The Sun.
London, England, 1854-06-30 00:00:00

BILL.

Lord BEAUMONT nToyed, in regard to this _bill,
the suspension of the standing order No. 1764 which
reauired that three-fourths of the capital of a company
which applied for a bill to sanction the principle of
limited liNbility should be deposited in the Bank of
England, or be invested in excheiper bills prior to mak-
ing such an application to- Parliament. The object of
the present bill was to give limited liability to the com-
pany in regard to moneys raised in the future ' • but in-
stead of having that amount of money in the Bank of
England, all their capital was invested in telegraph
wires. The noble lord stated that the company
had laid out in telegraphic communication no less a sum
than 700,0001,, and as the standing order in ques-
tion was passed simply for the purpose of ascer-
taining the bond fide character of undertakings, he
said he hoped the house would agree to its suspension,
as the bill would enable the company to carry out still
more, and with, greater perfection, their projects
which had been so useful to the country, and
as other telegraph companies had obtained a similar
privilege.
Lord REDESDA.LE said so far as the security of
the company was concerned, he did not object
to the suspension of the standing orders, but
he thought it would be wrong to sanction the prin-
ciple of limited liability in this bill, inasmuch as it had
been refused to the other telegraph companies.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY supported the
bill, which he said differed materially from the bills for-
warded by other telegraph companies.
The motion was then agreed to.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (CANADA) BILL.
On the motion for going into committee oh this bill,

The Earl of DERBY said it now became his duty to
state the grounds upon which he ventured to urge the
suspension of this measure, at least for the present ses-
sion, the importance of which, not only to this particular
colony, and the North American colonies generally, but
to •the colonial interests of this great country, could
hardly be exaggerated. He had to apologise, in the first
place, for taking the somewhat unusual course of taking
this step on the present stage of the bill, and not on the
second n-ading. His apology was that the bill had been
read a second time on a day when it was not customary
to introduce a bill of any very great importance, and had
therefore omitted to look into the votes. He thought it
would have been more convenient and usual if, when a
bill was important, the noble lord who had charge of it
stated the intentions of the Government with regard to
it, and explained its principal provisions to the house.
In the present instance, however, the noble duke (New-
castle) confined himself to simply moving the first read-

ing of the bill, and even on the second reading he be-
lieved he had not called the attention of the house to its
objects and provisions. _That was certainly not in ac-
cordance with the usual practice, and though this might
not be of importance in ordinary cases, yet, when
they came to a question which fundamentally destroyed
the constitution of one of their most important colo-
nies--which would do away with one of the most im-
portant safeguards of the monarchical element in that
constitution—which had been established in 1791,
and confirmed after the solemn and deliberate con-
sideration of Parliament in 1840 when her Ma-

je,ty's Government came to the determination of pro-
posing a measure which would destroy one of the most
important porti.ms of that constitution, he thought it
would have been more becoming if upon moving the
first reading of the bill, the noble duke stated the views
of the Government, and called the attention of the house
to the subject. But that was not all. A noble friend
behind him had, on the seeon,l reading of the bill, called
the attention of the noble duke to the fact that there
were sonic despatches from the governor of the colony,
and from the colony itself bearing directly on the ques-
tion about to be discussed. Now these papers the noble
duke had never laid on the table, although they were
most material to the discussion of the question, and even
after that notioe of their absence had been given, the
noble duke persisted in taking the second reading.
These were the reasons which justified him in objecting
at this stage to the further progress of the bill. He
had now before him the papers which had been produced.
The first was a short despatch from Lord Elgin, dated
July 1, 1853, written on forwarding an address from the
Legislative Council, remonstrating against the proposed
change in the constitution. Another was a despatch,
dated the same day, but not received till the 18th of
July, being a counter address from the Rouse of Assem-
bly in favour of the change. There were also the reso-
lutions in detail of the House of Assembly, with the divi-
sions which took place on the resolutions on which it
was intended that the bill should be founded. They con-
tained also a letter from Lord Elgin, stating his objec-
tions to the measti-e,'but at the same time recommend-

ing that it should be passed. All these despatches were
in posse.sion of the Government before the 18th of
July, 1853. The noble duke said that these papers were
laid before the House of Commons la,t year. That was
strictly true—that was, a portion of them were—the
address of the Assembly, and the counter address of the
Legislative Council. But the opinion of Lord E!gin
and the resolutions of the House of Assembly were not
laid on the table of the House of Commons. If all these
papers had been laid before the House of Commons by

the authority of the Crown, then indeed it might be said
that notice had been given to Parliament. But they
were not spontaneously produced by the Government,
but on the motion of the hon. member for Manchester—
an independent member of the hou4e. Now, could this
be taken as an indication of the views of the Govern.
ment ? • But when were these addresses laid before the
House of Commons ? On the 20th of August, two days
before the prorogation, they were printed and laid on
the table of that house, and yet upon this the noble
duke was prepared to iustify the retaining of these papers
from July 11, 1853, to June 16, 1854—(hear, hear)—
and then producing them, not of his own accord, after
the second reading of the bill. (Hear, hear.) He .had
a right to complain that the Government had withheld
.these despatches till the other house of Parliament was
overwhelmed with business, and kept their intentions
in the dark on a question which had a vital bearing
on the legislation of their colonies. (Hear, hear.) He
wished to say nothing offensive to the noble duke
—they had something of that the other evening
and it would not be his fault if it occurred again.
The bill before the house, he found, was of such a demo-
cratic character as to destroy some of the safeguards
which had even been retained in the republican Govern-
ment of the United States. There the president had
the right to retain his Government, though their mea-
sures might be de'eated ; and the resignation of one
minister might take place without affecting the rest. The
senate and house of representatives were elected for diffe-
rent periods and by different constituencies ; thus form- .
ing a broad line of distinction between them, and no
alteration could be made in the constitution itself with-
out the consent of two-thirds of each branch of the Legis-
lature. There was a most extraordinary power possessed
by-the Supreme Court of the United States ; it could
declare any measure passed by the Legislature to be un-
constitutional, and therefore null and void. (Hear,
hear.) r It.was now proposed that in Canada, under a
monarchical government, the Legislative Council should
be elected by the same constituency as the House of
Assembly, with this only difference, that the former body
was elected for six years, and the latter for four. Should
the Legislative Council refuse for two years to concur in
any _measure passed by the House of Assembly, they
were to be dissolved and sent back for re-election to the
very constituency which had chosen the House of
Assembly.. (Hear.) This in effect made the House of
Assembly predominant. Would any of their lordships so
degrade himself as to sit in that house on such terms ?
The constitution of England could not go on foramoment
under such a system. (Hear.) And in Canada its effect
was neither more nor less than to introduce a republic
without the safeguards which otherrepublics had thought
necessary. (Hear, hear.) But there was some security ;
the Legislative Council was to consist of men above 30
years of age—(laughter)—and they were to have a pro-
perty qualification of 1,0001., unless, indeed, they had
sat in the House of Assembly, and then no qualification
was necessary. And it was remarkable that the bill it-
self abrogated the qualification of the House of Assembly,
so that virtually the members of neither house would re-
quire any qualification. These two bodies, both elected
by the same constituency, both liable to be dissolved,
were to carry on the government under the governor
who was responsible, not to the Crown, but to the House
of Assembly. Such was the system proposed for a
colony belonging to a monarchicalgovernment. If minis-
ters wished to make the colony independent, why did
they not do so directly ?-; Great as might have been the
success of Lord Elgin's administration in Canada, its
leading principle had been concession so as to enable
him to lead an easy life. (Hear, hear.) The Legisla-
tive Council in their address to the home Government
had deprecated the change proposed, and Lord Elgin in
his accompanying despatch, bad admitted that there were
formidable difficulties of execution and detail in the way
of adopting such a scheme ; but, notwithstanding these
difficulties, he gave it as his opinion that no expe-
dient was more likely to impart influence to the
Legislative Counca. (Hear, hear.) The reasons
assigned by Lord Elgin for recommending the change
were precisely those which ought to induce their lord-
ships to reject it. He anticipated the tone when our great
North American colonies would take upon themselves the
entire control of their own affairs, and when, al-
though they might be nominally subject to England,
they would be independent alike of Parliament and of
the Crown. Even in such a state of things the great
confederation of North American provinces might remain
in perfect harmony with this country, bound by ties of
loyalty to the same sovereign, although that sovereign
might he but nominally their ruler. But he would warn
their lordships that no community of feeling, could exist
if they passed a measure by which they would strip the
colon.), of everything that assimilated it to a monarchical
government; and placed it iii a po-ition similar—but in-
finitely la.kre dera,)cratie—to that great community with
which they were entering, day by day, into closer inter-
course. (Hear, hear.) He had had an idea—hut it
might he a dream—that the time might come when, ex-
ercising perfect control over their own affairs, these great
and important colonies might be combined together under
a firm monarchical government, either under a perma-