Commons Sitting of 4 August 1854

Preamble
NEW WRIT.—For Cockermouth v. Henry Aglionby Aglionby, Esq., deceased.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Consolidated Fund.
2o Legislative Council (Canada); Customs.
3o and passed—Militia Pay; Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (CANADA) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. FREDERICK PEEL,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that its object was to enable the Legislature of Canada—if it desired to do so—to alter the constitution of one of its branches—namely, the Legislative Council, and for that purpose to repeal or alter the section of the Imperial Act for the Union of Canada, passed in 1840, which had reference to the manner in which the Legislative Council should be appointed. The Bill had been introduced into the other House of Parliament by the noble Duke lately at the head of the Colonial Office (the Duke of Newcastle), and this was the reason that the measure had not reached that House at an earlier period of the Session. It was, however, some time since the attention of Her Majesty's Government was called to the subject of this Bill. About the middle of last year the Government received two addresses from the Canadian Legislature—one from the Assembly, and the other from the Legislative Council. The address of the Assembly requested that the power which it was proposed to give them by this Bill might be conferred upon the Legislature, while the address of the Council remonstrated against such concession. The address of the Assembly pointed out the importance of introducing the elective principle into the constitution of the Upper House, and suggested a plan by which the Council might be rendered elective. The Assembly of Canada, at the time the address was passed, consisted of eighty-four members, but the number had since been raised to 130; these members were divided between two parts of the province which used to be called Upper and Lower Canada; the constituencies which returned them embraced a very large portion of the whole adult male population, and be believed that no popular assembly could more fairly represent public opinion. The address was adopted by the Assembly at the invitation of a member of the executive Government,
1320
and the following was the most important passage which it contained—
"We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada, in Provincial Parliament assembled, humbly beg leave to represent to your Majesty that, under the circumstances in which the province of Canada is placed in a social, political, and economical point of view, we are humbly of opinion that the introduction of the elective principle into the constitution of the Legislative Council would not only impart greater weight to that important branch of the Legislature than it can have under existing arrangements, however judiciously the selection of its members may be made, but would also ensure greater efficiency in carrying out that system of government which obtains in the mother country, and has been happily introduced into this province."
That paragraph was not adopted without a division, but it was carried by a majority of fifty-one to fourteen, showing that four-fifths of the Assembly were in favour of this change. Looking over the minutes of the proceedings, he thought he might say he doubted whether there was a single member of the Assembly who really objected to the enactment of such a measure as that now before the House. The address of the Legislative Council was, as he had intimated, of an opposite character, and remonstrated against the concession of the power which would be conferred by the Bill. He fully allowed that all proper weight was due to the representations of the intelligent and experienced men who had seats in the Council, but their opposition was only natural, inasmuch as under the scheme which was proposed by the Assembly in their address, these gentlemen would be deprived at intervals of a greater or less number of years, of the seats which they now held for life. It appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the application of the Assembly was a most important one, and that they were bound not to act with precipitation, but to consider the subject carefully and deliberately. Now, the importance of this Bill did not in any way arise from its involving any innovations in colonial administration. The principle of the Bill was one which, on several occasions in the course of the last few years, the Home Government had recognised and acted upon in relation to the government of our Colonies. The importance of the present Bill arose from the application of this principle to that colony, which was the first in importance among all the great colonies of this country. The effect of this example would most assuredly be felt, not only in the adjoining provinces of British North

1321
America, which possessed constitutions similar to that of Canada, but, in all probability, in the Colonies of Australia, where, at this moment, the question of the constitution of the upper of the two Legislative bodies, which it was proposed should share between them the functions of legislation, in place of the existing Legislative Councils, was a subject of public deliberation and debate. The fact that the petition of the Legislative Council of New South Wales expressly desired a constitution corresponding not to the British constitution, which was supposed to be the model of all our colonial constitutions, but to that of the province of Canada, showed, he thought, the importance of any measure of this kind. The address of the Canadian Assembly, to which he had before referred, reached Her Majesty's Government at so late a period of the year, that they did not feel justified in introducing any measure on the subject during the last Session. They determined, therefore, to consider the question during the recess, and to avail themselves of the visit paid to this country by the Governor General of Canada, the Earl of Elgin, to consult with him personally as to the course he would recommend. He thought the House would agree with him that no person could be better qualified than Lord Elgin, by his political experience, his intimate acquaintance with the affairs of Canada, his experience during the period of six or seven years for which he had presided over the Government of the Colony, and, above all, by his entire freedom from any party conflicts in the Colony, to afford valuable information on this subject to Her Majesty's Ministers. One of the most prominent features of Lord Elgin's administration had been, that since the introduction into Canada of responsible government he had abstained from identifying himself personally with any party in the province, and he had cordially co-operated with any Government, no matter who its members might be, possessing the confidence of the Assembly, in promoting the welfare of the Colony. The Government accordingly consulted with Lord Elgin, whose opinion entirely confirmed the statement that noble Lord made when be sent to Her Majesty's Government the address of the Canadian Assembly—
"I feel it my duty, in transmitting this address, to state that I know of no expedient which is so likely to impart to the Legislative Council the influence which it is most desirable that it should
1322
possess as the substitution of the principle of election for that of nomination by the Crown in the appointment of its members."
The present measure, then, came before the House as the expression of the public opinion of the people of Canada, supported by the approval of the Governor General, and with the sanction of the other House of Parliament. The object of the Bill was to enable the Legislature of Canada to alter the fundamental basis of the Legislative Council. The Bill did not propose to make the Legislative Council an elective body, but merely provided that it should be competent to the Canadian Legislature, either to retain the Legislative Council as it now existed, or to alter its constitution as they might think fit. It might be asked, perhaps, why the Crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, could not confer the power sought to be given by this Bill, without the intervention of Parliament? When the Crown granted constitutions to conquered colonies it might, he believed, impose restrictions upon the powers of the popular assemblies which it created, but it had not been usual of late years to impose such restrictions; and when representative institutions were granted to the Cape of Good Hope especial care was taken that full and unlimited control over their own constitution should be given by Order in Council to the popular bodies then created. The constitution of Canada was, however, a Parliamentary constitution, and therefore it was necessary to apply to that House to sanction the powers which this Bill would give to the Legislature of Canada. If the Crown conferred representative institutions on a colony, the popular assemblies had in every instance, as a matter of course, full control over the institutions thus given. Thus the colony of New Brunswick had its constitution from the Crown, and it might at any moment make its Legislative Council elective if it pleased, subject to the exercise of the negative of the Crown on the acts of its Legislature. He mentioned New Brunswick because on a former occasion Earl Grey, when Colonial Secretary, stated to the Lieutenant Governor of that province that the Government of which he was a Member had no objection to the introduction of the elective principle into the Legislative Council of the Colony. But the explanation of the necessity existing in the present case for coming to Parliament was, that the constitution of Canada was a Parliamentary constitution, and had been so

1323
from its origin, having been established and regulated by the Acts of 1774, 1791, and 1840—the first conferring legislative powers on the Governor and a Council nominated by himself; the second dividing Canada into two parts, and creating a different constitution in each, one a Council named by the Governor, the other an Assembly chosen by the people; the third reuniting Canada, and amalgamating the two Legislatures into a Council nominated by the Crown, and a popularly elected Assembly. It was not competent for the Colonial Legislature to exercise any powers except those expressly given by those Acts, and that of 1840 did not confer power to alter in any manner those of its provisions which had reference to the Legislative Council. It might be asked whether there was any instance of Parliament granting a constitution to a colony, and, at the same time, conferring upon the Colonial Legislature which it created power to alter or to destroy the arrangement proposed by the Imperial Parliament. He begged to remind the House of a recent instance in which this course had been pursued. The Act which conferred constitutions upon the Australian Colonies granted to them full power to alter the constitutions provided by that Act, and to adopt, if they thought fit, the elective principle. When the Act of 1840 was passed for the union of the two Canadian provinces a strong reason existed for withholding the powers which would be conferred by this Bill. At that period great disunion and political confusion prevailed in Canada. A contest had long been prevailing between the French Canadians and the British mercantile party, and these contentions resulted in the rebellion of 1837. In 1838 the Imperial Parliament deprived Lower Canada of the free institutions which that Colony had enjoyed since 1791, and when, in 1840, Parliament was again called upon to legislate for Canada, it was felt necessary to proceed very cautiously with regard to the restoration of free institutions, in consequence of the distrust which existed in the loyalty of a portion of the population. There was, however, no reason at the present time for entertaining the slightest distrust of the Canadian population, and the loyalty of the French Canadians was undoubted. He conceived, therefore, that, as every colony of this country, with the exception of Canada, possessed those powers of dealing with its own legislative institutions which would be conferred by this Bill,
1324
Parliament could not now hesitate to grant such powers to the Canadian Legislature. In framing this measure the Government had not adopted the recommendations offered by the Canadian Assembly as to the details of the measure. No doubt it was wished that the scheme proposed in the address should have been taken as its basis, and a draft embodying its provisions had been subsequently forwarded by the Canadian Government, but it was judged better to leave the whole question to the Legislature of Canada, and to restrict the scope of the Bill to granting them the power of making the Council elective if they chose to exercise it. It was not improbable that the practical result of the measure would be to make the Council elective, and many persons were apprehensive, that the authority of the Crown in Canada might be endangered if both branches of the Legislature became elective. He did not in any degree share those apprehensions; on the contrary, he thought it probable that if the Council were made elective, it might become a more conservative body than it ever was. On referring to the history of the Canadian Legislature, it would be found that the Crown had not, in reality, derived any authority or influence from having the nomination of the Council, and that it had not thereby succeeded in retarding any measure originating with the Assembly which might be supposed to encroach on the authority of the Crown. The Legislative Council had, in fact, been condemned from its commencement. In 1791, Mr. Fox proposed to make it elective, and though this was resisted by Mr. Pitt, yet a time was anticipated when the change would be required, and actually accomplished. In 1828 a Committee of the House of Commons, appointed, on the Motion of Mr. Huskisson, to consider the state of affairs in Canada, which were then complicated by the conflict that had long subsisted between the French and English parties, recommended that the number of nominee members in the Council should be diminished. There was a want of inherent power in its constitution which made it incapable of opposing any effective resistance to the Assembly, and this could only be given to it by making it elective, or at least letting it be understood that its constitution was completely under the control of the colonists themselves. But it was not to be anticipated that the Council should ever become the rival of the

1325
Assembly, which would retain in its hands the power of the purse. He would now advert to some circumstances which were said to form a reason why the Bill should not be adopted. The Government of Mr. Hicks, which had held office in Canada since 1848, had recently been defeated in the Assembly, and had advised Lord Elgin to dissolve the Assembly and call a new Parliament. During the last Session two measures had been passed, one raising the numbers of the Assembly from eighty-four to 130, the other giving votes to persons possessed of a very small amount of property. The Canadian Government had not thought it desirable to avail themselves of the power given by the Imperial Act passed last year for settling the question of the clergy reserves until the measure increasing the constituency should be passed; but the Assembly had come to a resolution in favour of dealing with the question immediately. He did not think these circumstances formed any ground why they should not pass the present Bill. It made no difference, as far as this question was concerned, what might be the number of the members of the Assembly, or of the voters who elected it. Differences of opinion might prevail under any circumstances, but the great advantage of the present Bill would be, that, instead of there being a contest between a party in Canada and the Home Government, to withhold a power which the colonists ought to possess, the question would become one between political parties in the colony itself, where its details would be settled. It was further proposed by the Bill to repeal those clauses of the Act of Union of 1791, providing that the Colonial Legislature should not have power to alter the property qualification of its members, that the number of members of the Assembly should not be increased unless a majority of two-thirds in each House concurred in favour of doing so, and that certain Colonial Acts should not be confirmed by the Crown until they should have been laid on the tables of the Houses of Parliament for thirty days. He felt persuaded that the measure, if passed, would give increased steadiness to the course of legislation in the Colony, render the Council a really conservative body, capable of acting as a check or balance to the Assembly, and remove elements of future disturbance from the relations now happily subsisting between the mother country and the British North American Provinces.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he should not shrink from the duty of objecting to the second reading of this Bill in spite of the present discouraging state of the House. He objected to the Bill, first, because it was one sanctioning institutions of an extremely democratic character in the important province of Canada, and secondly, on account of the manner in which it had been brought under the consideration of Parliament by Her Majesty's Government. In the first place the House of Commons was called upon to consider a Bill of this moment for the first time on the 4th of August. He took exception decidedly to the statement of the Duke of Newcastle in another place, and of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, that this was only a permissive Bill. Had the Canadian Assembly merely requested power to make the Council elective, and had the Bill given only such permission as was given in the case of the Australian Government Bill, it might have been fair to make this statement; but the fact was that the Canadian Government had devised a specific scheme, which in his mind was one of an extreme democratic character. They sent it over for the consideration of the Imperial Government, and then Her Majesty's Ministers brought into Parliament a Bill to enable the Canadian Legislature to carry out that particular plan. To bring forward such a measure at such a date as they had now reached, was a course not decorous or respectful either to that House or to the Canadian Legislature. The Bill had been on the table for five weeks. Why had it not been read a second time before? Why had Government waited so long? It was brought down to that House on Friday, the 30th of June, and this was now Friday, the 4th of August. He had really thought that the Government had considered it wiser, considering what had since taken place in the Colony, to drop the Bill altogether; but very greatly to his surprise, it had again been placed upon the Orders of the Day, after having long disappeared from them. He would put it to the noble Lord the President of the Council whether the Government were acting respectfully either to the House or the Canadian Colonies. Look at the state of the House. [There were at that time some twenty Members on the Government, and about ten on the Oppo-

1327
sition benches.] Was that a House in which to introduce a Bill of such importance? Since the Bill came down from the House of Lords, the Legislative Assembly of Canada had been dissolved, because they evinced a determination to deal at once with the great question of the clergy reserves, after themselves virtually admitting that they were not a fair representation of the Canadian people by passing the Act to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, for the extension of the representation. Amongst the papers lately laid on the table he found a despatch from Lord Elgin, expressing an opinion that the attempt to settle such a question in a Parliament which had been already declared by its own vote to be an imperfect representation of the people, was a course of proceeding obviously open to serious objection. He must express strong disapprobation of the course taken by the Duke of Newcastle, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reference to this whole subject. The Bill was founded on the address of the Assembly, which, as well as that of the Council, reached this country in the month of July last, and were laid on the table before the end of the Session on the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright). He recollected no other instance of such addresses having been laid on the table without the covering despatch, and could only explain the withholding it by the fact of no answer having been sent, or of the answer being of such a nature that Ministers did not choose that it should be known to Parliament. [Mr. FREDERICK PEEL: The despatch was not asked for.] That was, of course, the explanation offered by the Government, but he did not think that that was a sufficient answer, or that the omission of the despatch was justified by the custom of Parliament. He could only account for it in two ways—in the first place the despatch had not been answered; and in the second the Government, he suspected, were not very anxious to let Parliament see that despatch. He had a great respect for Lord Elgin, but the despatch in question was marked by a characteristic for which, on more than one occasion, he had had to find fault with the noble Lord. Its substance was this: "I think the measure most objectionable and surrounded with grave difficulties; but you had better pass it." That was a very convenient course for Lord Elgin, and might relieve him from very great difficulty, but he did not
1328
think it would be held very satisfactory to the public either in this country or Canada. It must be a matter of great doubt whether such an elective council as the Bill contemplated would work for the benefit of the people, or consistently with the plan of responsible government established in Canada. He (Sir J. Pakington) considered that the Duke of Newcastle had acted very improperly in not having so much as acknowledged the receipt of that despatch for eleven months. The noble Duke said that, as Lord Elgin was coming to England, he wished to see him personally before replying to the despatch. The noble Duke ought not to have waited for Lord Elgin's arrival; but when his Lordship did come, the noble Duke did not even then answer it. Lord Elgin was here at the beginning of the year, and yet the despatch was not answered till the 26th of May. He appealed to the House whether the noble Duke bad treated so important a colony with the respect it deserved? And what had been the result of the noble Duke's conduct? The Assembly—considering, in the words of the old proverb, that silence gave consent—proceeded to draw up the draft of the Bill which they sent over to England for adoption. And even when the noble Duke did answer the despatch, did the House ever see such an answer? It contained four paragraphs. The first two acknowledged the receipt of the two addresses. In the third he stated that the Government intended immediately to introduce a Bill giving the Legislative Council such powers to alter the provisions of the Union Act as would meet the object of the address if the Legislature, on reconsideration, considered it desirable to persevere. In the fourth paragraph, he stated that they would also deal with the law requiring Bills of a certain character to be laid on the table of the House in the same Bill. And this was the answer which, after ten or eleven months' gestation, the noble Duke had produced to satisfy the people of Canada! But he should like to know what the noble Duke meant when he said that he proposed to introduce a Bill to effect the object of "the address," seeing that there were two? After nearly a twelvemonth's interval, at the end of June the Bill was laid upon the table of the House of Lords by the noble Duke, who appeared to think that, as he had taken so much time himself, the Houses of Parliament ought to have as little as possible. The Bill was opposed

1329
by a noble Earl in a speech of singular ability, and was supported by the noble Duke in a speech characterised by as signal a want of success. The noble Duke said that he (Sir J. Pakington) had also produced a colonial constitution in which the Upper Chamber was an elective one. This was the second time on which he had been invited by the Government to share their responsibility with them, and the construction he put upon this repeated attempt to fix him with complicity in the acts of the Government was, that they were not quite sure that those acts would bear examination; for if they were satisfied with their measures he was afraid the last thing they would think of would be to invite him to share the credit of them. The noble Duke said—
SIR GEORGE GREYrose to order. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to the speech of the Duke of Newcastle on the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, and he held in his hand a newspaper which professed to give a report of the debate.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he did not hold in his hand a newspaper, and he had never alluded to the House of Lords.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was very irregular to allude to debates in the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman might allude to proceedings in the House of Lords, but not to debates there.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was always anxious to pay the greatest respect to the decision of the Chair, but in this case he could do no more than render a literal obedience to the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman. He had never named the House of Lords, and he thought it would be an extreme measure to prevent him from doing what he had seen done over and over again. All he would say, therefore, was that the Duke of Newcastle was in error in supposing that he had anything to do with the Cape constitution, that constitution having been drawn by Earl Grey. The only thing which he had to do with that constitution was to write a despatch, in September, 1852, advising that proceedings with respect to it ought to be suspended till the end of the Kafir war. When that war did close, and when he was preparing to consider what course he would take with regard to that constitution, the Government of which he was a Member left office. But he had been very much concerned in the formation of another constitution, namely, that of
1330
New Zealand; and on that occasion he had divided the House against a proposal for an elective Upper Chamber, and had been supported by a large majority. He did not mean to say that he would not, under any circumstances, allow of an elected Upper Chamber, for even in the House of Lords the principle of election was recognised. But he did not see any objection to the principle of a nominated Upper Chamber; on the contrary, he thought it might be made a useful check upon the action of the Legislative Assembly. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) said that the subject had been discussed in New South Wales. During that discussion, Mr. Wentworth—a gentleman who had earned for himself great colonial distinction, and who was certainly not of any aristocratic or high conservative principles—made a very remarkable speech. He said that the two Chambers at the Cape were more duplicates of each other; and that the effect of the new constitution would be to hand over the Government of the Colony to the vagabond Hottentot party. But even the Cape constitution was not nearly so democratic as that proposed for Canada. The Lower Chamber in Canada it was proposed should be elected for six years, one-third going out every two years; whereas the Lower Chamber at the Cape was elected for ten years, one-half going out every five years. Again, the Cape qualification was an unincumbered real property amounting to 2,000 l., or personal property amounting to 4,000 l.; but in Canada the qualification was to be the simple possession of property to the amount of 1,000 l. What was this new Council in Canada to do? It was to be elected by the same constituency as the Lower Chamber. That he objected to. The qualification was only to be that the members were to be possessed of property to the amount of 1,000 l. But there was another and important distinction which he thought highly objectionable, because it struck directly at the independence of the body. It was, that if they exercised their legitimate powers, and refused for two consecutive Sessions to pass the measures which had passed the Lower House, they should be liable to a dissolution. The institutions they were going to sanction were far more democratic even than the institutions of the United States. The most valuable part of the institutions of the United States was the Senate. They were not elected by the same constituency as the Assembly, but by a system of double elec-

1331
tion, and the result was, that they got a most valuable body of legislators of the highest class; and every one acquainted with the institutions of the United States must be aware of the difference of character which attached to the House of Assembly and to the Senate. Recollect that in America they had not what we call responsible government. The Ministers were independent of the Senate. And recollect the Senate was not liable to dissolution, but they were elected for six years, and during that six years they exercised a veto on the legislation as great as that of the House of Lords. They were not subject, as the proposed Council was in Canada, to be dissolved, if for two years they resisted the more popular assembly. Then there was another change—he meant the facility that was given by this Bill to frequency of changes of institutions in Canada. If Her Majesty's Ministers thought the Canadians were going to establish for themselves a good and sound system of Government, why should they leave that Government exposed to change at any moment on the mere impulse of popular feeling? This was not the course pursued in the United States, where the constitution very wisely provided against hasty changes in the public institutions. The former constitution of Canada guarded against such hasty changes, by requiring the consent of a large proportion of the Legislature to any alterations in the constitution; and he wished to know on what ground this principle had been abandoned? He thought it was impossible that such a constitution as was proposed to be established by this Bill would really effect the great object of a second Chamber—namely, that of establishing a check between the executive power on the one hand, and the popular branch of Legislature on the other. How was it possible that an effective check could exist where the two Chambers were elected by the same constituency, and when the Upper Chamber was liable to dissolution if it resisted for two successive Sessions the will of the Lower Chamber. The opinions expressed by the noble President of the Council (Lord J. Russell) in 1840 were directly in opposition to such an arrangement. He (Sir J. Pakington) thought it was impossible that the system of party government—or, as it was called in the Colonies, responsible government—could be carried on with two Chambers, constituted in the manner proposed by this Bill. If they had two bodies, both claim-
1332
ing to spring from popular election, the one continuing for four years and the other for six years, they might have one House opposing and the other supporting the Executive Government, who, under such circumstances, would find it extremely difficult and embarrassing to carry on the system of responsible government. He also entertained a very strong feeling that, in thus sanctioning by their legislation democratic institutions of this character for the Colonies, they were not really meeting the wishes of the colonists themselves. He did not believe that the colonial subjects of the British empire had any desire for democratic institutions. This question had arisen in New South Wales, where the constitution of the Upper Chamber had been fully discussed by men who were most anxious for the maintenance of public liberty. Since 1844 the colonists of New South Wales had repeatedly urged upon the Government their desire to have certain concessions made to them, and those concessions were ultimately made by the late, and confirmed by the present, Government; but it was required, as a condition of these concessions, that the residents of New South Wales should remodel their constitution. A Committee was appointed by the Legislature of New South Wales to consider and report upon the draught of a constitution, and the feeling of the people was in favour of a nominated Upper Chamber. [Mr. LOWE: No!] That was rather an unusually flat contradiction, but he thought the extract he was about to read would bear him out in what he had just stated. The Committee stated—
"As regards the constitution of the Legislalative Council, your Committee consider the House is pledged to a constitution similar in its outline to that of Canada. … But the Committee are of opinion that the offer contained in their declaration and remonstrance necessarily includes a nominated Legislative Council in the first instance; and from this offer, independently of the question whether they are strictly bound by it or not, they see no reason to depart. They desire to have a form of government based on the analogies of the British constitution."
M. de Tocqueville had taken precisely the same view with regard to the constitution that was required for Canada. He believed it would be found that a great proportion of the Canadian people would be unwilling to adopt democratic institutions, or to depart one iota beyond what was unavoidable from the constitution of the mother country. He thought the error which had marked the Canadian

1333
policy of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was, that it had always had a tendency to elevate that portion of the colonial population who were least attached to the British Crown and to British institutions, at the expense of the most loyal portion of the population, and those who were most anxious to preserve the British connection. He had traced this principle in the noble Lord's policy for many years, and he found it still pursued. He thought the cause of this policy was the mistake which many persons made in confusing democracy with freedom. He would always be prepared to resist and to oppose democracy—he meant, of course, extreme democratic institutions. At the same time he readily acknowledged that the democratic element was one of the greatest blessings this country had ever enjoyed. He held that no country could be free and prosperous without a large infusion of that element; but he believed that, if the principle was pushed too far, and if extreme democratic institutions were adopted, neither the interests of freedom nor the real happiness and welfare of the people would be promoted. He would not advise the Government to oppose what was proved to be the fixed and decided wish of such a population as that of Canada; but he counselled them not to go out of their way to encourage extreme democratic institutions, and to give to such institutions the sanction of the British Parliament. What the colonists desired, and what Parliament was bound to give them, was full power to manage their own affairs. If the Parliament wished to conciliate the affections of the colonists, and to cement their attachment to the Crown of England, let them respect the rights and freedom of the colonial population. He believed that if they offered to our colonists the most democratic and republican institutions, the colonists would reply that they were still the subjects of the Queen of England—that intervening seas had not diminished their attachment to the institutions of their fatherland; and that, adopting the noble language of a distinguished colonial statesman, Mr. Wentworth, they would declare that they rejected the unwelcome boon. He would not call upon the House to go to a division; but he wished to place upon record his entire dissent from the course which the Government had taken upon this subject, because, in his opinion, this Bill would give the sanction of the British Government to the establishment of institutions in Canada
1334
which would tend, surely and certainly, to the separation of that Colony from this country, and which, neither before nor after the period of that separation, could possibly conduce to the welfare, the happiness, or the good government of the Canadian people.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he conceived this Bill was only extending to Canada the same principle which the mother country had recognised and acted upon with respect to other of her colonial possessions, and therefore he considered it was almost a waste of time to prolong the debate. At the same time he wished to express his extreme dissent from the views which had been expressed on this subject by the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington). It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman opposed this measure because he objected to the Reform Bill, which had been approved by the Canadians, and that he consequently was in favour of the existing state of things in Canada. But he (Mr. Adderley) would appeal from the right hon. Gentleman's views on that point to those who were smarting from the existing state of things there, and to the wishes of the Canadian people themselves. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, on what grounds this country could possibly interfere to oppose the wishes of the people of Canada as to a reform in their constitution? He conceived the question before the House was not whether the Reform Bill which was proposed by Canada was a good one or not. Indeed, if there was one fault which the Government had committed in reference to this measure, it was that both in the measure itself, and still more in the debates which had ensued upon it, they had entered into the details of the subject, seeing that they had proceeded on the principle that the Canadians would choose their own constitution. He would submit to the House that the broad question which the House had to consider was, whether this country could insist on a different Reform Bill from that of the Canadians themselves. Could the right hon. Gentleman point to one solitary instance in the history of colonial legislation where a constitution which had been made to order in this country had ever succeeded or taken permanent root in the political institutions of the colony for which it was designed? He (Mr. Adderley) did not believe such an instance was to be found. It would seem that if the right hon. Gentleman was now in power as Colonial Mi-

1335
nister, his object would be to suppress the wishes of the Canadian people, and to send out to them a constitution similar to that of the mother country.
SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, he must disclaim any such wish, and he could not help complaining that the hon. Gentleman was misrepresenting the arguments he had used.
MR. ADDERLEY: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that England had a mission to spread monarchical institutions over all the world. He (Mr. Adderley) believed that during the 200 years in which England had been engaged in colonisation, the result of all its achievements in that way had been to spread as great a variety of political constitutions all over the globe as any nation had done ever since the world began; and the kind of constitution which they had never succeeded in establishing was just that which the right hon. Gentleman was desirous of seeing adopted in Canada. He (Mr. Adderley) would rather say, let us trust to that spirit which loves its own institutions, which goes out with every band of emigrants that leaves this country for our distant dependencies, and which would ever adapt itself to the local circumstance with which it had to deal, and which were but imperfectly understood in this country. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it was desirable to imitate the House of Lords in constituting an Upper Chamber for Canada; but he (Mr. Adderley) would tell him that the House of Lords was not so easily imitated. That House sprang from a root the like of which he would not find in the Colonies; there were not materials for the constitution of a Chamber on any such principle in a new colony, where the population was always of an essentially shifting character; and to found anything like an hereditary peerage under such circumstances was absolutely and simply impossible. He contended that a nominated Chamber was a mere duplication of the Crown, and nothing more. He would say, in conclusion, that he was most anxious that nothing should be done which was likely to endanger the connection subsisting between this country and the Colonies; and he would now give notice that, at the very earliest moment of the next Session, he should venture to bring the question before the House, whether it was wise or politic to be alluding to the separation of the Colonies from this country as a possible contingency,
1336
and whether it was not practicable to draw our distant dependencies into closer connection with the mother country.
MR. HUMEsaid, he could not but express his great satisfaction at the present state of affairs in Canada. Five and twenty years ago he proposed the adoption of the very course which was now being pursued towards that Colony, and everything that had occurred since showed that he was right. Every attempt to counteract the progressive principle had failed. Since representative government was extended to her, Canada had doubled in prosperity, and he had no doubt that her career would continue to be progressive. They were now asked to pass a Bill giving Canada power to alter the existing constitution, and he could not conceive anything more likely to lead to a happy result. The connection between this country and the Colony would last as long as, and no longer than, they made it the interest of the colonists to be associated with them. In the present state of the world they could not expect to keep their dependencies without the tie of interest; but, on the other hand, it was impossible that the colonists could enjoy greater advantages than they possessed in association with England, and with English capital and English protection to assist them. They were now adopting the true mode of making the Colonies of England strong and powerful. He entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman in his appreciation of the Duke of Newcastle, for, in his opinion, the course pursued by the noble Duke throughout this matter had been in a high degree praiseworthy.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he understood that the right hon. Baronet did not intend to divide the House, and, such being the case, and no Member having supported the right hon. Baronet's views, it was quite unnecessary for him to trespass for more than a few moments on their attention. The right hon. Baronet insisted, as one objection to the Bill, upon the late period of the Session at which it came before the House; but the measure had only been delayed, in common with other business that had come down from the other House, in order to enable the House of Commons to dispose of measures which had to be transmitted to the House of Lords. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill had come down to them supported by the sanction of a large majority of the House of Lords, whose support of the measure fully confuted the alle-

1337
gation of the right hon. Baronet that the Duke of Newcastle had not efficiently prepared and advocated its provisions. As to the details of the Bill which had come over from Canada, he held, with the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), that the House had nothing whatever to do with them, although, from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, it might be supposed that the House was absolutely in Committee upon that measure. The real question before the House was, whether, Canada having made the immense progress she had made in wealth, population, and fitness for self-government, there was any valid reason for withholding from her those privileges which were enjoyed by almost every other British colony of altering her own constitution, with the concurrence and consent of the Crown? Canada was now the only important British colony which did not possess this privilege. Was the House prepared to withhold the concession from Canada? In Australia our colonists knew how to exercise the privileges which Parliament had conferred upon them, and had they any more reason to distrust the Canadian colonists than to distrust the Australians? The right hon. Baronet denounced the contemplated constitution as democratic and republican, but the main point to be considered was the result that would be attained, and not the particular mode by which the Canadians would attain it. The question was, whether by the change proposed the Executive Council would secure that respect and weight and confidence with the people which the nominated Council had failed to secure, or which would enable it to operate more effectually as a real and valid check against inconsiderate popular impulses and hasty legislation? This end obtained, the mode was matter of less moment, and might safely be left to the good sense of the colonists. The feeling of Parliament had long been in this direction, and the effect upon our Australian Colonies and upon our North American Colonies of such principles had been most beneficial. He believed that the change, so far from tending to the separation of our Colonies from the British Crown—a separation which none could more earnestly deprecate than himself—would, on the contrary, tend to cement the attachment of the Colonies to the Crown, and to render the connection between them of far greater interest and value to both. The union of the two provinces and the introduction of a respon-
1338
sible Government under the auspices of Lord Elgin, had already operated most beneficially, had lessened the differences between the two races, and united them in a feeling of warm attachment to the British Crown, and he had the fullest confidence that the present measure would largely tend to strengthen and perpetuate the connection between this country and that Colony which Lord Durham had justly denominated one of the brightest ornaments of the Imperial Crown.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he wished to express his entire concurrence in the provisions of the Bill before the House. Whatever might have been the shortcomings of the noble Lord the President of the Council towards the Liberal party in this country, the noble Lord had always been firm to the Liberal party in the Colonies. In one, and only one, respect he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington), namely, in the regret which he felt at the late period of the Session at which the Bill had been brought under their consideration; but that was no reason for objecting to it when it did come. The object of the measure was not to establish a new constitution for Canada, but to remove impediments which had hitherto prevented Canada establishing a constitution for herself, and he thought the Canadian people had shown themselves worthy in every respect of being intrusted with the management of their own institutions.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: At this hour, Sir, I shall not occupy much of the time of the House; but, having introduced the Bill of 1840 for the union of the Canadas, I think it incumbent on me to say that I heartily approve of the present Bill. I think it was advisable to have imposed restrictions at that time; but from the moment the leading men of the Colony were disposed to say that the affairs of the Colony would be better managed by an elective Legislative Council than by a nominee Council, I cannot see what possible interest we can have in preventing them from making the contemplated change. I entirely concur in giving them this power. Whether or not they are wise in asking for it, and whether they will make a wise use of it, are totally different questions. This, however, we do know, that since the Union Act, which I had the honour to introduce, was passed, Canada has made very great progress, and that there can hardly be found anywhere, even among the young communities of the Unit-

1339
ed States, a community in which population and wealth have increased so rapidly, or in which there has been such a great increase of every improvement that accompanies civilisation. With regard to the question of an elective Council, of course the Legislature of Canada will have to consider the difficulties to which they will be exposed. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) is, I think, not mistaken in saying that it is a totally different experiment from that of the United States. There is certainly a danger with an elective Government and an elective popular Assembly, that the two Legislatures may not agree, and in that event the progress of Government must become exceedingly difficult. The only experiment which I know of the kind has been made in Belgium. It has succeeded hitherto, but once or twice I have watched the progress of Belgium with some anxiety, lest there should be a stop which might seriously injure the prosperity of that country. However, I believe that with regard to this question, as with regard to the clergy reserves, we ought to allow the great province of Canada to consult its own interests. I believe the colonists can judge far better than we can what is for their benefit, and I most readily consent to a Bill by which they will acquire the power.
MR. HENLEYsaid, it was clear, from the noble Lord's own admission, that he had strong doubts as to the wisdom of the concession which the Canadians had sought. The noble Lord seemed to lay down the principle that what the colonists chose to ask they were entitled to have—a principle which would have operated just as well in 1840; but to his (Mr. Henley's) mind, the strong reason for giving the privilege to Canada was, that it had been given to all our other leading Colonies. He was quite of the opinion that the House had reason to complain of the late period at which this measure had been introduced.
MR. LOWEsaid, he wished to explain that the reason why he had said "No," when the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington declared that the people of New South Wales were in favour of a nominated Upper Chamber was, that the people had petitioned against such a Chamber from every town and district of that Colony.
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he also must complain of the late period of the Session at which so important a measure had been introduced to the notice of the House. It had been urged as an excuse for having
1340
brought the Bill forward at so late a period of the Session as the present, that the Government had to introduce a number of other important measures. But what, he would ask, were those important measures? None had been passed in the present Session which could justify the Government in having recourse to the excuse to which he had just adverted. He objected also in the strongest manner to the opinion which had been expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary, that the House ought to agree to the Bill, because it had received the assent of the House of Lords. But such a recommendation of a Bill, whatever might be its value at any other time, was of far less force with respect to the present Bill, when it was well known that, had its consideration been delayed but a few days, the intelligence received from Canada would have been of such a nature as most materially to affect the decision at which the House of Lords had arrived on the subject. The Bill appeared to him to be mainly founded on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of Canada. But no importance could be attached to the opinion of that Assembly, for the Governor General had thought proper to dissolve the body, because it had proved itself unable, in his opinion, to deal satisfactorily with even minor and far less important matters. The right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), when speaking of the advantages of this Bill, had said that it would be of the greatest possible utility, as giving a second Chamber to the Colony, which would check the action of the Lower Chamber. But no great value could be attached to such an argument, inasmuch as this new Chamber was to be formed actually of the ingredients of which the Lower Chamber was constituted. He was surprised that the Ministers of a monarchical Government should suggest to a colony the adoption of a plan which would establish a second Chamber not even possessing the same check which existed in the case of the neighbouring republic—that they should propose, in fact, a measure more democratic than that of a republic. It had been said also that the Colonies should be looked at with a possible view to their ultimate separation from this country. But if that were so, was it not the duty of this country to give them monarchical institutions, and endeavour so to establish those institutions, that when the Colonies were separated, they might

1341
become distinct monarchies rather than rival republics, for the larger the number of republics which existed in what were now our Colonies, the greater would be the danger to the monarchy at home? He therefore protested in the strongest manner against passing a measure of this kind at the present period of the Session, and without that amount of discussion and careful consideration which its importance required.
MR. BIGGSsaid, he felt greatly obliged to the Government for having brought forward this Bill; for he believed that a greater piece of practical statesmanship had never yet passed the Legislature of this country. The House might depend upon it that if it did not legislate and keep pace with the growing wants and opinions of the colonies, our valuable Canadian possessions would be alienated from us and thrown into the arms of the United States. He knew of no measures more likely to bring about this result than the stringent forms of Government advocated by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. This Bill was nothing more than a proper concession to the colony of Canada, and, if passed, he believed it would ensure peace and the most beneficial results. He believed that the Bill, if passed, as he was sure it would be by an overwhelming majority, would form a most interesting bond of union between the colony and the mother country, would produce an immense amount of good feeling, and would increase the loyal attachment of the colonists to the Crown.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2o.

USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. CAYLEYsaid, it was his intention to move that the House resolve itself into Committee upon this Bill that day month. He must complain that the Bill had been introduced at this late period of the Session without any preliminary inquiry, and without any full and clear exposition of its grounds; and he maintained that there were many reasons why they should not proceed in this hasty manner to deal with a question of so much importance. This was not the first time that the same question had been brought under the attention of the House. There was
1342
an idea, after 1825, that in the panic which occurred in that year the commercial interests might have got money directly from legitimate resources, at a more reasonable rate of interest, if the usury laws had been repealed as regarded bills of exchange. An inquiry took place preceding the renewal of the Bank Charter Act, in 1832, and the Committee decided that it would be expedient to repeal the usury laws as far as regarded bills of exchange of three months and under. In 1833, a Bill was passed to that effect; but in 1836 another commercial panic took place, and in 1837 a Bill was passed to extend the law of 1833 to bills of exchange of twelve months and under. The question was again raised by Lord Lansdowne in 1841, upon which occasion the late Lord Ashburton stated that the relaxation of the usury laws had been of great benefit to the lender, but had not conferred an equal advantage upon the borrower. A Select Committee was then appointed to consider the subject, and that Committee reported in 1842, but refused to declare any opinion. The parties called before that Committee were all of them persons connected with the moneyed interest, with the exception of Mr. Cooke, of the firm of Truman and Cooke, large dealers in Mincing Lane, and of Mr. Graham, an official assignee connected with the Court of Bankruptcy. Mr. Cooke stated that in his view the relaxation of the usury laws had been extremely favourable to the capitalist, but extremely detrimental to the borrower, and he therefore considered that it had operated very badly. Mr. Graham declared that the relaxation of the usury laws had raised the rate of interest to those parties who had afterwards become bankrupts, or, in other words, to the most needy persons. But that was not all. In his evidence before the Committee which sat in 1847, Mr. Horsley Palmer, who had been Governor of the Bank of England, and who had recommended the Bill of 1844, which the Committee was then considering, stated that he had never known such fluctuations in the rate of interest and discount as had taken place since the passing of the Bill of 1844, and his statement was corroborated by Mr. Cotton and Mr. Tooke. Now, if the laws as regarded money were more free, it would be quite fair to contend that the capitalist should be at liberty to deal with his commodity as he might think fit, though reasonable doubts might be suggested whether money,

1343
considering all the functions it had to perform, did not differ somewhat widely from every other kind of property. But the laws as regarded money were not free. The monetary laws of this country were based upon the most restrictive system; and he must contend, from the evidence taken before the Committee of 1847, that the great commercial panic of that year did not arise from the operation of any natural law, but from the operation of artificial restrictions, invented and applied by the Legislature. Mr. Samuel Gurney stated before the Committee that the scarcity of money in 1847 was artificial and not real, and was caused by the absurd and whimsical provisions of the Bank Act of 1844. What was the House now asked to do? Why, it was asked to extend the system of legislation which was now connected only with bills of exchange and promissory notes to all transactions as regarded land. He maintained, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to put the landed interests into the same category with the unrestricted moneyed interests, until he had altered the laws which created artificial periods of scarcity and of pressing demands for money. The natural tendency of money was to become cheaper, and if Acts of Parliament, and not the natural laws of money, produced those periods of scarcity, they had no right to make the rate of interest free until they took the present restrictions away from money. Until they had reduced the expenses of the transfer of landed securities, it would be most unfair to put the poor yeoman or country shopkeeper in the same category with those the transfer of whose securities cost a mere trifle. The proposed repeal of the usury laws might suit the interests of Lombard Street, Threadneedle Street, and St. Swithin's Lane, but it did not necessarily follow that it would equally suit the interests of the commercial, manufacturing, and shop-keeping community, or that it would be equally advantageous to the landed, railway, and mortgage interests. The present Bill would most injuriously affect raily debentures and mortgages to a most enormous extent. They ought to make money free, if they made interest free, or if they kept money restricted, which was the effect of the Act of 1844, they ought to keep interest restricted too. The system now in operation was one which produced, by Act of Parliament, those periodical periods of scarcity
1344
which drove the industrial interests to Lombard Street for relief. Augustus was said to have found Rome brick and left it marble. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had found Lombard Street a limited monarchy, and he seemed to desire to leave it a grinding despotism.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day month, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
MR. HUMEsaid, he agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Cayley) that any restriction, such as that imposed by the measures of 1844 and 1845, must be attended with unalloyed evils. His hon. Friend had spoken of the effect of the usury laws upon landed property; but had he forgotten that the witnesses examined before the Committee, of which he was a member, proved that the usury laws subjected landed proprietors to a rate of interest of occasionally as much as ten per cent? Before that Committee, and before the Committee of the House of Lords, the bulk of evidence showed it would be most beneficial to have free trade in money; and he hoped the time was not far distant when every one would believe as he believed, that, as in sugar and coffee, so in gold, individuals should be left to buy in open market at the current prices, without legislative interference. However, the subject was one that required great consideration, and upon that ground probably it would be better that the discussion should be postponed till next year, when the monetary question would be brought fully before the House.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, that these usury laws were originally intended to benefit the landed interest exclusively; but they could not any more regulate the price of money in the market than they could the price of hay or any other article of commerce; neither could they compel persons to lend their money, whether they would or not, at any fixed rate of interest.
MR. MALINSsaid, that the usury laws having been repealed as regarded personal securities, it would be perfectly ridiculous to attempt to reimpose them. But how stood the case between land and personal property? If a person deposited a quantity of sugar or coffee as a security for a loan of money, the lender of that money might legally take 40 per cent interest for its use; but, as the law now stood, if a person lent a sum of money on security of land, it

1345
would be illegal for him to receive more than 5 per cent interest. If he sought to recover more, the contract would he vitiated. The question then resolved itself into a distinction between the two kinds of property, personal and landed property. Was it right to make that distinction? Now he wanted to know whether it afforded any protection to the owners of land? So far from it, he believed it to be a great detriment and a great injury to the land, because the value of property depended much on its facility of transference from one to another. In consequence of the state of the law they had money panics, and the rate of interest bad run up, within the last forty eight hours, to 54 minimum. They knew that in 1847 the minimum of the rate of interest was 8 per cent. When money was suddenly wanted, and the borrower had nothing but land to offer as a security, by the law that was the worst description of property that could be held, because it was illegal for the owner of that land to give more than 5 per cent for the money, while, if the same party had had goods, he could have got money readily, being at liberty to give whatever rate of interest might be required of him. The lenders of money turned away from land, and lent their money on personal security at 8 and 10 per cent. So far, therefore, from benefiting land by these usury laws, they imposed a great injury upon it; they rendered it the least available of any species of property in the money market when the professed object of the law was to make it the most available. So far, therefore, from conferring any boon upon the landowner by these laws, they were putting restrictions upon him. It was said by the hon. Member for the North Biding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley) that this measure would be very detrimental to the small landholders. He confessed he was unable to see that. The small landowner either got his money or not; if his security were available he got it, if it were not available he did not. It was quite a mistake to suppose that land was the only available security. He had himself been engaged in a case where a young man had, upon personal security, given 30 per cent interest, and to which the Court of Equity saw no objection, since the Legislature had established the law that upon personal security, unaccompanied by a deposit of deeds relating to landed property, the parties were at liberty to make what contract they pleased. The result of his experience and
1346
of his observation in his profession was, that instead of the proposed change in the law doing any injury to the land, it would confer a great benefit upon it. Any measure which assimilated the law affecting real and personal property was, in his opinion, a good law, and therefore he gave his most cordial support to the present measure. It would have the effect of doing away with a great many lawsuits in cases where money had been borrowed, and in which no questions could possibly have arisen if land security had not formed a portion of the transaction.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he objected in the first place most particularly, to the time at which the Bill had been brought I forward. At this late period of the Session it was utterly impossible the subject could receive that attention which its importance required. In the second place, he objected to the Bill because it was intended to alter that which had been the established law for a very considerable time, and that in so altering it they would affect bargains which had been made under the existing law, which could not be done without inflicting injury on some persons who were parties to those bargains. He was apprehensive that the proposed change of the law would very seriously injure one class of persons—he meant the small landholders throughout the country. They Lad purchased their property on certain terms, and had borrowed money for the purpose of effecting the purchase on certain terms. Now, what would be the effect of this law upon them? There were in all parts of the country solicitors who, as soon as this law came into effect, would say to their clients who had lent the money to these freeholders, "You see that the value of money is raised by this new law, and you must raise the interest on the money you have advanced to these persons, and not be content with 5 per cent." He had no doubt that a great deal of this sort of thing would go on among the smaller holders of land in this country. Upon that ground, therefore, he objected to the Bill. Again, who, he would ask, had called for this Bill? Had the necessity for making such a great change been proved? On the contrary, the measure was totally unasked for, and was altogether a voluntary change from a system which had lasted for many years. He considered it dangerous at any time to make these changes, but more especially so at the present moment, when they were in a state of war, and

1347
when it was impossible at any one moment to know what would be the state of the money market or the rate of interest. By this measure they would subject a large body of persons who were now exempt from those changes, without notice, to become liable to all the influences and fluctuations which would necessarily take place in the money market when the provisions of the Bill came into operation.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he considered that, as the small landed proprietors almost invariably paid the full rate of interest, that rate would be increased if this Bill were passed. There had been many transactions on the faith of the interest on land not being greater than 5 per cent, especially in the case of members of freehold land societies, and the repeal of these laws would, therefore, injuriously affect those persons.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
In reply to a request from Mr. CAYLEY, to make the Bill experimental, by limiting its operation to two years,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, after the experiments they had already had, and after the cautious manner in which the change had been introduced with respect to other securities, he thought the time was come to take a decisive step, either to confirm or abolish these laws. This Bill would tend to promote freedom of trade in money, and as it had been unanimously passed by the House of Lords, without objection or alteration, he confessed he should be very sorry to see anything done which might have the effect of interrupting the House of Lords in that career, and which would do no credit to that House.
House resumed. Bill reported.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he wished for some information as to the new working of the department, because the efficient working of the machinery of the present Bill would depend very much upon the person who might be appointed to carry it out. He also wished to know whether the "small pipe" system of drainage was to be continued, and what influence the persons named in the Bill as constituting, with the President, "the General
1348
Board of Health," would exercise over the President himself.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the constitution of the Board of Health, under this Bill, would be precisely that of other second class departments. There would be a President, who would be solely responsible for the administration of the Board, and there would be, besides the President, certain ex officio members, who, however, would have nothing to do with the business of the department, and whose only use would be, in the event of the absence of the President from London, or of his inability from any cause to attend to the business of his office, to do any ministerial act which might be required on an emergency. With respect to the question of pipe drainage, as the drainage of the metropolis was not at present under the General Board of Health, that Board pronounced no opinion whatever upon it. With respect to the gentleman who might be appointed hereafter to the office of President of the Board of Health, he could not be expected to answer his hon. Friend's question, for he really did not know. He hoped, however, and was convinced, that it would be a person of whom his hon. Friend would approve.
MR. EVELYNsaid, he must complain that, while the defects in the existing law in reference to the public health had been admitted by Her Majesty's Government, and legislation on the subject had been promised, nothing had yet been done. They were now told that there was to be an inquiry next Session. So they were told always. Everything was postponed to that shadowy period, and in the existing Session nothing whatever was done. Would the grievances of which the people had complained be in the least remedied by this Bill. One of those grievances was that the present Act was long and unintelligible. Would that be improved by the measure now before the House? So far from that, it would be made worse, for those who wished to know the law, would have to study this Bill also, and there would thus be a code of health extending to 162 sections. Another grievance was, that there was no scrutiny established, so as to test the bonâ fides of the signatures to the petitions which were sent up for the application of the Act. That also was left untouched. Another grievance was, that the law was not of universal application—that it was not brought into operation in every town and village in the country, but was applied

1349
only where the General Board of Health thought proper. The result was, in many cases, a great depreciation of property, for the moment a town was placed under the Board of Health, there was a rumour that some pestilence prevailed there. It was a grievance also that local self-government was preserved only in appearance, for the 119th section of the Bill placed the whole of the local boards completely under the control of the General Board, so that they could not stir hand nor foot—could neither levy a rate nor even appoint a surveyor—without the consent of that Board, which made what terms with them it pleased, and thus an engineering monopoly was created, most injurious to the sanitary improvement of the country. None of these evils had been redressed, or were proposed to be redressed, by this Bill. He thought the members of the local boards should be responsible, not to the General Board, but to the inhabitants of the district for which they were appointed to act. He considered the proposal of the Board of Health in reference to the water supply of the metropolis anything else than adequate for the purpose required, and he should conclude by expressing a hope that the inquiry which was promised next Session would lead to some better result than the addition of another to the number of Parliamentary "blue books." It would be well to give a careful consideration to the common law as bearing upon these subjects, and to see whether, by declaring the common law, allowing it to be carried out, and supplying what was defective, they might not do better than they had done hitherto.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, that the Bill gave the. Board too much power over the local officers. Another objection was that it did not give power over the City of London. The deaths from cholera had increased from twenty six to 133 last week. He had no doubt the increase took place from this cause. The mud and filth which was caused after rain was swept up into heaps, where it was left to evaporate. When dry it became pulverised, and was again spread over the metropolis. Now, evaporation could not take place from those heaps without carrying with it malaria, and this was one of the frightful sources of cholera and other diseases. Some people thought a dirty state of the streets was healthy. He was told by a lady that fogs were good for health, but he did not believe it. In no other city or metropolis, except London, were the streets swept by
1350
beggars, not even in Dublin, which was the land of beggars. Then, again, the graveyards in the metropolis were most prejudicial to health. Westminster Hall and that House received such a smell from the opposite graveyard of St. Margaret's that there was sometimes no bearing it. The state of things was worst at night, and the untrapped gratings added to the evil. Any one who walked over St. Margaret's might see holes for the rats and dogs. He put his umbrella into some of them. He measured the size of some, and found them to be eight inches by sixteen [Laughter.] This might be a laughing matter now, but they would not laugh when the cholera came home to them. On this very day there were nineteen deaths from cholera. The greatest number of deaths occurred in the filthiest part of the town. He had, therefore, felt it to be his duty to state these things to the House.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, it was right that the new Board should be made aware of the system which had been practised by the old Board, and of the feelings of the public with regard to its proceedings. It had been said that provisional orders, such as the old Board had issued, and which he considered inexpedient, were less expensive to the ratepayers than local Acts; but the local Acts which had been referred to in support of that proposition, such as the Brighton Act and the St. Pancras Paving Act, had nothing to do with the question. The expense of sending a man down merely to take a survey of Brighton previous to a provisional order had been 198 l. During the last five years the Board had incurred very great, and, as he considered, unnecessary expenses, and had only applied the Act to a comparatively small number of places. He admitted that the principle of the present Bill was received with almost universal favour, but hoped that some inquiry would take place in order to show the new Board the faults which the old one had fallen into, so that it might avoid them. No town ought to be brought under the operation of an Act so stringent as that of 1848 without ascertaining the sense of a bonâ fide majority of its inhabitants; but if the present system of bringing it under the control of the Board on the petition of one-tenth of the number was to remain, no place would be safe.
MR. PHILIPPSsaid, he believed that a petition signed by one-tenth of the inha-

1351
bitants of a place could be got up for or against any subject, especially if the names of the persons signing the petition Were not to be verified, and, in his opinion, no town ought to be bound by such a minority.
MR. COBBETTsaid, that all the petitions presented to that House, complaining of the conduct of the Board of Health, asked for an inquiry into the circumstances of their being brought under its operation, and alleging, at the same tune, that it had been by deceptive means. He wished to have a complete understanding from the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works, as far as could be given, that the measure, during the year it would be in force, would not be brought into operation in any particular town unless the petition for it was genuine, and was signed by a majority of the ratepayers, and also that before any permanent measure was passed, it should be referred to a Committee of Inquiry upstairs.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was not to amend the Public Health Act, but to constitute a new Board, and it would be extremely awkward for him to make any statement affecting the manner in which towns ought to be brought under the operation of the Public Health Act. All he could say was, that when provisional orders for such a purpose were brought into that House, it had always been his principle not to ask the House to confirm them where a decided majority of the ratepayers opposed the introduction of the Act, and he had no reason to suppose that that principle would be departed from. With regard to the other question, it would be the duty of the President of the new Board to propose a Bill next Session for the amendment of the Public Health Act, which would, no doubt, be referred to a Committee, and witnesses examined on it.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he believed that very unhealthy exhalations arose from the water in some of the parks. In particular he was informed that on very still nights there was a very unpleasant smell from the water of the Serpentine; that the sentries on duty often complained on the subject, and that the inhabitants of the houses in the immediate vicinity, in Bayswater and Westminster, were frequently obliged to close their windows. He was further told that this smell was caused by a great quantity of putrescent mud which lay at the bottom of the water,
1352
and that the evil might be removed by cleansing cut the mud and introducing fresh supplies of water in the form of a continuous running stream.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he was ready to admit that the First Commissioner of Works had been opposed to provisional orders being confirmed for putting the Public Health Act into force in towns where its introduction was opposed by the inhabitants; but he must yet complain that after such an expression of opinion in towns, the Board of Health should have insisted in putting them in the provisional orders in question.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Salary of the President of the new Board to be 2,000 l. a year).
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must object to the amount, as too large; he thought 1,500 l. sufficient; he would not, however, divide the Committee on the question.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, the President's tenure would not extend beyond that of the existing Government; for which reason the salary was fixed at a larger amount than it otherwise would be. The duties, too, were of a highly responsible nature, and even in that point of view he did not consider 2,000 l. a year excessive.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he would point out that the salary of the new President greatly exceeded that of a Lord of the Admiralty, who worked exceedingly hard, being engaged morning, noon, and night. He hoped, considering the amount of the salary, that the work would be well done.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he did not consider that the proposed salary was too much, as the duties of his office would occupy the whole time of the new President.
Clause agreed to, as were clauses up to Clause 8 inclusive.
Clause 9.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he doubted whether Mr. Chadwick's length of service had bean such that he ought to be laid upon the shelf if anything presented itself upon which he could be employed. Mr. Chadwick had in many respects rendered considerable service, and might again be employed in the public service.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he fully agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Chadwick ought to be employed again in the public service if possible.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
Further progress resumed at Clause 4.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he hoped the Bill would not be advanced further; for, looking to its principle and the manner in which it was drawn, it did not reflect any credit on legislation. It was, besides, unnecessary, as it professed to give a bore summary process for recovery of sums due on bills of exchange when the process under the existing law was sufficiently rapid. Many of its details were also very objectionable. He objected also to the proposed registry, as well as to the provision which took away the conduct of process under the Bill from attorneys, and vested it entirely in notaries. It also created this anomaly—that whereas the provisions of the Bill affected Ireland and Scotland, as well as England, a person in Scotland or Ireland defending a suit must come to this country for the purpose of doing so, He found that there were sixty-two Amendments by hon. and learned Friends of his, which alone was a proof of the imperfection of the Bill, and was an additional reason why no attempt should be made to pass it this Session. There was another reason for delaying this Bill. It proposed to give a more summary process for execution on bills than now existed; and it was the opinion of several gentlemen, whose opinions were of weight, that it should be accompanied by some measure which dealt with fraudulent transactions in bills of exchange. Such a Bill he had introduced in May last, and, after long delays, it had received a third reading that evening; but, in consequence of the Resolution passed by the other House it bad no chance of becoming law this Session. He thought that the two Bills ought to go together, and if one of them was to be cast into the limbo of next Session, the other ought to accompany it. He should, therefore, move Quit the Chairman do leave the Chair.
MR. GEACHsaid, he thought it undesirable that the House should legislate without further inquiry. The operation of this Bill upon the small tradesmen and shopkeepers of the provinces, who might fall into temporary difficulty, would be to drive them into irretrievable bankruptcy.
1354
There were abundant means of recovering bills of exchange; there might, he would allow, be vexatious pleas, but they were, he believed, very few. He objected more particularly to the Bill because it gave a great advantage to holders of these bills over every other kind of debt. The effect would be, that it would be impossible that my creditor, with a due regard to his own interest, should show any forbearance, because he would not know whether, if he did not put the law into force, the next creditor who had it bill backed would exercise the seine forbearance. He thought the Government ought not to give their aid to a Bill of this kind not introduced by themselves, and ought not to back it up with the majority at their command. He begged, therefore, to support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sunderland (Mr. D. Seymour).
MR. MASSEYsaid, he also should support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sunderland. This Bill had a very important effect upon the law of bankruptcy, because it seemed to him that it affected very deeply and very closely the law of fraudulent preference. The main cardinal policy of our bankruptcy law was to effect au equal distribution in the property of the bankrupt among the whole boy of his creditors; but if you passed a Bid of this sort, which favoured one species of security, enabling the holder of that security to realise immediately his debt, you induced every powerful creditor to come down upon, his debtor, and to insist upon his giving bills. Possessed of these bills, the creditor would immediately realise them; he would seize upon the property of the debtor, and would thins, in point of fact, obtain a fraudulent preference. Now, he thought it was too much to expect the House, at this period of the Session, to consider the provisions of a Bill which went to change the whole bearing of the bankruptcy law of this country, and which would affect persons in almost every condition in life. Without saying, therefore, that it might not be expedient, at some future time, to provide a more summary remedy for the recovery of money upon bills of exchange, he was certainly of opinion that this measure went too far, and that its provisions were too crude to meet with their approval.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he looked upon this as one of the most unjust and oppressive Bills that ever was introduced into that House, and for his part saw but one reason

1355
for bringing it forward, which was to create ate a job. Somebody or other, no doubt, wanted to appoint a registrar. Who wanted this Bill, and who asked for it? There was no difficulty now in recovering upon these bills of exchange, but this measure would make anybody liable in six days to be made a bankrupt if he did not take up his bill. It was one of the grossest jobs ever attempted to be palmed upon the public, and he should certainly, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. D. Seymour).
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid that, so far from the Bill having been got up in a hole or corner, it had emanated from several influential public meetings held in the greatest seats of commerce in this country—such as London, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Bradford. These meetings were universally in favour of obtaining a more summary remedy on bills of exchange than at present existed. In consequence of these meetings, the bankers of the City of London formed themselves into a body, and it was from them that the Bill emanated. The measure had passed through as severe an ordeal as it could undergo; it had passed through a Select Committee of the House of Lords, attended by the law lords, who were unanimous in thinking it was a measure which was sound in principle, and which would be a valuable addition to the English law. The Bill merely proposed to effect this—that, whereas by the law of England at present, a person was enabled to set up false defences with regard to bills of exchange which set the creditor at defiance for months, these false defences were now prevented and a summary remedy provided. The object of the Bill was to prevent any debtor, who had got no defence whatever, from interposing any delay between himself and his creditor. Was this a reasonable principle for the Legislature to act upon? The Bill had no doubt met with legal opposition, but he had been occupied with law reforms for many years, and he found that the lawyers were not, as a body, favourable to law reforms. This was certainly not an attorney's Bill, and it would most probably hate the effect of diminishing the business of attorneys upon bills of exchange. Was it not a good end to aim at, to enable parties to call in the assistance of a court of law in the most speedy and economical manner possible? The Bill was not the visionary creation of some theorist, but it followed
1356
the example of one of the most practical countries in the world—namely, Scotland—where it had worked most beneficially for 150 years. The same summary process was also in operation in every commercial country in Europe. At the same time, if the Committee should think fit to reverse the resolution which was come to by the House the other day, he was prepared to how to their decision, and kiss the rod with humility.
MR. JAMES MACGREGORsaid, he must contend that the practice as to bills of exchange in Scotland was not adapted to the circumstances of this country. The system of banking there was quite different to that here. In Scotland a paper currency prevailed, banking was carried to a great extent, and bills of exchange did not circulate as they did in England. They were absorbed by the banks, which endeavoured to replace them by 1l. notes. It was the paper of the banks which passed from hand to hand, and not tradesmen's bills of exchange. The trade of a country like England could not be carried on upon the stringent principles which this Bill laid down. When the great convulsion took place in our commerce with the United States, if a process like that provided in this Bill had been adopted, no one could tell the ruin that would have been produced, or where it would have stopped. The commerce of the country he felt assured did not require such a measure; and if meetings had been held in its favour in different commercial cities, the parties who agreed to it ought to be stated, that they might be known. If the Bill was to be proceeded with, it ought, at all events, to be referred to a Select Committee.
MR. GLYNsaid, the Bill had not been introduced without the concurrence or knowledge of the mercantile body—indeed, the subject had occupied the attention of the mercantile world for some time past. The principle of the Bill was good, but he could not help thinking that the scope and tendency of it were not sufficiently known, and he should, therefore, recommend the hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill to accept the expression of feeling on the part of the Committee as an evidence that suitable legislation at the proper time would meet with proper consideration.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, after what had occurred he should be sorry to take up the time of the Committee by proceeding further with the Bill, and there-

1357
fore with the permission of the Committee he would assent to the Chairman reporting progress, with a view of withdrawing it for the present.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he thought that, under the circumstances, the advice of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) was extremely sound. The Scottish principle of summary execution appeared to him unobjectionable; and he hoped that some time or other it would become law in a carefully considered measure. He would suggest, however, that the question should be taken up by the Government.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the vice of the Bill was, that it would inflict more inconvenience on trade than was foreseen; as the supporters, keeping but one object in view, lost sight of the inconvenience of issuing executions against every man who did not take up his bills at once. The matter was of much importance, and required great consideration, and though it was said that meetings had been held in favour of the Bill in several great towns, yet it did not appear that much benefit had been derived to the discussion from the circumstance, as several of the representatives of the largest towns were evidently against the Bill. He thought as the measure did not appear to be well understood, it would be by far the wisest course to postpone it.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsail, the mercantile community of the City of London certainly did petition in favour of the Bill, and a great meeting had been held in its favour. The decision to which the hon. Gentleman had come—namely, to postpone the Bill—was the right one. Judging from the opposition likely to arise, both to the principle and some of the details, it did not appear possible that the Bill could go through the House that Session. But he thought the principle of the Bill ought not to be condemned, and he hoped the Chairman would be allowed to report progress, and that would only be postponing the Bill for this Session.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, the Bill had been approved of by practical persons in England, and by a Scotch lawyer of eminence, Lord Campbell. It was monstrous that a man entering into a negotiable contract, such as a Bill of exchange, could put another man, to whom he agreed to pay a specific sum of money on a particular day, to the delay of several weeks, even when he had no real defence to set up. He was surprised that any mercantile man could oppose the introduction of the
1358
law of summary jurisdiction. He had no doubt had the hon. Member (Sir E. Perry) gone to a division he would have carried his measure two to one. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would introduce a similar Bill next Session, not only for England, but for Ireland.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, he objected to the Bill because it was uncalled for, and bore the stamp of amateur rather than practical legislation. It had been said that this was not an attorney's Bill; but he doubted it, for as the law now stood, judgment might be got in an undefended action in sixteen days at a trifling expense, whatever might be the amount of the Bill, but this would not be the case if the measure passed. The Bill was not fitted for the meridian of this country, and every practical man knew it would not work.
MR. MALINSsaid, he also must enter his protest against the Bill, as there was in the law as it now stood abundant means of recovering upon Bills of exchange. He had heard great complaints of the Bill, and had been requested by many commercial traders to oppose it. The remedies were ample, and the Bill was objectionable in principle and in detail. He was glad, therefore, it was disposed of.
House resumed.
Committee report progress; to sit again this day month.

BANKRUPTCY BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to point out that a great reduction might be made in the present number of Commissioners and Registrars in the Court of Bankruptcy, which was much greater than the amount of business required. There was no reason why there should be five Commissioners in London with salaries of 2,000 l., and five Registrars at 1,000 l. a year. The whole amount of salaries paid in the Court of Bankruptcy was 59,795 l.; besides this, 21,879 l. was paid for compensations, 2,600 l. for annuities, and 6,316 l. for expenses; making in all 90,590 l. He thought it would be a great benefit to the country generally, if all these Commissionerships and other offices were abolished, and the business thrown into the county courts. The Judges there were perfectly competent to undertake it, and in most instances their time was not now fully occupied. By this means, too, a sav-

1359
ing to the country would be effected of the 50,795 l. at present paid in salaries in the Court of Bankruptcy.
MR. GLYNsaid, the question of throwing the business of the Court of Bankruptcy into the county courts had been carefully considered by the Commission which had lately sat to consider the subject of the bankrupt laws, but the result to which they came was, that the business of the Bankruptcy Court was entirely unsuited for the county courts, and that the proposition could not be advantageously carried out. He admitted that the expenses of the Bankruptcy Courts were very high, and would still remain so even after the present Bill was passed. The present measure did indeed embody several important suggestions which were made by the Commission of last year. It was, however, but a small instalment of what must hereafter be clone fur the reform of these courts. For instance, it removed many of the obnoxious penal provisions which the present bankrupt law contained, and it gave the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices power from time to time to introduce regulations with a view to the reduction of the cost of bankruptcy proceedings.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that perhaps it would be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) if he informed him that the present Bill was a mere sectional part of a projected reform in the whole law of bankruptcy. The question was connected with the important inquiry into the best method to be employed for the consolidation of the Statute law.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the present Bill admitted that there was no necessity for more than one Commissioner in country districts, and he did nut understand why five Commissioners and five Registrars should be required for London.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought that when a vacancy occurred, that would be the proper time fur bringing on the question as to whether or not it should be filled up. It would be unreasonable to expect that any of the learned gentlemen now holding those offices should be deprived of his office because the business of the Court of Chancery had fallen off.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, he was of opinion that there never was a greater mistake committed than the appointment of the country Commissioners. It was a notorious fact that the large body of creditors resided in London, or in the large
1360
towns, and the greatest inconvenience had been caused to them by the local courts of bankruptcy. To transfer the business in bankruptcy to the county courts would, he thought, be to commit as great an error as was committed when the county Commissioners were appointed.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought that some provision ought to he introduced into the Bill to diminish the number of Commissioners and Registrars in London when any vacancy should occur.
Clause agreed to, as were also the remaining clauses.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, he would now move to insert in the Bill the following words—
"In order to facilitate the proof of debts, the Lord Chancellor may, by order, appoint one or more of the ushers of the Court of Bankruptcy in London, or any usher of any district Court of Bankruptcy, a Commissioner or Commissioners for the purpose of administering oaths or taking affirmations for the proof of debts in such courts respectively."
He thought it desirable that when the Commissioners were engaged in the despatch of the regular business of the Court, their attention should not be distracted by the necessity of administering in open Court oaths to a number of individuals, who might with great convenience be sworn by one of the ushers.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought it important to administer oaths with the greatest possible solemnity, in order to secure respect for thorn; but to allow a mere servant—for such the usher was—to administer the oaths, would assuredly be regarded as a degradation of the function. There was, however, no necessity for legislation on the subject, as by a recent alteration of the law all solicitors in bankruptcy were made special Commissioners, and could receive affidavits.
MR. M URROUGHsaid, that the circumstance of a solicitor being enabled to receive affidavits out of Court did not meet the case he had in view, which was that of a vast number of witnesses appearing in open Court and requiring to be sworn. With regard to the objection that the usher was a mere servant, he looked upon that officer to be no more a servant than the judge's clerk in the superior Courts.
Amendment negatived.
House resumed; Bill reported, as amended.
The House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.