Imperial Parliament.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 208, 28 October 1854, Page 3

Imperial Parliament.

house op lords. Canadian Legislative Council Bill. — TLe Duke of Newcastlk moved on the 15th <>f June the second reading of this bill. His Grace proceeded to state that the present Legislative Council, owing to its being a nominated instead of an elective body, did not exercise that influence in the colony which ought to belong to it, and it had consequently fallen into disfavour with the public. It was, therefore, proposed that it should be changed from a nominated into an elective body. This subject would he carried out by repealing those clauses in the Act of Union which prevented the Parliament of Canada from legislating on the subject. It would then be open to the Parliament of Canada, subject to the confirmation of the crown, to adopt such measures as they may think fit; in other words, to remove the existing hindrances to local legislation on this question. In addition, the bill contained a clause repealing the provision in the Act of Union requiring the acts of the local legislature to be laid before the British Parliament 40 days before receiving the confirmation of the Crmvn. The Earl of Desart expressed some doubts as to the policy of changing the constitution of the Legislative Council in the manner proposed, and requested that the consideration of the bill might be postponed until Lord Derby was able to attend in his place.—Lord Wharncuffe approved of the general purpose of the bill, but pointeu out several details which, in his opinion, required amendment. —The Earl of Ellenborough did not rise to oppose the second reading of the bill, but to express his opinion upon a subject of greater importance. W°. made such progress last year in the work of concession to Canada, that the question now was, not whether we should stop in our career, still less whether we should attempt to go back, but whether we should not, in the most friendly spirit towards Canada and the other North American colonies, consult with their legislatures on the expediency of taking measures for the complete release of those colonies from all dependence on the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain. He recollected having a conversation with Mr. Huskisson, in 1828, during the time that statesman held the seals of the colonial-office, in which he intimated most distinctly that the time had already arrived for the separation of Canada from this country, and Mr. Huskisson had even so maturely considered the matter that he mentioned the form of government which he thought would have been for our interest to have established in Canada when our connection with the colony should cease. It should be borhe in mind that our free trade measures deprived ourselves and our North American colonies of the advantages which each formerly derived from the connection subsisting between them. We have for some years practically given our colonies independent governments. He could hardly imagine a more humiliating situation than that of the Representative of Her Majesty in Canada. What was the use, what the practical advantage of continuing our connection with the colonies ? The connection might be of small use in time of peace ; but on the other hand, consider the danger arising from it in matters relating to war. There could be no doubt that the chances of collision between this country and the United States were greatly increased by our connection with the North American colonies. It was equally certain that in the event of war occurring between this country and the United States on grounds totally unconnected with the colonies, they must, from their connexion with us, be drawn into the war, and their whole frontier would be exposed to the greatest calamities. Under these circumstances, it was a matter worthy of serious consideration whether we should not endeavour in a most friendly manner, to divest ourselves of a connexion which must prove equally onerous to both parlies. Now, in case of war, could we hope to defend the colonies successfully? It might be said that we did successfully defend Canada in 1814. That he admitted," and he wished he could add that we had made equal progress in military strength. If, however, we had advanced in the career of prosperity, consider the enormous progress which the United States had made in their innumerable railroads, their well-appointed and well-disciplined army —an advantage which they did not formerly possess, for they conducted the war of 1814 with a mere rabble. Considering the increased strength and appliances at the command of the

United States, it would hardly be possible to defend Canada with any hope of success. The very idea of a war with the United States was horrible. The event would be one of the greatest evils : one of the direst of human afflictions. Connected as we were in all the details of commerce, it would be more like tearing asunder the limbs of one human body than the collision of two separate bodies. Why needlessly increase the chances of war ? Under these circumstinces, he hoped that at an early period the Government would communicate with the leading persons in the Legislative Assemblies of the North American colonies, with the view of ascertaining their opinion on the subject of a separation. —The Duke of Newcastle, in reply, said he felt bound to express, not only regret 3 but astonishment—looking to the noble earl's position as a legislator and a statesman—that he should have propounded doctrines which, from his own knowledge, he could assert would be as unpalateable to the colonies as they were to their lordships. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl suggested that the right lion, baronet the secretary for the colonies should conceit measures for the separation of the colonies from this country. Now, he could assure the noble earl that he would not belong to any Government which would be a party to making such proposals to the people of Canada. (Hear.) For his part, he would look upon such a proposal as an offence against the dignity, and, he might almost say, the sovereignty of the country, and hostile to the most important interests of the colonies. He declined to postpone the second reading of the bill.—After some observations from the Earl of Malmeshury, Lord Brougham vindicated the opinions of Lord Ellenborough by reference to several authorities, and said he should be glad to see a separation effected in amity and goodwill. He wished that there should succeed to the present colonial connection the connection of free and independent states. —The Earl of Harrowby said he regarded the bill as a measure of great importance to the tranquillity of Canada, and suggested several means by which importance should be given to the Upper house. As to the question of separation, it would fbe time enough to discuss that "question when a necessity for its consideration should arise.— The Duke of Newcastle, in explanation, said the bill was simply an enabling measure, under which the legislature of Canada might constitute the Upper House in any way they thought proper.—-The bill was then read a second time.

The Duke of Newcmstjde moved on the 20th of June that the house resolve itself into committee on the Canadian Legislative Council bill. The Earl of Derby moved that the committee be postponed for three months. Complaining that no statement of the provisions of the bill had been made upon the first reading, and that at the second reading1 the papers relating to the proposed changes in the Legislative Council had not been laid before Parliament, though the Government had had them in their possession since the Ilth of July, 1853, he contended that' Parliament had not had sufficient opportunity to consider a question of so much importance. Alluding to the merits of the bill, he repeated that it would convert Canada into a republic, and into a republic with fewer safeguards than were to be found in the constitution of the United States. It enables the colony to legislate upon a particular question which the Imperial Parliament had hitherto deliberately reserved to itself; and he urged that this was a concession destructive to imperial authority. The question of an elective council had been one of the demands of the Radical party in Canada before the rebellion; but in 1837 Lord John Russell voted in favour of a nominated council. On that occasion the House of Commons divided, when 56 members voted in favour of an elective council, and 318 against it. In 1840, when the act passed for the re-union of the two provinces, the same principle was deliberately affirmed, and Lord John jßussell repeated his objections to an elective chamber. Lord Melbourne and Lord Durham both held the same views, and were strongly in favour of having some body to interpose' as a barrier against democratic influence. Having read the language used by these statesmen on several occasions, he said the papers laid before the House did not show the slightest necessity for altering the constitution of Canada. Reverting to the bill, he proceeded to show that it was democratic in its character, and wanting in provisions against, hasty and iinpuulent legislation. Both Chambers were to be elected by the same constituency. True, the Legislative

Council were to be elected for six years, and the Legislative Assembly for only four; but during these six years the council was certainly not a free and independent body, because the hill said that if for two years the council rejected, or so amended any measures passed by the House of .Asseinhly that the assembly could not accept it, the council, upon the advice of the executive minister of the Crown, might be dissolved and sent back to the same constituency as the assembly for re-election. No man could legislate independently under such a system. It was, in fact, the system of a republic, while the safeguards of a<je and property qualification for members of the council were inadequate and illusory. Lord Elgin, in his despatch of July 1, had pointed out the difficulties and dangers of any attempt to combine two elective chambers with a system of government conducted on the rules of British constitutional practice; and, on the authority of the gover-nor-general himself, he asked how the government of Canada was to be carried on, under such circumstances, in a spirit and manner consistent with the monarchical principle. He denied that the veto of the Crown would be sufficient in such a system to operate as a safeguard against rash and ill-considered legislation. Having stated several minor objections to the proposal, he asked how it was intended to be put into execution ? How was it to be carried ?He did not imagine that the Legislative Assembly alone were to adopt this change in the constitution of Canada. Then they must obtain the assent of the Legislative Council. But the Legislative Council had recorded, in plain terms, their determination not to agree to the measure; and he called attention to the fact that the Legislative Council had existing rights which could only be got rid of by some act of comparative violence. But if this measure were applied to Canada, how could it be refused to the other North American Colonies? He confessed he had anticipated the time when those colonies might form a great federation, possessing monarchical institutions, ruled over either by a viceroy or some individual nearly connected with the"British throne ; but the adoption of this bill would destroy that hope, for it would lead to republican institutions, and to a final separation from ibis country. The noble earl, in conclusion, said he did not ask for the rejection of the bill, but only for more time for its mature consideration.

The Duke of Newcastle, in reply, said that in not making- a statement of the provisions of the bill upon the motion of the first reading, he had acted in accordance with the ordinary practice; and tbat all the papers essential to a due comprehension of the question had been presented to Parliament before the second reading. He denied that more time was required in Canada for the consideration of the question ; and contended that the powers which the Imperial Parliament had transferred to the Legislature of Canada had been atteuded with the greatest advantage iv producing a spirit of conciliation and respect. Alluding to an assertion of Lord Derby's, that attempts were being made in Canada for the secularisation of the clergy reserves, he assured, their lordships that no such proposal had been made either in the Legislature, or by any person in authority. Speaking. of the constitution of the Legislative Council, he admitted that a nominated chamber possessed, apparently, something of the form of a House of Lords; but he was prepared to maintain that nominee chambers, in whatever colonies they were found, were gradually losing the respect of the people, from the impression that they were the mere tools of the Government of the* day. The only alternative then was an elective chamber, and he contended that it: this respect the qualifications required from the members of the council to be elected umior the bill would ensure the permanence oi the Conservative principle. It was a>-ked how the act was to be carried into effect. He lvplied that it was permissive, and it -would only bo adopted if the people of Canada desired it. If their opinion was against the bill, the Legislative Council would properly resist it: but, if their opinion was favourable, the council would give effect to it. But, after all, the principle of the measure was not new. /or it had been externied by this country among" others, to the Cape of Good Hope and to the colony of Victoria. The opinions of distinguished statesmen had been quoted against an elective chamber. To ihis he replied that the opinions nf public mci liad greatly progressed on these subjects : piwi tbat the apprehensions felt in 18o? and JS-!O luid

been proved to be entirely groundless. He was, however, surprised to hear the opinion of Lord Durham quoted in favour of a nominee body ; and he read several passages from reports writleu by that statesman, to show that his convictions "were of a totally opposite character. Taking a larger view of the question, he urged theiidvantage of placing confidence in the people of Canada. All the measures hitherto passed by the British Parliament with this view had been eminently successful; for, instead of rancorous hatred against the mother country, as before, there was now a wholesome party spirit, without which representative institutions could not be worked ; and the legislature of Canada was devoting its attention to practical measures of public utility. Under these circumstances he appealed to their lordships not to agree to the noble earl's proposition.

Lord St. Leonards thought that this was one of the greatest questions that could come before the house in relation to colonial government ; for the noble duke had argued that, if the present measure was carried, a similar principle must be applied to everyone of the British colouies. Their lordships, then, by their vote would have to decide whether or not every colony of Great Britain should be governed simply by a single elective assembly uncontrolled by the Crown—for that in reality was the effect of the proposition—a form of government under which the affairs of no country had as yet ever been administered with any good result. It might be said that the Parliament was not asked to do this, but only to give to the Canadian legislature the power of doing it. That amounted to the same thing, or rather it exhibited an evasion of their duties, for if what was proposed was proper, then it ought to be done by Parliament. If their lordships assented to the present bill, they would really be giving their sanction to the measure which had already been framed in Canada. They had only just gran ted to New Zealaud a constitution with two distinctly effective chambers ; one being a Legislative Council and the other an elective Assembly; but the moment the present bill passed, they must repeal the act of 1852 applying to New Zealand, and give to that colony another constitution similar to that which would be the result of the passing of the measure now under consideration in respect to Canada.

The Earl of Habkowby entertained a strong opinion that it was essential to change the constitution of the couucil from a nominee to an elective character. But instead of confiding the election to the popular vote it should be given to property, and having thus devised a good elective chamber, the body so constituted should have the control of the future constitution of the country. He should vote for the postponement of the bill.

The Earl of Dkrbz then replied, and their lordships divided. The numbers were—for going into committee,63 ; against, 33; majority, 24. Their lordships consequently went into committee upon the bill, and all the clauses ■were agreed to without amendment.