management of its common concerns. In thus laying claim to imperial powers for the British Parliament, I must add, that in my opinion it would tend much to consolidate the empire if we could admit into the Imperial Parliament representatives of the colonies, for then the colonies would feel that they formed with the British islands one complete body politic.

ON MR. SPENCER WALPOLE'S AMENDMENT TO AUSTRALIAN

MENT BILL.

MARCH 22, 1850.

GOVERN

[This amendment was defeated by a majority of 51: Ayes, 198; Noes, 147.]

I AM anxious, Mr. Bernal, before the Committee comes to a decision on the motion of the honourable and learned member for Midhurst,' to make a few observations. The Committee must acknowledge that that decision will be not only of great and immediate importance to the colonies concerned, but of great and lasting importance to the whole of the British Empire. For we are all agreed that our colonies in Australasia, being inhabited by Englishmen, are now entitled to possess the institutions of Englishmen; and we are, therefore, at this moment assisting at the birth of the constitutions 1 Mr. Spencer Walpole.

of the British communities that are destined, in future ages, to cover the southern hemisphere, and there to form nations and mighty empires of the Anglo-Saxon name. Again, we are agreed that it is the duty of the British Parliament to undertake the difficult task of framing the first constitutions of these colonies; and according as we shall perform that task well or ill so shall we either confer lasting benefits, or inflict deep injury upon these communities; so shall we either strengthen and make permanent our colonial empire or weaken and ultimately destroy it. Therefore, a heavy responsibility hangs over us, and I trust that a deep sense of that responsibility will influence the conduct and votes of honourable members.

The question which we have to consider is, what would be the best form of Government for the Australian colonies? To answer this question it appears to me that we ought first to inquire what are the institutions which theory and experience have proved to be the best for similar communities of English origin; and having answered this question to the best of our abilities, we ought to give these colonies those institutions which our deliberate judg ment pronounces to have been the best; secondly, in order to guard against the consequences of errors in judgment, and in order, that the constitution of a colony may change with its changing circumstances, we ought to empower these colonies to alter and amend the institutions which they will receive from us. To this last position I attach great importance; and the right honourable gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, who last addressed the Committee, assents to it. I may,

therefore, assume that we are all agreed that in a Bill for the better government of the Australian colonies there ought to be some provision empowering the colonies to alter the institutions which we are, in the first instance, to frame for them. The question at issue is, therefore, what is the best form of government for these colonies to commence with? With what constitution ought we to start them into representative existence? I repeat, with that constitution which theory and experience have proved to be the best for similar communities.

The right honourable gentleman seems to contest this almost self-evident position; for he proposes to start these colonies with a legislature composed of a single chamber, in which one-third of the members are to be nominated by the Colonial Office, and, in fact, are to hold their seats at the will of the Colonial Office; that is to say, the noble lord at the head of the Government, the illustrious author of the Reform Bill, proposes to start these colonies with a house of legislature similar to what the House of Commons would be if we were to repeal the Reform Bill, reinstate 110 Gattons and Old Sarums, and place the 220 seats at the disposal of the Minister of the day! Such a constitution is absurd in theory; all experience testifies against it, and I believe every authority condemns it. But the right honourable gentleman the President of the Board of Trade says that these colonies are to have the power to amend their constitutions; that is to say, he proposes to start them with a bad constitution on the plea that they will have power to blunder into a good constitution at some future period. Is this the policy of a statesman? There

is an old and true maxim, applicable to the colonies, namely, "Rear up a child in the way it should go. This maxim her Majesty's Government propose by this Bill to reverse; and the noble lord at the head of the Government would rear his colonial children in the way they should not go, and trust to the chapter of accidents for setting them right.

In opposition to the single chamber proposed by this Bill, the honourable and learned member for Midhurst proposes that the legislature of the Australian colonies shall consist of two chambers. I agree with the honourable and learned gentleman, in preferring two chambers to one, and shall vote for his motion, which, if carried, would only pledge the Committee to the opinion that the legislature to be constituted in the Australian colonies should consist of two chambers, and would not in any way pledge the Committee with regard to the form of the two chambers. The honourable and learned gentleman intends subsequently to propose that one of the chambers shall be nominated by the Crown on that point I entirely disagree with him; and I intend to move an amendment, that both chambers shall be elective.

First, with regard to the general question, whether a legislature composed of two chambers is, or is not, a better form of government than a legislature composed of a single chamber, I assert that every high authority is in favour of two chambers: for instance, in this House, the noble lord at the head of the Government, the right honourable gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, and the honourable gentleman, the Under Secretary for the

Colonies; and out of this House, the Governor of New South Wales, the Governor of Van Diemen's Land,' the Governor of New Zealand,2 and the noble earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, have all of them acknowledged that a legislature composed of two chambers is the better form of Government. For instance, Earl Grey, in his despatch of the 31st of July, 1847, to the Governor of New South Wales, stated that the "practical working" of the system of the single and partly nominated chamber did not "by any means justify the conclusion that it was an improvement upon the system of two houses"; and the noble earl added, that "he saw many reasons for belief that two distinct houses were best calculated to ensure judicious and prudent legislation." Sir C. Fitzroy, Governor of New South Wales, in a despatch of 6th of January, 1848, said that "he could have no hesitation in stating his own opinion, founded upon long practical experience, that two separate chambers would be a decided improvement upon the present form of legislation in that colony." And he repeated that opinion in the strongest terms in the despatch of the 11th of August, 1848. The Governor of Van Diemen's Land, in a despatch. dated the 15th of August, 1848, strenuously recommends the adoption of a second or upper chamber." And the Governor of New Zealand, in despatch dated the 29th of November, 1848, stated that "the reasons which induced him to recommend that a legislature should consist of two chambers. were so obvious that he need not trouble the noble 1 Sir W. Denison.

2 Captain (afterwards Sir George) Grey.