The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-06 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 6, 1850

Lord BROUGHAM said the land-tax schedule was
the register before the Reform Act passed.
Earl GREY sa'd it frequently happened, nevertheless,
that parties were prevented voting through having
omitted to get their names inserted in the land tax sche-
dule. At present th• greatest inconvenience arose in
English counties from the necessity of each voter making
a claim.
Lord REDESDALE said it was unfair to county
voters to be obliged to send in a claim, whilst borough
voters were exempt from that necessity, as well as those
county voters who voted in respect of their rating. The
principle of claiming to be registered was the only fair
one and ought to be made general.
Lord MON TEAGLE said, if ever there was an inge-
nious invention to overthrow the agricultural interest in
Ireland, an-I to give the town population an unjust su-
periority, it would be the present step. He had fre-
quently heard those men who were political agitators
state that a registration of agricultural voters would be
fatal to the liberal interest.
The Earl of GLENGALL said, when once a voter
was put on the registration list in Ireland he was com-
pelled to vote. and he could assure their Lordships that
that vote would not be an independent one. He would
recur to a case, the troth of which had been sworn to in
the law courts. At one of the elections for Carlow 120
voters were seized by a large body of men and carried
out of the county. They were tied up and put into boats
and transported t ) another county, until they signified
their willingness to support another party in whose
favour they generally voted. The it wives were also ill-
treated. The Noble Lord went oil to describe similar
scenes of violence arising from similar causes.
Lord EDDISBURY said the effect of this would be
to create an annual instead of a septennial agitation.
The amendment arose from a dislike to Irish represen-
tation, and the less that country was represented the
more pleasing it was to their Lordships themselves.
This was not the way to govern that great and generous
people. The time might C3lllO, if this measure were re-
jected, when their Lordships would have to assent to a
more sweeping measure of reform. They had been
obliged to do so with regard to Esst Retford, and with
regard to an Bs. duty on corn.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ST. GERMANS said the amendment, if
carried, would render the Bill a mockery.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For Lord Stanley's amendment ... 53
Against it ... ... 39
Majority against the Government... —l4

Thevarious clauses of the Bill being then agreed to,

Lord STANLEY gave notice that he would not op-
pose the adoption of the report, or the third reading of
the Bill as amended.
THE AUS MALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT
BILL.
Earl GREY having moved the third reading of this Bill,
. _

Lord LYITELTON said that that measure bad been
somewhat altered in Committee; but he entertained some
very serious objections to it even in the shape in which it
then stood. He believed that by passing it in that shape
they would be foregoing the best opportunity which
could possibly present itself of effecting a real reform
in our colonial system. The great principle which he
wished to see established, was the principle of local self-
government in the colonies. It had been said that there

l were no materials in the Australian colonies for a second
chamber; but if any such deficiency existed, he attributed
it solely to the policy we had hitherto pursued of refus-
ing to those colonies those free institutions, and that
control over their own local affairs, which were en-
joyed by the people of this country. It appeared to
him that it was a most unfortunate error to rest
the the power of the Crown over our colonies in a Minis-
ter of State residing in this metropolis, when it
could be much more advantageously vested in the
governor of each colony. It should be remembered that
a governor was under the control of the Crown quite as
much as a Colonial Secretary in this country; and with
a view of adding to the dependence of the colonial go-
vernors or the Crown, he (Lord Lyttelton) would pro-
pose that they should be paid out of the funds of tha
mother country, instead of out of the funds of the colo-
nies. The disallowing power vested in a Colonial Se-
cretary in this country was a power unknown in the
ancient colonial charters granted by this country. It
might be said that the colonial authorities would be
enabled to suspend the machinery of government; but
that was a theoretical objection which might be urged
against the working of our own constitution just as much
as against the working of a colonial charter. There
was no public opinion in this country to act upon the
Colonial-office, which was really the depositary of all
power in colonial affairs, and the power which it pos-
sessed was of an irresponsible nature. The only way
to give the colonies the real right of legislating
for themselves was to destroy the power of the
Colonial-office. The colonies relied on the faith
of Parliament, and would be content only with the best
security which, considering ;the nature of things, it was
possible for them to have. With respect to a vast ma-
jority of subjects of local importance no dispute could
possibly arise amongst the colonies themselves. They
had an excellant analogy in the example of America, by
which they could legislate for these colonies. How was
it proposed to settle all disputes that might arise? Why
by a reference to the Colonial-office alone. According to
the analogy to which he had referred, namely, the United
States, such questions were settled by judicial tribunals.
—(Hear.) Tne colonies, he maintained, would have con-
fidence in a judicial system, but woulal not have the same
confidence in the decisions of the Colonial-office. He
could not help thinking that in course of time the Aus-
tralian colonies would obtain self-government for them-
selves.—(Hear, hear.) In Canada it had been obtained
by a large and powerful community. Our
American colonies could not be treated in the same
manner as the Australian colonies, for the latter were still
in their infancy. He contended that we ought not to
look at our colonial empire as a great machine alone for
our own benefit or for the advancement of our trade.
He always wished to look at the question thus—
namely, to see what kind of people we could make of
our colonists. He would not divide the House upon the
motion for the third reading of the Bill, but he would
certainly say not content when the question was put.
Earl GREY said, that on three or four occasions he
ha-I addressed the House at great length on that subject.
He could only then repeat the arguments which he had
adduced on former occasions; but, as he did not find
anything in the arguments of his Noble Friend to alter
his views, he hoped their Lordships would agree to the
motion before them.

The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
Their Lordships adjourned at near a Quarter to Ten
o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 5.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following Bills were recd a third time, and
passed :
River Lea Trust.

West Cornwall Railway.
Mr. MACKENZIE moved that the minutes of evi-
dence taken before the Committee on the River Lea
Trust Bill be laid be fore the House, and that so much of
it as relates to the quality of the water of the River
Lea be printed.—Agreed to.
Mr. E WART moved that it be an instruction to the
Select Committee (preliminary inquiries), to consider
the expediency of altogether releasing Members whose
constituents were locally interested in opposed private
Bills, from forming a part of the Committee on such
Bills.

Mr. W. PATTEN said the subject had been brought
under the consideration of the House on two former
occasions, when it underwent ample discussion, and on
eoeh occasion the House affirmed by large majorities
that it was necessary there should be a certain amount
of local representation on all private Bills, except rail-
way and divorce Bills. He suggested that the Hon.
Gentleman should postpone his motion, and he (Mr.
Patten) would bring the subject before the House in
some other shape.
Mr. E WART acceded to the suggestion of the Hon.
Member and agreed to postpone his motion.
After a short discussion the motion was withdrawn.