The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-22 00:00:00

ADJOURNMENT FOR THE HOLIDAYS.

Upon the motion that the House should at its rising
adjourn until Monday next,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had thought it might be
possible to adj.mrn f..r the Easter holidays on Monday
next, but he found the number of notices on the paper
would not allow him to do so, and he would therefore
give notice that on Tuesday next he should move the
adjournment of the House until the Sth of April.
Mr. F. FRENCH thought if the Noble Lord desir( d
to adjourn on Monday, that those who bad notices on
the paper—and he was one of them—would have no ob-
jection to a postponement.—(Hear.)
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES BILL.

On the question for going into Committee on this Bill,
Mr. DIVETT said be was anxious to take that op-
portunity of making a few observations on this measure,
as he kad been unable to take any part in the
discussion on the second reading. Too much of that
discussion had been confined to the question of
theoretical m2nstitutions and the practical consideration
of the Bill itself. Now it was of the deepest import-
ance that the Bill should be passed this session, and sent
as early as possible for the adoption of the colonies.
His principal objection to the Bill arose out of
an apprehension that it would give New South Wales
an advantage over Australia ; but he had Leen
assured by members of the Government that his
feared in that respect would turn out to be ill-founded,
and he bad little doubt that if they now went manfully
' to work, such a Bill would be produced as would prove
highly acceptable to the colonists. It was of the utmost
importance that the province of Victoria should be se-
parated from Australia; and it was equally to be desired
that representative constitutions should be granted to the
colonies, though not on the principle of two chambers, as
he was satisfied that a second chamber could not be pro-
duced that would prove satisfactory to the colonist?. He
therefore approved of the Bill as it now stood, and if he
had an assurance that the present minimum price of
land should be strictly maintained, it should have his
best support.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then went into Committee.

Mr. HUME thought the House ought to give the
colonies ono simple enactment, which should apply to
them all alike. Ho would submit to the Noble
Lord at the Lead of the Government, that in-
stead of adopting this Bill in its present shapr,
it would be lar more piererable to repeal a!!
the Acts referred to in the preamble of the Bill, and to
re-enact such part`, and such parts only, as relived to
the colonies.

Clause I was agreed to.
On the question being put that clause 2 stand part o
the Bill, _ _

Mr. BOUVERIE wished to ask if there was any

objection to insert a clause to the effect that not more
than one-half of the members of the council should be
members holding office.
Lord JOIIN RUSSELL said that he was not aware
that the Bill was not drawn up to express that.
If it did not do so, he bad no objection to insert some
words to that effect.

Sir WM. MULESWORTII said that this was a proof
of how badly the Bill was di awn up, when the Noble
Lord could not tell what it meant on one particular
point.
Mr. HUME wished to know if the Noble Lord still
persisted in his intention of having the council of South
Australia entirely of nominees. He saw no reason why
they should tre at that colony in a ditFereet manner to
the Cape of Good Hope, which had an elective council.
Mr. MOWATT said he had no objection either to
having one or two chambers, provided the colonists
were satisfied; and he thought the only blemish in the
Bill—for which as a colonist he heartily thanked the
Government, because he considered it would form an
era in our legislation—was the clause which they were
now discussing. It proposed to give to the Crown the
power of nominating one-third of each of the chambers
to be created under the Bill, and the introduction of this
alien body he thought was objectionable.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. Member for Mont-
rose proposed that there should be only one legislative
council, from which all persons nominated by Govern-
ment should be excluded, and he was certainly not pre-
pared to assent to that proposal.
Mr. MOWATT said be was sorry to hear the answer
of the Noble Lord, and he should feel it his duty to
move the omission of such part of clause 2, as lett to
her Majesty the nomination cf one-third part of
the number cf the members of the Legislative Council.
They ought not to bow to the existing popular
opinion in New South Wales, but endeavour to give
the colonies such a constitution that may be calcula-
ted to last for all times. As for the nominee principle,
he was decidedly opposed to that, and so were the
colonists themselves. In the Cape of Good Hop*
it was considered an odious principle, and
men who occupied nominee seats in the local
council would neither be trusted nor respected,
while, had they been elected by the colonist., they would
have been useful members of that body. He really he-
lieved that the introduction of a body of elected French-
men would be less injurious to the healthy working of a
colonial legislative council than that a third of it should
be composed of nominees. The colonists were the best
judges of their own interests, and he would suggest
that the matter should be left to their decision.
The Hon. Member concluded by moving the omission of
all the words from the clause giving to the Crown the
power of nominating one-third of the members in the
council. _ _

Mr. LABOUCHERE said the Government in fram-
ing this Bill had not contemplated the giving a new
constitution to Australia, but they had taken the
institutions of that colony as they found them, and bad
endeavoured to mould them to the present times.—(Bear,
hear.) He did not feel called on to argue the question
with the Hon. Member (Mr. Mow att) whether or not the
legislature for that colony should be composed of
one chamber, without any principle of nomination.
He thought, however, there were grave reasons why
that should not be the form of constitution for a British
colony, He (Mr. Labouchere) was satisfied from all the
inquiries he had been able to make on the subject, that
the safe course was to take those institutions which had
been proved by the colonists themselves to be eh festive
and to confirm those institutions, giving, however, to the
colonists fresh power to build on those institutions such
improvements as time and experience proved to be neces-
sary.
Mr. V. SMITH wished that all parts of this discus-
sion should be carried on with temper and moderation.
The Right Hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench as-
sumed that this was not a new constitution proposed,
but one time honoured and venerated by the
colonies which it would be an infamy to in-
terfere with. But was this the case? The constitution
had existed for seven years, and the prejudices in favour
of it could not be particularly strong. But what did the
Noble Lord who had introduced the Bill say? lie said
that this Bill contemplated nothing new. Begging his
pardon, he did not seem to know his own Bill. Consti-
tutions were to be given to two colonies which had never
before had them. Was that nothing new ? Federal institu-
tions too were to be introduced into our colonies. Was that
nothing new? Were not federal institutions most extra-
ordinary novelties? He (Mr. Smith) was eery anxious
that the first point to be discussed by the Committ e
should be that of a single or double Chamber. Ile
thought the question of nomination or election would
most properly follow that question. He should there-
fore suggest that the present motion should be post-
poned until that question of a single or a double chamber
had been settled.
sisMtenriktwiOthWtAheTforros
T was
quite willing to do anything con-
sistent the House.
Mr. E. DENISON thought that if the House decided
against the power of nomination, and excluded all official
Members from a seat in the Council, it would be practi-
cally deciding in favour of two chambers; as it would be
impossible in that case to carry on the,. business of Go-
vernment without a second chamber.
Mr. MOWATT was willing to postpone his amend-
ment till after the main question was decided if his doing
so would not preclude him from bringing it on again.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said if the Honourable Gentle-
man threw away that opportunity he would would not
again be able to raise the question.
Mr. ADDERLEY considered that nominees ought
not to form part of the Chambers if they wished to al-
low the colony to form its own constitution.
Mr. LABOUCHERE explained that what he said
was that a constitution working. with two Chambers
would be Letter than a constitution working with one
chamber; but this depended ..upon the circumstances
of the colony—the state of its advancement, the
state of its society, and the resins which existed to find
materials for their composition, and persons In the
colony were able to form a better opinion on the sub-
ject than any one in this country. The Govert-
meut while they thought it desirable to confer a new
constitution upon the colony, at the same time gave tie
colonists the power Cr modify or alter it as they might
think fit.
Mr. BAILEY thought it was out of place to discuss
the propriety of having nominees before they had de-
cided whether there should be one or two Chambers.
He hoped the lion. Gtntleman would withdraw his
ems ndnaset.
Mr. MOWATT said he knew the question as to
having one or two Chambers was of far less importance
to the colonists than the question as to the composition.
Mr. GLADSTONE said the Hon. Gentleman made
his motion now, because he considered it was the best
opportunity he would have for discussing the merits of
it, and though the question was raised in art
unfair and inadequate manner, yet he (Mr. Gladstone)
would take that opportunity of stating his views on the
subject. lie would decidedly vote with the Hon. Gen-
tleman. His decided opinion was that a constitution
formed of one chamber would be a very bad constitution.
The first object ho was anxious to gain was the double
Chamber. If they got that the double Chamber would
right itself in its details if they did not set it
right now. His second object was that both

Chambers in the main should established ueun the
principle election for their basis. This third object
was to give 11,:x Majesty power to confer honours upon
lituited nut Ther of disf.inguii,hed ce.lonistre but he would
sticriticc, tlw.3 °Le if it was likely to endanger the
other two.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the Right. Hon. Gentleman
who had jmir, sat down, seemed to suppose that
Government bad power to decide the course which
should be now taken, but in point of tact,
it was decided by the forms of the House
Those who voted for the amendment would be pledged
to one Chamber, upon the representative principle.
Sir W. MOLES W of TH supported the amendment.
Mr. COBDEN- said they ought to be cautious to
make this Bill as perfect as possible, as they might
have it sent back to them with not the same power to
deal with it which they possessed now. Govern-
ment was going to give a double Chamber to the
Cape of Good Hope, and yet they refused the same con-
cession to Australia. Now did the Committee think
Australia would be satisfied with that? Certainly not;
and as the Cape of Good Hope had secured to itself a
double chsmber by assuming a menacing attitude, very
likely Australia would ultimately follow its trample.
Mr. K. SEYMER thought there ought to be two
Chambers elected upon the representative principle, and
he should certainly vote fur the amendment.
Sir R. PEEL had been given to understand that the
colonies did not desire more than one Chamber, and as
the colonists themselves did not desire it, ho was not
prepared to give them an unmixed democracy.
Mr. SCOTT should vote for the amendment, believ-
ing that if it w ere carried, it would induce the Govern-
ment to adopt the principle of double chamber.
Mr. AGLIONBY rose and was
(LEFT 6PEAYING.)