s, orders had already
been transmitted to the crown colonies, and were now in successful
operation. By the bill, therefore, the assembly of Jamaica would be
referred to them, with injunctions to legislate in conformity with the
spirit of those provisions; and should they fail to do so, it would be
competent for the governor, with the aid of the council, after a certain
interval, to make tire requisite laws, _mutatis mutandis_, upon the
models which had before been indicated. The object of the second
clause was to leave a certain time to the assembly for re-enacting
the seventeen annual laws, and to invest the governor in council with
authority to renew them, in the event of their failing to do so. A brief
conversation took place, in which Sir Robert Peel declined offering any
opinion on the merits of the bill in its present stage, and the house
went into committee upon it. On the 10th of June Sir Edward Sugden
proposed on this occasion to omit the first clause of the bill,
after which he proceeded to dissect its provisions with considerable
acuteness. Mr. Labouchere defended the measure, and Messrs. Gladstone
and Goulburn objected to it. The latter said that tire present bill
differed but little from the former, and, in his opinion, only differed
for the worse, as it offered a premium to the council for disapproving
of the acts of the assembly, in order that it might itself acquire the
power of legislating in its place. On a division the clause was carried
by a majority of two hundred and twenty-eight against one hundred and
ninety-four: a result which was chiefly owing to the circumstance that
the Conservatives were not prepared for so early a division, but which
was nevertheless received with great cheering from the ministerial
benches. The order of the day was moved for the third reading on the
19th of June, when Mr. Labouchere stated that the time left to the
assembly for deliberation could be extended from the 1st to the 15th of
October. The bill was then read without opposition; but Mr. Goulburn
immediately rose to move the omission of the first clause, in which he
was seconded by Mr. Hume. Lord John Russell urged that the rejection
of that clause would prevent any useful legislation on the subjects
embraced by its provisions, and that the constitutional difficulty
rather rested on the second section. Sir Robert Peel contended that the
government was about to give just grounds of complaint to the assembly.
In reply