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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he proposed that the house
should meet this day and on Monday at two, and should
continue its sittings without an adjournment. -

Mr. BRIGHT liegged to ask the right hon. baronet the
President of the Board of Control when he intended to let
the house hear anything about Indian finance. (Laugh-
ter.) Last year the right hon. gentleman promised them
the pleasure of two budget nights every session ; one the
home budget, and the other the budget for India. Did
the right hon. gentleman intend to keep his promise, or
did he intend, every year to wait until about the last week
of the session ? (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. WOOD had been anxious to bring on the ques-
tion, but he did not think it would have been desirable to
interrupt the course of public business. Ire proposed to
make his financial statement on Thursday next.
Mr. BRIGHT—Why really I was thinking of going out
of town on Thursday. (Laughter.)
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 from 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 assuro the opposers of this
bill that they were quite mistaken as to the popular feel
in; 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 tho 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 past 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 styled 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 groat
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 bad
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 bad the effect of raising the rate of
interest, especially to the morn needy classes. In 1847, a
Tooke,almer, were M.
r.
committee sat on the currency question; Mr. Horsley
P
known such fluctuations in the rate of •ittterest and eCxoatmtoinn,edo.f tjshier. Bpaanlkmeorf
saidEn glhanedh,
aadndn
elec
tton
dis-
count as since the passing of the act of 1839.
stated that the rate of interest had varied in 1837 from
3i to 5} per cent. ;in 1839, from 3 to ; and in 1847
from 3f 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, in 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,earl ia me nt. The
but had been produced by
Novlals
negotiable—
thatem oleteiabett
a proo
restrictiveatntrle—o
legislation. Mr. Samuel Gurney, the largest dealer in
of
money in this country, or perhaps in the world, said that
the date of things in October, 1847, before the issue of
the Government letter, was perfectly
r feaanrifiuln;ot mia.enval.
houses perfectly solvent, and even able \to pay 40s. ini
the pound, must have stopped but for the relief afforded
ebtyeptheth Government oveeprenrmateionnt leefttearn. letterATehtatef
tepaht
i
hisr
e su. IGt
ufrnwtey ahs
a,
tg
gave
it set pbaainsl s
was wereopinion
ianriroteinfinid g
i al