UK, HC, “Affairs of Canada—Adjourned Debate”, vol 37 (8 March 1837)
By: UK (House of Commons)
Citation: UK, HC, “Affairs of Canada—Adjourned Debate“, vol 37 (1837), cols 76-144.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (Hansard UK — External Site).
AFFAIRS OF CANADA—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
HC Deb 08 March 1837 vol 37 cc76-14476
§The House went into Committee on the Canada Acts, and the adjourned debate was resumed.
§Mr. Hume was sorry to be called upon to oppose the proceedings of his Majesty’s Ministers, but he considered that the present was one of the most unwarrantable proceedings he had ever witnessed in that House, with the exception of the Coercion Bill for Ireland. With that proceeding his Majesty’s Ministers ought not to be allowed to go on, and if they attempted to do that, he at least should state fairly his opinion as to what were the results likely to follow from it. Believing that their proceeding was a violation of every thing that ought to be sacredly respected he rose to address that House. The question then before them was one that appeared to him to involve civil war. It behoved every person who entertained such an opinion to speak out fairly upon the question, and if possible to avert the impending danger. That the danger was great must be manifest from all they had heard, from all they knew, and from the documents upon the table. He considered that before they called for a coercive measure against any class of society, and particularly against the British subjects in Lower Canada, they should satisfy the House that those persons had been justly governed, or that they had not given them cause for complaint, or having given them such cause, that it ceased to exist—that they had adopted the necessary measures to remove the grounds for discontent, and bring about conciliation and a proper understanding between the colony and the mother country. What, he asked, was the value of her colonies to England, if she treated them as conquered provinces? What would be their value if they were to require continually the application of phy- 77sical force to preserve them in obedience?—of what use would such colonies be to England? It would be much better that she was without colonies, if they were to be a source of weakness and not a supply of strength What would be the benefit they could confer on this country, if they were to be fettered with the chains of slavery, and only to be restrained by coercive measures such as were now proposed? Let them look to the condition of Lower Canada with regard to this country. They were now about to take up measures of coercion, to compel the Canadians, if they could, to adopt measures inconsistent with their liberty, hostile to the charters to which that people had a right, and contrary to the act of the Legislature by which their independence was guaranteed. If, instead of affording to the Canadians beneficial protection, they had acted unjustly, the House ought to pause before they consented to pass the resolutions which were on the table of the House. The noble Lord had not told them of the strife that existed between the people of Lower Canada and England, nor why it was that they had determined upon resistance. It was because they had approached that House year after year, that they had year after year gone to the Throne, and had laid before both the grounds of their complaint. Even two Committees of that House admitted the reasonableness of their complaints, and recommended that they should be remedied; and yet, by the speech of the noble Lord, it was admitted that all the evils under which they laboured were to remain uncorrected. He considered the Colonial-office as one of the greatest nuisances connected with the Government. He did not know whether the fault rested with the noble Lord at the head of the department or with the clerks, as the hon. Member for Bath had hinted, but this he must say, that he was quite sure that it stood in the way of justice being done to the Colonies. He held in his hand a paper of some importance; it was a petition from the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, to which he begged attention, and also to the circumstances under which this petition was brought forward. This petition proved the complete want of attention and culpable negligence on the part of the Government. The petition was signed by upwards of 87,000 inhabitants of the colony, and upon its being presented, to the House it was re- 78ferred to a Committee. That Committee, on the 18th of July, 1828, reported to the House that the embarrassments and discontent which had Long prevailed in Canada had arisen from various defects in the system of the Legislature and the Constitution established in that colony; that those embarrassments and discontents were in a great measure attributable to the manner in which the executive system was administered; thus laying the whole blame on the Colonial-office of that day. But at that time we had a Tory Colonial-office, and he was not surprised at this; but now, though the council of his Majesty was changed from a Tory to be a Whig one, it was by no means clear to him that greater justice had not been done by the Tories to the colonies than by the Whigs since they came into office. Such must be the opinion of any candid person, if he judged of the complaints so loudly and generally made from every colony of Great Britain. There was not one of them that was satisfied. This was not the state of things when the Whigs succeeded to office. They had discontent then, he admitted; but the complaints were not so extensive. It was admitted, then, that there were great abuses; but it was said that there was no time to inquire into them, as we were engaged in reforming the abuses of our own system. But had not the colonies an equal right to expect a redress of their grievances at the same time as well as this country? Unfortunately the same abuses existed now that existed in 1828. He would show, before he sat down, that the same system of abuses, alike disgraceful to the Ministers of the Crown, had continued up to the hour he was speaking. If he made out this case, he would appeal to the House, and ask if they would admit such causes of complaint to exist for a moment? He would ask them, was it fit or proper to call upon that House to abrogate the constitution of Canada and to deprive the people of Canada, of their liberties. The petition of the people of Canada stated that no alteration or improvement with respect to Canada could be attended with the desired effect, unless they established a constitutional system of government in that country. But what more did this petition contain? It contained amongst other things, the allegations involved in the amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Leader). The second paragraph of the petition expressed their 79deep regret that neither the recommendations nor the benevolent intentions of that honourable House had been executed by the Executive Government in a manner so as to produce the desired effect. The recommendations of the Committee of 1828, had now, up to the year 1834 never led to any redress whatever. The people of Canada had hoped that the House of Commons of Great Britain had seen an effectual remedy of the evils of their system, when their agent was asked in Parliament if he thought that a Legislative Council could obtain the respect of the people unless the principle of election was introduced into its composition, and he answered that it could not, and that no measure could give peace to Canada or satisfaction to the Canadians unless this principle was conceded to them. All reforms which were beneficial to the country, all the wants expressed by the almost universal opinion of the House of Assembly of that country, were thwarted and set at nought by the proceedings of the Legislative Council. They had in Canada an assembly not only impeding all reform, but the individuals forming which were admitted by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to have been guilty of high offences—and even disgraceful crimes. These persons were continued in office up to the present moment; and the noble Lord only told them that henceforth no individual should be appointed to the Legislative Council who had been convicted of disgraceful offences.
§Sir G. Grey said, that the hon. Member was mistaken in stating that Lord John Russell had used those words. What his noble Friend said was, that whereas the Act of 1791 did not give the power of dismissal except in the case of offences against the Government, he would introduce a Bill to alter that enactment by giving the Crown the power of dismissal in the case of persons who should be convicted of a misdemeanour.
§Mr. Hume said, that the Crown had this power without the interference of Parliament, and had used it over and over again. This was merely throwing out a tub to the whale. There was no advantage whatever in it; and to put this forward as a counterpoise to the privileges they were about to deprive the people of Canada of was most unjust. The petition to which he had before referred consisted of sixteen pages; it was presented to that 80House as containing at full length an exposition of the abuses that existed in Canada, and the complaints made by the people of the colony. What had that House done? Literally nothing. What did the Canadians do? The people of Canada, finding that his Majesty’s Government was unwilling to carry into effect the wishes of that House, drew up ninety-two resolutions, detailing the abuses which were continued in Canada. Their complaints had been repeated again and again; but they had received no more attention from the Executive Government, notwithstanding the promises and remonstrances of that House. The second Committee pointed out to the Government the necessity of conciliation, and of doing away with abuses; but, notwithstanding their remonstrances, the Executive Government kept on in the same course; the same system, so disgraceful to all the parties concerned, except those who were sufferers, were continued up to this day. In resolution 11 they affirmed that the Legislative Council ought to be popular and independent in order to obtain confidence; and that nothing but the principle of election would give satisfaction to the country, and place them in that station to which they claimed a right—that of a constitutional government. The existing system did not produce the result of good government. Lord Glenelg directed the Commissioners to inquire whether the Legislative Council had been productive of good government, and whether it answered the purposes for which it was instituted. In conformity with these directions the Commissioners endeavoured to ascertain how far the Legislative Council had answered the object of its institution, and of what amendments they considered it susceptible. What was the result of these inquiries? The Commissioners all admitted that it did not answer its purposes; but that, on the contrary, it was the cause of all the abuses that were complained of, the cause of the stoppage of justice, and the cause of the failure of those measures of legislation which the representatives of the country deemed necessary. The Commissioners were also directed to inquire into the most effectual means by which the Legislative Council might be formed so as to enjoy the greatest share of the public confidence, and the exercise of an independent judgment. What was the result of this inquiry? The Commissioners 81stated that, as at present constituted, the Legislative Council did not answer these purposes, it did not give satisfaction, it did not obtain the confidence of the people: on the contrary, the commissioners told them—and it was well worth attention—in their last address of September, 1836, that the provincial legislatures were interfered with and paralysed in their functions by the Legislative Council. How was that Council constituted? There were incapable and improper men in that Council—men whose conduct was disgraceful in their high station—men who had lost the confidence of the people and of the House of Assembly—men who had been guilty of tyranny and oppression in its worst character. This system was disgraceful. The Commissioners stated that it was necessary that essential reforms should be introduced into the Administration. This was in 1836; the petition from 87,000 of the people of Canada had been presented in 1827; and since that time up to the present hour no improvement or amelioration had taken place. The Canadians had for ten years borne this system of misgovernment. The people of England were ignorant of the extent of the oppression that was exercised, otherwise they would not so long have allowed the system to continue. Not only did the Legislative Council continue to act contrary to the interests of the community, but the governor of the province had taken upon himself the responsibility of taking the funds out of the treasury of the colony without the consent of the House of Assembly. Was not this a sufficient ground for complaint and discontent? The House of Assembly complained that the Executive Council stopped all legislation that was for the interest of the colony. They complained of the rejection by the Legislative Council of all Bills that were for the benefit of the colony. In 1822, eight Bills were thus lost of the greatest public importance; in 1823, the number of Bills thus lost was fourteen; in 1824, twelve; in the following year, twelve also; in 1826, nineteen; in 1830, sixteen; in 1831, eleven; and in 1832, fourteen. These Bills were all passed by the House of Assembly, and were of the greatest interest to the country. He was satisfied that any hon. Gentleman who read over these grievances would see that it was not without good reason that the House of Assembly had come to the resolutions to 82which he had alluded. The people of Lower Canada complained that Lord Gosford, in laying before the House of Assembly his instructions, withheld some most important information, which was not known to the House of Assembly of Lower Canada till it was published in Upper Canada by Sir Francis Head. Was it likely to promote conciliation, or to heal the differences that existed in this important province, to find the Commission that was sent out to satisfy the colony-acting in this manner? The knowledge of this fact was quite sufficient to induce the House of Assembly to come to the resolutions they had adopted. These resolutions were the only consistent course of proceeding that the House of Assembly could adopt—he meant particularly the resolution of stopping the supplies. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) stated that the supplies were stopped in the House of Assembly. It was no such thing. The noble Lord had stated that which was not correct when he stated that the supplies were stopped in the House of Assembly. The House of Assembly passed the supplies, and on the 29th of February, the Bill for the Supply went up to the Legislative Council, who, on the 9th of March, threw out the Bill. The Legislative Council insisted that the arrears should be paid, and the House of Assembly said, “Redress our grievances first.” They were determined to have their complaints attended to before they granted the arrears of supply. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when Colonial Secretary, took upon himself to do that which was a most unjustifiable proceeding. He took upon himself, as Colonial Secretary, to violate the constitution by appropriating from the military chest the sum of 31,000l. to make up the deficiency of the supply that had been voted. Such a proceeding was contrary to the interests of the colony, and contrary to the privileges which they enjoyed under the constitution. He would be glad to know what precedent there was to justify this? He found that in 1828, when a petition was presented from Upper Canada, a petition was at the same time presented from Lower Canada by Mr. (now Lord) Stanley. What did that petition complain of? It complained in the same manner of the Legislative Council of Upper Canada, as they now complained of the Legislative Council of Lower Ca- 83nada. What did Lord Stanley say in his letter acknowledging the receipt of that petition? Upon the subject of the Legislative Council the noble Lord did not hesitate to say, without meaning any disrespect, or casting any reflection upon the individuals that composed it, that it was the root of all the evils complained of in both provinces; and he further added that a constitutional remedy was open to the public, by stopping the supplies. This was the advice of Lord Stanley when he presented the petition in 1827, and he held in his hand a copy of the letter that was sent to the chairman of the Reform Association of Upper Canada. The Legislative Council thus described by Mr. Stanley still continued in office, and was it a matter of surprise that complaint and discontent also continued? One was the natural and inevitable result of the other. Lord Glenelg himself, in one of his dispatches to Canada, stated, that he did not deny the power of the House of Assembly to refuse the supplies where a case of necessity existed for so doing; and yet should it now be said, at a time when the grievances of which they had complained, and complained of for years, were still unredressed, that the power of levying and appropriating the public funds should be taken out of their hands, and that, in open defiance of their wishes and votes, money should be taken out of their treasure-chest, and applied to purposes which they did not approve of? The noble Lord, the Home Secretary, said the other night, that the Imperial Parliament had the power to appropriate the funds of the Canadians, so that they did it for the use and benefit of Canada. But who was to judge what was for their benefit but themselves? And they in their judgment had already declared that they did not think those payments, under existing circumstances, were of that nature, and refused to grant them. Was it fit, was it proper, in defiance of a positive act of the Assembly, to attempt, by a resolution of the English House of Commons, to override the liberties of the Canadians, and deprive them of their undoubted privileges, which they held by virtue of an Act of Parliament? He would now state to the Committee the reason why the Canadians refused to grant these supplies. They were of opinion that the Legislative Assembly contained many improper persons, persons who were wholly disqualified for the due administration of 84their several functions, and the House of Assembly refused their salaries accordingly. He was quite ashamed that the noble Lord should come down and propose the enforcement of payments in this unconstitutional manner which the Assembly had disallowed. Amongst the persons whose salaries were thus refused, for instance, was one who, being a member of the Legislative Council, acted also as clerk to the Executive Council, and the House of Assembly, decreeing these two offices to be wholly incompatible, very properly refused to pay this individual’s salary as clerk of the Executive as long as he remained a member of the Legislative Council. Then there was the Speaker of the House of Assembly, with a salary of 900l., and who held several other lucrative offices; and the Assembly consented to allow him this salary provided he did not continue to receive any equally large sum from any other public situation. Then as to judges, about whom such a melancholy tale had been narrated the other night by the noble Home Secretary. These persons, besides their judicial offices, held several other lucrative situations under the Crown, and the House of Assembly very properly refused to allow them their salaries in the former capacity as long as they retained other situations of the kind, a practice so incompatible with their high and solemn functions. The noble Lord spoke with much indignation of the pretence set up by the Canadian Assembly to refuse supplies unless accepted under conditions in this way. He, however, insisted that such a proceeding was a very constitutional and a very proper one. Lord Goderich himself had admitted the right of the House of Assembly to vote their supplies with any conditions which they thought fit. In the exercise, therefore, of their privilege and their duty in accordance with this principle, the House of Assembly had refused to allow salaries to parties who held several incompatible offices. They consented to give salaries for some of these offices, but not for all, and he thought they were perfectly right in making this condition. In this country, Government was so sensible of the justness of this principle, that they scarcely dared to appoint a pluralist to office—and why, let him ask, should they insist upon a different rule in Canada to that adopted in Great Britain? With respect to the failure of Lord Gosford’s mis- 85sion, that result was not owing to any fault on the part of his Lordship, How could it be expected that a peaceable adjustment could be effected by him, when he had not the power of granting one concession, or of applying a remedy to one of the numerous grievances which were crying out for redress? For ten long years had the people of Lower Canada patiently put up with this state of things; for ten years had they called upon this country for justice, hoping at length, by fair means, to obtain what they required; for ten years were those appeals neglected, those grievances and complaints utterly disregarded, and the utmost inattention paid to all their representations. Was there no limit to human patience? Was there not a stage of oppression and insult which might drive the patient to madness? When this period arrived—when all hope of obtaining justice from the good feeling of others, was wasted in neglect—were the people of Lower Canada to blame because they, in the mildest and gentlest manner, refused to vote away their money, unless their abuses were remedied? Were the people of this country so blind to their own rights and interests as to allow the noble Lord to over-ride the people of Lower Canada, and deprive them of their constitutional rights. All the people of Lower Canada required of England was this—”Do unto us as you would be done by.” With this reflection on their minds —with the abuses unredressed which he had enumerated—would the people of this country stand by, and consent to the passing of this coercion Bill for the people of Canada? But even if it were passed, there was another question—would they be able to enforce it? The House of Assembly, in 1836, voted all the supplies they had been accustomed to vote, with the exception of the items they objected to, for the reasons above stated. What would be said if the House of Commons were to-morrow to vote that a judge of the land should receive his salary, provided he did not also hold another office, and receive pay as Speaker of the House of Commons? Would that be deemed so unwarrantable and unconstitutional a condition? And suppose the Bill of Supply so framed were to be sent up to the Upper House, and they were to refuse to pass it, or rather to put it into Committee, from which it was doomed never to come out? If the House 86of Lords in this country would have a right so to interfere with the authority of the House of Commons in matters of supply, then, and not otherwise, was the Legislative Assembly justified in what they had done with respect to the votes of the Representative Assembly. But if they were not justified in the course they had pursued, what right had the ministry of this country to come down, and call upon the House of Commons to enforce the payment of money, without the express conditions imposed by the House of Assembly; grants to which, under circumstances, they would not assent to?
§Sir George Grey begged to observe, that the Government did not wish to enforce payments contrary to any of the conditions with which they were accompanied when last they were voted in 1833. The resolution did not propose to pay any items which had not been sanctioned by the Assembly in 1833.
§Mr. Hume was speaking of the vote of 1836, when the conditions in question were introduced. Would the House of Commons, would the Government of this country, pretend to deprive the House of Assembly of their right and power to impose conditions in these matters? If they did, shame would stand on all their faces and all their heads. The Colonial Secretary admits the intention of the Government to do this injustice. The proceeding altogether was most unjustifiable, and while the people of this country were struggling for their rights, he would ask, were they not bound to assist the colonies, and protect them against oppression to the utmost of their power? He trusted the House of Commons would never sanction such a shameful exercise of power; he trusted the House would recollect that, some years ago, when supplies were voted by the House of Assembly for six months, and that a sum, of 6,351l. was left unappropriated, in the hope that the local government would redress the grievance of keeping up the establishment for which that grant was formerly made, the colonial Government failed to correct the abuse; and what was the result? The Governor took that sum out of the military chest. When stating this fact he directed his observation more particularly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was Colonial Secretary at the time, and he did it with the more confidence because Lord Glenelg, in one of his dispatches, 87had admitted that the House of Assembly had the right to withhold the supplies or not as they saw fit. Now, when these grievances were not redressed, and the House of Assembly refused the supplies, the Governor, with the sanction of the Colonial Secretary, seized the money; and was not that a monstrous proceeding? Was not that robbing the public purse? Why, what would be said if a minister here took 1,000l., or any sum, out of the Exchequer, for any purpose, without the consent of the House of Commons? Would not a motion to sanction such a proceeding be rejected unanimously? Yet such a proceeding had taken place in Canada with the sanction of the Colonial-office. He must say, that such a measure was highly unconstitutional, and if the House of Commons represented completely the sentiments of the people, Mr. Rice and others would have been impeached and called upon to answer for their conduct at the time of this transaction.
§Mr. Roebuck moved, that the House be counted. But more than forty Members being present, the debate proceeded.
§Mr. Hume said, in continuation, that while the House was sitting and deliberating on the liberties of six hundred thousand of their fellow-citizens, it might have been expected that more than fifty Members would have been present. The hon. Member, after adverting to a declaration of the people of Canada, in which they set forth their grievances, and prayed for redress, said, the Government, in spite of the declarations and petitions of the people of Canada, was determined to persevere, and called upon the House of Commons to assist in passing a Coercion Bill against the House of Assembly to enable it to trample on the rights of the people of Canada. The language of the noble Lord amounted to that; and the language of the noble Lord was the language of all the Cabinet Ministers. They had made it a Cabinet question—they had all agreed in a measure for oppressing the people of Canada; and they called on that House to aid and join them in countenancing such illegal proceedings. If the majority of that House were to be the tools of the Cabinet in this transaction, it was high time for him, and those who acted with him, to tell the people of Canada what to do—to tell them that they themselves must provide the remedy. Their prayers here had been refused—they 88had been oppressed by the Colonial Minister—they had appealed to the throne, and all in vain. Hating, as he did, oppression at home or abroad, and indignant that he should be called on to act as a co-oppressor against the rights of men, and least of all against the rights of his fellow-subjects, he must express the greatest regret that such resolutions had ever been brought forward. The noble Lord in excuse said the House of Assembly had refused the supplies. He denied that, and the Cabinet, therefore, proceeded on a false pretence to take away the rights and privileges of their fellow-subjects. He trusted that a different course would be pursued, that means would be adopted for satisfying the people of that country, and that the Government would reflect before it was too late. He regretted the noble Lord was not present, because he was more likely to be open to conviction than some of those with whom he acted. He did not believe it was the act of the noble Lord, but, on the contrary, he believed he was the dupe of those who had got up the scheme. Had the noble Lord been present he would have asked him if he were prepared to act on a principle different from that on which he would act towards Ireland. The hon. Member for Bath had made the cases of the two countries as identical as possible, and the noble Lord, in answer to speeches made by hon. Members on the other side of the House, asking why he interfered with the system of Government existing in Ireland, said he considered it his duty to interfere whenever grievances existed and redress was refused. The noble Lord had said, he would follow the advice of Mr. Fox, and that advice was, that concession should be made to the people of Ireland, and if he found he had not conceded enough, he would concede more. “My wish,” said Mr. Fox, “is, that the whole people of Ireland should have the same principles, the same system, the same operation of Government; and though it may be a subordinate consideration that all classes should have an equal chance of emolument, in other words, I would have the whole Irish Government regulated by Irish notions and Irish prejudices, and I firmly believe, according to another Irish expression, that the more she is under the Irish Government the more she will be bound to English interests.” That was the principle on which 89the noble Lord had proposed to act towards Ireland, but now nothing was held out to Canada but threats and coercion. He should have thought the Government would have been tired of coercion; they ought to learn experience from the Irish Coercion Bill, for all the evil predicted of it had been verified. He would ask if Canada would be more satisfied than Ireland unless the same principle was acted upon—the principle of Mr. Fox, that the best way to govern Ireland was to let her have her own way. He would advise the noble Lord, therefore, to adhere to that principle, and govern Canada as he would govern Ireland. There were a number of passages in the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the grievances complained of in Lower Canada, which recommended measures incompatible with the constitution of Canada. It would be much better for his Majesty’s Ministers to go openly to work, and to repeal the constitution of that country. Did any one suppose that the people of Canada would be alarmed by such a paper as the Report of the Commissioners going out to them? Let the House remember that the people of no country were long dissatisfied without having good ground for their discontent. To the grievances which the people of Canada already suffered was now to be added the grievance which the noble Lord proposed to inflict upon them by his resolutions. He raised his voice on the part of the people of England against such a proceeding. The people of England, while they maintained their own rights, were always desirous of supporting the rights of others. It was in opposition to their feelings that the just complaints of others should be neglected. The Canadians were men like ourselves. If we superseded all their constitutional rights, if we deprived them of the privilege of legislation with reference to their own finances, and compelled them to pay money to persons whom they considered unworthy, the people of England would unite in reprobation of such conduct. So much with regard to Lower Canada. Now for Upper Canada. He had only that day seen a document, published recently in a London newspaper, in which he was charged, in no measured terms, with holding treasonable opinions towards the people of Upper Canada. He would then, and once for all, show how little liable he was to that 90charge; although, when he considered by whom it was made, and the tone in which it was couched, he could not believe that it would for a moment be believed by any rational person. The document to which he alluded was published in The Times; and it purported to be the report of a Select Committee of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada, to which had been referred the consideration of a petition of Mr. T. Duncombe, a Member of the House of Assembly, which had been presented to the House of Commons. That petition was presented to the House of Commons in the last Session of Parliament, just before the prorogation. He (Mr. Hume) had been requested to present it, as he had before presented other petitions from Canada. He would now make a few observations upon the report of the Committee; hoping that no time would be lost in obtaining from the Government of Upper Canada those documents which would enable him to contradict the statements of that report completely. At the same time he must at once protest against its being supposed to speak the sentiments of the House of Assembly. He knew from whom it emanated. The Committee was composed of six Tories and three Reformers; and he repeated his protest against their being supposed to speak the sentiments of the House. In that report, after alluding to Mr. Duncombe’s statements and endeavouring to refute them, the Committee thus proceeded:— Before closing their report the Committee feel it their duty to call the attention of your hon. House and the country to the fact that the petition of Mr. Duncombe was presented to the House of Commons by Mr. Joseph Hume, a Member of the Imperial Parliament for the county of Middlesex, and that that Gentleman appears to have been chosen as the agent through whom Mr. Duncombe and Mr. Robert Baldwin have conducted their communications with the Colonial-office. And it further appears from letters of Mr. Hume addressed to some of the Ministers of the Crown, that he is desirous of representing himself as the agent, or, at all events, as being authorised to express the sentiments, of the people of Upper Canada on the subject of their political feelings, and the public affairs of the province. Your Committee are of opinion, that the honour and character of his Majesty’s loyal subjects in this province require that it should be promptly and emphatically declared by their representatives that Mr. Hume is among the last men they would select to advocate their cause, or represent their feelings or wishes to 91the British nation. The people of Upper Canada recollect that in the year 1834 Mr. Joseph Hume addressed a letter to a correspondent of his in this country, which, referring to his correspondent’s recent expulsion from and re-election to the assembly, contained the following treasonable language and advice:—’Your triumphant election on the 16th, and ejection from the assembly on the 17th, must hasten that crisis which is fast approaching in the affairs of the Canada’s, and which will terminate in independence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mother country, and the tyrannical conduct of a small and despicable faction in the colony. The proceedings between 1772 and 1782, in America, ought not to be forgotten, and to the honour of Americans, and for the interest of the civilized world, let their conduct and the result be ever in view.’ And when it is remembered with what indignation and disgust the publication of this detestable communication was received throughout the province, his Majesty’s loyal subjects cannot but regard with abhorrence the idea that the person who had thus insulted them should be supposed by their Sovereign and their fellow subjects in the United Kingdom to be their accredited agent—that they held any communication with him, or that he was in any way clothed with authority to speak their sentiments or represent their views, on any subject, public or private.”— This was the charge made against him. To repel it, it became necessary for him to read to the House the letter on which this charge was founded. It was addressed to W. L. M’Kenzie, Esq., M.P., York, Upper Canada, and was as follows:— Bryanston-square, March 29. My dear Sir—I lately received files of the Vindicator and Reformer journals, and am pleased to observe that the electors of the county of York continue firm and consistent in their support to you, and that you manifest the same determined spirit of opposition to abuse and misrule. The Government and the majority of the assembly appear to have lost the little portion of common sense and the prudence which society in general now possess, and they sacrifice the greatest of public principles in gratifying a paltry and mean revenge against you. Your triumphant election on the 16th, and ejection from the assembly on the 17th, must hasten that crisis which is fast approaching in the affairs of the Canada’s, and which will terminate in independence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mother country, and the tyrannical conduct of a small and despicable faction in the colony. I regret to think that the proceedings of Mr. Stanley, which manifest as little knowledge of mankind as they prove his ignorance of the 92spirit and liberal feelings of the present generation, encourage your enemies to persevere in the course they have taken. But I confidently trust that the high-minded people of Canada will not, in these days, be overawed or cheated of their rights and liberties by such men. Your cause is their cause—your defeat would be their subjugation. Go on, therefore, I beseech you, and success—glorious success— must inevitably crown your joint efforts. Mr. Stanley must be taught that the follies and wickedness of Mr. Pitt’s Government, in the commencement of the French revolution, cannot be repeated now, either at home or abroad, without results very different from that which then took place. The proceedings between 1772 and 1782 in America ought not to be forgotten, and to the honour of the Americans, and for the interest of the civilised world, let their conduct and the result be ever in view. I remain, yours sincerely, JOSEPH HUME. P.S. The people in lower Canada are taking the means of forcing their affairs on the Government, and will I hope succeed. The House would see how different these sentiments were from those imputed to him in the report of the committee of the House of Assembly. Would any friend of liberty censure him for applauding the conduct of the United States of America in their successful struggle for independence? But for their glorious example, the cause of freedom would, at a later period, have been overwhelmed in Europe. Long might it flourish; and let that justice be done to Canada which would prevent the active defence of that cause from becoming a matter of duty. The lying report of the committee of the House of Assembly declared that his (Mr. Hume’s) letter had been received with disgust and indignation throughout the province. He held in his hand resolutions which had been agreed to by the common council of the city of Toronto, which he will read to the House. [The hon. Gentleman here read the resolutions to which he had adverted. They bestowed the highest encomiums upon him for his sentiments and conduct with respect to Upper Canada, and spoke with reprobation of the unhappy policy which had so long been pursued towards that province by his Majesty’s successive Governments, and especially by that government of which Mr. Stanley was the Colonial Secretary.] But that was not all; similar expressions of approbation of his conduct had proceeded from twenty 93counties and twenty towns of the province. [The hon. Member here read several of those documents, and especially one from the township of Caledon.] It might be asked, what had induced him to write the letter which he had written to Mr. M’Kenzie? His answer was, indignation at the conduct of the noble Lord opposite. When Lord Goderich was the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, his Lordship had sent a dispatch to the Governor of Upper Canada, expressing a wish that the grievances complained of by the inhabitants of that province should be taken into consideration. When that dispatch was laid on the table of the House of Assembly, it was treated with marked disrespect and insult by the Attorney and Solicitor-General. The hon. Member proceeded to advert to a second dispatch of Lord Goderich, in which that noble Lord stated that he thought the Attorney and Solicitor-General were bound to act to the best of their views, but that if they differed from his Majesty’s Government, it was obvious that they could not remain in office with advantage; and in order, therefore, that those gentlemen might be at liberty to follow the dictates of their own judgment, he (Lord Goderich) had his Majesty’s commands, that on the receipt of the dispatch, they should be relieved from the duties of their respective offices. This dispatch was in reply to a communication that had been made to the Government at home. These gentlemen, then, were the firebrands; and when they came home, after being superseded, the noble Lord (Stanley), who was at that time, unfortunately, at the head of the Colonial Department, thought fit, in despite of and in the teeth of Lord Goderich’s dispatch, to promote one of these Gentlemen to a judge-ship in Newfoundland. What was the consequence? Why, that in the elections which took place some time after, such was the disgust of the people of Canada at the proceedings which had taken place, and at the conduct of the Government, that every one of the Reformers—of those men who associated themselves “with Mr. Hume, the firebrand”—were returned by large majorities by the people of Upper Canada, who approved of his letter and of his conduct. That letter was received with the warmest approbation by the official bodies; and when a vote of censure on him was proposed by the deputy grand master of the Orangemen in the colony, (to 94whom, by the by, he had since given & lift)—joined by all the Tories—that vote was lost. The ex-Attorney-General of the colony, who had been stated to be such a temperate man, in expressing his opinion upon the letter, had done so in terms which little accorded with the character which had been given him. The hon. Member here read an extract of a speech attributed to this Attorney-General, in which he denounced those who supported Mr. Hume’s party, and declared that he spurned them; that they were his utter detestation; that they were recreants to their Sovereign. He now came to another charge. By a resolution of the House of Assembly, they had agreed to the appointment of a select Committee, on the petition of Mr. Duncombe, which he (Mr. Hume) had presented last year to the House of Commons, and the prayer of which he had been requested to support; and he was astonished that a Committee should have been found to tell such lies and falsehoods. It only remained for him, however, to say, that all the charges made in that report, so far as they were levelled against him, were wholly unfounded. He might, perhaps, read the resolutions which had been agreed to in respect to his letter, and indeed he had got the official documents; but he could state with confidence, that there was not one allegation in the document to which he had referred, in respect to the manner in which his letter had been received, that was true. The hon. Gentleman, in order to establish the fact that that letter had been well received, and that his own conduct had been approved of, proceeded to read, in a low tone, various extracts from private letters which he had received from parties whom he did not name. One of them dated 29th of June, 1834, commenced with the words, “I congratulate the colony on the removal of Mr. Stanley, from what I know of Mr. Rice and from what has passed.” But he had been lamentably deceived in Mr. Rice. Never did any man deceive his expectations more than Mr. Rice had done. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be impeached. With regard to the resolutions propounded by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he objected to them in toto. If that House were to pass resolutions which affected Canada, they must be so framed as to meet the wishes and wants of the great majority of the people of Canada, who for ten years 95had been suffering under admitted grievances. He had shown the House that they had petitioned in the years 1827, 1829, and 1834; they had appealed to the King in Council; and they had come to certain resolutions also in the year 1834. In all these instances they sought for nothing but to manage their affairs themselves, and to secure the advantages of good government; but the present administration stepped in to prevent this by insisting on retaining a Legislative Council. If they annulled the just rights of the Canadians they would commit a direct robbery upon them; and must expect that men thus used would not voluntarily submit to have all those privileges which they now enjoyed taken from them. If the House of Assembly did not vote the supplies of money, was the House of Commons to carry on the legislation of Canada. If that were intended, it would be better to repeal the constitution of Canada and with it the act of 1831. In conclusion, the hon. Member contended that he had made out a case which was not to be disputed, that there were grievances still existing with reference to the colony of Canada; that those abuses had not been removed; that the Canadians had rights as well as we had; and that it was now intended by resolutions of that House to deprive the Canadians of what they were by law entitled to. He should give every opposition to the resolutions, and he hoped the House would pause before it sanctioned them.
§Mr. William Gladstone would not have been desirous to trespass on the attention of the House upon the present occasion had the case which his Majesty’s Government had brought forward been such as to render it incumbent on any one who was connected with or took an interest in the Canada’s, be his political opinions what they might, to render to the Government every support in his power. The case before them was not one which bound them as a party, and the question which they were called to decide that night was whether they would consent to the separation of Lower Canada from the empire. He was not one of those who were to be frightened out of an opinion by the vote which he might feel called upon to give, or to hesitate upon the alternative on which he would act when the separation of Lower Canada might follow from not adopting the resolutions which were proposed by his Majesty’s Government. All colonies were 96to be regarded as the children of the parent country. He did not mean to say, that we ought to maintain the institutions of Canada for ever in the subordinate situation in which they now existed, but he thought it was a vain distinction to claim for the Houses of Legislature there a position which was analogous to that of the Legislature in this country, so long as they were in the situation of a colony. The hon. Member for Middlesex who was an economist of every thing except the public time, had chosen, after a disquisition on the affairs of Lower Canada, which was certainly not restricted within narrow limits, to super add a disquisition of one hour’s duration on the state of Upper Canada. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had quoted the sentiments of the Members of the common council of Toronto as if they were to be taken as indicating the general feelings of the country. Let the House see with how much truth they could be regarded in that light. Were the gentlemen who recorded the opinions quoted by the hon. Member for Middlesex still members of the common council of Toronto? On the contrary, these gentlemen, as he understood—in no small degree on account of the vote they had passed in favour of the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Middlesex in his letter—were shortly afterwards ejected from the common council, and were succeeded by gentlemen who, amongst their first acts, expunged from the records of their body that very resolution of their predecessors which the hon. Member for Middlesex had quoted with so much seeming triumph. So much, then, for the hon. Member in Upper Canada. It appeared that he had been fairly drummed out of that province, although the hon. Member seemed to think that he had still some ground to occupy in Lower Canada. The hon. Gentleman had talked much about the grievances of Lower Canada; but throughout the whole of his protracted speech he did not succeed in establishing one single case of real grievance. What were the grievances of Lower Canada? Was personal security invaded? Was property inadequately protected by the laws? Was religion oppressed? Was taxation heavy? Upon which of these several particulars, the usual grounds of grievance, had the people of Lower Canada reason to complain? The hon. Gentleman, who talked so much and so 97long about the grievances of the people of that province, alleged after all but one, and what did that amount to? It amounted to this, that whereas in the province of Lower Canada the scale of official salaries was with respect to many offices so extremely low, so totally inadequate to the maintenance of a proper officer, therefore a number of them had been joined together and placed in the hands of a single individual, and the Legislative Council, though repeatedly requested by the House of Assembly, had uniformly declined to disjoin the offices so united, and by that means to place each separate office in the hands of a class of society totally incompetent to the proper discharge of the duties that belonged to it. This was the sole grievance alleged. Did it constitute a sufficient reason to justify the House of Assembly in stopping the supplies? When he said that persons and property were secure in Lower Canada he ought to look, perhaps, to one contingency. Property and persons were secure in that province as far as the Government could make them so; but could the House of Commons look to that security as permanent when they knew that the judges of the land and all the other officers of the Provincial Government had had their salaries withheld from them for the last four or five years? If there were danger of convulsion in Lower Canada, it would not arise from taking the course which the Government invited them to adopt, but from suffering the present state of things in the province to continue. The hon. Member for Middlesex said that the House of Assembly would grant the supplies upon this condition, that the offices at present united should be disjoined and placed in the hands of separate individuals. Was that the fact? It was true that the House of Assembly proposed to grant the supplies for six months upon that condition, but would such a grant compensate these officers for four or five years’ arrears? And did it not stand out as a fact that those arrears which had been incurred, and which the public and that House were pledged to pay, were refused to be defrayed by the provincial legislature of Lower Canada except upon the condition of the home Government consenting to an organic change in the Canadian constitution? Did the hon. Gentleman mean to deny that at that moment payment of the arrears was refused by the House of Assem- 98bly unless the home Government would consent to the establishment of an elective Council. Then the case stood thus—in a country where life and property were secure, where there was no oppressive law, where the franchise was wide and liberal, where the church of the majority was in possession of the church property, where there was no tangible grievance capable of being put into terms and brought before that House—in such a country the Imperial Legislature was called upon to grant an organic change in the constitution as the condition upon which, for the future, the supplies necessary to carry on the government of the province should be voted by the Provincial Legislature. Then the question that lay before them was one between the support of a government, the maintenance of tranquillity and order, on the one hand, and the acknowledgment of the absolutism of the popular will on the other. The hon. Member for Middlesex alluded to the composition of the Legislative Council, and complained that men had been placed upon it who were wholly unfit to discharge the duties which attached to the members of so important a branch of the Legislature. It was true that there had been one instance of misconduct on the part of a member of the Legislative Council, and he certainly thought that that constituted the last remaining grievance of the people of Lower Canada—a grievance, by the bye, which the home Government had taken means to prevent for the future. As far as the alleged undue preference of the English race was concerned, he begged the House to look for a moment at the fact. During the administration of the last two governors of Lower Canada there had, ha believed, been eighteen appointments to the Legislative Council, and of those eighteen appointments ten had been given to persons of French origin, and the remaining eight to persons of English descent. It was true that ten did not bear that proportion to eight that the whole French population of the province did to the British; but it must be remembered that the French population did not comprise so great a proportion of the upper class—of persons fit to be appointed to so important a situation as that of a member of the Legislative Council—as the British. It could not be said, therefore, that any gross or glaring partiality had been exhibited in the appointments that of late 99years bad been made to the Legislative Council. The hon. and learned Member for Bath read them a lecture the other night upon the extreme expediency of every one who advanced an opinion in that House telling all that he meant, and leaving nothing in reserve. He wished that the hon. and learned Gentleman had acted upon that principle himself. They were told that the conduct of the Legislative Council was the point upon which were concentrated all the grievances of Lower Canada. What was the fact? The Legislative Council had been the outwork and defence of the Government. In all its most essential acts it had been countenanced by the governor and Executive Council, who in their turn, had been borne out by the government at home, and the government at home had been borne out by the Imperial Parliament. Two Committees had been appointed by that House, the one in 1828, the other in 1834, in both of which the fullest investigation took place into the affairs of Lower Canada; and the result of the inquiry was in both instances to vindicate the conduct of the Government. The question, then, was not so much one between the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council in Lower Canada as between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath and the Imperial Parliament as to the policy that had been pursued towards the province. He was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman agreed with him in placing the question upon that ground. But observe the consequence; the question would assume the aspect of a struggle between the colony and the British nation. He did not think the separation of the colonies from the mother country was at all times and under all circumstances to be regarded with apprehension; but no one, could look at the condition of Lower Canada at that moment and not perceive that it was surrounded by difficulties which would make a separation from the mother country anything but advantageous to itself. What was the situation of Lower Canada? It was divided between persons of two different races, who did in fact regard each other as “aliens in blood and language,” and between whom there unfortunately existed a great deal of excitement and exasperation. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Bath, had spoken of a “howling herd of 100officials;” but could the hon. and learned Gentleman charge any one individual of the class whom he designated in such disparaging terms with a dishonourable act? Had they not been serving the public without any requital for the last five or six years? Did it, then, become the hon. and learned Gentleman, or did he consider it a part of his duty towards those whom he called his constituents, to insult men who had been placed, by no act of their own, in a situation of peculiar hardship and difficulty. It little became any man to employ such terms as those used by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, towards the officers of Lower Canada; but, least of all, did it become the hon. and learned Member for Bath, who, whilst those against whom he railed had been kept in a stale of penury, had himself been in the due receipt of a liberal salary. What was the difference between the hon. and learned Member for Bath and the howling herd of Canadian officials. The only difference was this, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had received his salary, without the sanction of the law, whilst the officials, who held regularly-constituted offices under the sanction of the law, had received no salary for several years, although they had continued punctually and faithfully to discharge the duties attached to their situations. This was the difference between these Gentlemen and the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and it was upon the ground of that difference, he supposed, that they were to be liable to all the taunts and insults that the hon. and learned Gentleman might choose to throw out against them. Then it was said, that the British party in Lower Canada was composed of nothing more than a miserable monopolising minority of the population of that province. What was the fact? He held in his hand a copy of a petition presented to that House from Montreal in the year 1834, signed by 10,197 of this despicable minority. Did this bear out the representations made by the hon. and learned Member for Bath as to the nature of the conflict in Lower Canada? Did it show that the popular voice was all on one side, and that the British interest was supported only by a contemptible few? Far from it. It showed that there was a great division between the people themselves, a division accompanied with great exasperation and much excite- 101ment of feeling; and, showing this, it proved that of all times that could be chosen to discuss the question of the separation of Lower Canada from the mother country, the present was the very worst. The debates in that House, the speeches of the hon. Member for Bath and his coadjutors, the addresses even of the House of Assembly itself, did not indicate the whole of the feeling which was entertained upon this subject; the journals published in Lower Canada, however, showed the real character of the feelings, which he did not ascribe to the people of that country, but to the demagogues there. Let the House listen to the following extract from a Canadian newspaper, called the Minerve:—”It will be seen, according to this statement, that there exist here two parties of opposite interests and manners—the Canadians and the English. The first, because they are Frenchmen, have all the habits and character of such; they have inherited from their fathers a hatred to the English, who, in their turn, seeing in them children of France, detested them. These two parties cannot remain—they form a bad amalgamation of manners, habits, and religion, which, sooner or later must lead to a collision.” The hon. Member also read an extract from a speech, pretty much to the same effect, delivered by Mr. Rodier, in the House of Assembly, in which the speaker bewailed over “his country as in ruin and mourning, presenting one vast cemetery, with the voice of thousands of his fellow-citizens issuing from their tomb, that British emigration was the cause of all their miseries.” The mother country was represented as “ridding herself of her beggars and casting them in thousands on the shores of Canada.” These, he feared, were not isolated instances, but too true specimens of the temper that prevailed amongst the leaders of what was called the popular party in Lower Canada. Was this, then, the fit period for them to enter into the discussion of the separation of the colony from the mother country. If it were not the fitting period for them to enter into the discussion of that question, then it followed that the only proper course left for them to pursue was to adopt the plan proposed by the Government. The question at issue was not as to the constitution and importance of the 102Legislative Council, but whether the policy pursued by this country towards her colony should or should not be continued. The hon. Member for Middlesex had talked of revolution and civil war. For his own part, he did not believe, that the people of Lower Canada, wished to throw themselves into the arms of the United States. What had been the conduct of the United States towards those communities that she had amalgamated with herself? Had she continued to them the same degree of nationality that had been preserved to Canada under the dominion of Great Britain. Would the inhabitants of Lower Canada mend their condition in reference to taxation by joining the United States? At present he believed the people of Lower Canada were free from the direct influence of taxation, and that the amount of revenue annually paid by them was infinitely less than that of any of the provinces joined with the United States. It had been contended in the course of the debate that the creation of the North American Land Company was one of the most serious grievances of which Lower Canada had to complain. Nothing surely could be more absurd. Here was a body of intelligent Englishmen who undertook to secure to Lower Canada the benefit of emigration, having by their skill, capital, and personal superintendence, succeeded in removing or neutralizing the dangers formerly attendant on emigration to that province, and who sent out their capital, and employed it on an extensive scale to improve the face of the country, and to facilitate the means of transit from one part of it to another. To say that such a body of men were a grievance to a country was ridiculous. Supposing Lower Canada to be joined with the United States, how would its wild lands then be disposed of. Unless the Government of the United States consented, in deference to the hon. and learned Member for Bath, to deviate from its fixed practice in the distribution and sale of wild lands, would the Canadian province have any reason to congratulate itself on exchanging the dominion of Great Britain for that of the United States. In 1831, when the noble Lord (Lord Howick), the Member for Northumberland, had charge of the Colonial department in that House, and brought forward the resolution upon which Lord Ripon’s Act was founded, how did the hon. 103Member for Middlesex act? He promised that if the Act passed, the Canadian civil list should be granted. The Act passed; but where was the civil list? Up to the year 1831 the attention of this country had not been sufficiently directed to its colonies, and in the Canadas many things had been allowed to grow up which required correction, and that correction was administered by the Act to which he had just referred. He therefore took the year 1831 as that upon which the course now proposed by the Government was to be justified. What was the language of the House of Assembly in 1831? On the 28th of January, in that year, the House of Assembly agreed to an address, expressing an earnest desire that harmony should exist between the different branches of the provincial Legislature, and that full effect should be given to the constitution of the province as established by law; and that address was signed by Mr. Papineau, as chairman of the Assembly, The question, then, that he wished to put to the hon. Gentlemen who supported the amendment was this: if there were no grievances in 1831 that induced the Assembly to demand a change in the constitution, what grievances had since arisen that could justify the House of Assembly in withholding the supplies, and making an organic change in the constitution the condition of granting them. He thought it was perfectly clear, from the language used by the hon. Member for Middlesex, with reference to the future conduct of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada (if, indeed, he was the responsible organ of that body as he was then supposed to have been) on the occasion of the passing of Lord Ripon’s Act, that that body would have been satisfied to have proceeded in harmony with the government of that colony. Did the hon. Gentleman believe that that Act would have been passed unless upon the perfect conviction that the House of Assembly would have granted the supplies? The Government, in passing that Act, were entirely deceived in their expectations, expectations that were reasonable and just. If, then, there was no practical grievance affecting the people of Lower Canada, which justified (and he admitted that real grievances might justify) a demand even for organic change, then what, he would ask was the ground for stopping the supplies, and what the ground for demanding this organic change? Was 104there to be any Government in lower Canada — were there to be courts of justice—was there to be a police? Was there to be any protection for property— any safety or security for persons? If there were, then there must be a Government; and if a Government, it must be administered by persons; and if administered by persons; he apprehended that those persons must be paid. Did that House feel itself in a condition to refuse to those “howling officials” those salaries, for the want of which, indeed, they might be almost made to howl; and for the want of which they were reduced to a state of the greatest difficulty and embarrassment? If the House refused them their salaries, what alternative was there but to dissolve the Government of Lower Canada? They could not allow those persons to go on administering the duties of Government, which they were only pledged to perform on receiving remuneration. They could not allow men of honour to discharge those duties without providing that remuneration which had been withheld from them by the House of Assembly. Unless that House was ready to adopt an organic change in the constitution of Lower Canada, with the perfect knowledge and conviction that that organic change would only be the first of a series of changes—for the change now demanded was not final in its character—and unless they were resolved to enter, upon a boundless course of unreasonable concession, they must adopt the course which was proposed by his Majesty’s Ministers. He felt all the pain which his Majesty’s Ministers must experience in proposing such a course to the House. A course undoubtedly coercive in its nature and intended to set aside for a time the privileges and principles of the constitution. He fully agreed that nothing but the very last necessity could justify such a line of policy. But he agreed also with his Majesty’s Government in thinking that a case of urgent necessity had arisen. He thought that experiments had been tried to the uttermost, patience was exhausted; and the question now was, whether the Parliament of this country would consent to stand disgraced and dishonoured, not only before the people of Lower Canada, but before the whole world; or whether by interposition, arising out of the necessity of the case, and limited strictly by that necessity, it 105would relieve the honest and faithful servants of the Crown from the difficulties and calamities they now endured, and the Government itself from the moral degradation into which it would fall, were the present state of things suffered to continue? He regretted the precise terms in which the fourth resolution was framed. He thought the resolution went beyond the necessity of the case. The principle he would venture to lay down was, that where it was their object to manifest the opinion of the Imperial Parliament in one particular case only which was at issue, it was desirable not to pledge the Parliament or the Government to any thing beyond that case. By acting otherwise they narrowed too much the ground on which they had to proceed. He thought it would tend greatly to prevent any disagreement, and would produce a very strong and general, and all but unanimous, expression of opinion on this occasion if the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary of the Colonies, would devise some other mode of framing the fourth resolution, so as to obviate the objection to which it was now liable. In that case he should give his most unqualified support to the propositions of his Majesty’s Ministers.
§Mr. Labouchere came down to the House prepared to give a reluctant and silent, but he must add, a decided vote in favour of the resolutions proposed to the House by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department. But some things had occurred in the course of the discussion which had made him desirous of stating, in a few words, the grounds upon which that vote would be given, It had fallen to his lot, since he had had the honour of a seat in Parliament, to call upon the House for the expression of its opinion, and even to adopt resolutions relating to the colony, the affairs of which were this night under discussion. His object had been to retain these colonies to the mother country, by every means in our power, as long as we could; but, above all, that to the last hour during which that connexion lasted we should act towards these colonies liberally and justly, so that whenever the moment of separation might come, were it sooner or were it later, we should be able, in the face of the world and of posterity, to have a good case, and not to stand before either convicted of having, as far as we were concerned, neglected the duty of a mother country towards her colonies. In 106consonance with this opinion he had frequently had to urge upon the House what appeared to him the real and well-founded grievances inflicted upon the colonies of Lower and Upper Canada, sometimes by the mistaken views of the mother country, more often by the acts of the Colonial-office, through the management and conduct of the governors in those colonies towards the people. He had often had to express opinions extremely contrary to the Government of the day with regard to the policy pursued in the Canadas. He had always so strongly felt the truth of the position that a country such as Canada could only be governed rationally, and that it was only possible to retain it as a British possession, in any way that could be useful to either party, by carrying with us the reason and the affections of the people of that country, that he for one always thought it was our interest and our duty, as much as possible, to leave to them the direction of their own concerns, and to interfere as little as possible with them. But he must say, that there was one limit, and one limit only, that he could conceive to that general rule. As long as the colony of Lower Canada remained part of the British empire he would not consent to anything that would tend to the degradation of the British Crown. He would not consent to abandon that high privilege and duty of Parliament to see that no act of injustice or oppression was committed in any part of the British dominions, wherever they might be. He thought that things were approaching to that situation in Canada, that unless the British House of Commons interfered there might be danger that some such event might take place there. During the discussion it had been admitted on all sides that some interference on the part of the Imperial Parliament was necessary; that things had come in Lower Canada to what might be termed (if ever the term could be properly applied to any people) a complete “standstill;” and that it was absolutely necessary to interfere, and to move in some direction or other. The question was, in what direction ought they to move? Hon. Gentlemen had spoken, he thought, rather too lightly of the evils consequent upon the stoppage of supplies in a country for nearly four years and a half. Was it possible to read without the deepest concern the report of the state of Lower Canada, which was described as being upon the verge of 107a dissolution of all society? He was sorry to have heard the hon. Member for Bath, who, however much they might differ in their political opinions, he admitted generally took a large and philosophical view of all subjects of which he treated—he was sorry and very much surprised to hear that hon. Gentleman talk about the judges being deprived of their salaries in that colony as a mere pinching of their bellies, and of the privations of official men as a mere insignificant state of things. In any country, and especially in a colony, such a state of things could not happen without the executive government being brought into utter contempt. It was not a state of things which this House or the country could stand by and behold exist within the British dominions: therefore he could not assent to it. But they were told that these things had happened because certain demands of the House of Assembly had not been granted. One demand was, that the Legislative Council should be made elective. On this subject, speaking for himself only, he should declare his opinion frankly. He was quite of opinion with Mr. Fox that it was most unfortunate that when the constitution of the Canadas was established that the Legislative Council was not made elective. He firmly believed that many evils had arisen in consequence of that course not having been followed. There were two Councils in Lower Canada, constituted on widely different principles. The popular party entrenched themselves in the one; and what he for shortness only would call the British party, or the minority entrenched themselves in the other. What had been the consequences? These two Councils had always been in a state of violent opposition. He thought it was not possible to find a better recipe to perpetuate those dissensions than the constitution of Lower Canada. What would have been the result if an elective Council had been established in 1791? After some smugglings, quarrellings, and conflicts, the people would have mutually made concessions; and we should have seen the French and the English living on terms of friendship and cordial intercourse without respect to religion or descent. Let them look at Louisiana. They would see there a state of things very analogous to that of Lower Canada. There was a very large population of French descent, and a small Anglo population. How were they treated? Whether of English or French 108descent, they were under the protection of equal law. No one was asked whence he came, or what was his descent; and though there was a great deal of local separation between the two races, yet politically they lived very well together, and there was no state in the union where things went on more harmoniously than that of Louisiana. He was, therefore, upon abstract grounds not opposed to an elective Legislative Council in Lower Canada. How any hon. Gentleman could contend that it was against the British constitution, and of our colonial system that there should be an elective Council in Canada—how any Gentleman who had ever read the history of our colonies could maintain this proposition, in the teeth of the fact that in America more than one-half of our colonies actually were governed by elective Legislative Councils, he could not conceive. Our colonial system had always gone upon this principle—to give to any colony a proper constitution, without troubling ourselves about any close analogy with the constitution which might be perfectly good for ourselves at home, but not at all applicable to a colonial society where there were no materials for an aristocracy, out of which might be made an aristocratic branch of the Legislature. Admiring as he did the great statesmanlike views of Mr. Fox in many things, he never admired him more than when, in 1791, he saw, with prophetic sagacity, the result of giving to Canada a Legislative Council upon an aristocratic principle. He warned the House of that day, and said, “If you don’t take care, you will have a Legislative Council which will not be the object of reverence, respect, and affection of the people, but an object of their hatred and contempt.” What was Mr. Pitt’s argument? His only reply to Mr. Fox was— “I will not answer you; the whole thing is only an experiment.” He said this not so much for the sake of the effect it would produce in this country as the effect it might produce in Canada, where he was anxious it should not be supposed that we were influenced by apprehensions of the danger of an elective Council, when we were acting upon a measure of this important nature. He thought it was quite clear that two of the Commissioners, Lord Gosford and Sir Charles Grey, conceived that it was very unfortunate the principle of an elective Council was not originally introduced into the constitution of Lower 109Canada, and that they thought it would be a material improvement to introduce that principle into the Legislative Council under some modification or other. On this point he entirely agreed with those Commissioners. He would not lay it down that the elective principle ought to be universally adopted, but he would say, that neither from reason nor precedent could he discover any good argument against such an institution. Having admitted this principle, the question before him was narrowed to this point—whether he was prepared to take the alternative offered him both by the House of Assembly of Lower Canada and the hon. Member for Bridgewater, and instead of voting for the resolutions of the noble Lord, express it to be his opinion that the Legislative Council of Lower Canada should be immediately made elective. But this was not the only proposition he was called upon to affirm; there were others, some of which appeared to be so unconstitutional, and others so fraught with injustice to individuals, that he never could give his consent to them. [Mr. Roebuck; What are they?] He would tell the hon. Member at once what they were. The first was that which referred to the Executive Council being made responsible to the House of Assembly. He really could hardly conceive a public body of the respectability of that House of Assembly making any such claim. It was incompatible with any relation between a colony and the mother country. The next was with regard to the repeal of the Quebec Tenures Act. He thought that would be a work of positive and gross injustice; it would be an act of spoliation. Having made up his mind that it was the duty of Parliament to interfere in order to put an end to the present state of distraction in Lower Canada, and enable the machinery which was now standing still to move at all, he then conceived that it was the duty of Government to propose only such a measure to Parliament as should be as little beyond the ordinary course of the constitution as possible, in order to produce that effect, and he did apprehend that the resolutions proposed by the noble Lord were exactly the policy which ought to be followed. The effect of those resolutions would be to put an end to that most unseemly spectacle—that of public officers not having received any salaries for several years. He should however, have felt it extremely difficult to 110vote for that resolution, which refused for the present to consider the question of an elective Legislative Council, if to that had not been appended another, which pledged the House and the Government to take effectual steps for rendering the composition of the Legislative Council of Lower Canada more fitting to perform the functions than it was at present. He remembered his noble Friend, formerly Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Stanley) denounced the Legislative Council, and said that it was a mere screen to the Government. He did not mean to say that the composition of that Council had not been improved since, but they had the testimony of the Commissioners in the strongest way to show that though it was in some degree improved, yet in all essential points it remained pretty near the same that it was formerly. It would be most unfortunate that it should go out to Canada that this House at all felt indisposed to look seriously into what was held by the people of Lower Canada and their representatives to be their greatest point of complaint—namely, an elective Legislative Council. He heartily rejoiced that the Government, by these resolutions, pledged themselves to look seriously into that point, with a view to render it more effectual for the purposes for which it was intended. He was more anxious to say this, because the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) had argued the case for the Legislative Council, and against the House of Assembly, as if the House were going to give a vote this night as for the one and against the other. His vote would be nothing of the kind; for the Commissioners stated in their Report, that while the Legislative Council professed the greatest desire to do their duty, yet they actually obstructed passing into law various measures passed by the House of Assembly for the establishment of local governments in all parts of the Colony. With this before the House, it was impossible to say that the faults were all on one side. He knew very well that the resolutions of that House would not be received with favour by either of the extreme parties to the contest going on in Lower Canada, but there was a great and important middle party, composed of men who at all times had struggled against extremes of every kind; men to whom this country must look, in the long run, for what ver hold we might have on the 111people of Lower Canada—men extremely adverse to the conduct of the House of Assembly, but at the same time deeply attached to the liberties of their country, and sincere advocates for the removal of every abuse in its constitution and laws. He should be extremely sorry if the resolutions of that House should produce an impression on such men that the House of Commons only meant to get out of its present difficulty by taking the public money, and appropriating it without the consent of the House of Assembly; but that while doing this under the pressure of an urgent necessity, we were not disposed to look into everything acknowledged as a grievance, and particularly into the question of the Legislative Council, with a view to amend its composition in such a manner that it might deserve and obtain the confidence and attachment of the people of that country. He would not trouble the House with any further observations; but he had felt himself called upon to justify the part he had taken on former occasions, and also to state the grounds on which he should give his vote.
Lord Stanley trusted before he proceeded to the subject matter of discussion, that he might be permitted to take notice of one circumstance, which, although in this country it would produce no effect, might be misunderstood, and probably, from what had taken place, was calculated to be misunderstood, in the colonies; namely, that that House of Commons was indifferent to the welfare of that country the affairs of which they were then discussing, and with which they were connected by so many ties; and that, in short, that House regarded with indifference all colonial discussions. He alluded to a subject which probably few hon. Members then present were acquainted with; he meant, that at the fatal hour of half-past seven an attempt was made to count out the House. What did hon. Members mean by cheering? Was not the gallery cleared? Was not the House counted?—thanks to the hon. and learned Member for Bath —and were there not sufficient Members present to constitute a House? And why was this done? Was it not to show how small a number of Members were present at the discussion on the affairs of Canada? But he begged to remind hon. Members of the state of the House the night before last on this subject for in his life he had never seen on the discussion of a subject of 112British and domestic policy, a more full attendance of Members and a more anxious and attentive House. But patience had its limits. He was one of the Members who had been present nearly all the evening. He came down to the House at a quarter before five; on his road he met shoals of Members coming away; and on asking was the House up, the answer was “no, but Hume is.” This was at a quarter to five. The House was counted at a quarter to seven, and the hon. Member for Middlesex was not only then speaking, but he had not finished his speech at a quarter to eight. Was the hon. Member speaking to the subject or not? Let those who sat and listened to him for three mortal hours state what was the case, or let other hon. Members read the reports; of which, however, they must be deprived, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pleased to make some special relaxation as to his superficial rule as regarded newspapers. Hon. Members, however, might become acquainted with this fact by means less irksome to themselves than by reading the hon. Member’s speech, for he did not wish to inflict such a punishment on them. The greater part of the hon. Member’s speech referred to a question not before the House or connected with the subject matter of debate. The subject matter on which the hon. Gentleman addressed the House at such length was a quarrel concerning a correspondence that had taken place between Mr. M’Kenzie of Upper Canada and Mr. Hume of Middlesex; letters were read of the date of March the 10th and other periods, from Bryanston-square, and others in reply from Toronto. The House were then told that in the debate in the House of Assembly in Upper Canada, the question was set aside by thirteen to seven against Mr. Hume, and they had given to them the names of the mover and seconder, and the only wonder was, that they had not the speeches read to them at length. The hon. Member had afterwards proceeded to make various desultory observations on Mr. Haggerston, and this occupied the greater portion of the time during which he addressed the House. For his own part, he believed that no greater punishment could be inflicted on any of the unfortunate delinquents complained of at such length by the hon. Member, than compelling them to read the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He would not notice the attacks the hon. 113Member was pleased to make on himself; but he wished to notice that for two hours and a half of the time of a most important and interesting discussion on the affairs of Canada the hon. Member chose to indulge in matters having no relation to the question, but rather relating to himself personally. When, therefore, the hon. Member complained of the thinness of attendance and the want of attention during his speech, he should consider that it was not that the House of Commons regarded Canada less, but that they deprecated Hume more. He wished now to return to the question immediately at issue. He felt that it was a subject of unparalleled difficulty and danger. He wished to look at the principles on which the question turned, and which had been stated by an hon. and learned Member, to whose ability and straightforward argument on a previous night he would do justice, and which contrasted strongly with the course pursued by the hon. Member to whom he had before alluded. That hon. and learned Gentleman fought the question boldly, and most ably and eloquently, but at the same time most ingeniously put forward his views on the subject, and he would meet the question in the same bold straightforward manner as it had been put by him. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bath that that was no time for indecision or passive conduct— that was a time when the Legislature and Government must frankly concede, or boldly deny. They must openly assert the principles on which they meant to act, for this was a question which admitted of no tampering. They must be prepared to face the subject boldly. If he felt any difficulty as to the vote he should give, it was not as to the side of the House which he should take when they were called upon to come to a decision, but he felt more deeply than he had ever done before how much his vote might be misinterpreted. Fearing, therefore, to give his sanction to a course so indecisive and doubtful as that proposed by his Majesty’s Government, he felt bound to speak his sentiments openly and candidly. Whatever objections he might have to the wording of the resolutions, whatever part he might feel called upon to take on this subject in that House, he felt that, above all things, it was most important that the decision of the House of Commons should go forth to Canada, not as the de- 114termination of a small majority, whose opinions were likely to be misunderstood, but one which should carry with it the full weight and the authority of that House; which, to use words he found in the report on the table—and he read them with astonishment and regret—the Commissioners declared was the only authority in the country to which the Canadians—the French party—looked up with respect. Whatever determination they came to, let it go forth as the strong and unanimous decision of the House on the question. He affirmed—and he did so in the broadest and most open manner that it could be given—that, in the present state of Canada, the House could not and dared not yield to the demands of the Canadians. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had referred to the Acts of 1774 and 1778, which were passed during the early period of our colonial government there, and which they had been told had been violated. He asked what were the specific grounds of complaint as regarded these Acts which had been put forward by the House of Assembly of Lower Canada? He asked what were the demands made, and what would be the consequences of concession to the colony as well as to this country? They were told that the Government and that House wished to tram-pie on the liberties of Canada, and that by denying the demands made by the Assembly of Lower Canada they would violate the liberties of a free and independent people. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite place such a construction on the proceedings? He was sure that it was an accidental expression that fell from the noble Secretary for the Colonies to call the Canadians an independent people. A free people they undoubtedly were, but an independent people they were not. In this laid all the fallacy of the argument that had been used on the other side. He repeated, independent they could not be called, with a legislature subordinate to a certain extent to the legislature of this country. But let the House look to the demands made on the mother country. There were three chief demands. Two of these were for rights and privileges which the mother country did not possess herself; and the third was one, which, if conceded, would render impossible any further connexion with the mother country. Let the House examine them, scanning them in all their bearings, and taking a 115general view of them. But what were the demands of the Canadians? He would take them seriatim; and he would ask the House of Commons whether the House of Assembly of Lower Canada did not demand privileges and powers which that House had never arrogated to itself. The first of these demands to which he wished to call the attention of the House was, that the two branches of the Legislature should be elective. Was this a power which was demanded or desired by this country? Was this demand for Canada meant as a precedent to lead to the same result in this country? So far from a right of this kind being in union with the British Constitution, it was directly at variance with it, and such a right was not possessed by any portion of the people. Certainly it was demanded by a small and contemptible fraction of the British population, but he trusted in God it would never be conceded in this country, for he knew if it were that it would lead to the subversion of the Constitution. What was the second demand? It was for a power which the House of Commons did not possess; it was a demand which no House of Commons or Government would allow, and which, if allowed, no Government could sit on those benches for three weeks. The demand was, that the House of Assembly should vote every item of expenditure from first to last. [Hear, hear] Hon. Gentlemen said “hear, hear”; but he asked, was the Crown in no respect independent of that House? Did the hon. Member for Middlesex mean to tell him that the Crown had no hereditary revenue. The hon. Member for Middlesex had sat long in that House, but he had sat to very little purpose indeed if he was ignorant of the fact that at the commencement of every reign the sovereign waves the possession of a right which passes indefeasibly to his successor—namely to those possessions which the Sovereign holds independent of Parliament, and the income of which he yields upon Parliament giving him a fixed civil list for the time of cession; and when the civil list ceases, the hereditary possessions of the Crown revert to the Sovereign. Was not this the law of Parliament as well as the uniform practice? Was it not also Parliamentary law, that certain salaries were paid, by a permanent arrangement, out of the Consolidated Fund, instead of the judges and others being called upon 116year after year to squabble on questions of a halfpenny about their salaries with the hon. Member for Middlesex? Was not this the case with respect to the payments made for the administration of justice and the salaries of the civil officers of state? This was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of government; for they could not go on if they had in every case to depend on the votes of a fluctuating body. If, therefore, it was found absolutely necessary that a permanent provision should be made for the judges in this country, the necessity was not less in a colonial assembly, which was divided into small parties, and above all in one like Canada, where all the violence and virulence of religious animosity was added to the local subjects of dissension. It was absolutely necessary, in conformity with the British Constitution, that there should be some permanent source of revenue for the objects he had mentioned, independent of the vote of the House of Assembly. Surely they were not prepared to grant that for Canada which had never been demanded much less conceded in this country. This was the second branch of the subject. He did not wish to go at unnecessary length into details; he feared on the one hand to be tedious, but on the other hand, when conflicting doctrines as to the rights of a people were put forth ad captandum, it was necessary that the House of Commons should know what was the real case, and also the whole of the case. The hon. Member for Bath said that the House of Assembly of Lower Canada had control over the revenues of that country. Nobody denied the general principle. The territorial revenues of the Crown, however, formed an exception, and there was also another exception to which he should more particularly advert in a few minutes. The total revenue of Lower Canada was 150,000l. a year. Not one farthing of this was withheld from the control of the House of Assembly—there was not one shilling of it expended which they did not direct—there was no act of expenditure which they did not know of. Let the hon. and learned Member for Bath deny the correctness of this statement if he could; and he should be obliged to the hon. Member to correct him if he made an erroneous statement. He stated facts, and he begged the House to consider the very different inferences he drew from those drawn by the hon. and learned Gen- 117tleman in the very eloquent and ingenious speech which he addressed to the House. There were certain revenues in Lower Canada over which, from the foundation of the colony, the House of Assembly had no control—he meant casual and territorial revenues, analogous to the land revenue of the Crown in England. These revenues arose from certain payments as seignorial right in Lower Canada, from the sale of timber on waste land, and from a right which he had never heard disputed, namely, to dispose of the waste and unappropriated land of the country. There was also another point at issue, namely, as to the right to the duties which were imposed by the Act of 1772. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of 1774, and to the Act of 1778, to prove the right of the House of Assembly to deal with these duties. The hon. and learned Gentleman, when it suited his purpose, referred to the Act of 1792, but he did not on this point; and the reason was perfectly obvious: that Act stated that Parliament would not impose duties or taxes to be paid in Canada without the assent of the Legislative Houses in Canada. Until within these few years nothing had been said on this subject, but he begged the House to recollect what had taken place in 1831. In that year his noble Friend, who was then Colonial Secretary and upon whom the hon. Member for Middlesex had passed such panegyrics at the expense of other Colonial Secretaries, had endeavoured to satisfy the Colonial Assembly on this point. He offered that, saving and except the casual and territorial revenues of the Crown, the whole of the taxes levied in Canada should be given up to the control of the House of Assembly in the provinces, on condition that the governor and high officers of state, the judges, and the officers necessary for the administration of justice, should be secured from the capricious control of the House, by having their salaries secured to them at the commencement of each reign, for the life of the king. The condition was thankfully accepted on the part of the Canadians. He recollected that the hon. Member for Middlesex, in the House of Commons, as representing the Canadians, said that they would accept the offer frankly and gratefully. In consequence of this, his noble Friend, the then Secretary for the Colonies said, that as the offer had been accepted by the people of the two 118Canadas, it would not be right to show any want of confidence. In the excess of confidence, then, of his noble Friend, he passed an Act, to carry into effect the offer he had made. What followed? Upper Canada gratefully accepted the concession, and passed the civil list. Lower Canada, however, refused. And these were the men who charged the Government with a violation of their constitutional rights—with violating the freedom of their constitution, in imposing on them taxes, the right to dispose of which rested solely with themselves, rights which they never had till they received them from the ministers in 1831—received them on terms which they had since most disgracefully departed from. So much for the two first points, as to an elective Legislative Council, and the financial question; next, a few observations on the subject of the Executive Council. This body were to act as advisers of the Governor on affairs of state, when required so to do, something after the manner of our Privy Council. Here the demand was, that the Executive Council should be rendered directly responsible to the House of Assembly. Here again was confounded altogether the wide and manifest distinction between an independent and a subordinate state; the King was subordinate to no one; the King’s ministers were responsible for him to the country; but what was the position of the governor of this colony? He was responsible to the Crown here, to the ministry here; he acted under the orders of the ministry, and for his acts were the ministry responsible to the Legislature. To impose on him, then, a double responsibility—a responsibility to the Government at home if he did not obey their instructions, and a responsibility to the House of Assembly, if he acted contrary to their orders— would be to constitute two independent Legislatures interfering with and counteracting each other; yet this was the position in which it was desired to place the affairs of Canada. He perfectly agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that this was no subject for half and half measures, no question of expediency, but a question of empire—a question whether or no this colony was to be held, or was to be given up. On this issue was the question to be tried. If it were proposed to give the colony up, let that proposition be openly and plainly stated, 119and let the decision be frankly come to upon it. If the colony was to be retained, let not the idea be for a moment entertained of permitting that to be done which would at once render all control on our part over the province utterly nugatory, and even the imagination of it perfectly ludicrous—which would plunge us into difficulties which could only be met by violence. A middle course, so far from disarming enmity, and softening down the claims of the Lower Canadians, would but the more provoke them. The House must declare itself prepared either to resist the demands of the House of Assembly, or to accede to them. What said the hon. and learned Member for Bath as to the propositions before the Committee? That hon. and learned Member declared with great frankness and manliness, and the hon. and learned Member’s opinion was entitled to very great weight in the Committee, appearing as he specifically did as the retained, the salaried advocate —and he (Lord Stanley) used the term with no offensive intention—the salaried advocate of the dominant majority of Lower Canada, whose duty as such, was fully to ascertain what were the passions and prejudices of that majority—what did that hon. and learned Member say? He declared the step proposed to be taken to be unjust, impolitic, and inadequate. He also considered the resolutions—he would not say unjust, but impolitic—impolitic, because inadequate: for while they amounted to as great a violation as was in their power, of those constitutional rights which they so loudly invoked, and expressed so great a reluctance to tamper with, all they proposed to do for those who had been suffering for four or five years in penury and indigence, the result of ministerial indecision, was to give these injured parties the paltry arrears of their salary, leaving them exposed for the future to the certainty—as the hon. Member for Bath candidly admitted—of precisely the same or more bitter sufferings and privations, and to the increased hostility of their present persecutors—and all this because Ministers could not make up their minds to say yes or no. The hon. Member for Middlesex had done him the honour of saying that he had been, in the year 1834, the source of all the inconveniences and distresses of the colony, although it was notorious that the stoppage of the supplies commenced just eighteen months 120before he accepted the colonial office. It was rather singular, that in the very correct and detailed account which the hon. and learned Member for Bath had gone into, of all the proceedings which had taken place, he had never for a single moment adverted to the fact, that in 1834, at the time when he (Lord Stanley) filled the office of Colonial Secretary, a Committee was appointed by the House, which minutely, patiently, and carefully investigated every grievance alleged by the agents of the Canadian population, of which Committee the hon. and learned Member himself was a member. At the conclusion of the inquiries of that Committee, at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman who succeeded him in the Colonial Department, he had abstained from asking that the evidence taken before the Committee should at that time be printed, or that any report should be drawn up on the subject. If, however, Parliament proposed to enter into this colonial question, it was most desirable that the evidence taken before that Committee should be printed and laid before the House. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: It is intended to print the evidence.] He was rejoiced to hear that such was the case, as it was most essential that the whole question should be before the House and the public. At the period of which he spoke, he had taken upon himself, not merely on his own peculiar responsibility as Colonial Secretary, but with the full approbation of Earl Grey’s cabinet, to bring in a measure on the subject. To that cabinet belonged both the noble Lord, now Secretary for the Home Department, and the noble Secretary for the Colonies, and by that cabinet, the whole circumstances of the case, and of the measure founded on those circumstances, were carefully examined, and it was unanimously agreed, that affairs had arrived at such a crisis, as to make any further tampering with the subject highly dangerous, and that steps must be immediately taken for suspending the operations of the Act 1 William 4th, chap. 20. What had been the course since, and what was the result? He would not trouble the House with many details, but he would call their attention to what Lord Gosford had said on the subject on the 12th March, 1836:— We are far advanced in the fourth year since there has been any appropriation of pro- 121vincial funds to the use of government; and although a sum, temporarily contributed from the British Treasury, has relieved the civil officers so far as to give them one year’s salary during that period, the third year is passing away, during which they have not had the smallest fraction of their earnings in the service of the public. The distress and embarrassment which this state of circumstances has inflicted on the functionaries of the province, may be easily conceived. Many are living on money borrowed at an exorbitant interest; some cannot but be reduced to the verge of ruin: and to show that this suffering of individuals is not unattended with danger to the general welfare, it may be enough to remark, without painfully dwelling on private circumstances, that the judges of the country are amongst those who are left, to provide for their subsistence as best they may, after three years’ stoppage of their official incomes. This letter from Lord Gosford was received by Lord Glenelg some time in June, 1836, and an answer was sent in the same month; and what was the answer to this tale of distress and ruin? Why, the answer was, that “his Majesty’s ministers were quite confident there must be some mistake”; and Lord Glenelg further communicated to the Chief Com-missioner, that “conscious that measures had been adopted with an earnest solicitude for the welfare of all classes of Canadian subjects, his Majesty waits with tranquillity the result of this long and painful struggle.” It was possible that Lord Glenelg might await the result with great tranquillity, but he was sure that no other colonial minister in the world could do so. In the same communication Lord Gosford was desired to ascertain from the House of Assembly, whether there was not a mistake in the matter. Lord Gosford put the question, and was told in so many words, that there was “no mistake” in this case at all events; and the House of Assembly intimated, that they thought they had expressed themselves in terms which it was impossible to misunderstand. Such was the position of Canadian affairs; such were the perilous circumstances under which Ministers came down to the House with their resolutions, talking about their extreme reluctance to take any unconstitutional steps, their desire to limit themselves within the narrowest bounds which the exigencies of the case required, showing their teeth, but not daring to bite. But he would put it to the House, what were these inadequate, these insignificant proceedings—these 122″waitings a little longer,” but a premium for continued and enlarged demands on the part of the Assembly? He would not follow up the parallel which had been instituted between this question and that of Ireland; but he would just call to the recollection of Ministers, a sentiment in reference to Ireland, uttered by a noble Friend of his not then in his place, and much cheered on the opposite side, to the effect that “if the majority of the people demand a change, that change must be conceded; and if it be not deemed sufficient, further concessions must be made.” Now, let the House reflect that this sentiment would be treasured up and applied to their own case by the people of Lower Canada; that moreover they would read the speech of the noble Secretary at War, and still more the speech of the right hon. Member for Taunton—a man universally known, loved, and looked up to—whose opinion would carry with it great weight, and who had declared that he considered an elective Legislative Council a most desirable thing. What would be the inference naturally drawn from the various sentiments uttered by these and other Members of the House? Why, that after a little coy, reluctant, amorous delay, the ministry would yield itself to the vigorous pursuit of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. What would be the consequence of an Elective Council? He much rejoiced to see in his place on this occasion his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. E. Ellice). No man had a greater knowledge, from long experience of the affairs of this province, than the right hon. Gentleman; and no one could give a sounder opinion as to what would be the effect of the proposed measure on the province. He therefore trusted the right hon. Member would favour the House and the public with his candid opinion as to the adequacy, the wisdom, and the efficiency of the noble Lord’s proposition. The great body of British settlers in Lower Canada, who went out on the faith of finding there a copy of their free national institutions, of enjoying their national rights and national laws, were as opposed as the inhabitants of Upper Canada were to any of the innovations of French republicanism. The hon. and learned Member for Bath told them the other night that the people of this country still retained their dull, stupid, bigotted, ignorant horror of French re- 123publicanism. He rejoiced in the belief that the hon. and learned Member was perfectly correct in his supposition; and however dull, stupid, bigotted, and ignorant the hon. Member might think him for saying so, he could assure the hon. and learned Member that he shared the feeling. He could never hear without horror the combination of these two words “French republicanism.” The concession of an elective Legislative Council would remove the only check to the tyrannical power of the dominant majority,—a majority, he would remark, in numbers only, for in wealth, in education, in enterprise, it was greatly inferior to the minority of 150,000 settlers of British descent. One thing was certain, that if those British settlers found themselves deprived of the protection of the Government here they would protect themselves. The hon. and learned Member for Bath threatened that if we did not admit these demands we should be hooted from the shores of America, and that he himself would set on foot a system of seditious practices and seditious publications on the American frontier. Against such a movement as this the present resolutions presented no remedy. He would venture to say that in six months after the institution of an elective Legislative Council the British population of Lower Canada would have determined that, the protection of the mother country being withdrawn from them, they must take measures for protecting themselves. True they were a numerical minority; but, to increase their strength, they would call in aid from the great body of their compatriots in the upper province, in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, and, if need were, the great British family in the United States; everything in their power would be done to rescue themselves from the possibility of succumbing to French republicans. The hon. and learned Member stated, that this was not a question between races; but what said the Commissioners? Did they look at the question in the same light? The Commissioners expressly stated, “the great majority of the people of direct British descent, while they are firmly united in opposition to an elective Council, are nearly as unconnected with the holders of office as are the body of French Canadians; and the officeholders themselves, beyond the sphere of their own immediate duties, are little remarkable for anything but the exemplary 124patience with which they have borne the severe sufferings inflicted on them by the Assembly. We do not know where any persons are to be found of British descent who enjoy any influence in society, and at the same time wish for an elective Council; whilst of the higher class of French Canadians there are several who have no desire for it. And if we look to the poorer classes of the community, we shall find that the feeling is equally intense, to say the least, in the British population, against the proposed change, as it is amongst the French Canadians in favour of it.” What said the Commissioners further on this subject? They looked to the consequences of an elective Council, and proceeded to remark as follows:—”Turning now to the consequences of an elective Council, we are not to suppose that the party now so violent in demanding it would sit down in quiet thankfulness and submission if it were granted. It is looked to, we must consider, not as an empty name, but rather as a means towards further ends. Neither are we left entirely in the dark as to what those ends may be. We will not enter upon the field of conjecture as to the various steps which might mark the progress of their demands, but simply point out that two at least have already been announced which, it appears to us, whilst England has a shadow of authority, it must be impossible, because dishonourable, to grant. The first is the repeal of the Tenures Act, without a guarantee for the titles that have been acquired under it; the second, the abrogation of the charter of the Land Company.” Such would be one of the consequences of an elective Council, and further consequences of scarcely less importance were more than shadowed forth, and how did the noble Lord propose to meet this? The proposed resolutions told them that “in the existing state of Lower Canada, it was unadvisable to make the Executive Council of that province an elective body, but that it was expedient that measures should be adopted for securing to that branch of the Legislature a greater degree of public confidence.” Ought they not to know what those contemplated measures were before they in the House of Commons affirmed the resolutions? They had the resolutions of the House of Assembly. They told them that their efforts would be unceasing, for an elective Council; that the only way in which the Government of this 125country could ever hope to enjoy the confidence of the people must be by giving them an elective Council—a Council submitted to and in accordance with their feelings and the feelings of the country. Why were they to be asked to vole for these vague resolutions, attempting to do something of which they knew not what would be the effect, or what was the object? He would say, let them not do what they had been doing from the commencement of this commission to the end of it; let them not raise expectations which they never intended to fulfil; let them not go on uttering vague words and doing nothing, for the effect of such a course would be this, and only this—it would weaken the force of a declaration of principle, and give to no human being the power of stating what indeed was the principle they took their stand upon. If they desired to surrender Lower Canada, let them do it at once; but if they surrendered Lower Canada, they must recollect they surrendered with it Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and they cast off in Lower Canada alone 150,000 of their British fellow-subjects, who clung to them for protection against a tyrannical majority —who confided in the faith of the British Parliament, that it would not allow its engagements to them to be violated—who entreated it to allow them to continue in the undisturbed enjoyment of the law and liberties conferred on their ancestors, who themselves did not claim the power of tyrannising over their neighbours, but who did claim the privilege of exercising under the British crown the privileges of British subjects, and who, if they flung them off—if they abandoned them to their own resources, were doomed to sink in the wide-spreading democracy of the time. Let them not sacrifice their engagements to the prejudice rather than to the sound opinions of a party—he meant the French Canadian population—who had had granted to them a constitution as free as any nation could give to them—whose freedom was limited only by that absolute control which was necessary to secure the connexion between them and the mother country, but who called those whose interests were identical with the interests of the mother-country by the name of étrangers, after sixty years’ habitation with them. The French Canadians lived under the lightest taxation of any people on earth; their only security for the absolute 126laws and feudal customs to which they clung was in the protecting power of this empire. If that protection were removed, in a short time would follow the utter destruction of their nationality, which would be merged in the one great, absolute, native-American republic. He felt that in stating his views he had detained the House for a considerable time; but he also felt that this was an occasion on which nothing should be reserved. His only difficulty in regard to his vote was, not in supporting his Majesty’s Government, but in entreating them to support themselves; and if hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House saw any difficulty in the way of their compliance with the resolutions proposed, the inadequacy and weakness of which he felt strongly himself, he would beg them to remember that it was a question now whether they would throw the whole of the weight of their influence into the British scale and whether they would assist or compel the Government to maintain entire the British possessions, in North America. If Government felt any difficulty on account of the kind of support they met with for their resolutions on his side, he begged to remind them that on the question that was discussed the previous evening, if the votes of his Friends had not been thrown into their scale the result must certainly have been different. Ministers should not now have to complain of receiving the same kind assistance to which they had been deeply indebted on that occasion.
§Viscount Howick confessed he had never heard any speech of his noble Friend with greater pain than the one he had just concluded. It was much to be regretted it should go forth to the people of Canada that a person who had deservedly so much weight and influence and authority in this House and in the country, had held language so completely the reverse of conciliatory, and conceived in so arbitrary a spirit. That such an individual should recommend measures of the arbitrary character of those recommended by his noble Friend he regretted deeply, and more especially for the sake of his noble Friend himself. But it was some consolation to him for the pain he felt at this speech, that he trusted it would act in some degree as an antidote to the very florid speech of the hon. Member for Bath. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would begin to feel that they were not quite such tyrants as 127that hon. Gentleman represented them. He thought that these two pictures, which were equally exaggerated, and opposite as they could be in their main features, would show in its true light the policy of his Majesty’s Government, and would go far to convince the House that they had established a claim to be considered moderate men, by avoiding the weakness of improper concession on the one side, and by admitting the force of justifiable claims on the other. His noble Friend began his speech by expressing a hope that there would be an almost unanimous expression of opinion on the part of the House in the coming division; but towards the close of his speech he seemed to have forgotten his own recommendation, inasmuch as he brought forward arguments which, if good for anything, were good for this, that the House should not approve of the resolutions before it. After so long a debate he felt it was incumbent on him to compress into the smallest possible space the observations which he had to make in reply to his noble Friend; but he could not avoid requesting the particular attention of the House to some of the points in his noble Friend’s speech, before going to the immediate question before them. His noble Friend had made some remarks on the dispatch of Lord Glenelg, in answer to one from the present governor of Lower Canada, after attempts had been made in vain to obtain supplies in 1836; and his noble Friend had commented with great severity on the expression in that dispatch, in which Lord Glenelg had stated that it was not desirable immediately to propose any measure in relation to the matter to Parliament. That noble Lord had said it might be well to make another trial with the House of Assembly, and wait to receive the answer. His noble Friend observed, it might be well for Lord Glenelg, who was not personally suffering, to give this answer, but it was cruel, it was merciless to those who were exposed in the colony, by the course taken by the House of Assembly, to the greatest distress. His noble Friend ought surely, before he made such an observation, to have acquainted himself with the facts of the case, which he might have obtained from the dispatches lying on the table of the House. If he had consulted them, he would have seen that Lord Glenelg did not leave the judges and other official persons who were entitled to salary without assistance or resources; 128on the contrary in writing his dispatch he told the Governor to appropriate, in order to relieve the pressing necessity of those persons the funds arising from the territorial and casual revenue, which would remain at the disposal of the Treasury, until, in the event of a successful termination of the negotiation with the Assembly, they should be placed under the control of the provincial legislature. The sum to be so appropriated was 30,000l., equal to one year’s salary of the judges and others; and having it in his power in this way to meet part of the distress of his Majesty’s servants, he delayed till the latest period an application to that House. His noble Friend asked how came there to be this delay on the part of those Members of the Government who were Members of the Cabinet in 1834. Now he thought his noble Friend was taking a course not perfectly consistent with usage in referring in a debate in that House to Cabinet proceedings. He was not in the Cabinet at that time, and he therefore could not undertake to say what course was taken; but he might observe that it was not a necessary conclusion that the Cabinet was unanimous with respect to the bringing in of the Bill to which his noble Friend had referred. If the Cabinet was unanimous, he could not help attributing this to the weight which the authority of his noble Friend was likely to possess, and to the influence which, as Secretary of State, his opinion must have had with his Colleagues. But whatever might be the case with others, his own opinion had undergone no change; for his noble Friend was aware, that if that measure had been persevered in, he would have resigned the office he then held. He was aware also, that the Cabinet of that day, in agreeing in that measure, did not agree to it alone, or as a single measure. His noble Friend had leave to bring in the Bill, but with this condition, that he should at the same time move for a Committee, to which should be referred all the questions involved in the Canadian differences; and with this further condition, that his noble Friend should not make his motion till that Committee had investigated those grievances which were alleged by the Assembly to be the cause of the course they had pursued. His noble Friend by his gesture seemed to deny that there had been any such conditions; but he appealed to his right hon. Friend, the Member for 129Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), to the hon. Member for Bath, and to the noble Lord himself, to confirm the correctness of the statement he was now about to make. What he said was, that in that Committee on two separate days—before the time when his noble Friend resigned his situation in the Government— on two separate days, notice was given of an intention to take the sense of the Committee as to the propriety of recommending to the House the Bill suspending the Act of 1831. He had a written record of what took place on that occasion. On two days notice was given of the intention to bring that subject under the consideration of the Committee, and on both those days, from different causes, that intended discussion was postponed. So much for the delays which had taken place, and the want of entire conformity on the part of those members of the present Government who were members of the Cabinet of 1834. He came now to that more serious question his noble Friend had raised as to the propriety of the measure before the House. His noble Friend told them that this was no time for half measures; that they must take one course or the other. This was not a question of whether he would support his Majesty’s Government or the hon. Member for Bath; he had no hesitation as to that; he admitted that they must bring forward some measure to overcome the opposition of the House of Assembly, but he contended that the course proposed was wrong, because it was inefficient. There were two measures which might be adopted, if it were thought proper not to concede all that was demanded by the Canadians. There was that line of policy which his Majesty’s Government recommended, and there was the stronger course recommended by his noble Friend himself. His noble Friend complained that the resolutions were not sufficiently stringent; he wished his noble Friend had described a little more fully what course of policy he would adopt. His noble Friend said they must be prepared to meet the continued hostility of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, and that being the case he would probably have taken his stand on the Legislative Council as it now existed, and would have proposed the very measure which he would have brought forward in 1834—he would have come forward 130with a measure for the repeal of the Act of 1831. Would that course have been successful? Did his noble Friend suppose that he could have permanently carried on the Government in the face of the opposition of the House of Assembly by the means he proposed? His noble Friend had quoted several passages from the report of the Commissioners. He had quoted, amongst others, from Sir G. Gipps, who, after recommending the very measure to which his noble Friend had adverted, thus stated what his hopes were of its success:— With respect to the working of the mea-sure, which, in default of any other, we have been forced to recommend, I cannot entertain the hope that, unless combined with others of a very firm and judicious, but at the same time, healing character, it will prove either efficacious or safe. The Assembly, by the suspension of the Act 1 and 2 Will. 4th, will be deprived, it is true, of a portion of its power, but it will still remain in possession of ample means of thwarting the Government, and these means we may expect to see it exert with an unscrupulous hostility. The suspension of this Act is moreover the measure which they expect, for they had due notice of it in 1834, and for which they, to a certain extent, are prepared. The Assembly, even when deprived of the revenues of the 14th Geo. 3d, will retain its control over funds nearly twice as great as those in the hands of the Executive; and although the House may not have power to dispose of them at its discretion, it will, at any rate, be able to lock them up, and especially to prevent the application of them to any purpose favourable to the Government, or to the interests of the British party. It may also refuse to pass Bills required by the commercial interest, such, for instance, as Bills for the renewal of the charters of the Quebec and Montreal banks, both of which will expire in July, 1837. When I consider, therefore, the bitter hostility or rather fury, with which the Assembly will be animated against the British Government, and against British interests; the invectives which, under the direction of its practised leaders, it will pour forth against England; the power it will possess of spreading disaffection within the province, and inviting interference from without, I am at a loss to imagine how the Government can be carried on with advantage, and I cannot help fearing that we shall, ultimately, be driven to abandon the country with all the shame of failure upon us, or to maintain it at a cost infinitely beyond its value. This was the testimony of one of the very persons by whom the measures of his noble Friend were recommended, and the House saw what were his hopes of success. Who 131reference to his noble Friend’s complaint, he was not prepared to say, that any mode of carrying on the Government under a popular constitution could be devised by which a permanent resistance to the popular branch of the Legislature could be maintained; he believed that with regard to every nation such a proposition was an absurdity in itself. He could not imagine that any man could look forward to the prosecution of such an attempt; he still most earnestly clung to the hope of an accommodation with the House of Assembly and the people of Lower Canada. His noble Friend had referred to the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Bath that the press of America was constantly exerting itself to excite the people against the Government of this country, and his noble Friend asked what remedy they proposed for this evil? Let him ask his noble Friend what remedy he himself proposed? If they suspended the Act of 1831 to-morrow, if they adopted all the views of his noble Friend, by what means could they control or prevent the perpetration of those acts of sedition to which he had adverted? What his noble Friend proposed was, to throw away all hopes of conciliation; openly, and without a chance of accommodation, he would come to issue with the House of Assembly. How would he work a popular Government in Canada with that feeling which the course he recommended would excite against it? The right hon. Baronet who sat near his noble Friend stated in an admirable speech he delivered some time since, that the Government of this country could not be carried on in opposition to the House of Commons. He would say, in like manner, it was impossible that they could maintain the Act of 1791, and govern Canada in open defiance of the popular branch of the Legislature. He saw a smile upon the face of his noble Friend, as if he had made an admission that was fatal to the whole policy of their Government. But he denied that such was the fact; the measure they proposed did not profess to meet such a case as that of an irreconcileable breach with the Assembly, it was to an accommodation with that body that he looked. He would say to the people of Canada, that Ministers could not and they would not make certain concessions which were demanded of them; and if they should be insisted on, they might be denied hereafter to adopt measures of rigour 132which were alien to their feelings, but which a stern and dire necessity might compel them to resort to. For the present, however, looking to the means of carrying on the Government, he would only do what was necessary to relieve the executive officers and the judicial officers from the pressure that now was on them; while at the same time he would say to the people of Canada, he was willing to enter into an accommodation with them, to agree to what would be fair terms with them, and to do that which would be just and equitable to all parties. That was, he declared, the principle of policy upon which the Government was prepared to act. He did not deny that success might not be attained by the Government. It was far from him to say that such a line of policy must certainly be successful. Their measures might fail— they might not be able to attain the object that they had in view; and should all their efforts be attended with an unfortunate result, what would be the consequence? Why, they would still have it in their power to take the course which his noble Friend had proposed, or they might even adopt still stronger measures if necessary. And if all attempts at conciliation failed, then the Legislature would have to determine between one of two things, they might determine upon governing Canada upon principles different from those of the Act of 1791, or they might withdraw their protection from that colony. He would not disguise, that the alternative was of a fearful description. It was an alternative to which he trusted and believed they would never be driven. The alternative was bad for all parties, and one that, in his judgment, could not with calmness be contemplated. The consequences would be most injurious to the interests of the Canadians, and, above all, to those of the French Canadians. If the question were important to this country and to the British Crown, he thought that it was still more highly important, he might say doubly important, to the people of Canada, that they should retain the advantage, the aid, and the countenance of the power of this country. The blessings that resulted to the Canadians from the connexion, he believed to be so great that he could not suppose that the people of that country would come, after maturely considering all these things, to such an alternative, he could not believe that they would reject the terms that would be offered to them. 133But his noble Friend said, that they ought to take their stand in support of the Legislative Council as it now existed, he had condemned the expressions used by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Taunton, respecting the constitution of the Council and more particularly his reference to the speech of Mr. Fox in 1791, and he had also asked them what they meant by the expression used in the resolutions with regard to the Legislative Council. He at once asked in reply to such observations, was it possible to take as their ground of defence the Legislative Council as it now stood? He asked his noble Friend whether he had given an attentive consideration to the passages in the general report adverting to that council, which even in its origin was admitted to be but an experiment? It was stated distinctly in the report that the system of nomination adopted with respect to that council was a vicious one, and that it afforded neither security to the throne nor confidence to the people. It was stated, too, by the Commissioners, that even during their own residence in Canada the council had rejected bills which were of great public good; and it was clear from their experience of the present constitution of the Council that it was not quite suited to the Canadians. Why, then, in the face of the Report of their Commissioners—of Commissioners, too, of their own nomination, was it possible for them to declare that the Legislative Council, as at present constituted, was such that, under no circumstances, it was to be departed from. Was it not even avowed by Mr. Pitt that it was an experiment at the time that it was adopted? Was not his noble Friend aware that its adoption was a deviation from the whole of the policy adopted with respect to other colonies? Was not his noble Friend aware that a council, such as it was, in Upper and Lower Canada never before existed in any one of the British colonies? It never before existed, and never since had existed. Mr. Pitt had unfortunately departed from the usual form adopted with respect to other colonies. There was no such institution in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, in Jamaica, or in the West-India islands. In all these there was to be found a council different from that which existed in Canada. The Canadian council did not represent the Crown, nor was it elected by the people, and it was one over whom there was no species of control whatever. 134It appeared to him that this was the original fault, and a great fault it was. But now, as to making the Council elective, if, for the reasons assigned by the Commissioners, they were for refusing the change that was proposed, it did not follow that because they were not prepared to make the Council elective, that therefore they were to maintain it precisely in its present condition. His noble Friend had said, that the words contained in their resolution, referring to this point, were very vague—that they talked of the Legislative Council having more of the public confidence than it now possessed. He begged to state—as it had been already mentioned by his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), in introducing this subject, that the resolutions proposed were to be the ground work of a bill—that an Act of Parliament was necessary to carry into effect the views of the Government, and in that Act of Parliament certain improvements were proposed to be introduced with respect to the constitution of the Legislative Council. They should prepare to remove from the Legislative Council those who were guilty of offences in certain circumstances—that legislative councillors should have the power of resigning; and certainly, beyond that, security would be afforded for having a more judicious choice of members of the Council. It might be impossible to devise means for giving complete security for a satisfactory choice of the members of the Council, but at least much improvement would be made and, more than that, he would say, that if a plan could be devised such as would be satisfactory to the people of that province—if any mode could be devised of practically improving the constitution of that Council—in such an improvement he for one would be most happy to agree. They would not be right in saying to a people of the numbers and the intelligence that the Canadians had now attained, “Here is a constitution not more than forty years in existence—here is a novel experiment in legislation—here is a system that was never heard of before—here is an anomaly in legislation—here is one that you (the people of Canada) feel the effects of, and which you call upon us to alter but which we are determined to maintain”—they would not, in such a case, he concluded, be right in refusing such a demand, and they could not, in his opinion, in common justice refuse to accede to it. They would have no right 135to say to such a people, that here was a part of their institutions which, however ill it might be found to work, they would not consent in any manner to alter. In all free countries the institutions ought to be such as were calculated to produce the most good to the great body of the people. If they attempted to support and maintain any other—no matter what might be the aid they should obtain, or the power they could command—although they might for a shorter or a longer period prolong the contest, still they might depend upon it that, sooner or later, they would be defeated. He, for one, never would say to the people of Canada that where a necessary improvement was required, to that necessary improvement he would never consent. He trusted that the Parliament and the country never would adopt that mode of dealing with Canada. Such were the grounds upon which the policy of the Government rested, and upon that he hoped it would rest. But then they were told there was no chance of conciliating upon the one hand the Assembly of Lower Canada, and on the other that part of the population that was opposed to the Assembly. Although he was told this, he believed the people to be accessible to reason, and that an accommodation might be effected between the parties. The hon. and learned Member for Bath told them that it was quite in vain to look for such accommodation. Even if he were so convinced, still he thought that the attempt ought to be made before they came to the last resort. Before they gave themselves up to despair, before they abandoned all hope of accommodation, and proceeded in consequence to any extreme measures of coercion, they were bound to be able to show to the Canadians, and to the people of Great Britain that every possible attempt had been made at accommodation. He did not, however, think that the attempt would be hopeless. This opinion he founded upon the effects of the course pursued by Lord Goderich, in the two years that he had the honour of serving under that noble Lord, whose policy was founded upon the principles he had referred to, and which he believed, that his noble Friend, now Secretary of State, was prepared to follow up—this he knew, that the effects of such a line of policy was, that in the year 1832, Mr. Papineau was left in a 136minority in the Assembly, on this very question respecting the propriety of having an elective council. From the course then pursued, he found that it had the effect of rallying round the Government many men of moderate and independent opinions. He thought it then unfortunate that, at that time, those measures which were required to carry these views into effect, were not adopted as completely as they ought to have been. He knew that, from circumstances, it was impossible for his noble Friend (Lord Ripon) to do all that was requisite; but still, he said, that even what he did do, was attended with very great and beneficial results. For, previously to 1831, it was not merely the French Canadians that formed the party of Mr. Papineau, but there was also joined with them in strong and a strenuous opposition, many persons of great weight, influence, and authority, in that country, who were now to be found ranged in the ranks of the supporters of Government. Amongst others, he might mention Mr. Neilson. Mr. Neilson, who had, with regard to the Bill respecting the finances of Canada, proposed by Sir George Murray, given it his decided opposition, was found, since the concessions made by Lord Goderich, to be one of the supporters of the Government. If that course of policy were consistently and permanently carried into effect, they might overcome the opposition which they had to encounter, and put an end to all those unfortunate divisions that now existed. If already all that was required was not done, he regretted it; but that was, perhaps, beyond the control of the ministers. Whatever little influence he possessed, when he was in the Colonial Office, was given to carry into effect a course of conciliation; and if it were to be done over again with the results before him, still he would exercise his influence in the same direction. There was not one step that at that time had been adopted which he now lamented, and he did hope that the House would make one more attempt at conciliation. Such was the course of policy he recommended, and was prepared to adopt. He recommended them to pursue a temperate and moderate course, until they were enabled to put an end to all these unfortunate and miserable disputes.
§Mr. Cressett Pelham was understood to say that he saw the Ministry were deter- 137mined to pursue a course of policy to which he, as a lover of the constitution, never could agree. Though disagreeing with them, as the only alternative offered him of supporting them or espousing the side of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, which he could not possibly do, he was bound to vote for the resolutions.
§Mr. Leader had a few observations to make upon the speech delivered by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. That noble Lord ought to have remembered what a Minister of the Crown had said in the last century, when he proposed for the consideration of the House, measures to be [applied to these North American provinces. “He hoped,” he said, “that they would enter into the discussion deliberately and dispassionately, and have no recourse to violent language” —that they would not have anything of the “animorum incendia.” If the noble Lord had remembered the wise advice of Lord North, he would have abstained from the violent, inflammatory, and insulting language he had used towards the Canadians. He thanked the noble Lord for that speech—violent and insulting as it was. It would, he believed, have the same effect upon the people of Canada as the speech of another noble Lord had upon the people of Ireland. The one had insulted the Canadians, as the other had insulted the Irish people. The noble Lord had the distinction of being called the evil genius of Ireland: he might now add to it the unenviable title of being called the evil genius of Canada. He once more thanked the noble Lord for his speech, and he congratulated Ministers upon having such an ally. With the permission of the Committee, he would state that it was the intention of those with whom he acted to divide upon every resolution, and to discuss the question on every occasion possible.
§Mr. Roebuck wanted to know if the House had come to the determination of proceeding with the resolution without having before them the evidence given in 1834? He must have an answer to that question before they proceeded to the next resolution. He would again ask the committee whether they would decide on this question without having the entire of the evidence before them?
The three first resolutions being merely declaratory were agreed to. On the fourth resolution being put “That, in the existing 138staet of Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to make the Legislative Council of that province an Elective body; but that it is expedient that measures be adopted for securing to that branch of the Legislature a greater degree of public confidence,” Mr. Leader proposed his amendment as follows—to leave out all the words after the words “Lower Canada,” in order to add the words “It is advisable to make the Legislative Council of that province an Elective Body:”—Question put, “That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed resolution.” On this question the Committee divided. Ayes 318; Noes 56:—Majority 262. Main question again put.
§Sir G. Grey said, that after this division, he trusted no further opposition would be thrown in the way of the views of Government on this subject.
§Mr. Roebuck said, that a direct appeal having been made to him by the noble Lord opposite, in reference to the evidence of the Committee on the affairs of Canada, upon which he believed this question greatly depended, he felt called upon to demand the publication of that evidence. Till they were in possession of it he should oppose further proceedings. He knew the impression which had been made on the House by the observations of the noble Lord, an impression which must make itself speedily felt out of doors; and he maintained that under these circumstances the House ought to allow him to have the evidence upon which he so much relied, and not in the absence of it to vote away the liberties of a whole people. The hon. Baronet, alluding to the large, the overwhelming majority by which the ministerial measure had been carried to-night, expressed a hope that no further opposition would be made to it. He begged the hon. Baronet to recollect that he (Mr. Roebuck) went out in as small a minority on the Irish Coercion Bill. He moved that the Chairman do report progress.
§Mr. Robinson , as a Member of the Committee in question, begged to state why he was opposed to the publication of the evidence adduced before it; namely, that it was an ex-parte statement. The inquiry of the Committee was cut short when the noble Lord then at the head of the department went out of office: the evidence up to that period had been all on one side of the question, there not having been time to call the evidence on the other side.
§The Chairman again read the fourth resolution, and then put Mr. Roebuck’s amendment that the Chairman report progress.
§The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 39; Noes 287;—Majority 248.
§The Chancellor of the Exchequer begged the House would consider that they really had before them all the information they could possibly require. Still it was not his wish, and he had no disposition to conceal from the House any one public document which they pleased to call for, but hon. Members would recollect that the subject of Canada was noticed in the King’s Speech, and the hon. Member for Bath had been aware, from the commencement of the Session, of the existence of this evidence, and if he had thought its production material to the matter at issue, he might have moved for it. If he considered the papers before the House incomplete without the evidence taken before the Committee, he should have moved for the production of these documents. It was quite true, that the case was somewhat varied by the circumstances which had occurred in the course of this discussion. Allusion had indeed been made to the evidence taken by the Committee, but more with the view of pointing out the different courses of proceeding of the respective Governments than for the purpose of explaining the subject matter of this particular resolution. He was disposed to do anything that the hon. Member wished, that did not amount to a question of mere delay, and nothing but delay. Before the House broke up that night, he would move for the production of the papers referred to, and they should be laid on the table of the House the next day. He was reminded that the original papers had been burnt in the fire which consumed the Houses of Parliament; but the Members of the Canada Committee were in possession of the documents relating to the question, unless indeed any of them had parted with their copy. He had his own minutes of evidence, and if the House would permit him, he would lay them on the table of the House the next day, for the use of hon. Members. The hon. and learned Member for Bath, no doubt, was in possession of his own minutes of evidence, and the copy which he would lay on the table would be all that was necessary, as that evidence 140would then be available for discussion. He, however, must tell hon. Members, that if they asked for this evidence not for the purpose of information, but for the purpose of protracting the measure, he could not consent to an application which was calculated to promote an undefined delay. He had shown the hon. Gentleman that he would get the full benefit of these documents if the course which he recommended were adopted, as every possible use might then be made of them in argument, and therefore he hoped that he would acquiesce in this suggestion.
§Mr. Harvey did not rise at the present moment to enter upon the general merits of the question, but to urge the importance of placing on the table of the House, the evidence upon which the noble Lord had laid so great stress. It was due to him—it was due to the House, which had to decide—it was due to British interests, and above all, to the feelings of Canada; for it had been argued, and the evidence was alluded to in support of the charge, that the people of Canada had violated her express engagements, and thus brought about that state of things which originated the present measure. He admitted and admired the spirit of the noble Lord, it was bold, frank, and eloquent, of all his many able speeches, it was one of the best; yet worth depended mainly upon the accuracy of his representations, of the evidence to which he had referred, and upon which he had dwelt with great earnestness; and this evidence ought to be forthwith adduced, and before we affirmed the first proposition, which was, in fact, the essence of the whole question—To decide first, and hear and read evidence after deciding, was that species of one-sided Legislation, that ought at all times to be deprecated; but upon a vast question like that now before the House, involving as it did the momentous issue of peace or war—we ought to be peculiarly solicitous to give to our decision the weight of sober thought and an enlightened judgment. It was important to observe that the resolution now proposed to be affirmed, did not propound a general principle, which the House was to affirm or deny—that would require no evidence given before a Committee, but the House was invoked to affirm that an elective council in Canada was inexpedient, which implied altogether a question of fact, and thus rendered testimony of whatever kind 141bearing upon the subject, of primary importance. With these feelings strong on his mind, and deprecating anything wearing the appearance either of faction or precipitancy, he should feel it his duty to concur in divisions until six o’clock in the morning, unless the evidence was first agreed to be laid upon the table of the House.
§Mr. Ward observed that the greater the weight which attached to the speech of the noble Lord, the more essential it was, that the evidence which had been given before the Committee should be produced before they could determine so vital a question as this.
Lord Stanley begged to say, that he laid no great stress on the evidence taken before the Committee. He did not rest his arguments on that evidence, but he showed that it contained the whole of the information which was now derived from the Commissioners’ report. He had mainly alluded to that evidence in order to show that the Government had followed out the recommendations, and he wished it had been done sooner, which had been formerly given, and to state what were the views and objects which were openly avowed by the parties represented by the hon. Member for Bath.
§Mr. Roebuck said, that the noble Lord had already forgotten one part of his speech, namely, that which related to a charge of a breach of faith on the part of the Canadian Legislature. Now, in the evidence, there was proof that the noble Lord had quite misunderstood that part of it. There was no stipulation of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, on the part of the Canadian people; and if there had been, they had more than fulfilled it. Now when they came to ground a resolution on the conduct of that assembly, he claimed it as a matter of right, and not as a matter of courtesy, that all the evidence that could be produced should be laid before the tribunal which pretended to come to a decision on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had also forgotten something which his Government had done. When he applied for the evidence it was first promised and then refused, but now that he had made out a case that touched the House, the right hon. Gentleman was ready to produce it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s conduct to him had been somewhat unhandsome. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean 142by he insinuation of “parting with their copy?” He had brought a charge against the right hon. Gentleman. He did not insinuate that he had broken his promise, but he said openly that he had done so. He had not hinted anything contumelious, but had distinctly told him what he thought of him. He had not got his copy; it had been destroyed, but the evidence did get to Canada, and was printed there but, not from his copy or through his means. He dared to say, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not got his copy.
§The Chancellor of the Exchequer . Yes, I have.
§Mr. Roebuck . Has the noble Lord got his?
Lord Stanley intimated that he had.
§Mr. Roebuck doubted whether the hon. Member for Worcester was in possession, of his. [Mr. Robinson replied in the affirmative.] He was only doing this to show how unhandsomely he had been treated; and he would now only say, that if ever he had to ask any favour from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he should be very sorry to be compelled to do, he would beg of that right hon. Gentleman when he had any thing to say of him to say it with fairness and candour, and he need not say, with boldness, instead of throwing out insinuations against him.
§The Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked that the hon. Gentleman and himself had been at issue on this point before, and if he would take the trouble of referring to the records of the discussions which then took place, he would find that what he now said was exactly what he had stated before. The originals having been destroyed, the evidence was not strictly within the reach of the House; but he tendered his own copy, and the copy of any other hon. Member, for the purpose of being laid on the table and made available for all the purposes of a discussion. If he were disposed to adhere to mere form, he should say, that the House had no means of obtaining that evidence; but so far was he from depriving the Ho se of all the information that could be required on the subject, that he suggested that if this demand were not made use of for the sake of delay how the difficulty might be obviated. In getting over that, he was quite willing to give every assistance. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had, as it appeared to him, 143alluded to the evidence in order to show what was the position of different Governments and his own position with respect to this question, and not for the purpose of dealing with the merits of the question itself; but, notwithstanding this, he would say that the evidence should be produced, and should be printed in the quickest possible time. But when the hon. Member for Bridgewater declared that all the resolutions should be contested, and that the Bill for which these resolutions were the foundation should be fought in all its stages, and when he found the production of this evidence insisted on as a necessary preliminary, although he was most anxious to come to any fair arrangement, he could not consent to any unnecessary delay.
A discussion of some length, but of a desultory and personal character ensued relative to the production of the evidence taken before the Committee, and the propriety of further proceeding till it was produced, which was finally terminated by Mr. Hume moving, that the Chairman do leave the chair. He added, that he thought the best course that Government could adopt, would be to withdraw the resolutions altogether.
§The Committee divided on Mr. Hume’s motion:—Ayes 14; Noes 76: Majority 62.
§Main question again put, and after some further discussion, Mr. Harvey moved, that the Chairman report progress, on which the Committee again divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 164: Majority against the motion 146.
§Main question again put.
Captain Berkeley was glad to see the result of this division, as it shewed that delay, and delay only, was the object, in endeavouring to wear out the patience of a large majority, and counting out the House. They had heard of the tyranny of a majority; but they saw what could be done by a miserable monopolising minority. His Majesty’s Ministers would see what would be the consequence if they did not pursue a straightforward course. He hoped they would not attempt to conciliate or make friends of those who must be enemies.
§Mr. Hume was for delay; delay was his object, on the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and lest it should go forth to Canada, that the House had acted before it had all the information it ought to have. They were taking this 144severe course against the Canadians without information, and therefore he was for delay.
Colonel Thompson was anxious to say, that he was for delay too. Delay was wholesome; he would give a guinea a minute for delay, if he could raise it. All thought, and especially all forethought, required time, and if time were not allowed, they could not come to a sound and safe conclusion.
§The Committee divided on the main question, “that in the existing state of Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to make the Legislative Council of that state an elective body, but that it is expedient that measures be adopted for securing to that branch of the Legislature, a greater degree of public confidence:—Ayesl44; Noesl6: Majority 128.
§The House resumed. Committee to sit again.
§We subjoin the list of the first division, that on Mr. Leader’s Amendment, the one which involved the principle at issue.
List of the AYES.
Adam, Sir C. Borthwick, Peter
Ainsworth, P. Bowes, J.
Alsager, Captain Bramston, T. W.
Alston, H. Brocklehurst, J.
Angerstein, J. Brodie, W. B,
Anson, hon. Colonel Brownrigg, S.
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Bruce, C. L. C.
Archdall, M. Bruen, F.
Ashley, Viscount Buller, E.
Astley, Sir J. Buller, Sir J. Y.
Bagot, hon. W. Burdon, W. W.
Bagshaw, John Burrell, Sir C.
Baillie, H. D. Byng, G.
Baines, E. Campbell, Sir H.
Balfour, T. Campbell, Sir J.
Barclay, D. Canning, hon. C. J.
Barclay, C. Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.
Baring, F. T. Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Baring, F. Cayley, E. S.
Baring, W. B. Chalmers, P.
Baring, T. Chandos, Marquess of
Barnard, E. G. Chaplin, Colonel
Barneby, J. Chapman, A.
Barron, H. W. Chetwynd, Captain
Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J. Chisholm, A. W.
Bell, M. Clerk, Sir G.
Bentinck, Lord G. Clive, E. B.
Bentinck, Lord W. Clive, hon. R. H.
Beresford, Sir J. Collier, John
Berkeley, hon. F. Compton, H. C.
Berkeley, hon. C. Conolly, E. M.
Bewes, T. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Biddulph, R. Cowper, hon. W. F.
Blackburne, I. Crawford, W.
Blackstone, W. S. Crewe, Sir G.
Bolling, W. Dalbiac, Sir C.
Bonham, R. F. Dalmeny, Lord
Darlington, Earl of Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Denison, W. J. Hillsborough, Earl of
Denison, J. E. Hind, J. H.
Dillwyn, L. W. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.
Divett, E. Hope, H. T.
Dottin, A. R. Hotham, Lord
Dugdale, W. S. Houstoun, G.
Dunbar, G. Howard, P. H.
Duncombe, hon. W. Howick, Viscount
Dundas, hon. T. Hughes, W. H.
Dundas, J. D. Hurst, R. H.
Dunlop, J. Jackson, Sergeant
East, J. B. Jephson, C. D. O.
Eastnor, Viscount Jermyn, Earl
Ebrington, Viscount Inglis, Sir R. H.
Egerton, Lord Fran. Johnston, A.
Elley, Sir J. Johnstone, Sir J.
Ellice, right hon. E. Johnstone, J. J. H.
Estcourt, T. G. Jones, W.
Estcourt, T. H. Irton, S.
Farrand, R. Kerrison, Sir E.
Fector, J. M. King, E. B.
Feilden, W. Knight, H. G.
Ferguson, R. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Ferguson, G. Law, hon. C. E.
Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C. Lawson, A.
Finch, G. Lefroy, A.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Lefroy, right hon. T.
Fleming, J. Lemon, Sir C.
Folkes, Sir W. Lennard, T. B.
Follett, Sir W. Lennox, Lord G.
Forester, hon. G. Leveson, Lord
Forster, C. S. Lewis, D.
Fremantle, Sir T. Lewis, W.
Freshfield, J. W. Lincoln, Earl of
Gaskell, J. Miles Lister, E. C.
Geary, Sir W. Long, W.
Gladstone, T. Longfield, R.
Gladstone, W. E. Lowther, J. H.
Gordon, R. Lucas, E.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Lushington, Dr.
Goring, H. D. Lushington, C.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Lynch, A. H.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Mackenzie, S.
Grant, hon. Colonel Mackinnon, W. A.
Greene, T. Macleod, R.
Gresley, Sir R. Mahon, Viscount
Grey, Sir George Mangles, J.
Grimston, Viscount Marjoribanks, S.
Grimston, hon. E. H. Marshall, William
Hale, R. B. Martin, J.
Halford, H. Maule, hon. F.
Halse, J. Maunsell, T. P.
Hamilton, G. A. Maxwell, H.
Hamilton, Lord C. Methuen, P.
Handley, H. Meynell, Captain
Harcourt, G. G. Miles, William
Harcourt, G. S. Milton, Viscount
Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Hardy, J. Moreton, hon. A. H.
Hastie, A. Morpeth, Viscount
Hawkes, T. Morrison, J.
Hawkins, John H. Mosley, Sir O.
Hayes, Sir E. S. Murray, rt. hon. J. A.
Heathcoat, J. Neeld, J.
Heathcote, G. J. Nicholl, Dr.
Henniker, Lord Norreys, Lord
North, F. Somerset, Lord G.
O’Ferrall, R. M. Stanley, E.
Oliphant, Lawrence Stanley, Lord
Ossulston, Lord Stanley, W. O.
Palmer, R. Stewart, P. M.
Palmerston, Viscount Stormont, Lord
Parker, M. Strangways, hon. J.
Parker, John Strutt, E.
Patten, J. W. Stuart, Lord J.
Pease, J. Sturt, Henry Charles
Pechell, Captain Surrey, Earl of
Peel, right hon. Sir R. Talbot, C. R. M.
Pelham, J. C. Tennent, J. E.
Pemberton, Thomas Thomas, Colonel
Pendarves, E. W. W. Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.
Philips, M. Thompson, P. B.
Philips, G. R. Thompson, Alder an
Phillips, C. M. Townley, R. G.
Pigot, R. Trench, Sir F.
Plumptre, J. P. Trevor, hon. A.
Polhill, F. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Pollen, Sir J. W. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Pollock, Sir Fred. Turner, W.
Ponsonby, hon. J. Twiss, H.
Poulter, J. S. Tynte, C. J. K.
Powell, Colonel Vere, Sir C. B.
Price, S. G. Vernon, G. H.
Price, Sir R. Vesey, hon. T.
Price, R. Vivian, John Ennis
Pryme, G. Vivian, J. H.
Rae, rt. hon. Sir W. Vyvyan, Sir R.
Ramsbottom, J. Wall, C. B.
Reid, Sir J. R. Walpole, Lord
Rice, rt. hon. T. S. Wason, R.
Richards, J. Wemyss, Captain
Richards, R. Wayland, Major
Rickford, W. Whitmore, T. C.
Robinson, G. R. Wigney, I. N.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Wilbraham, G.
Ross, C. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Rushbrooke, Col. Wilde, Sergeant
Russell, C. Williams, W. A.
Sandon, Viscount Williamson, Sir H.
Scott, Sir E. D. Wilson, H.
Scott, J. W. Wodehouse, E.
Scourfield, W. H. Wood, C.
Scrope, G. P. Worsley, Lord
Seale, Colonel Woulfe, S.
Seymour, Lord Wrightson, W. B.
Shaw, right hon. F. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Sheppard, T. Young, G. F.
Shirley, E. J. Young, J.
Sinclair, Sir G. Young, Sir W.
Smith, J. A.
Smith, hon. R. TELLERS.
Smith, R. V. Stanley, E. J.
Smyth, Sir H. Steuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Browne, R. D.
Baldwin, Dr. Buckingham, J. S.
Beaumont, T. W. Bulwer, E. L.
Blake, M. J. Butler, hon. P.
Brabazon, Sir W. Crawford, W. S.
Brady, D. C. Elphinstone, H.
Bridgeman, H. Evans, G.
Brotherton, J. Ewart, W.
Fielden, J. Palmer, General
Fitzgibbon, hon. Col. Parrott, Jasper
Finn, W. F. Pattison, J.
Fitzsimon, C. Power, J.
Gaskell, D. Rundle, J.
Grote, George Ruthven, E.
Gully, J. Tancred, H. W.
Harvey, D. W. Thompson, Colonel
Hector, C. J. Thornley, T.
Hindley, C. Trelawney, Sir W.
Holland, E. Tulk, C. A.
Hume, J. Vigors, N. A.
Humphery, John Villiers, C. P.
Maher, J. Warburton, H.
Molesworth, Sir W. Ward, H. G.
Mullins, F. W. Whalley, Sir S.
Musgrave, Sir R. Williams, W.
O’Brien, W. S. Williams, Sir J.
O’Connell, J. TELLERS.
O’Connell, M. J. Leader, J. T.
O’Connell, M. Roebuck, J. A.