He intimated that the zeal of Lord Palmerston and
Lord J. Russell suggested that they were actuated by
private animosity against the Emperor of Russia.—Lord
J. RUSSELL, after controverting the arguments of Mr.
Baring, asked indignantly whether it was to be borne
that when the Emperor of Russia came to disturb the
whole peace of Europe, and threatened to embroil it in
all the miseries of war, he and Lord Palmerston could
not speak as they thought in regard to a bill of this
nature, without being told that they were animated by
private animosity towards him?—Mr. BRIGHT
complained that Lord J. Russell and Lord Palmerston had
vituperated the Emperor of Russia, and he described
the bill as a hollow sham.—Lord PALMERSTON sarcastically
remarked upon the jargon of those who were
opposed to the policy of this country. It had, he said,
been the regular manœuvre of the absolute party in
Europe, whenever they felt that the government of this
country was pursuing measures at variance with their
views and interests, to impute to him and other
members of the English government that they were pursuing
that policy on account of personal motives of enmity
against a particular individual. That was just as regular
a diplomatic practice as "thrust over guard" in any
piece of small-arms exercise. He was surprised that
the honourable member for Huntingdon should have
made himself the organ of that sort of ridiculous
calumny, because he thought that if any man ought to
have abstained from adopting that jargon on the
present occasion, it was Mr. Baring, who wag known as the
avowed private agent of the Emperor of Russia.—Mr.
BARING denied that he was the private agent of the
Emperor of Russia, though he had been the agent, in
time of peace, for negotiating a Russian loan. Language,
he added, might have fallen from him which went
further than he intended.—Mr. DISRAELI sympathised
with Lord Palmerston. It was very rational and
natural to feel indignant under such a charge. He knew
of no one living statesman who had been more sinned
against in this respect than the noble lord. He remembered
that for five or six years there was a constant
stream of calumny in that vein directed against the
noble lord, and his conduct when in the most responsible
position of this country was assailed by persons of
authority on the ground that he was influenced solely
in the course he had taken by personal feelings and
motives. But who was the principal mover in this
matter? It was the present prime minister of the
country, under whom the noble lord was now serving,
and the persons who acted with the first minister of the
crown in making those calumnious statements were the
followers of the prime minister, and now the colleagues
of the noble lord. He merely called attention to this
fact, in order that the house might do justice to the
amiable conduct of the noble lord.—After some further
discussion a division was taken on a motion for reporting
progress, which was negatived by 88 to 30, and the
clause, after a brief discussion, was agreed to.—Lord
PALMERSTON, at the instance of Lord D. Stuart, agreed
that the government should take charge of the bill,
which was reported.

On Thursday, August 3, Sir G. GREY made a
statement respecting the recent Appointment of Mr.
Lawley to the Government of South Australia. After
detailing the circumstances attending the appointment,
he concluded by stating that it had been rescinded. Sir
J. PAKINGTON (by whom the matter had been
brought forward) expressed his satisfaction with the
course which had been adopted.

On Friday, August 4, in the morning sitting, Mr.
PEEL moved the second reading of the Canadian
Legislative Council Bill. The object of the measure, he
explained, was to enable the Canadian legislature to
effect certain changes in the legislative council or upper
chamber of the colony. There was no attempt to
prescribe what those changes were to be, but the intention
was to have the constitution of the council altered by
making it elective. Similar powers had been already
granted by the imperial parliament to the Cape of Good
Hope and other colonies, and the house, he submitted,
should raise no difficulty in extending the privilege to
Canada.—Sir J. PAKINGTON found two great objections
to the bill. It sanctioned the creation in Canada of
extremely democratic institutions, and it entered that
house under a false semblance, assuming the title merely
of an enabling bill, while it really authorised the Canadian
legislature to remodel their form of government.
The measure was too important to be discussed at so
late a period of the session, and the accounts lately
received from Canada as to the course which the colonial
legislature were adopting with respect to the clergy
reserves furnished an additional reason for giving the
subject a more deliberate consideration. He moved
that the bill be read a second time that day three
months.—Mr. ADDERLEY considered that the bill was
necessary to secure the loyalty and freedom of Canada.—
Mr. HUME rejoiced to find that the Canadians were at
length to be admitted to the full privilege of self-government.
—Sir G. GREY believed that the inhabitants of
Canada had sufficiently advanced in wealth, intelligence,
and fitness for self-government to render the present
bill at once just and safe. He apprehended none of the
mischievous consequences which had, in some quarters,
been prognosticated from its operation.—Lord J.
RUSSELL argued that the Canadians were entitled to
have the opportunity of trying to frame their own
constitution, even if it were not certain that they would
make a wise use of it. For his own part, he expressed
a sanguine anticipation of the result.—Mr. HENLEY
doubted the safety of the experiment.—On the motion
of Mr. SCOTT, the debate was adjourned until the
evening, when that hon. member resumed the debate,
and characterised the measure as republican, dangerous,
and imprudent. He denounced the attempt to pass it
at so late a period of the year, and when so few
members could be present at the discussion. The bill
encouraged the development of democracy in Canada, and
violated the duty which was incumbent upon the
legislature of a monarchical country to stimulate the growth
of similar institutions in its dependencies.—The amend-
ment was not pressed to a division, and the bill passed
the second reading.

The motion for going into committee on the Usury
Law Repeal Bill was opposed by Mr. CAYLEY, who
cited a variety of instances from the monetary history
of the country to show the danger which would arise,
under the system of artificial scarcity of money, from
removing all restrictions upon the rate of interest. The
bill had been brought in with no necessity to justify its
introduction, and at a time when it could not be
properly discussed. He moved that the bill be committed
that day three months.—Mr. HUME admitted the danger
of commercial panics, but did not think that the repeal
of the usury laws would tend to produce them. He
wished for perfect freedom of dealing in every article,
money among others.—Mr. WILKINSON controverted
the argument that restrictions upon the rate of interest
rendered money easier or cheaper for the extension of
commercial operations.—Mr. MALINS supported the bill,
believing that it would prove beneficial to the landed
interest.—Mr. SPOONER thought the bill ill-timed and
impolitic, and pointed out many possibilities of
inconvenience and loss to individuals which it might occasion.
—Mr. HENLEY opposed the bill.—After a few
words from Mr. J. M'GREGOR, the opposition was withdrawn,
and the bill went through committee.

On Monday, August 7, on the motion for going into
committee on the West India Incumbered Estates Bill,
Sir J. PAKINGTON adverted to the fact that loans to the
amount of £700,000 had been advanced to West India
proprietors, and that £460,000 thereof was still owing,
the difference having been repaid, with interest; but
the value of the mortgaged property had been so
diminished as not to be worth the amount of such
difference, and he thought it cruel and unjust to confiscate
the property by the process of cancellation proposed by
the present measure.—Mr. WILSON showed that the
existing incumbrances entirely precluded improvement
in West Indian property, and he remarked that many
of the mortgagees of the estates in question were persons
who had speculated on the misfortunes of the owners in
the hope that government would forego the claims of
the public. The matter had better be left to the government,
who would duly regard bonâ fide interests.—Mr.
E. ELLICE opposed the bill, and condemned the policy
of the government.—Sir G. GREY defended the measure,