYTTELTON said that the colonists had peti-
tioned over an over again that toe British Constitution
might be extended to them. The question before the
House, hoe ever, was not as to the best constitution, but
as t s the best legislative machinery applicable under
the circumstances to the colony. There was not the
slightest indication in any of the documents laid before
the House that a double chamber would be objections
aule. The Noble Earl's measure did not leave it to the
colony to introduce the system recommended, but would
prevent them from doing so it' they should think fit. He
should support the amendment of his Noble Friend,
leaving the details to be filled up at another opportunity
if their Lordships should agree to the principle.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS believed the amend-
ment proposed by the Noble Lord would disapp tint the
expectations which had been held out to the colonists.
The Noble Lord had argued as if the colonists had mane
the proposition which he advocated, but it had never '
been brought under their consideration at all. He was
not prepared to vote for the amendment, particularly as '
this was an experiment which he thought deserving of
a fair trial. The proposition made by the Noble Lord
could not, under the existing circumstances of the colony
be carried out, because a large number of the most in-
fluential parties resided at a considerable distance from
Sydney, and could not make it convenient to spend a con-
siderable portion of the year in that place.
Lord NVODEHOITSE thought that a system which
had been so universally adopted in the colonies ought
not to be abandoned or departed from without some
stronger reasons than had yet been adduced. One
strong objection to the Bill was, that it would make the '
Government a separate party in the colony, distinct
from and opposed to the people, thus causing a constant
feeling of irritation between the colony and the
mother country.—(Hear, hear.) Although he believed it
essential to the establishment of a wise system of repre-
sentative institutions in the colonies that the Legislature
should conost of two chambers, he did not agree with '
those who advocated a single chamber, on the ground
that they would lay the f aindatiou of aristocratic feel-
ings in those colonies. He believed they would commit
a great error by sanctioning this Bill, and shuuld there-
fore support the amendment.
The Committee divided on the amendment, when the
numbers were—
Contents ••• ••• ••• 20
Non-contents ... ••• 22
Majority against the amendment... —2
On our return to the gallery, we found
Lord LYT I'ELTON recommending the reduction of
the franchise to one-hall the amount-, proposed by the
Bill. As the Noble Esrl (Grey) intended to altar the
clause, he would withdraw the amendment which he '
should otherwise have proposed.
Earl GREY thought a reduction in the franchise very
desirable, and proposed a clause in accordance with the
views of the Noble Lord
After a few words from Earl POWIS,
The clause as amended was agreed to.
In reply to Lord MONTEAGLE,
Earl GREY said he saw no reason why the franchise
in South Australia and Van Diemen's Laud should not
bit the same as that proposed for New South Wales, and
he would propose a clause to that effsct.
On clause 8 oeirig propose:l,
Lord MONTEAGLE objected to it, because, what-
ever might be the capacity of Western Australia to re-
ceive a constitution, until they should have the means
of paying the whole of their expenses they would net,
under the provisions of the Bill, be able to obtain a con-
stitution. It was a novel principle to lay down that no
state was entitled to representative government until it
had a revenue sufficient to pay its expenses.
Earl GREY said, so far from being a new principle it
was the ancient principle of our own Constitution. The
whole power of the House of Commons had arisen from
the Crown being under the necessity of applying to it
for money. It was his deliberate opinion that until the
people ot the colonies were able to pay the expenses of
their civil government, they were not entitled to repre-
sentative institutions.
Lord MONTEAGLE asked if representative institu-
tions were to be refused so long as the colonies did not
pay the whole of their expenses? If so, we ought not
to grant them so long as we paid the salaries of the go-
vernors.
Earl FITZ WILLI NM disputed the position laid down
by the Secretary for the Colonies, that the power of the
House of Commons arose from its having the power of
the purse. It had its power inconsequence of this being
a free country.
Earl GREY, in answer to the observation of the
Noble Lord (Monteagle), said that the payment of the
salaries of colonial governors by this country was a wise
exception in the colonial expendithre. With regard to
the other point he believed he was correct in saying that
in point of fact representative institutions had been
viewed as neither more nor less than a machinery for
taxation. The colonies ought to have representative in-
stitutions as soon as they were able to defray the cost of
government. Western Australia would speedily be in
such a po:ition.
Lord LYTTELTON congratulated the Noble Earl
on coming round to the views which he had expressed
in 1846.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 14,
In reply to Lord MONTEAGLE,
Earl GREY said that he had been in communication
with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of
giving the colonists greater control over their customs,
and he had no doubt such a control would be granted
them.

The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 16,
Lord LYTTELTON wished to know whether it was
desirable that schedule C should stand part of the Bill.
The effect of it would be to fix the minimum to be paid
for purposes of public worship. He thought it would
be bettyr to leave the whole question of the pecuniary
support of religious establishments to the colonists
themselves, as it was clearly one of their own internal

concerns.
After a few words from Lord REDESDALE,
Earl GREY said it had been considered that the pre-
sent Bill could not originate in their Lordships' House,
becau•e it created a taxing power. He would not take
upon Limself to offer an opinion as to how far his Noble
Friend's (Lord Lyttelton's) proposition would interfere
with the privileges of the House of Commons, but he
would strongly deprecate any alteration in the Bill from
its present shape.
After a short conversation, the proposed suggestion
was not pres&ed, and the clause was understood to hare
been agr. ed to.
On Clause 17 being proposed, which showed how the
appropriation of sums granted might be varied,
Lord MONTEAGLE complained that there was a
pcom-given by this claw to tht Goreruor 2f thevologry

LONDON,

greater than that possessed by the Treasury of this
empire.
Earl GREY defended the clause, which was subse-
quently agreed to.
The NOBLE EARL then moved, pursuant to notice, the
substitution of the word "diminution" for "alteration,"
with reference to judicial sal'iries.—Agreed to.
Clause 18 was also understood to have been agreed to
without any discussion.
Clause 19 was then proposed.
Lord LY'rrELTON suggested that the power of
forming district councils should not be left in the hands
of the gov,rnor except by and with the advice of the
legislative council.
Esrl GREY thought that_would not be analogous
with the municipal councils in England, and that it
woulA be inexpedient to adopt the su,gestion.
Aftrr a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE,

Earl GREY said that the object of the district coun-
cils was to gibe the reipective localities a control in the
expenditure of their own money.
Clause 19 was then agreed to, as were also clauses 21,
22, and 23.
On clauae 24.

Lord LYrTELTON rose to propose the amendment
of which he had given notice, with the view of making
an alteration in the power of dealing with the waste lands
of the colonies. He had come to the conclusion that it
would be impossible and not desirable to maintain
throughout the whole extent of New South Wales and
Port Philip tee price of land at IL per acre, seeing that
it must neces-arily be devoted to pastoral purposes. lie
therefore proposed to entrust the power of selling the
waste lands to the governor, with the advice of the Le-
gislative Council. The time was come when this power
ought to be entrusted to the local legislature. At the
same time, he altogether objected to the price of land
being reduced to merely a nominal amount. The great
difficulty was in dealing with vested interests—namely,
with the interests of those who had purchased lands
at the higher price. The main answer to that was, that
since 1842, when the Land Sales Act passed, in New
South Wales and Port Philip the sales had been exceed-
ingly small. He had no objection to make the assent of
the Crown necessary, but the local legislature ought to
be allowed to deal with the question.
Earl GREY thought the proposition of the Noble
Lord would be one of the greatest blows that could be
given to the colonies to which he proposed to apply it.
He would endeavour shortly to explain the policy which
had been adopted with respect to the sale of land in
Australia. Up to 1831 the practice was to grant land
under certain rules, the object of which was to endeavour
as fur as possible to prevent it being taken by irrespon-
sible parties; and regulations were consequently made,
which looked very well on paper, but which were prac-
tically of no use, for no vigilance was sufficient to
prevent their evasion. Abuses had risen to a great
height, when it was suggested that the real way of
getting rid of the evil was, instead of giving land
away, to sell it. These views were published in an
able pamphlet, and attracted the notice of Lord
Ripon, who was so thoroughly satisfied of the sound-
ness
of the principles on which the regulations
were suggested, tlest be determined to apply them
practically to New South Wales. New instructions
were issued respecting the disposal of the Crown lands.
When the price was named it created great opposition—
and there was not a single individual in the colonies in
favour of the regulation. The price was afterwards
ruis d to 12s. per acre In 1840 the whole subject
was brought under the consideration of a Select Cum-
mittee on the affairs of South Australia; and after a
long and patient inquiry, the Committee came unani-
mously to the conclusion that the price of land ought to
be raised, and that in order to induce persons to pur-
chase more largely, a Parliamentary security ought to
be given against the prices being subsequently lowered. It
was said that such a security would cause large purchases
to be made. These views were adopted by the Secre- '
tary of State (Lord J. Res,ell), but he did not remain
in office sufficiently long to carry them int.) eff,ct. They
were also adopted by Lord Stanley, and in 1842 a Bill
was brought in, founded on the report of the Com-
mittee, to secure purchasers of land against future re-
ductions of value. Under these circumstances a very
large number of sales took place. It was desirable that
where the extent of the valuable land was unlimited,
the price should be determined by the minimum price
imposed by the Crown; and it was quite clear that if
the minimum price should be reduced the
value of the land already sold must be diminished; and
in fact to reduce the price fixed under the Act of 1841
would be nothing short of confiscation. He would now
call their Lordships' attention to the effects which had
resulted from this system. Ia 1831 the policy was
adopted of selling land and applying the proceeds of the
land sales to the purposes of emigration. During the
eighteen years which have elapsed the amount of money
derived from the sale of land and applied to the purposes
of emigration in the Australian colonies was no less than
2.500,0004 The first application of money derived from
these sales to emigration took place on the recommen-
dation of a Committee in 1831, the amount calculated
upon not exceeding 10,000/. At that time there were no
means of sending labouring men at a reasonable price to
the Australian colonies, the lowest amount being about
401. for a stserage passage, but the charge was now 12/.
or 141, with infinitely superior accommodation. Under
this system the number of persons sent to the Australian
colonies during that period was 117,600. Nor was that
all; for in consequence of the stimulus thus given to
emigration, 61,750 persons had voluntarily gone to
Australis, making a total of 179,300 souls. This
had been effected without any expense to this
country, and he contended that such a system
ought not to be rashly dealt with. He would
call their Lordship? attention to another circumstance.
He held in his hand a petition against a clause contained
in the Bill allowing the Federal Legislature to de )1 with
the price of the land. The petitioners stated that they
had purchased their land on the faith of the report of the
Committee to which he had referred, and what they con-
sidered a Parliamentary guarantee that the price of land
should not be diminished. These were the circumstances
under which the tneasure was proposed; and if the con-
fidence of the purchasers was shaken, the discontinuance
of the present system must follow. It had been said
that 1/. was not a high price for land intended for agri-
cultural purposes, but the grazing land was not worth
that sum. It was not worth 55., it was not, in fact, worth
Is. In 1846 a measure was passed authorising the
Crown to establish regulations for the occupation of
waste lands for pastoral purposes, and the papers on the
table showed that those regulations had been satisfac-
tory. Ile conceived that Crown lands ought to be
held in trust by her Majesty for the benefit of all
her subjects, end they ought not to be engrossed
by a few persons to the detriment of the future
settlers. But if the price of lands in Australia
were to be greatly reduced, they would in a short time
be bought up by speculators, and the settlers would have
to ply not 1/. per acre, but a price fixed by the holder,
without gaining any advantage like that which they
derived under the present system. The only security
against this engrossment of the public lands was to
maintain the existing laws and the existing minimum
prig-. There was a disposition to acquire larger quan-
tities of land than was consistent with the public interest,
which it was difficult to deal with. It must also be re-
collected that a considerable portion of the money ob-
tained from land sales went back to the colonists in the
shape of bridges, roads, and other essential improve-
ments necessary for the comfort and progress of the
colony. It was desirable, therefore, that all the money
not spent to promote suitable emigration should be ex-
pended for local improvements and objects. It was said
that this would encourage a spirit efjobbing. but he con-
sidered that proper checks on the expenditure of the
money would do away with this anticipation. These were
the grounds on which he supported the measure in pre-
ference to the amendment. He had been told that the
colonists were against this measure. He denied that this
was the tact. Public opinion was very much divided on
the subject. South Australia was very much in favour
of the. Land Sales Act, and in New South Wales public
opinion was very much divided on the subject. The
Legislative Council, he believed, were in favour of the
minimum price of U. per acre, though they had passed a
resolutien against it. If under the existing system,
Australia had grown up into a colony of great import-
ance—if the system had effected as much good as his had
stated, he hoped their Lordships would maintain it un-
altered.

Lord MONTEAGLE supported the amendment.
The old system had been subverted by his Noble Friend,
and for that act he deserved the thanks of the country
and the colonists ; but it did not follow that the system
the Noble Earl wished now to introduce was such a sys-
tem as ought to have the approval of that House. In
the year 1842, a report adverse to the present land sys-
tem was adopted. In 1844 a similar report was made.
In 1846 a resolution to the same effect was agreed to in
the Council. In 1847 another report was made and
adopted, of a similar character ; and in 1849 the report
before the House was agreed to. On these grounds, and
because these were the opinions of the colonies from
1842 to 1850, ho called oa the House to adopt the
amendment.

Lord LYTTELTON replied.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
Content

___ ...
Not content ... .. ...
.., 28
DEspAL.E..
Majority
suggested ...
ih"ts postponement ..;
i
RE 0
Lord of
the Bill over Thursday, as it would be inconvenient to
proceed on it for the next few days.
Earl GREY asked the House whether it would be be-
coming the House to postpone the business of the country
for the amusement of a few of their Lordships. One day
it was for races hero, another for races there; one
day for a great dinner in the City, another fir a great
dinner elsewhere. The House should go on with the
business of the country if it wished to preserve its
ch,racter; but to postpone a Bill of that important na-
ture at half-past ten o'clock would be worse than pre-
posterous. He perceived a desire to defeat the Bill by
protracting the proceedings; but last year, it would be
remembered that the House bad tat until five o'clock in
the morning on the navigation-laws. He trusted, there-
fore, the Bill would be proceeded with, and no further
delay attempted.
I.ord MONTE AGLE said the other House had fixed on
business for the da) s in question with the consent of the
Crfivernment. He was, however, ready to go on with the
Bill.
Lord REDESDALE said the Irish Franchise Bill
had been postponed over Thursday on account of the
day in question. He never declined to attend to the
business of the country; but he was of opinion that it
would be better for the House to postpone the discussion
until the individuals who were to take part in it were
pre .ent.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he bad put off
the Irish Franchise Bill solely at the request of a Noble
Lord then absent, and for no other motive.--
After a few words from Lord ABINGER the Bill was
proceeded with.
The Bishop of OXFORD then proposed a clause, the
object, of which was to relieve the Church of _England in
the colonies from the restrictions imposed by the statute
1511 Pined to inOtte the ChWeil Wave the Menai-

_...-