The Sun.
London, England, 1854-08-05 00:00:00

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (CANADA) BILL.

The debate on the second reading was resumed by
Mr. F. SCOTT, who said that the excuse of the Go.
vernment for not having brought forward the measure
sooner was the number of bills which had occupied the at-
tention of Parliament. But really the greater part of the
time which those bills had occupied had been taken up by
the Government itself in considering how those bills
might be got rid of ; and therefore he did not think
the excuse a very valid one. (Hear, hear.) The right
hon. baronet (Sir G. Grey) had alluded to the deliberative
character of a second chamber ; but by the measure now
proposed that second chamber would be elected by the
same parties as the first, and would consequently lose its
deliberative character. It was said the measure was
recommended by Lord Elgin, whose character was admired
by every one who knew him. All Lord Elgin had done
was to transmit to the home Government the recommenda-
tion of the Legislative Assembly, without expressing any
positive opinion on the merits of the scheme; and it should
be borne in mind that the Assembly was the body which
controlled the executive. The noble lord had merely
sought to remove the responsibility frow his own shoulders
to those of the Colonial-office ; and he suspected that the
Government was doing the same thing, in bringing this
measure before Parliament. The exact position was this—
the advisers of the sovereign in a monarchy were recom-
mending a form of government for a colony which was too
democratic for a republic. The measure would in effect
sanction the establishment of a republic in our North
American colonies. It might be there was a probability of
*those colonies being separated from us ; but why should we
not seek to give them monarchical institutions such as
we ourselves enjoyed? He protested against the prece-
dence of passing a measure like this at so late a period of
the session.

Mr. BIGGS said he had resided some time in the North
American colonies, and could assure the opposers of this
bill that they were quite mistaken as to the popular feel-
ing in the colony. The inhabitants there, consisting
chiefly of emigrants from this country, possessed the most
democratic tastes; and if our legislation was not equally
democratic, the colonies would be wrested from us, and
thrown into the arms of the United States. Had the hon.
gentleman opposite lived in the reign of George 111., with
their narrow notions of colonial Government, they would
have been parties to losing the whole of our colonies. For
years piri, the greatest soreness had prevailed in Canada
respecting their little imitation House of Lords, as it was
called; and this proposal to throw it open would be the
most popular measure ever proposed for the colonies. It
would attach the colonies to this country, and would hold
out the prospect of a long and prosperous connexion be-
tween them.

The amendment was then negatived without a division,
and the bill was read a second time.
USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. CAYLEY complained that no opportunity had been
given for discussing the measure. It was introduced after
12 o'clock at night, with but a single day's notice ; and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had given no exposition of
his views on the question. It might very properly have
formed a subject for a committee of inquiry ; and there
were strong reasons why it should not be dealt with in a
hurried manner. Putting aside the abstract question of
the propriety of abolishing the usury laws, there were
various reasons for not hastily deciding the question at the
end of a session. In 1825 a Parliamentary committee had
recommended the repeal of the usury laws as to bills of
exchange of 3 months ; and in 1833 a measure to that effect
was passed. In 1837 the same law was extended to bills of
12 months and under. It was doubtful whether that
legislation had been successful. Two or three years after,
Lord Ashburton stated that he had great doubts as to
the propriety of the change ; it had been a godsend, he
said, to money brokers, but no benefit to the mercan-
tile classes generally. In 1841, a committee of the
House of Lords was appointed on the subject; all the great
crpitalists of the country were examined before it ; and
Mr. Cooke (of the firm of Truman and Cooke) gave it as
his opinion that the change had been very beneficial to the
capitalist, but not so to the borrower—that the former had
put about a million and a half into his pocket, chiefly at
the expense of the industrious classes. Mr. Graham, one
of the official assignees of the Court of Chancery, stated
that the change had had the effect of raising the rate of
interest, especially to the more) needy classes. In 1847, a
committee sat on the currency question; Mr. Horsley
Palmer, Mr. Cotton, of the Bank of England, and Mr.
Tooke, were examined. Mr. Palmer said he had never
known such fluctuations in the rate of interest and dis-
count as since the passing of the act of 1839. Mr. Cotton
stated that the rate of interest had varied in 1837 from
3.j to 5A per cent. ; in 1839, from 3i to 6,!; ; and in 1847
from 3i to 10 per cent. It might be said that these fluc-
tuations had arisen from money being allowed to find its
natural level, owing to the removal of the restrictions.
But the laws affecting money were, iu fact, not free. The
evidence before the committee of 1847 showed that the
scarcity and panic of that year had not arisen from any
ordinary causes, but had been produced by our restrictive
legislation. Mr.' Samuel Gurney, the largest dealer in
money in this country, or perhaps in the world, said that
the state of things in October, 1847, before the issue of
the Government letter, was perfectly fearful; many
houses perfectly solvent, and even able to pay 40s. in
the pound, must have stopped but for the relief afforded
by the Government letter. That letter was meant ,tqf
stop the operation of
,an Act of Parliament. TWC
result was, that bills were rendered negotiable- -.
a proof that the panic was artificial, and not realiJ
that 1 **
Ur. Gurney gave it 45 hiS opinionthat otter o