The Money-Lenders’ Bill

WE deeply regret that failure of the negotiations for the postponement of the consideration of the Money-Lenders’ Bill. Why the mover of the Bill could not respect the feeling of those opposed to it to this small extent is utterly incomprehensible to us. The only reason he appears to have given in his speech, and that too in reply to an interruption, namely, “the necessities of truth and the economic necessities of the situation,” was absurd on the face of it. If the province has been able to do without such a Bill for so many years in spite of these necessities, it cannot possibly be pretended that it could not have gone on for a few months more. It may be said that if the Bill were not passed now, a Council would come into existence within a few months, of which the mover himself might not be a member, and which might not take the same view of the necessities of truth and the economic situation as the majority of the present Council are supposed to take. The reply to that contention is that should this be the case it would be a convincing proof that the Bill was not wanted by those for whose good it is supposed to be intended. If they did want such a Bill, nothing would be more natural for them than not only to return the mover but to return even a stronger contingent of supporters of the Bill than what the present House contains. The postponement of the consideration of the Bill, in fact, would afford a very good test as to whether it is or is not wanted by those principally concerned.