upper House, and a remedy had been provided for the error, if it were one, in the power given to the colony to remodel its constitution; but the remedy was an imperfect one, from the manner in which the single Chamber would be constituted. Moreover, the question whether they would have a double Chamber had never been really put to the colonists, who, when they heard that the Cape was to have an elective upper Chamber, would desire one too. He should hereafter press upon the House the expediency of having a double Chamber in the scheme of the Australian constitutions.

Mr. Hume said, if the noble Lord would carry out the principles he had laid down as applicable to the Cape in other Colonies, he would deserve great credit; but if not, he would offer a premium upon discontent.

Mr. Adderley did not see in the scheme of colonial policy now developed any great advance beyond that of last Session. He repudiated the charge that the opposition given to the colonial policy of the Government had arisen from opposition to any particular Minister. Neither could he assent to the historical sketch on which Lord J. Russell seemed to ground the policy of his scheme: for although it was true that the constitutions of the Colonies were most free when the prerogative was highest, yet now, when the prerogative was at the lowest, the liberty of the Colonies are most restricted. M. Guizot had remarked, that when the people of England became free themselves they began to tyrannize over their Colonies. Parliament was not called upon to yield to popular clamour, but to recognise the rights of the colonists as British

subjects. We had now our destiny before us. At one time war, at another commerce, was our motive for colonization; but now there was a motive higher than either-the desire of spreading throughout the habitable globe all the characteristics of Englishmen,-their energy, their civilization, their religion, and their freedom, of which he hoped we had already laid the foundation. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Aglionby thanked the noble Lord for his liberal and generous statements respecting colonial institutions. But he objected to the omission of New Zealand from the present Bill, gave a short sketch of the vacillating proceedings of the Government in respect to their proposed constitution for that colony, and declared his intention, if the Ministers did not extend the present measure to New Zealand, to move the insertion of a clause in the proposed Bill for that purpose.

Mr. Francis Scott said that Lord J. Russell, Mr. Labouchere, and Mr. Hawes, had been led into a great mistake with respect to the alleged desire of New South Wales for a single Chamber. The fact was that there was only one member of the Legislative Council of that colony who had expressed an opinion against a double Chamber, and that opinion was merely founded on an objection to a Chamber consisting of Government nominees, not to an independent Chamber. He attributed the formation of the Colonial Reform Association to the vacillating policy of the Government, and the disquiet and anxiety thereby produced throughout our Colonial Empire.

Col. Thompson asked whether the proposed Bill would contain

any provision for admitting the Aborigines and their descendants to the privileges of British subjects?

Mr. Hawes answered, that they were British subjects, and would be entitled to privileges as such.

The resolution for leave to bring in a Bill for the government of the Australian Colonies was then agreed to. The second reading of this important measure was fixed for the 18th of February, when, the order of the day being moved,

Mr. Scott proposed as an amendment, that the second reading be postponed until further papers on the subject had been produced, and took occasion to condemn the scheme of the constitutions proposed for these Colonies, especially the single Chamber, which, he contended, was not preferred to a double Chamber by the colonists, according to the papers now before the House.

Mr. Labouchere said the general principle of this measure was to enlarge the power of the Colonies to frame constitutions for themselves. He admitted that the papers did not show that it was the deliberate opinion of the colonists that permanently a single Chamber was better than a double Chamber; but there was an almost universal desire on their part to have power to choose a constitution for themselves, instead of having a constitution sent out to them cut and dried. As to the composition of the Chamber, whilst it remained single there should be a counterpoise in it to the democratic element.

Mr. Roebuck objected to the general principle of the Bill, as expounded by Mr. Labouchere, which divested Parliament of its power of framing constitutions for VOL. XCII.

the Colonies. He wanted the House to plant at once liberal institutions there, which would spare the colonists the agony of working out a scheme of government. Of all the abortions of an incompetent Administration, this he considered to be the greatest; he defied any person to understand the Bill without the greatest care and legal knowledge. A readymade constitution had been sent out by the Government to South Africa; why then, could not Parliament send out a ready-made constitution to Australia? scheme of a single Chamber, so constituted, was a new-fangled attempt to lodge power in a small body in the Colonies. The purpose of the Bill was really to perpetuate the power of the Colonial Office, the interference of which had been from the first the source of discontent and mischief.

The

Lord J. Russell accused Mr. Roebuck of errors in constitutional principles, history, and facts. The new-fangled constitution of which he spoke with so much contempt was that already existing in New South Wales, and if the colonists had disapproved that constitution, and desired a double Chamber, the Committee of Privy Council, to whom questions of this magnitude were always referred, would have considered the proposition. The colonists said they did not want an immediate change-they desired time for consideration. If Parliament had attempted to frame an upper Chamber, it might not have met the wishes of the colonists. Was it not better, as the Bill of last Session had been approved by the great mass of the people, to pass a measure founded on the same principles, leaving the changes to be settled by them [D]

hereafter? Lord John pointed out the embarrassments and evils attending a different course of proceeding, and defended the Colonial Office, the bugbear of Mr. Roebuck, which was an organ for the exercise of the power of the Crown, and which never withheld its sanction in matters concerning the internal benefit of the Colonies.

Mr. F. Peel said, the main principle of the Bill had his hearty assent, namely, that popular representation was an essential element in our colonial institutions. He owned, however, that he had a predilection for a double Chamber; he thought the legislative power in the Colonies should be shared between two branches, mutually controlling each other. This opinion was founded not only upon general reasoning, but was confirmed by the sanction which experience gave to the conclusions of abstract theory. He did not maintain, however, that Parliament would be justified in legislating upon abstract notions, or even upon the conclusions of experience, in opposition to the expressed wishes or the peculiar circumstances of a colony; but he did not admit that the colonists expressed their wishes so clearly as to justify a departure from the established type of colonial constitutions. Mr. Peel referred to the sentiments recorded upon this point by the colonial Legislatures and Governments, as well as the people, whence he concluded that grounds of exception from the general rule of policy according to which colonial constitutions should be framed, had not been made out. Similar considerations applied, in his opinion, to the structure of the proposed General Assembly.

Sir William Molesworth, agree

ing in the principle laid down by Mr. Labouchere and Lord J. Russell, was far from concurring with them in the mode of carrying that principle into practice. He would give power to each colony to convene a constituent assembly elected by the people, to which should be delegated the function of framing a constitution. The details of this Bill would not be satisfactory to the colonists.

Mr. Anstey denied that the scheme of constitution proposed by this Bill was in unison with the wishes of the colonists.

Mr. Mangles had every disposition to give his cordial support to the Bill; at the same time, he thought the Government had made a serious mistake in acting upon the fallacy that the people of New South Wales had given a deliberate preference to a single Chamber; a fair option had never been afforded them.

Mr. Hume approved the principle of the Bill, which was a healing and preserving measure; but he had objections to some of the details, and he recommended the Government to put the Bill into such a shape that the colonists might know more clearly what their franchises and privileges

were.

Mr. Hawes admitted that, generally speaking, two Chambers were preferable to one; but the reason for departing from the principle in this case was, that where a colony had a representative constitution, when a change was proposed, the representative body should be consulted. The people of New South Wales were content with their present form of constitution; this Bill gave them the power to change it if they pleased, and would Parliament, in these circumstances, force

a double Chamber upon them? Á general assent had been given in the Colonies to the Bill as it stood. Mr. V. Smith observed that all seemed to agree in disapproving a single Chamber; then why not have a double Chamber? The answer was, the colonists were satisfied with a single Chamber; but they were satisfied with what they could get, and if they could get a double Chamber, they would like it better. He objected to the General Assembly. The introduction of the federal system was an attempt to establish a new principle wholly uncalled for.

Mr. Adderley replied to Mr. Hawes, and attributed the imperfections of the Bill to the fear of the Government to mark the line of demarcation between imperial and local functions in a colony.

Mr. Milnes considered that the Government, in the permissive part of the Bill, had carried liberality to an unexampled extent. In discussing the question of the Chambers, it was to be recollected that the Australian Colonies were essentially democratical. By adopting the principle of this Bill, the Colonies would have an opportunity of laying the foundation of their future welfare. He dissented from Mr. Smith's views respecting the Australian Confederation, which he regarded as the most valuable portion of the Bill.

Mr. Wyld claimed for the colonists, besides local representation, the right of representation in that House.

Mr. Stanford reviewed the whole speech of Lord J. Russell on moving for leave to introduce the Bill, declaring his opposition to the measure.

The Bill was then read a second

time.

During the progress of the Bill through Committee, some important and interesting discussions occurred, involving material points of colonial policy.

On the 22nd March, the House being in Committee, Mr. Mowatt proposed to omit the portion of the Bill which gave the Crown the power of nominating Members of the Legislative Chamber. He said that the people in the Colonies did not care whether they had one or two Chambers, provided they had the power of electing all the Members. He gratefully thanked Lord John Russell for the policy he had adopted on this great colonial question, but moved to omit all that portion of the clause which related to nomination by the Crown. Sir William Molesworth, Mr. Gladstone, and other Colonial Reformers supported the motion ad interim. Mr. Labouchere explained the Ministerial position succinctly, by saying that the Bill proposed to continue the New South Wales constitution, and to enable the colonists to improve it themselves, since they objected to alterations sent over from this country. Mr. Hawes added, that the present constitution was in accordance with the wishes of the colonists. Sir Robert Peel could not forego that single check upon pure democracy which the Crown nomination afforded. On a division, the amendment was negatived, by 165 to 77.

Mr. Walpole then moved his amendment, the object of which was to establish two Chambers, one nominated by the Crown, the other elected by the colonists; the terms of the immediate motion, however, only setting forth the separation of the two Chambers. The amendment was opposed by

Ministers, with a reiteration of the arguments described above, and a repeated assurance that the colonists preferred a single Chamber. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Frederick Peel strongly combated this assertion, supporting their position by a reference to circumstantial facts. The division into two Chambers was also supported by Mr. Francis Scott, Sir William Molesworth, and other speakers. Mr. Aglionby, the Earl of Surrey, and Colonel Thompson, on this occasion sided with the Government. The result was that the original clause was carried by 198 to 147. On the 19th April a further discussion in Committee took place, when Sir William Molesworth moved an amendment, for the purpose of establishing "in the Colonies of Van Diemen's Land and South Australia respectively, a Legislative Council and a House of Assembly." This motion re-opened the whole debate on the question of a single or twofold structure of the local Legislature, but with little novelty either of statement or argument. In the course of his speech, Sir William Molesworth cited dispatches from Sir William Denison, Governor of Van Diemen's Land, and Sir Henry Young, LieutenantGovernor of South Australia, as opposed to the Downing Street scheme. Lord John Russell, on the other side, cited arguments against Sir William Denison's dispatch, and likewise the report of a public meeting in the Adelaide Exchange, which had expressly condemned a second Chamber of Crown nominees; the same meeting, moreover, voting thanks for the Australian Colonies Bill to Earl Grey, Mr. Hawes, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Labouchere. Mr.

Adderley objected, that Lord John was disputing matters of principle by raising questions of detail. He said it was curious to observe, that whenever the authority of colonists was quoted on one side, Government drew from their pockets a counter-declaration which nobody knew anything about. Mr. Anstey represented the Council of South Australia as aiming only to retain or extend its own power. Mr. Aglionby would leave the colonists the power of deciding whether they should adopt a second Chamber. Mr. Roebuck cited the experience of America, and the opinions of Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson, recorded in the Federalist, in favour of two Houses of Legislature. Mr. McCullagh would not strive to make the Colonies complete at once: the man must pass through a period of boyhood. Lord John Manners deprecated minute pedantic legislation, and desiderated for the Colonies the aristocratic element. Keogh supported the Government. Mr. Disraeli showed that, before the present Government entered office, its Members had upheld the principle of two Chambers. the responsible Secretary of State for the Colonies had abdicated his function, and transferred it to a Committee of the Privy Council, consisting of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the President of the Board of Trade, and a retired judge. Mr. Hawes contravened this representation; and distinctly denied that Government ought to frame for the Colonies the best constitution in their power-they ought to frame for the Colonies a constitution as far as possible in conformity with the wishes of the colonists themselves. Mr. Scott was for a double Chamber. Mr.

Mr.

But