The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-20 00:00:00

TEHA: SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, JULY 20, 1842.

Mr. II EN LEY wished the clause to be postponed.
Sir J. GRAHAM had no objection to the postpone-
ment of the clause, if such were-the pleasure of the itotise.
The clause was then postponed, t,nd the following
clauses down to the 22d inclusive, w ere then put and

negatived.
On clause 23, providing that the occasional roor be
set to work, subject to the power of the Poor-law Com-

missioners,
-11.1 r REDHEAD YORKE suggested the omission of
the words " subject to the power of the Poor-law Com-
missioners."
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD objected to the clause.
He would divide upon it.
The Committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the clause B4
Against it
Majority for the clause
Clauses from 23 to 26 were agreed to
Clauses from i 6 to 37 inclusive were struck out.
Clause 38, after a desultory discussion, was expunged
without a -division.
Clauses 38 to 51 were omitted without any discussion.
Clause 51 was agreed to.
Clause 52 was (as we understood) omitted.
Clause 53 was agreed to with a verbal amendment.
Clauses 54, 55, and 56, were agreed to.
On clause 57 some discussion took place on the pro-
priety of allowing a Magistrate, .alio is also a Member
of a Board of Guardians, to sit as judge in cases in which
the Board of Guardians were the prosecutors.
Mr. AGLIONIff wished to record his objection to the
power of a Magistrate to act in the double' capacity of
judge and prosecutor, and moved an amendment to
prevent it, which was agreed to, and the clause so
amended, adopted.
Clauses 58, 59, and GO, were severally agreed to.
Before clause 62 was put,
Mr. DARBY proposed a clause preventing the inter-
ference of the Poor-law Commissioners, when the
majority of the rate-payers were satisfied with the work-
ing of a Local Act.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the clause proposed by the
Hon. Gentleman was decidedly at variance with the ex-
isting law. The understanding was, that they should
not, during that Session, propose any material alteration
in that law. Nearly two-thirds of the population would
be removed beyond the control of the Commissioners if
this clause was passed.
Captain PECHELL supported the clause.
Atter a.few words from Sir C. BURRELL,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought that, according to the
sentiments of the Right Hon. Baronet, they ought to
repeal the Local Acts, as the Government seemed to be-
lieve that the poor were badly treated under such Local
Acts. But this was not the case in his own pariah, and
that of St. Luke's, and St. Andrew's,,Holhorn, which
parishes posse(' Local .Acts. It was very clear that if
the Government had the will, they had not the power to
repeal those Local Acts, .
The CollllllltteP tllBll &WM:
For the elapse •,. .42
Against it
Majority against the clause -r=4o
The preamble of the Bill wag thoo agre@d to, The
House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be re-
ceived to-morrow.

--76

Committee en
thA:SeTsI9II.AveL4IA4scBIFIL4iL.
into
The Hen
clauses 1 to 3 were agreed to. -
On clause 4 being proposed,
Mr. HUME wished to ask the Noble Lord at what
period this clause would come into operation ?
Lod STA-M.IIW Laid the elective principle wolild be
introduced into the colony as soon as it was able to
pay the fit and proper expenses. He thought the
elective principle ought to be introduced.
Mr. HUME said it would depend on what the Noble
Lord considered fit and proper expenses, He (Mr.
Hume) understood that the estimate was 40,000(,
The clause was then agreed to,
Willisgo A to V Wye 0140 agreed to,
Plausc t 4 being proposed,
Mr, HUME said he was aware it would be quite
absurd to expect an immediate payment of the
loans Ilia had been granted to this colony, but he did
not see why they should not keep a lien upon it to
ensure their re-payment. The Act of Parliament pro-
Odell 4 goottrity for any sums that might be advanced,
and what he (Mr, Hume). wanted was, that the Act
should be enforced. Provisions had been made for the
careful re-payment of any loans, and he wanted to know
why that provision should not be acted up to. He
should be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
explain these circumstances.
rhe CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated
that when he accepted office, he found the colony labour-
ing under a debt of 1.55,P00L, which it had no means of
paying. lie saw that it was no use to overwhelm the
colony with an enormous debt, and it was a matter of
consideration with him how he should act so as to pre-
eery() the colony and protect our own interests ; he
considered that by making a fair compromise be-
tween the mother country and the colony, they
would afford a fair opportunity to the colony of
hereafter paying the loans which had been advanced.
Under the circumstances, anti believing that the colony
would soon be able to bear this charge, and attain to
prosperity, he thought it would then affisrd means of
extending our commerce in that part of the globe, and
would repay us, though not directly, the interest of the
money we had advanced,
Mr, WAR D concurred with his Hon. Friend that the
sooner the colonies could be induced to trust to them-
selves, and net look to this country for revenue, the
better it would be for them and for the mother country,
Mr. HUME could nut agree in the policy which had
been acted upon with regard to this colony, as explained
by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. The House
ought to understand what had been the course pursued
froth the passing of the Act in 1834, when they had be-
fore their eyes the ruin of the Swan River settlement.
When the Bill was proposed lick asked what se-
curity they had that what had occurred there would not
happen again ; but he imagined, after the experience
which they had gained in that colony, that care would
be taken to guard against similar evils. It was intended
by the appointment of Commissioners to avoid those
evils, but it appeared that the Commissioners, and
the Colonial-office of the day, had never under-
stood each other. He accused Lord Glenelg of
the grossest incapacity, and the most blameable
negligence. The Hon. Member then alluded to the ap-
pointment of Captain Hindmarsh and Col. Gawler. Col
Gawler went out in 1828, and remained till 1840 ; and
w hat did they learn from the Report ?
stated that .a debt of 296,0001. had been in-
curred under Colonel Gawler's governorship ; yet that
Governor had obtained credit from the Noble Lord for
his good management and discretion. When Colonel
Gawler began to draw the bills, what course was
adopted ? The Noble Lord appointed the Colonisation
Board, consisting of Colonel Torrens, Mr. Elliot,. and
Mr. Villiers, who had authority under the Act of Parlia-
ment to borrow 120,000/. Part of that sum was bor-
rowed. A proposal was made to borrow more, upon
which the Commissioners disagreed. Two of the Board
were against borrowing any further sum ; Colonel
Torrens was for borrowing money to answer
the demands which were •to be made upon them.
The Treasury took three months to decide whether they
would give authority to borrow money or not, and when
is November the authority was given, nobody would
lend money; the consequence was, that considerable diffi-
culty arose, and, in order to remove that difficulty, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1840, tried to raise the
means by loan to enable them to meet the
Bills that were coming home. This was found
impracticable, and, at last, they were obliged
to come to that House for a loan of money,
which was granted. The result of the whole
was that the greatest distress existed in the colony,
and 20,0001. or 25,000/ had been paid in poor-rates in
order to support those who had been ruined. In his
(Mr. Hume s) opinion, Colonel Torrens was the only
man who had done his duty, and for doing that he had
been removed. Such being the case, he thought the
House ought notto give the money in the way the Noble
Lord proposed. He had no objection to the House ad-
vancing the money, but it must hold the responsibility.
If it did otherwise, it would be giving a sanction to every
species of abuse. On these grounds, he wished to have
the clause so altered as to give this country a lien on the
colony fur the money. He believed that Lord Glenelg
and Lord John Russell had neglected their duties with
respect to this colony, and such being the case, the
whole responsibility of the evils that had taken place
rested on them. They saw the evil coming, and took no
means of preventing it. He thought the best way would
he to leave out the clause altogether, the result of which
would be to leave the advance of the money on the pre-
ceding Act
.of Parliament, and then the Government
might obtain it as they could. He would, therefore,
move to leave out the clause.
Lord STANLEY said it was no part of his duty to
defend the conduct of the late Government, but he
would not go the length of the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose, and hold Lord Glenelg and Lord John Russell as
personally responsible. He believed that the House of
'2;ommons and Parliament were responsible for the evils
that had taken place, because the Acts that had
passed created a divided responsibility, He believed
that the affairs of the colony had been carried
on .upon an extravagant scale, but be did not
think Colonel Gawler was alone blameable for that.
The question for the House now was, not whether there
had bean mismanagement, but he ow they were to put the
colony on a right footing. H thought the grant was
necessary, and he should therefore vote for it.
Mr. B. WOOD denied the right of the col-my to come
upon the country for so large a sum as 155,0001. If the
House acceded to this demand, they might depend upon
it that they would next year be called upon to repeat it.
Thu Committee then divided—

Forthe clause .............................. 73
Against it ................................. JO
Majority in favour of the clause
The clause was then agreed to.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, and the
House resumed. Report ordered to be received this day.
CORONERS, &c. (WARWICK AND LANCASTER)
BILL
Sir C. DOUGLAS proposed the second reading of
this Bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the motion, and recom-
mended the propriety, at that late hour, of postponin
the consideration of the Bill till some future day. ig e
was further of opinion, that a Bill of this nature should
be brought in by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secre-
tary fur the Home Department officially, and not by any
individual Member of the House.
Captain EGERTON; tiould see no KaSi.irl for not read-
ing the Bill a second time at once.
Mr. M. PHILIPS opposed the principle of the Bill.
He thought they ought to have the opinion of the Law
Officers of the Crown betbre they advanced the Bill
another stage.
Sir C. DOUGLAS retained his opinion that the Bill
should be read a second time 110 W!
Mr. BROTHERTON moved that the debate be now
adjourned,