CHAP. XV DEBATE ON THE BILL 147 time, it is quite clear that the premier hoped that the colonies. would follow the example of England's fiscal reforms. On one other important point, Lord John Russell made a declaration. He was willing to leave the long-vexed question of the Land revenue to be settled by the federal assembly which the bill proposed to authorise.1 This offer, though it was not taken advantage of, must be carefully borne in mind in estimating the conduct of the Imperial Government on the Land question. The premier was followed by Sir William Molesworth, Mr. Roebuck (as spokesman of "The Colonial Reform Association"), Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Joseph Hume, all of whom, on one ground or another, felt bound to oppose the Government, though they professed to agree in the main with the bill. Mr. Gladstone, who had the support, amongst others, of Mr. Francis Scott, the official agent for the colony of New South Wales, was strongly opposed to the creation of single-chamber legislatures, but his view was negatived in committee by 198 votes to 147.2 In the Lords a similar proposal by Lord Mounteagle was only lost by two votes.3 Mr. Gladstone also proposed to introduce into the bill certain clauses conferring powers of self-government on the Anglican Church in Australia, but he was defeated by 187 votes against 102, and the Bishop of Oxford's attempt in the same direction in the House of Lords met with a still worse fate.5 The General Assembly clauses in the bill were easily carried in a thin House of Commons, but though they scraped through Committee in the Lords, Earl Grey thought it prudent to withdraw them when the bill came on for third reading. As agreed to in Committee, these clauses empowered Her Majesty, upon petition of any two colonies to the Governor-General, to create and regulate by Order in Council "The General Assembly of Australia," consisting of the Governor-General and a House of Delegates elected by the legislatures of the petitioning colonies, and such others as should afterwards join, in the proportion of one member to every twenty thousand inhabitants, with a mini1 Hansard, vol. cviii. p. 555. 2 Ibid. vol. cix. p. 1343. 3 Ibid. vol. cxi. p. 1047. 7 Ibid. vol. cxi. p. 1227. 8 Ibid. vol. cxii. p. 171. 6 Ibid. vol. cx. p 806. mum of four for any colony. The General Assembly was to have power to levy and expend customs duties, create a General Supreme Court, and regulate means of communication for the colonies represented in it, and also to legislate for such colonies upon such other matters as they might unanimously agree to submit to it. But, of course, the authority of the Assembly was not to extend to colonies not represented in it, and it was even provided that a colony joining the Assembly might except itself from the operation of the matters expressly confided to the Assembly by the statute.1 In the Upper House, the important section fixing the franchise for the Legislative Councils was introduced at the instance of Lord Lyttelton, but his lordship was not equally successful in his attempt to insert a section enabling the colonial legislature to repeal the Land Act of 1842. The debate is also worthy of notice for the suggestion thrown out by Sir William Molesworth, to the effect that colonial representatives might with advantage sit in the House of Commons.3 The non-appearance of any provision for handing over half the Land fund to the District Councils, as proposed by the report of the Privy Council, was explained by Lord Grey, who pointed out that no statutory authority was necessary to do that which the Treasury was already empowered to do as a matter of administrative detail.5 In considering the debate as a whole, we are struck by two obvious reflections. In the first place, it is clear that the apathy which marked the proceedings of 1842 has entirely disappeared. We have seen that the most prominent men in both Houses of Parliament took part in the discussion of the measure. The speech of Lord John Russell showed that he was in earnest about the matter. Earl Grey fought hard for the 6 1 Clauses at length in H. L. (Sess. Pa.), 1850, vol. iii. pp. 18-21. 2 Hansard, vol. cxi. p. 1048. Ante, p. 133. 3 Ibid. vol. viii. p. 1007. 6 The name of Grey occurs so often and so honourably in the political history of this period, that it is necessary to warn the reader against confusion. The Colonial Secretary of 1850, the father of the Constitution Statute, was Earl Grey, and must not be mistaken for his relative Sir George Grey, who was Home Secretary in the same Cabinet and became Colonial Secretary in 1854, on the division of the offices of War and the Colonies. This Sir George Grey, again, must not be confounded with the Sir George Grey of New Zealand and South African fame, at this time Governor of New Zealand. CHAP. XV SUMMARY OF THE MEASURE 149 bill in the Lords, and perhaps showed true wisdom in refusing to imperil the whole measure by retaining the clauses so narrowly passed in Committee. The second point to notice is the extreme anxiety shown by parliament to learn the wishes of the colonists, and to accede to them when they were known. There was much dispute as to what these wishes actually were, but the deference intended to them is obvious. The only fact which can be fairly urged against the admission is the refusal of the House of Lords1 to hear counsel for the opponents of the measure at a late stage. But there can be no doubt that the House was right both in principle and application. The bill was a public bill, dealing with vast general interests. The temper of Parliament was such that any reasonable view of dissent could have found formal expression from the lips of its members. On the other hand, the applicants had no official authority, there was nothing to show that they were anything more than individuals privately interested. To have allowed them to gain special access to the ear of the legislature would have been to sow the seeds of jealousy and future intrigue. Three peers thought it necessary, however, to enter a formal protest against the decision.2 The measure itself marks a distinct advance on the legislation of 1842. It creates the new colony of Victoria, and makes provision for its constitutional government and administration of justice. It greatly extends the electoral franchise throughout Australia. It introduces representative institutions into South Australia and Van Diemen's Land, and provides for their extension to Western Australia. It substantially increases the financial powers of the colonial legislatures. It modifies the unsuccessful scheme of local government. It makes plain the way for future constitutional reform in the direction of selfgovernment. And finally, by placing the constitutions of all the Australian colonies on substantially the same footing, it removes one great obstacle from the path of united Australian action. 1 Hansard, vol. cxi. p. 956. 2 Ibid. p. 1468. CHAPTER XVI THE INAUGURATION OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION THE 13 & 14 Vic. c. 59 reached the colony on the 11th January 1851, and was duly proclaimed by the Governor on the 13th following. Thereupon, in accordance with the 37th section, it came into operation, though much remained to be done in order to set it in motion. 2 The statute was accompanied by a despatch from Earl Grey (dated 30th August 1850), in which the latter explained the views of the Home government. Earl Grey advises that no alteration shall for the present be made in the constitution under the powers of the 32d section. The Governor is not to assent to any bills reducing the salaries of existing officials, or making temporary grants for purposes usually provided for by permanent appropriations. Though the statute is silent as to the destination of the territorial revenue, the Home government has no desire to control its appropriation further than "to ensure its being expended on the objects to which it is legitimately applicable, and in a manner consistent with justice towards those from whom it is raised." Earl Grey also expressly says that the 34th and 35th sections contemplate the founding of a new colony at Moreton Bay, and intimates (what we already know) that the General Assembly clauses have been thrown out in the House of Lords. Moreover the Secretary of State encloses a copy of a despatch sent by himself to Sir William Denison, the Lieutenant-Governor of Van Diemen's Land, dated 27th July 1 Gov. Gazette (N. S. W.), 1851, 13th January. CHAP. XVI DISCONTENT WITH THE SCHEME 151 1850. This despatch deals more exactly with the appropriation of the Land fund, and directs that it shall be used to supply labour where specially needed, and to provide public works. Where there are local bodies in existence, the actual expenditure should be entrusted, so far as possible, to them, but where there are not the Government should distribute, rather than the colonial legislature, in which the views of the back settlers are apt to be insufficiently represented. These despatches were laid before the Legislative Council of New South Wales when it met to carry out the preliminaries for the new constitution. On The existing Council was convened for this purpose by a Proclamation of the 31st January 1851,2 which announced the commencement of the session on the 28th March. the appointed day the Council met, and as an item of interest to Victorians we may note that in this last session William Westgarth took his seat as member for Melbourne, vice Earl Grey.* The Governor's speech requested the Council to work out the preparation for the new constitution, and, as we shall see, the Council accomplished the task. But it was by no means satisfied with the turn of events. On the 8th April Mr. Wentworth moved for a select committee " to prepare a remonstrance against the Act of Parliament 13 & 14 Vic. c. 59" (the Constitution Statute), and the motion was carried, a committee being appointed by ballot.5 On the 29th April it brought up its report, which contained five separate "protests," embodying what may be regarded as the popular views of the day. These five protests are directed against 1. The appropriation clauses of the Constitution Statute. 3. The control reserved over the Customs. 4. The appointment of government officials by the Home authorities. 5. The provisions for the reservation of bills.6 The report was adopted by a vote of 18 to 8, the protests being turned into resolutions of the Council, and ordered to be 1 Copy in V. and P. (N. S. W.), 1851, Sess. i. |