The Sun.
London, England, 1850-03-23 00:00:00

ANNUITY TAX.

Mr. COWAN said a good deal of excitement prevailed
in Scotland on the subject of the annuity tax, and from
time to time various proposals had been made for the
abolition of this odious and obnoxious tax. He wished,
therefore, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether
it was the intention of her Majesty's Government, during
the present session of Parliament to introduce any mea-
sure to alter or repeal the mode of providing for the pay-
ment of the ministers of the Established Church in Edin-
burgh and Montrose, instead of the existing impost,
commonly called the annuity tax or ministers' money.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say, in
reply, that in the existing state of public business he
could not promis•-, to introduce such a measure.
Captain HARRIS asked the Noble Lord at the head
of the Government when he meant to proceed with the
navy estimates.

Lord J. RUSSELL could not give a definite answer to
that question until Mouda,y.
MONEY DUE FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
Mr. B. OSBORNE asked the President of the Board
of Trade what course the Government meant to pursue
with reference to sums of money being due from foreign
Governments to individuals in this country? A Select
Committee was appointed last session to inquire into
all such cases, but he (Mr. Osborne) could not find out
that they had made any report to the House.
Mr. LABOUCIIERE said the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Bath was chairman of that Committee, and they
reported that they were satisfied considerable sums of
money were due from foreign Governments to persons in
this country, and recommended that the Committee
should be re-appointed this session.

Mr. 13. OSBORNE asked if the Right Hon. Gentleman
would move the re-appointment of the Committee after
Easter.

Mr. LABOUCHERE would not give any such pledge,
though he had no objection to the re-appointment of tho
Committee after Easter.
PUBLIC PETITIONS.
Mr. R. D. MANGLES wi4ied to ask a question of the
Speaker with regard to the forms of the House. On the
13th of March a petition had been presented, purporting
to be from Guildford, and had been entered upon the
journals of the House as such. This, he believed,
was the petition to which the Honourable Gentle-
man the Member for West Surrey had elluelad
in a speech of his. On referring to the journals of the
House h© found it was a petition from the laude carers
at:d others in the aeigt,brit,,ut) L!'
was a very different thing; and on looking still further
at the petition ho found that one of the first was the

name of a gentleman who lived twelve voiles fr om Guild-
ford. What he wished to know was w hethet there was
not scme means of altering this wrong design' etion?
The SPEAKER said that the standing 4:0 :ders of the
House required that the description of ' the peticun
should be as short as possible.
Mr. MANGLES said that his object Tel .8 serve I by
having mentioned the matter.
ADJOURNMENT FOR THE HO L IDAYS.
Upon the motion that the House should at its rising
adjourn until Monday next,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had thew ht it migbt be
possible to adjourn for the Easter holidr tys on Monday
next, but he found the number of notio In on the paper
would not allow him to do so, and he i would therefore
give notice that on Tuesday next he s hould move the
adjournment of the. House until the Bth c April.
Mr. F. FRENCH thought if the Nob' it I Lord desire d
to adjourn on Monday, that those who I hart notices on
the paper—and he was one of them—woe tel have no ob-
jection to a postponement.—(Hear.)
AUSTRALIAN COLONIES BILL.
On the question for going into Commit tee on this Bill,
Mr. DIVETT said he was anxious 1 o take that op-
portunity of making a few observations e a this measure,
as he had been unable to take an, part in the
discussion on the second reading. Too much of that
discussion had been confined to the question of
theoretical constitutions and the practice 1 consideration
of the Bill itself. Now it was of the I ieepest import-
ance that the Bill should be passed this ;e sssion, and sent
as early as possible for the adoption is F the colonies.
His principal objection to the Bill arose out of
an apprehension that it would give No, s South Wales
en advantage over Australia ; but he had been
assured by members of the Goverme .ent that his
fears in that respect would tarn out to be ill-blinded,
and he had little doubt that it' they non' went manfully
to work, such a Bill would be produced as would prove
highly acceptable to the colonists. It aas of the utmost
imaartance that the province of Victoria should be se-
parated from Australia; and it was equa I ty to be desired
that representative constitutions should t k 3 granted to the
colonies, though not on the principle of t y vo chambers, es
he was satisfied that a second chamber c o uld not be pro-
duced that would prove satisfactory to tb colonists. He
therefore approved of the Bill as it now lstood, and if he
bad an assurance that the present mit a imum price of
land should be strictly maintained, it s; Gould have his
best support.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then went into Committees.
Mr. FIUME thought the House oua it to give the
colonies one simple enactment, which a hould apply to
them all alike. He would submit to the Noble
Lord at the Lead of the Govern a tent, that in-
stead of edopting this Bill in its present shape,
it would be ler .more preferable 'to repeal all
the Acts referred to in the preamble of the Bill, and to
re-enact such parts, and such parts on ky, as related to
the colonies.
Clause I was agreed to.
On the question being put that clauses 2 stand part of
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 c( to ncil should be
members holding office.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that b e was not aware
that the Bill was not drawn up tr) express that.
If it did not do so, he had no objectior to insert some
words to that effect.
Sir WM. MOLESWORTFI said that this was a proof
of how badly the Bill was drawn up, a 'hen the Noble
Lord could not tell what it meant 'a a one particular
point.

Mr. HUME wished to know if the :Li roble Lord still
persisted in his intention of having the council of South
Australis entirely of nominees. He stos 7no reason wby
they should tta at that colony in a chi/ irent manner to
the Cape of Good Hope, which had an t lective council.
Mr. MO WATT said he had no ols, jection either to
having one or two chambers, provids :d the colonists
were satisfied; and he thought the on/.2 7 blemish in the
Bill—fur which as a colonist he heats! Lily thanked the
Government, beesuso he considered it would term an
era in our legislation—was the clause > vhich they were
now discussing. It proposed to give rA the Crown the
power of nominating one-third of each of the chambers
to be created under the Bill, and the juts oduction of this
alien body he thought was objectionabLa.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Hon. mber for Mont-
rose proposed that there should be only one legislative
council, from which all persons nomin a ted by Govern-
ment should be excluded, and he was tie rtaiuly not pre-
pared to assent to that proposal.
Mr. MOWATT said he was sorry to .bear the answer
of the Noble Lord, and he should fed' it his duty to
move the omission of such part of cla use 2, as left to
her Majesty the nomination of one third part of
the number of the members of the le' islative council.
They ought not to bow to the es isting popular
opinion in New South Wales, but en.d eavour to give
the colonies such a constitution that a qty be calcula-
ted to last for all times. As for the ni si utnee principle,
he was decidedly opposed to that, an d so were the
colonists themselves. In the Cape ,of Good Hope
it was considered an odious lirinciple, and
men who occupied nominee seats. in the local
council would neither be trusted nor respected,
while, had they been elected by the colortists, they would
have been useful members of that body.. Ho really be-
lieved that the introduction of a body of elected French-
men would be lest injurious to the flesh by working of a
colonial legislative council than that a ti ,Lsd 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 heir 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 n embers in the
council.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said the Govet•nment in fram-
ing this Bill had not contemplated th e_giving a new
constitution to Australia, but they 11:4(1 taken the
institutions of that colony as they found them, and had
endeavoured to mould them to the present times.—(Hear,
hear.) He did not teal called on to argu e the question
with the Hon. Member (Mr. MO% att) whether or not the
legislature for that colony should be composed of
one chamber, without any principle o f ncmination.
Ho thought, however, there were grave reasons why
that should not be the form of constituti n for a British
colony. lie (Mr. Labouchere) was satisti ed from all the
inquiries he had been able to make on th a subject, that
the safe course was to take those institutions which had
been proved by the colonists themselves 'to be effective,
and to confirm those institutions, giving, .however, to the
colonists fresh power to build on those in stitutions such
improvements as time and experience proved to be neces-
sary.

Mr.: VERNON SMITH wished that 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 toin-
terfere with. But nas this the case? The constitution
had existed for seven years, and the prejudices in f:avour
of it could not be particularly strong. But what did the
Noble Lord who had introduc©d the Bill say? lie said
that this Bill contemplated nothing ne w. Begging his
pardon, be did not seem to know his ow n 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 very enxious
that the first point to be discussed by. the Committ, e
should be that of a single or double chamber. He
thought the question of nomination or election would
most properly follow that question. Re should there-
fore suggest that the present motion should be post-
poned until the question of a single or a double chamber
had been settled.
Mr. MOWATT was quite willing to do anything con-
sistent with the forms of 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. PAKING TON said if the Honourable Gentle-
man threw away that opportunity he 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 better 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 means which existed to find
materials fur 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 Govern-
ment, while they thought it desirable to confer a new
constitution upon the colony, at the same time gave the
colonists the power to 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 bad de-
cided whether there should be one or two chamber!.
He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his
(amendment.

Mr. MO*ATT said he knew the question es to
having one or two chambers was of far less importance

to the colonists than—thequestie-n- 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 an
unfair and inadequate manner, yet he (Mr. Gladstone)
would take that opportunity of stating his views on the
subject. He would decidedly vote with the lion. Gen-
tletnan. His decided opinion was that a constitution
formed of one chamber would be a very bad constitution.
The first obiect he 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 be established upon Lim
give her Majf,sty power to confer honours up-,n
principle of election for their basis. This third object
was to
a limited number of distinguished colonistr, but he sr old
sacrifice this one if it was likely to endanger tl;e
other two.

Lord J. RUSSELL said the Right. Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down seemed to suppcse that
Government had power to decide the courLe which
should be now tAken, hut, in point of tact,
it was decided by the forms of the House.
Those who voted for the amendment would be pledged
t) one chamber upon the representatiw; prineiolc.
Sit 7:1 OL o,i.fii
Mr. COBDEN said they ought to be cautious
might
make this Bill as perfect as possible, as they

Ihave 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 Gcod Hope had secured to itself a
double chamber by assuming a menacing attitude, very
likely Australia would ultimately follow its example.
Mr. K. SEYMER thought there ought to be two
chasebera elected upon the representative principle, and
he should certainly vote for the amendment.
Sir R. PEEL understood the effect of the amendment
to be the proposition of a purely democratic body, with-
out any external checks. To effect that object, how-
ever, the constitution in existence in the colonies would
have to ho altered. But that constitution which had ex-
isle i without dissatisfaction for some time, had nomi-
nees of the Crown. Was it to be changed without con-
sulting the colonists? And were they to have a pure
and unmixed democratic assembly imposed on them,
wi:hout the opportunity of expressing an opinion on the
subject? He applied these arguments to the constitution
of New South Wales and Victoria. If he was to assume
thi-, he could not for a moment be so liberal as to part
with the present qualifying check, and change a consti-
tution which gave no eissatisfaction, for one upon which
the colonists were not consulted.
Mr. SCOTT should vote for the amendment, believ-
ing that if it were carried, it would induce the Governs
inert to adopt the principle of double chamber.
Mr. AGLIONBY felt called upon to vote for the
amendment. The point had not been clearly or fully
placed before the House by the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth. He (Mr. A.) believed the
Government intended to do the best for the colonies ;
but one-third of the legislative nominees would not effect
that purpose. The colonists of New South Wales were
not satisfied with their present constitution, and they
deprecated its being made worse than it is.
Mr. HAWES would not enter into the general argu-
ment, but would confine himself to the amendment. The
Bill introduced nothing new into the constitution of New
South Wales; and the colonists had intimated to the
Government on all occasions their perfect satisfaction
with it, and their desire that no change should take
place in it without their consent. The amendment,
however, went to. ait,,r that constitution, and without the
cornett of the colonists. The Bill was brought forward
in the best spirit. He (Mr. Hawes) denied that it was
in the power of the nominees of the Crown to Control
the legislature of New South Wales. The Government
wished to give the colonists the power of choosing their
own Government, and those who voted for the motion
would practically vote against that principle. If, there-
fore, the House desired to act in conformity with the
expression of the colonies they would reject the amend-

me7it,

Lerd J. MANNERS said, the last accounts from New
South Wales stated that Mr. Lewe had given notice of a
proposition analfeeous to that of the motion of the Hon.
Member. He believed that the colonists were by no
means so satisfied with their constitution as the Hue.
Gentleman stated. The principle of nominees was the
most Objectionable farm that could be devised for balanc-
ing the power of a single chamber, and be should there-
fore vote for the amendment, though in so doing he
desired not to be understood as pledging himself to a
single chamber.
Mr. P. WOOD said they were now about to take a
step that might be fraught with very serious conse-
quences as regarded the happiness or misery of what
was likely to be hereafter a great people. Under these
circumstances, the time cccupied in discussing the
amendment could not be better employed. It was said
that in the present amendment they were discussing the
question ef two chambers or one, and there was no doubt
that was really and truly the question before them. Be
had experienced much difficulty, after perusing the cor-
respondence, in ascertaining what were really the feel-
ings of the people of Australia on the subject. He did
not find tfat at any of the meetings there was any sug-
gestion made as to having a second chamber. He
thought it would savour of presumption in them to de-
cide for the people of Australia without giving them a
voice in the matter. They had had six years' expe-
rience of the present constitution, and they had made
no complaint about it. In his opinion it would be much
wiser to allow them to develop the particular form of
representative Government which they would prefer.
He hoped due regard would be had to a proper in-
fusion of the democratic element into their constitu-
tion. He thought there was some advantage in having
those official members, who from their knowledge and
experience, would be able is give a tone and character
to the debates of the assembly. Ho had as strong a
feeling fur the full development of the wishes of the
people as the Hon. Member himself, but ha did not
think the proposition that had been brought forward was
the best mode of carrying it out.—(hear.)
Mr. S. ADAIR would have been disposed to vote
with the Hoe. Gentleman, but be had happened to light
upon a paper connected with the colonies, from which it
appeared that the official nominees were in the habit of
voting independently. Of twenty-eight votes given by
the nominees, net less than nineteen were given in fa-
vour of the elective body, and he was, therefore, led to
believe that the official members would not be found to
vote on all occasions on the side of the Government.
He should, therefore, give his vote against the amend-
ment.—(Hear.)
Mr. MANGLES sugge.sted the postponement of the
question until the bringing up of the report, or until
utter the preamble had been proved.
Mr. BASS confessed that it had occasioned him a
considerable amount of pain to differ from the Hon. and
Learned Member near him, but after a full considera-
tion of the merits of the case, he did not think that the
amendment was calculated to produce such a form of
government as would be satisfactory ti the colonists.
Mr. MOWATT said the adoption of his amendment
would only be the first step to the proposition of a se-
cond chamber. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Tamworth had expressed surprise that there should
be only a single cnamber with so little infusion of the
democratic element; but the Right Hon. Baronet could
not say that the nominees, being colonists, were the re-
presentatives of the aristocratic check he wished for
His main object was to carry out what the Government
had declared to be their bona fide intention—namely
to allow the colonists to choose their own form of go-
vernment

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ... 77
Against it ...
... 165
Majority against it ... --ea
Mr. WALPOLE then moved the amendment of which
he had given notice. The simple motion he had to make
was that the 2d clause he eutirely omitted, the object of
that motion unqur:stionebly beat; to substituted instead
of it a short clause of which he had given notice, and
upon which he meant to take the sense of the Committee,
as to whether there should, or should not be two Houses
of Legislature in the Australian colonies. The question
might be stated in another form—namely, whether they
were to act on the priocipl, a that had hitherto guided
them iu reference to the Governments granted to their
colonies, or whether they were to have a different sort
of eevernment, which, so far as ho could see, had no-
thing to recommend it, except iti novelty. Whatever
inetstiteis were now adopted would not merely refer to
the Australian colonies, but would be laid down as the
type of those instituti,,ns in nay future scheme of coloni-
:anon. The question he was about to submit to the
Coiereittee was whether they were to adopt a form of
constitution different from that of the other colonies?
It might be laid down as a rule that when they gave
governments to a peop'e the first principle was that they
should adhere to the habits and usages of the people.
They should depart a; little us possible from the form
and character of that Government which time and expe-
rime° had proved t) be beneficial. The second prin-
ciple was that on motives of policy as well as on
grounds of justice every country should grant and secure
to its celornsts, as far as it min by legislation, all the
rights and privileges they were entitled to in the land
from which they came—that should form the basis of
their legislation. The third principle he would submit
to the Committee was, that when they were prepared
to give a constitutional gorerement to a colony they
should found it on a pe:ma:.ent basis, according to the
wants, requirements, and neceasitios of the colony.
Blaring those principles in mind, he considered that the
Committee would arrive at that conclusion, and although
the Government of the country were in favour of those
principles, uef.irtunately they were net contained in the
Bill. Dawn te the beginning of the pttpent century
they had reproduced themselves in miniature models of
the British Constitution. They had given their colonies,
with the exception of four, a Governor sent out by the
Crown, and an Assembly elected by the people. The
weret the
ratar twoy
four exceptions were GibrWtar, Malta, Newfoundland,an
fire,rsdt Swieerrera
eLeeto
enxec.
epAtieneysh;
might Anybody
e th becausea
theye
garrisons, and governed by military laws, like the Ito-
mana military colonies—

Propugnacula popula et specu!m
Imperil Romani.'
Sine,) then they had acquired some seventeen colonies
in the West Indse,, Trinidag, and China, and British
Guiana; on the Atrican coast three, including the Cape
of Good Hope; to the eastward of the Cape of Good
Hope four, Mauritius, Ceylon, Littman, and Hong-Kong;
three in New Holland, one in Van Diemen's Land s
one in New Zealand, and ono in the Falkland Island.
What had been done with respect to these? We had
not until lately given to them representative institutions,
exeept, in 1842, when in the case of New South Wales
they introduced this anomaly which they were now
trying tl perpetuatr,—the anomaly of a legislative coun-
cil, composed in part of elected members, and in part of
nominees of the Crown. That anomaly they wore about
to introduce into their other colonies. All arguments
having reference to principles of Government were
against the estabiishment of such an assembly as this,
and all experience was against it likewise. It was the
principle of this country always tl give to our colonies
the slime form of government that we possessed our-
selves. That was not the principle upon which this
Bill was founded, but that it was the principle which we
ought to act upon was admirably well expressed in the
paper he had adverted to; the opinion of the Committee
being, that it would be most unwise to depart from the
uniformity of practice which had always been observed
in this respect. ho Governmzlit, in fact, admitted that
unLas some very grave cause existed for departing from
this line of colonial policy it ought to be strictly ob-
sPrved. From Cie ssine (.soinenittee there was another

paper, c the 3ant:ari in thepresent
) eur, which in it to 11,,r i;ty stated. that
should her illaj,.ity be pleased to adopt a form of
gov,l.nutent in which the inhabitants should be re-

presented, tithe next question to be determined upon
would be, whether it th,:uld consist t f one like that of
New South Wah-s, or whether tho old colonial Laystem
should be adoptqd, of ema:!olishing three estates, in the
g,•vernor, 1-gis'ative council. and representative assem-
r, , , . h •

Fru!, tie I tit Tel tO
the Cope of Good Hope, the Government had founded