MR. VERNON SMITH said, 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.

gation of the right hon. Baronet that the sible Government under the auspices of Duke of Newcastle had not efficiently pre- Lord Elgin, had already operated most pared and advocated its provisions. As beneficially, had lessened the differences to the details of the Bill which had come between the two races, and united them over from Canada, he held, with the hon. in a feeling of warm attachment to the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Ad- British Crown, and he had the fullest derley), that the House had nothing what- confidence that the present measure would ever to do with them, although, from the largely tend to strengthen and perpetuate right hon. Gentleman's speech, it might the connection between this country and be supposed that the House was absolutely that Colony which Lord Durham had in Committee upon that measure. The justly denominated one of the brightest real question before the House was, whe- ornaments of the Imperial Crown. ther, 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

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

ed States, a community in which population | brought the Bill forward at so late a period and wealth have increased so rapidly, or in of the Session as the present, that the which there has been such a great increase Government had to introduce a number of of every improvement that accompanies other important measures. But what, he civilisation. With regard to the question would ask, were those important meaof an elective Council, of course the Logis- sures? None had been passed in the lature of Canada will have to consider the present Session which could justify the difficulties to which they will be exposed. Government in having recourse to the exThe right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Paking- cuse to which he had just adverted. He ton) is, I think, not mistaken in saying objected also in the strongest manner to that it is a totally different experiment the opinion which had been expressed by from that of the United States. There is the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secrecertainly a danger with an elective Govern- tary, that the House ought to agree to ment and an elective popular Assembly, the Bill, because it had received the assent that the two Legislatures may not agree, of the House of Lords. But such a reand in that event the progress of Govern- commendation of a Bill, whatever might ment must become exceedingly difficult. be its value at any other time, was of far The only experiment which I know of the less force with respect to the present Bill, kind has been made in Belgium. It has when it was well known that, had its consucceeded hitherto, but once or twice I sideration been delayed but a few days, have watched the progress of Belgium with the intelligence received from Canada some anxiety, lest there should be a stop would have been of such a nature as most which might seriously injure the prosperity materially to affect the decision at which of that country. However, I believe that the House of Lords had arrived on the with regard to this question, as with re- subject. The Bill appeared to him to be gard to the clergy reserves, we ought to mainly founded on the recommendation of allow the great province of Canada to con- the Legislative Assembly of Canada. But sult its own interests. I believe the colo- no importance could be attached to the nists can judge far better than we can opinion of that Assembly, for the Governor what is for their benefit, and I most readily General had thought proper to dissolve the consent to a Bill by which they will acquire body, because it had proved itself unable, the power. 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

MR. HENLEY said, 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. LOWE said, 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. SCOTT said, 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 Lord J. Russell

would be illegal for him to receive more than 5 per cent interest. If he sought to recover more, the contract would be 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 had run up, within the last forty-eight hours, to 5 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 Riding 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 VOL. CXXXV. [THIRD SERIES.]

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. SPOONER said, he objected in the first place most particularly, to the time at which the Bill had been brought 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 had 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

2 X