The Sun. — London, England, 1837-05-10 00:00:00

, the letters being detained in the country, they ought to be sent to the General Post-office. In London the letters were safe, while in the country Post-offices the letters were opened, family secrets were disclosed, and money was abstracted.—( Hear.) lie had to observe, that if he brought an action against a Post master in the country for the detention of a letter, the Post master-General would come forward to defend that person. This was, he thought, a just subject for complaint.—( Hear.) Last year an Act had been brought into that House for doing away with the office of Postmaster-General. He believed that the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government intended to do it away. That Act had passed the House of Commons. There had been no division upon it in that House ; but, like other good measures, it was met in the other House most unceremoniously, and very rapidly got its quietus.—(Laughter.) No sooner had the present Session commenced than Members of the Govern ment declared their intention of renewing Bills which had been thrown out by the Lords last Session. He had a sort of feeling that the Bill would not be brought in. He put a question on the subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, another Hon. Member put the same question, and the Chan cellor of the Exchequer promised to bring in a Bill in April and he stated then that if the Bill was not brought in, now a month after that time, he should pat a notice on the books to bring in such a Bill. He wished to know whether the packet establishment was to be carried on by contract, or by the mode it was at present. He was quite favourable to its being done by contract. He had the Post-office returns, which were suffi cient to half fill a portmanteau, and he was sorry to be obliged to say that many of these returns were falsified, either by alter ing the terms in which the returns were made, or they were not in the terms in which the returns had been called for. It was his intention at a future occasion to take a division of the House on the question, whether the salary of the Postmaster- General ought to be continued after the sth of July. With regard to the harbours of Portpatrick and Donag hadee, referred to in his resolutions, he should wait until he beard what could be replied to him on this subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—( Hear.) He meant to move for a Committee to inquire as to the fitness of those places for communication between Ireland and Scotland, so far as the steam-packets were concerned. He hoped that the Secretary of the Treasury would let him know whether information bad been received from Sir E. Parry as to the fitness of those stations. Upon a review of the whole of the steam-packet department, it was his opinion that it was a disgrace to the Post-office, and that it had caused a great y. ante of the public money. He was glad that it had got into the hands of the Admiralty.—( Hear, hear.) He meant to change the first resolution. He should then read it, with the alteration he had made in it. He proposed that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the present rates of postage, and especially to examine into and inquire what alterations can be made in the present rate of postage ; and whether they could be adopted on the princi ples recommended in the pamphlet of Mr. Rowland Hill, keeping in view the maintenance of the present amount of revenue, subject, however, to such reduction of postage as the Chancellor of the Exchequer may recom men d w h en bringing .in the Budget. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following resolutions : " 1. That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into and report on the present rates of postage, and especially to examine the improvements recommended, and the mode of .charging postage proposed, in a pamphlet by Mr. Rowland with a view to a general reduction of postages. " 2. That no postage be superadded on General Post Letters, wile:her charged or franked, under the name of threepenny, twopenny, or penny postage ; and that no postage he payable on Newspapers sent beyond the Parliamentary li m it s o f the p; sees they are published in, by threepenny, twopenny, or p en ny posts. " 3. That while the rates of postage shall be regulated by distance, postage shall be charged only according to the dis tance on the direct lines of road. " 4. That it is the opinion of this House, that the Post master-General and the Treasury will betray public trust, if ither should employ the public money, or any officer raid by the public, in defending the Post-office Department, in the event of any community, corporate body, or private individual, prosecuting for unnecessary detention of letters in London, or in the country, which the Postmaster-General, and all other Postmasters throughout the kingdom, are prohibited from de taining, by the 9th of Queen Anne. c. 19, sec. 40, and yet especially (if possible) by an official oath enjoined by the said Act. 5. 'that. in conformity with the vote almost unanimously awn, to by this House. in the l..st Session of Parliament, ex mos:sive of the inexpediency of longer maintaining the office of Postmaster-General, this House is of opinion that the said office should be discontinued. " 6. That the salaries attached to the sail office. of Post master-General, and its coneoinitaiit , that of Private Secre tary to the Postmaster-General, should be withheld from and after the sth day of July next. " 7. That .Port Patrick and Donagliadee are not the proper stations for communication by Post-office steam packets between Ireland and Scotland :—That large sums of public money are annually paid unnecessarily to certain contractors for carrying mails in mail coaches in Ireland, in name of compensation as lessees of certain roads and tolls, besides 38,743/. Bs. sd, claimed by Messrs. Taylor, as arrears due to them for tolls on coaches on the Kilcuilen line of road, being a distance of em tly twenty-one miles Irish :—That a Select, he say,:ointed to inquire into the fitness of the harbours of Port Patrick and Donaghadee, and the propriety of continuing to ay the sums alluded to for roads and tolls in certain parts of Ir. 'land." E WART seconded the motion. Lord J. RUSSELL begged to call the attention of the House. to the state of the public business before them.— ( Hear-) It was certainly usual, when Bills were in Com- inittee that they should be proceeded with till the Committee was finished, and that while the attention of the Honse was oc copied with the subject of the various clauses and provisions of the Bill, they should not interrupt the Committee.-- ( Hear, hear.) He had stated this to the Hon. Member for Greenock before he made his speech, and that he proposed to proceed with the Poor-law Bill this evening. The Hon. Member had chosen, however, to bring forward his motion. and had complained of the little progress made last year with the Post-office Bills, and also that they had not been intro duced in the present session. Now he (Lord J. Russell) would suggest to the Hon. Member for Greenock that such Bilk as he thought necessary for the reforrnelthai --- or any other .lepartment were much more likely to be passed if the attention of the House were not occupied with fifteen or twenty different motions on the subject. If, through such a course of proceedings, they were compelled at a late period of the Session to send up a great many Bills to the other House, it would give them a justification for declining to take into .:onsideration those Bills at so late a period. He thought that they had had expetience enough of the difficulties of such a mixie of proceeding to come to some decision on the subject, anti therefore he intended to prove the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Poor-law 13..1; as an amendment. He would not enter into the state nit nts made by the Hon. Member for Greenock, as he thought oat the House would occupy itself much better by taking into consideration the subject fixed for this evening. He would not propose to resume the Committee to-morrow, but he would propose to resume it on Thursday. Mr. Alderman COPEL AND perfectly concurred with the Noble Lord, that when a Bill was before the House it was de sirable to proceed with it. At the same time he could not know this opportunity to pass without expressing his thanks to the Hon. Member for Greenock for bringing this matter tot-ward, and for the great attention which he paid to this subject. He could state some instances that had occurred to himself, to show to the House that it was proper that some inquiry should take place with reference to the rates of post age charged upon letters. During the past year he had written two letters to Rio Janeiro, neither of which had reached its destination. He had during the last week re ceived two price currents, one from Canton and the other from Calcutta, for one of which sd. was charged, and for the other 10d. He hoped that the Government would make some in quiry into the different rates of postage. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE saw no reason why they should not proceed with the subject before the House. He was as anxious as any man to make 'provision for the poor in Ireland, but he saw no plea for deviation from the usual course of the business of the House. He had a motion on the books relat ing to voting by proxy, and he certainly intended to persist in it. He should like to know what reason there was for this, he would say, indecent haste for going into Committee on the Poor-law Bill. The Irish Municipal Bill had been hung up in the House of Lords till the 9th of June, and the reason was, that the Irish Tithe Bill and the Poor-law Bill were not disposed of. They had, therefore, a whole month left to carry those Bills. The other day the business of the House was obstructed for three whole days by a motion made on the Tory side of the House relative to the affairs of Spain. The Noble Lord was quite right in allowing that subject to occupy so much of the time of the House, seeing how tri umphantly the Government came out of it.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial side of the Houre, and counter cheers from the Opposition.) When an independent Member of that House gave a notice of a motion which he intended to make, it was rather hard to hare such obstacles thrown in the way, end therefore, when it came his turn, he should certainly make Bic motion of which he had given notice, and he would persist in Lord J. RUSSELL begged to say a few words in explana tion. He was merely following a precedent that had been re peatedly set on former occasions, and he might refer to the conduct pursued with respect to the Reform Bill and the Poor-law Amendment Act. But setting aside precedent, he ; 'bought the course he proposed to pursue a good one. The Con. Member who had just sat down asked why he did not obj:tet to the motion made on the other side of the House wit h respect to the affairs of Spain. The Hon. Gentleman did Ili It appear to have been in the House on the occasion when he ( L erd J. Russell) said it was his intention to move the second reading of the Poor-law Bill, but that he refrained from so doing lest it might be supposed that he was attempting to evade the morion. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE would like to know why they did pot go on with the Church-rate Bill ? After a few words from Sir L. PARRY, which were to tally inaudible, A tr. HUTT complained of the attempt made by the Noble Lortlto get of the motion of the Hon. Member for Greenock. He th ought that the able and explicit statement of that Hon. Gent', tman ought to receive an answer. The ►CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that though the course taken by his Noble Friend appeared to be objecti ona ble, he thought he could reconcile Hon. Members to it. It was far from their intention, in taking the course suggested b v his Noble Friend, either to undervalue the ob jections mad..., or the plan proposed, by the Hon. Member for Greenock. l e certainly was prepared to show, and he thought he could state adequate grounds to convince the House that the object the lion. Member for Greenock had in view would not be best answered by the plan he proposed. The subject, however, occupied the attention of his Majesty's Government at the present moment, and he hoped to be able, during the present session, to state the result. He would ask the House if it was proper to refer a question, relating to a re venue of a million and a half, to the consideration of a Se lect Committee ?—(Cries of ," Hear, hear.") He would also ask whether the steps taken by the present Government did not afford a pledge that this subject would be fully inquired into ? They had already made a considerable reduction on the postage of ship-letters.—( Hear, bear.) They had shown at least what their wishes were, and he hoped that they would be enabled to realise them.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped that his Hon. Friend the Member for Greenock would withdraw his motion, to allow the House to proceed with a Bill that was necessary to the peace of Ireland. Mr. HUTT, after the statement of the Right Hon. Gen tleman, would join with him in requesting his Hon. Friend the Member for Greenock to withdraw his motion. Mr. PEASE would be extremely sorry to interfere with the Irish Poor-law Bill, and would, therefore, move that the debate be adjourned to the Bth of June. The gallery was then cleared for a division, but no division took place, and the motion was withdrawn. On our return to the gallery— VOTE BY PROXY. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Irish Poor-law Bill. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE then moved the resolution of which he had given notice, and stated that the course which he then proposed to pursue was, first to invite the House to affirm, " That the practice of any deliberative assembly deciding by proxy upon the rejection or adoption of legislative enactments is so incompatible with every principle of justice and reason, that its continuance is daily becoming a source of serious and well-founded complaint among all classes of his Majesty's sub jects ;" and after the House should have affirmed that resolu tion, as he had no doubt it would (for he could not believe that they would so far stultify themselves, as to reject so rea sonable a proposition), he would move—" That a message be sent to the Lords requesting a conference, at which the fore going resolution might be communicated." He was happy to say that he had good reason to believe that when the resolu tion in question should be so communicated, it would not only be well received by that assembly, but would be warmly responded to by many of its most distinguished members.— ( Hear, hear.) The first notice to be found of proxies was in the reigns of Edward I. and Edward 11., when the Bishops of Durham and Carlisle were ordered to remain in Scotland, where they were defending the Marches, but were at the same time commanded to send up well-instructed persons to represent them ; and from that time to the reign of Henry VIII. Peers, when unavoidably compelled either by illness or employment by the King on foreign wars to ab sent themselves from Parliament, were enjoined to send proxies, but these proxies were not members of the House, but men of lesser rank ; the spiritual Lords being frequently represented by parsons, prebendaries, and any Members of collegiate bodies whom they chose to send. So at all events up to that period those who were to decide upon the fate of great questions had at least the decency to hear those questions put. From Henry the Eighth to Charles the First's time a new and worse system obtained, any one Peer being then permitted to represent any number of Peers. In the reign of Elizabeth an Earl of Bedford it appeared, held 15 proxies, and in Charles the First's reign a Duke of Bucking ham fourteen : this latter case, however, being much mur mured at by the public. it was ordered by the House that thenceforth no Peer should hold more than two proxies—a rule which was still strictly observed. There has been, how ever, an alteration of recent date introduced. Until the close of the last century peers who wished for leave of absence were obliged to apply for it to the King, and were sometimes refused, as in the case of Lord Scroop in the reign of Henry VIII., when his servant and his medical man were under the necessity of making oath of that Noble man's sickness before his excuse was admitted ; and a Peer being absent without leave forfeited 1001. In 1768 the oaths of two credible witnesses were required to prove a sufficient cause of absence for any peer ; but at the close of the last century it was decided, during the insanity of George 111., that the King's permission might thenceforth be dispensed with ; and so the last remaining protection that the people of this country huh against blind legislation was for ever swept away. In 1695, Lords Derby, Weymouth, and Lempster, having sent excuses which did not satisfy the House, the question in debate was sent to them, and they were required to return their assent or dissent in writing. In 1646 a cu rious and ludicrous•in , tance of the impolicy of the custom of voting by proxy occurred. Lord Say and Sele, who then held Lord Mulgrave's proxy, having voted in opposition to the wishes of the latter Peer, Lord Mulgrave thereupon ad dressed a letter to the House, disclaiming any participation in the opinions expressed by his proxy, and his vote was accordingly changed to the other side. But what were the historical excuses urged in favour of the practice of Peers voting by proxy at all ? Historical writers, generally speak ing, gave none, but seemed all content to quote the dictum of Sir Edward Coke in his 4th Institute, " That any Lord of Parliament, by licence of the King, upon just ground, to be absent, might make a proxy ; but a knight, citizen, or burgess cannot, because he is elected and trusted by multitudes of the people." Blackstone, and other writers on the Constitution, seemed also satisfied pith merely quoting these words, without comment, excepting De Lolme, who said, that .` the Lords were Members of the Legislature by virtue of a right inherent in their own persons, and they were supposed to sit in Parlia ment on their own account, and for the support of their own interests ; in consequence of this they have the privilege of voting by proxy, the Commons not having this privilege, as they were but proxies for the people." But lie (Mr. Dun combe) thought that the principle laid down by De Lolme and by Coke was completely set aside by the practice of the Scotch and Irish Peers, who were clearly not Members of the Legislature by any right inherent in their own persons, but were themselves, like the Commons, proxies for others, and yet they voted by proxy. W e h a d at present 420 Peers —two-thirds of that number might be absent, and yet vote upon any question involving., perhaps, the welfare and fate of the country, and a majority of the remaining one-third, namely, 75 individuals, were to be considered superior in judg ment and ability to the 658 Members of the House of Com mons ; or let it be supposed that 135 Peers should be present during a debate upon a Bill, in framing and considering which the House of Commons should have passed many long and anxious nights, was it to be borne, that when 100 of those 'present might have voted in favour of that measure, a mise rable monopolizing minority of 35, by simply emptying their breeches pockets of 70 proxies, enabling them to represent as many absent Peers, some of whom, perhaps, were in China, others dancing at Paris, others amusing themselves at a Carni val at Rome, and some possibly in the grave—was it to be borne, lie said, that these 35 should have it in their power to defeat such a measure, and to disappoint the wishes of the country, and render futile the labours bestowed on the subject else where ? We might talk of the civilization of the people, and boast of our "free institutions," but this was one which was an insult to our understandings, and which he (Mr. Duncombe) thought he had shown was not borne 200 years ago, and to which he could see no reason for submitting now. In making this motion he could assure the House that nothing was fur ther from his intentions than to increase any feeling of irrita tion which the conduct of the present Peerage might unhap pily have given rise to. No one who had the public good at heart would wish in these times to widen that civil or that re ligious breach which was daily opening before us ; on the con trary, he thought much might be done by timely concession and mutual forbearance : at present the concession and for bearance had been all on one side ; it bad been entirely on the side of the House of Commons, for which reason he believed that the Peers of England did not hold so high a place in the estimation of the people as they had done. The Hon. Gen. tleman concluded by moving his resolution. Sir W. MOLE SWORTH seconded the motion. Mr. A. TREVOR said that the Honourable Member for Finsbury told the House that he had no wish to widen the breach between that House and the House of Lords. The Honourable Member had taken a very extraordinary mode of evincing that feeling.—(A laugh.) The Honourable Mem ber had taken the very means of aggravating that feeling.— (Cries of " No, no.") He ventured to tell the Honourable Member for Finsbury that if he anticipated, or if he was led to imagine that the House of Lords did not stand high in the estimation of the country, he was very much in error indeed. It might be well, ad captandum vulyus, to broach such opi nions as those expressed by the Honourable Member for Fins bury. He (Mr. Trevor) knew not how far such opinions would please the people of Finsbury, but he could tell the Honourable Member that these opinions did not accord with the feelings of the educated classes, or with the respectability of the country, with those who had property to defend, or to lose.—( Hear, and loud laughter.) He protested against the course adopted by the Honourable Member for Finsbury, as inconsistent with the Constitution, and the privileges of the other—and equally independent—branch of the Legislature. Captain BERKELEY considered the resolutions one of conciliation, and if the House of Lords took it in good part they would make a great advance in the good opinion of the country. Mr. T. D'E YNCOURT agreed with the Hon. and Gal lant Member that the adoption of this resolution would tend to raise the House of Lords in the opinion of the country. If that House could be brought calmly and deliberately to review the privilege themselves, he was sure they would be disposed to give it up. With respect to what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Durham (Mr. A. Trevor) as to the right of that House to interfere with the privileges of the other, he would venture to say that the privileges of that and of the other House of Parliament were intended for the benefit of the people, and that House, as the Representatives of the people, had a right to review those privileges. If the other House of Parliament had not long possessed this power, they would in dignantly reject, and consider it an insult to make a sugges tion to them that they should adopt such a privilege.—( Hear, hear.) He did not conceive there was any impropriety on the part of his Hon. Friend in bringing the matter before the attention of Parliament ; but instead of the. resolution that had been proposed, he would suggest that it would be better to come to a resolution to recommend the House of Lords to review these privileges with a view to the alteration of the custom.—( Hear, hear.) Lord STANLEY could not help feeling that the Right Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had upon hi,' mind some proceedings connected with a more recent occur rence in that House than what had taken place in the other House of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gen tleman brought forward a motion last night which he thought of great and overwhelming importance as regarded the constitution of that House, and, notwithstanding this, the attendance on the Hon. Gentleman's oratory was not very great, nor was the effect very impressive.--( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman came down to-night and complained of what occurred in one of the deliberative legis lative assemblies of this country. He did not say which. —(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He proceeded to ask, would any Hon. Gentleman imagine that in a civilized country a practice could exist of some Members sending down others to vote for them on motions without hearing the reasons pro and con, and without having weighed well the reasons on one side or other.--( Hear, hear.) " How was it possible," ex claimed the Right Hon. Gentleman, " for any person to give a proxy unless after attentively listening to the viva voce rea soning on the subject.— ( Hear, hear.) He (Lord Stanley) would ask what happened last night.—(" Hear," and laugh ter.)--Why did not the Right Hon. Gentleman consult the Hon. Member for Mary-la-benne on this subject ? Why did lie not consult that Hon. Gentleman as to the extreme impro priety, the unconstitutional course of proceeding, the custom so absurd, that it ought not to be tolerated by a civilized peo ple, of the members of a legislative assembly pairing off for two or three hours for the purpose of refreshment—( Laugh ter)—or the whole of the night, and then coming down to give a decision on a question on which they had not heard one word of argument.—(" Hear," and laughter.) He knew that the Right Hon. Gentleman was very ill treated last night dur ing the period he was addressing the House ; for while the Right Hun. Gentleman was speaking there were hardly forty Members present-4 Laughter)—and because the division took place before ten o'clock, the Hon. Gentleman had a large minority of 87. It appeared that with a view to refresh themselves, Hon. Gentlemen paired off last night for two or three hours, and afterwards came down to vote without listen ing to any portion of the debate ; but this he might be told should be regarded as nothing, because a person by study might have been convinced of the reasonableness of a proposi tion without hearing the discussion. He admitted the force of this argument, but how a man could consistently give a vote for a whole Session—( Hear, hear, and laughter)—on all questions that might come before that House, was perfectly incomprehensible to him. And had they never heard in this House of such a practice as pairing off for a week or month, for half a Session, or for even a whole Session ?—( Loud cheers and laughter.) He would not enter upon the ques tion of the privileges of the House of Lords—( Hear) — the privileges of that assembly which represented only themselves, and which was actually an independent branch of the Legislature, the Members of which possessed the undoubted right, through other members belonging to it, of voting by proxy.--( Hear, hear.) But, sacrificing all the force that this argument gave him, he was content to rest his case upon what he had previously stated, which was a valid argument, not against voting by proxy in the House of Lords, but against that House, because they were a representative body, and representing those that gave them Legislative proxies; and the Members of that branch of the Legislature were nothing but proxies in that House.—( Hear, hear.) But setting aside the privileges of the other House, those who argued against proxies in the other House, and not against the practice of pairing in the House of Commons, were guilty of the most flagrant inconsistency.—( Cheers.) He did not con sider that the Hon. Member for Lambeth complained of the position in which he was placed in Members coming down to that House to vote on the motion he brought forward who had not heard the discussion.—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord Stanley) contended that as a matter of consistency Ho nourable Gentlemen opposite must accompany the condemna tion of pairing with that of proxy.—( Hear, hear.) But there was nothing inconsistent that the Members of the House of Lords, which was a body only representing themselves, and not elected to represent the people, should have the right of delivering their opinions by proxy as well as by voice. He must say, that it was most inconvenient to delay by such mo tions the business of that House, instead of expediting the Bills before them. Hon. Gentlemen, when passing such se vere censures on others, should turn some attention to the course now pursued in that House. " Oh, that some power the gift would gie us, To see ourselves as others see us."—(Cheers and laughter.) He did not refer to one side of the House more than the other, but he wished to impress upon Hon. Gentlemen how unneces sary it must be to proceed with notices of motions when other business of such grave importance was before them—when such indifference was manifested by the majority, that it was not possible to get together some thirty-five or thirty-eight Members. He was glad that his Noble Friend ( Lord John Russell) had that night interposed by movine the Order of the Day on the first motion, for this showed equal respect or disrespect to all the motions on the book.—( Laughter. ) He should vote for the motion of his Noble Friend to go into the Committee on the Irish Poor-laws, even if the motion under discussion tivas of more importance than it was, but, above all, as it was a question open to very serious objec tions.—( Cheers. ) Mr. WA K LEY wished the Noble Lord possessed the ocular gift to see himself as he was regarded by others sitting where he did, and speaking and voting as he was now accus tomed to do.—( Hear, hear.) If that was the case the House would have been saved from the infliction of that speech which the Noble Lord had just delivered.--( Hear, hear.) He was glad, however, that only one Member had defended the prac tice of voting by proxy, and that Member was a Noble Lord. The common sense of the nation cried out against the practice of voting by proxy, and he would tell the Noble Lord that the common sense of England would not long endure the practice. —( Hear.) Because Members paired off for weeks or months, was it a sufficient reason to justify the practice of sending pieces of paper from the continent of Eutope for years together to authorise any member of a legislative body to vote for another? ( Hear.) He, for one, thanked his Hon. Colleague for having brought forward this motion, and fur the future it would become a sessional motion until it was carried. The Noble Lord justified proxies by the practice of pairing in that House, but one abuse would not justify another. If the Noble Lord did not approve of pairing, as he appeared to do, why did he not bring forward a motion to put a stop to it ? But what justification was that practice of voting by proxy? He trusted that his Hon. Friend would press this motion to a division, and he was convinced that in the course of three years he would carry it. Sir ROBERT PEEL trusted the House would not come to a vote on the present motion until they were aware of the principle involved in the motion, and also considered how they would hereafter deal with this principle. In the Bill which they would have to consider, he trusted, immediately after the pre sent motion was disposed of, he found the following expres sion :—" And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any rate-payer from time to time, by writing under his hand, to appoint any person to vote as his proxy in respect of any pro perty not in the actual occupation of such rate-payer, and any such appointment shall remain in force until revoked."— ( Cheers and laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman had made an inquiry of one of the Members of the Tower Hamlets. He doubted not that Hon. Gentleman would have agreed with him had he been present ; but as both the Members for that borough were absent, he had no doubt but that they had paired off.—( Laughter.) His resolutions were to this effect : First, " Resolved that the practice of letting members of any deliberative legislative assembly vote withont having heard all the arguments on both sides of the question, was incompati ble with every principle of justice."—( Laughter.) His second resolution was this :—" Resolved, that the absence of Members, by pairing for several hours for the purpose of refreshments, and for several weeks at a time, from the questions under discussion, without hearing the arguments which arose on such questions, was becoming a source of well-founded complaint among all classes of the community."--( Great laughter.) He would ask the Hon. Member opposite whether it was not clear that they should attack the evil in their own House, before what might be good elsewhere.—( Hear, hear.) He agreed with one suggestion that had been thrown out on the opposite side—namely, that they should begin at home.—( A laugh.) They could not speak to the House of Lords on this subject, before they reformed themselves on a practice which they had the high authority of the Hon. Gentleman for saying it was bringing them into contempt.—( Hear, hear.) But suppos ing that the amendment of the Hon. Member for Finsbury was carried, and was ordered to be sent up to another place —supposing, also, that an amicable conference took place— ( Laughter)—what should prevent the other House presenting them, in return, with a counter resolution ?—(Laughter.) The Hon. Gentleman proposed that this resolution should be presented to the Lords. He (Sir R. Peel) would pro pose that after passing the resolutions he had read, as to not hearing arguments, and to the practice of pairing, the following resolution should be adopted :—" Resolved, thirdly, that the Hon. Member for Marylebone be requested to bring in a Bill founded on the previous resolutions."—(Renewed laughter.) Before they proceeded to discuss the clauses of the Bill which took away the right of proxy from the other branch of the Le gislature, ought they not to consider what took place last night, when one of the Metropolitan Colleagues of the Hon. Gentle man said that he had paired off till ten o'clock, but had spoken to show that he was present ? What figure would they make before the House of Lords in presenting the resolution of the Hon. Gentleman, if this matter should become known ? (Laughter.) Therefore he would give this advice—namely, that they should not proceed with the resolution, but get rid of it by allowing the House to go into Committee on the Irish Poor-law Bill ; and that, before they attempted to take away any of the privileges of a co-equal and independent branch of the Legislature, they should take the beam out of their own eye before they attempted to take the mote out of another's.— ( Laughter and cheers.) After a few words from Major HANDLEY, the House divided— For going into committee Against it Majority against Mr. Duncombe's amendment -48 POOR-LAW (IRELAND) BILL. The House then went into Committee on this Bill. Clauses up to 12 inclusive were agreed to. On clause 13 some discussion arose. Mr. JE PHS ON objected to the arbitrary power given by this clause " to the Commissioners, :or other persons autho rised under the Act, to require the production of books, con tracts, agreements, accounts, maps, plans, surveys, valuations; or writings, or copies thereof, any persons refusing to produce such documents b e i ng ren d ere d li a bl e t o a charge of misdemea. nour. If this clause were permitted to pass in this shape, there would be no protection for private propel ty against the caprice of the Commissioners. Mr. WOUL FE said that the clause in connection with clause 2 especially excepted from the operation of the Act " all titles or papers relating to the titles of any lands, tene ments, or hereditaments, not being property subject to be taken by or vested in the Commissioners by virtue of the Act." The clause explicitly stated that the Commissioners were autho rized to act as a Court of Record. The clause merely entitled the Commissioners to call for the production of muniments or deeds relating to the property of parishes, to charity lands, and not to the private property of individuals. Col. PERCEVAL and Mr. LUCAS also objected to the clause. Lord MORPETH said the power given to the Commis sioners for Ireland did not differ from that vested in the Eng lish Commissioners. Mr. SH EIL proposed that the clause should be linked with the 36th clause, 'having reference to the same subject. Colonel PE lICE VAL moved the postponement of the clause, THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1837 The Clause was agreed to, Lord John Russell undertak:ng that words to the effect required should be introduced into it. On the motion that the Chairman report progress, Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his hope that the proceed ings with this Bill would be allowed to take precedence of all other business on Thursday. The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday. Several Orders of the Day were then agreed to. FOREIGN GRAIN. On Mr. ROBINSON moving for leave to bring in a Bill to allow of the grinding of foreign grain in bond, An HON. MEMBER moved that the House be counted, when there not being forty Members present, an adjournment neces. sarily took place. HOUSE OF LORDS, Mir 9. Lord DENMAN, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, took his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock. On the motion of Lord SHAFTESBURY the several private Bills on the table were advanced a stage. The LORD CHANCELLOR then took hisseat on the Woolsack. Sir JAMES GRAHANI, and other Members of the House of Commons, then brought up the Hereford and Carlisle Rail way Bill. Mr. Crowther then brought up papers from the Court of Chancery in Ireland. Lord CAMPERDOWN presented a petition from Bath in favour of the Oxford and Great Western Railway Bill. Lord RADNOR presented petitions from places in Berks against Church-rates. - Lord SONDES presented a petition from the shipowners of Exeter in favour of the Shipping Gazette. Lord LIL FORD presented petitions against Church-rates from St. John's, Hackney, Warrington, from High-street Chapel, Lancaster, and from several other places. Lord COLCHESTER presented a petition in favour of Church-rates from a place in Devonshire. Lord ELLENBOROUGH presented a similar petition from a place in Gloucestershire. The Noble Lord then said that a conversation had taken place in that House relative to pro ceedings at an execution at Gloucester ; and as the Noble Lord then stated that Lord John Russell had written to the High Sheriff, but had not then received any reply —now, he ( Lord Ellenborough) had received a letter from the High Sheriff, stating that he was engaged in prosecuting inquiries into the matter. He mentioned this, lest any opinion might be entertained that the Sheriff was negligent in not doing so before now. ViscouniThUNCANNON said he had received a letter from the Home Department, stating that letters had been re ceived there to the same effect. The Noble Lord concluded by stating, that it was his intention that the Milbank Peniten• tiary Bill should he postponed till Thursday. The Duke of RICHMOND said that in calling the atten tion of the House to the subject the other evening, he did not intend to cast any blame upon the Sheriff. Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that he did not impute this to the Noble Duke, for although the Sheriff was officially liable in such a case, ye( it could not be considered that he was immediately so ; he considered that when all the circum stances were known, it would be found that they had been greatly exaggerated. Lord STfiA FFO RD then presented a petition from a parish in Essex, against Church-rates. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented a number of petitions from parishes in the diocese of Gloucester, in favour of Church-rates. The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions against the system of National Education in Ireland from Portadown, and from the Clergy of the diocese of Down and Connor, in Ire land. The Right Rev. Prelate also presented a petition from Hardwick, near Manchester, in favour of a Ten Hours' Fac toryßill.. The Bishop of HEREFORD presented a petition from Hereford, praying for an amendment in the Poor Law Bill. The Earl of GLENGALL moved for certain returns rela tive to the Police of Dublin and the appointment of Magis trates. The Marquis of BUTE presented a petition from Stirling in favour of the better observance of the Sabbath. The Marquis of DO WNS II IR E presented a petition from a parish in the county of Berks against the abolition of Church- rates. CANADA. Lord GLE NELG then rose for the purpose of asking the House to sanction the resolutions which had been agreed to by the House of Commons with respect to Lower Canada. He was quite aware that the details of the measure were, if not to all at least to the greater part of their Lordships to tally uninteresting, but still he could not shut his eyes to the fact that they were, taken as a whole, most important to the inhabitants of Lower Canada. This was not a subject of party feeling, and he was sure their Lordships would discuss it on national grounds. He would first take leave to present to their Lordships a short summary of those facts which it was necessary to view, in order to form a correct judgment on the question, and to the situation in which Lower Canada was now placed. It was well known that the province of Quebec, comprising at that time both Upper and Lower Canada, was rendered to this country by a treaty. In 1774 an Act was intro duced, by which the French laws were restored to the pro vinces in all State matters, and the English law in criminal matters ; and in the year 1791 an Act was passed, dividing the province into Upper and Lower Canada. Lower Canada was given as a reward to the French for their attachment to this country, and Upper Canada was given to the Americans for their fidelity to the throne of England. There were two peculiarities connected with that ; there was a Colonial Con stitution embodied in the Act of Parliament, and then, also, for the first time an attempt was made in colonial history to unite the Legislative functions with aristocratical privileges and honours. The Constitution then assigned to Lower Canada was the same as that of Upper Canada—there were three branches of legislation, the Governor, the Legis lative Council, nominated, by the Crown and holding office for life, and the House of Assembly. For some period this Constitution gas not called into execution by Lower Canada ; th e y were no t r i pe f or t h at C onst i tut i on ;r and for a certain number of years they permitted the Execu tive Government to control the affairs of the Province. The materials for carrying on a free Constitution were then preparing. The Governor took refuge from the ascendancy of the French by composing the legislative Council chiefly of English. An offer was made in the year 1815 by the House of Assembly to take upon itself the whole expense of the province of Lower Canada—the expense up to that time hav ing been controlled by the country ; but in the year 1818 that power was conceded to them, and from that period to 1828 there had been nothing but a succession of struggles, in which the Assembly contested for its fuedal rights and privileges. Those rights and privileges were step by step conceded to them ; but those concessions were extorted ; and as usual when conces sions were extorted, or tardily given, there was no perfect conciliation on either side. —( Hear, hear.) On the one side there was a wish to continue arbitrary power, and on the other side, there having been a successful dispute against power there was an emboldened determination to car ry on still further the contest, and thus both parties got into a habit of struggling which had been injurious to the peace of the province. Many of the honest and well affected of the English party had joined them in their opposition to the Government, and the consequence was that a state of ex treme • discontent and dissatisfaction was produced in the Colonies. —(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Glenelg) need not refer to the Committee of 1828, which had dis charged its duty with great temper and moderation, exa mining into the alleged abuses, and suggesting remedies to meet these evils. That report was received with acclamation by the provinces, and was pronounced a fair criterion of the judgment and discretion of its authors. The Committee had pointed out the mal-administration of the Government, not that there ex isted any defects in the Constitution, and that was the view that had been previously taken of the case by the people of Canada themselves. The Committee had all along main tained the existence and the integrity of the Constitution, but suggested remedies for the evils complained of. During two succeeding years efforts were made to carry into effect the recommendation of the Committee ; but from the neces sity of further inquiry, the greater part of these suggestions could not be carried into effect. In 1774 an Act was passed by the British Legislature, abolishing certain duties, and giving the appropriation of the home duties to the British Treasury. This was one of the grievances which was complained of. He would now come to the Bill which had been introduced in 1829, which had for its provisions that the whole of the reve nues of the colony should be at the disposal of the House of As sembly, if a fixed sum were given for the support of the civil go vernment. That Bill did not pass, for reasons which it would not be necessary for him then to state. It fell to the lot of his Noble Friend opposite, however, to be enabled to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee of 1828 ; he had applied himself to the task with zeal and energy, and he (Lord Glenelg) might say that he had accomplished it.—( Hear, hear hear.) The Noble Lord who had preceded him in office had recorded a minute, in which he stated that all the suggestions of the Committee had been carried into effect, with the one exception, that he did not think the Legislative Council had been reformed in the entire sense in which the Committee had recommended it, for the Noble Lord had re quired information, in order to carry into effect that reforma tion, and wanted also names from the colonies, and those which were procured from thence were not so accurate as they ought to have been. The result of his Noble Friend's measure, however, had been, that it had detached all the loyal inhabitants of the provinces from those who were hostile to the Government, and who had joined the disaffected, thinking that it was only thus they could obtain justice ; all those, however, had been detached, and the only contest now was between the English and French. It was found, also, that the House of Assembly rose in its demands the more that concessions were made to them. Up to 1828 he would acknowledge that they had just cause for complaint ; but he was bound to say that subsequent to that period there was no just cause for it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) His Noble Friend had also referred to time Act of 1794, and believing that the Assembly was cordially disposed to the course pursued by the Government in this country, he had introduced a Bill for the purpose of placing all the revenues of the country at the disposal of the Crown. That Bill passed the House in 1831. Now much had been said with regard to the Bill being passed without a condition ; that was done for the purpose of leaving the question open and at large, and in order to secure the revenues for the Government. Shortly after that the Assembly assumed a hostile attitude, and passed resolutions strongly impeaching the conduct of the Government in this country. Hear.) Those resolutions were sent to London, and Lord Stanley who was then the Secretary for the Colonies, an nounced his intention of repealing the Bill, in order to place the revenues of the colony in the hands of the Crown. In 1835, upon his entering into office, the Assembly refused to enter into any treaty with the Governor; it, therefore, be came his duty to consider by what policy he should be guided. lie felt that it was a subject which required much consideration. He felt that he ought to respect the spirit of the Constitution, and, as far as possible, uphold the laws. He therefore directed an inquiry to take place into the grievances that were complained of. He knew that a course of caution and enquiry was necessary, and he was not inclined to consent to the proposition of some ardent and fiery spirits who called for measures of promptitude and action. He thought that Eng land might well afford in a struggle with one of its own colo nies to act with forbearance, and that the true policy of the Go vernment was not to precipitate, but to delay the crisis. If ample reasons had not existed for that postponement, he felt that it would have been almost his duty to invent reasons for delay. It might be objected that he was one of the Cabinet who, about twelve months before, had concurred in in. troducing a measure for the repeal of the Act of 1831. ( Hear, hear.) Ile (Lord Glenelg) admitted that he was in the Cabinet, but his reason for voting for that measure was that he believed the crisis had then arrived, although he had since reason to think such was not the case. When the measure was introduced in the House of Commons by Lord Stanley, the subject had been referred to a Committee, who, after several months of inquiry, had made a report, recommending that the matter should rest between the Executive Government and the Colonies, thus pronouncing a negative upon that Bill._( Hear, hear, hear.) The Noble Lord then went on to defend the appointment of the Commission, and said that if any inquiry was necessary, that inquiry would be the best which was conducted on the spot. He would venture to assert that so large a mass of information on the internal state of any country, so laboriously and so ably drawn up, he had never seen. The rZeport entered into the proceedings, the interests, and the sentiments of the people, and he could answer for himself, that he could not have conceived it possible for any one to obtain a comprehensive view of the whole subject by any other source than that Report.— (Hear, hear, hear.) There were many important subjects on which they had thrown light, which could not have been obtained from any other quarter ; and they established this fact, which was the foundation of all our pro ceedings, that the controversy in that country was not between the colonies and a privileged faction, but between the Cana dians of English origin and the Canadians of French origin. Another important fact which it had brought to light was, that although the English were not adequately represented, yet the defect was irremediable, and could not be corrected with out involving injustice.—( Hear, hear, hear.) It had also established that the Legislative Assembly was in a state that should be corrected, but that the Land Company had conferred great benefits on the province, although it was dis tasteful to the French party. It had also been shown that the revenues in possession of the Crown were adequate to sup port the civil government, without recurring to the House of Assembly. Proceeding from this point, the Noble Lord en tered into a defence of the composition of the Commission, which, he contended, was the best suited to bring out the greatest quantity, as well as the best description of informa don—a fact sufficiently exemplified, he thought, in the reports they had produced. He came next to the course pursued by the Commissioners after their arrival in Lower Canada. Lord Gosford, according to the instructions he had received, im mediately summoned the House of Assembly, stated the na ture of the Commission and the purpose of the inquiry, and invited them to pay the arrears due to the civil functionaries of the Government, informing them at the same time that he was desirous to keep in reserve the Crown revenues. At first this intimation of Lord Gosford appeared likely to meet with suc cess. The majority against the Government decreased, and a vote for the arrears due to the civil functionaries was very nearly carried by a majority of both Houses. But a pub lication of the instructions to Sir Francis Head, which en closed extracts from the instructions of the Commissioners, having been communicated to the House of Assembly, those extracts immediately gave an opportunity to the leaders of the opposition party to excite the feelings of the people, and to induce the House of Assembly to retrace its steps, to take no notice of the arrears due to the civil functionaries, and to pass only a Bill of Supply for six months, coupled with cer tain conditions to which the Legislative Council would not agree, and consequently no supplies whatever were voted. The Assembly further proposed an address to the King, and desired their Speaker to communicate their proceedings to the neighbouring province, and to call for their concurrence and co-operation. In the address to the King the Assembly dis tinctly stated that they would not be satisfied with any thing less than an absolute concession of all their demands. The address was accompanied by a report from the Commissioners recommending an appeal to Parliament, and that the Act of 1831 should be repealed. It became, of course, tile duty of the Government to consider whether they could comply with the recommendations of the Commissioners. After mature consideration they determined that they could not, and what had since followed seemed to him to bins to justify the cor rectness of the determination. The Noble Lord next ad verted to that part of one of his dispatches to Lord Gosford, which had been made the ground of a charge against him of want of sympathy for the situation of the civil func• tionaries in Lower Canada, whose salaries had been s long left unpaid. So far from entertaining any want of sympathy for the situation of those unfortunate per sons, he had directed Lord Gosford, if the arrears were not paid by the provincial Legislature, to avail himself of all the resources of the Crow❑ that he might have in his posses sion for that purpose ; and, so far as they were available, to apply them to the payment of the official servants whose sala ries had been left unpaid. The consequence was, that Lord Gosford did advance 50,0001.—being all the money be had in his possession—for the payment of the civil servants, and liqui dated the claims of all whose salaries were under 2001. a year, and a great portion of those whose salaries were of a much higher amount. This was in 1836 ; and at that time, in con sequence of the instructions forwarded to Lord Gosford, the civil servants of the Canadian Government were placed in precisely the same situation as that in which they stood when he ( Lard Glenelg) came into office. After receiving the speech from Lord Gosford, the House of Assembly agreed to another address—not to the King—but to Lord Gosford, and this last address was drawn up in a tone of menace and defiance which banished all doubt as to the feeling and determination of the body from which it emanated.—( Hear, hear.) He had before stated that he was anxious that the appeal to Parliament should not be made until the crisis was mature. It was with grief he now declared that that period had arrived. All that was wanting on the former occasion was now supplied—the necessity was palpable—it was now time to act. The House of Commons had accord- ingly agreed to a series of resolutions, which, he hoped, would meet with the approbation of their Lordships. The Noble Lord then went into a statement of the altered and improved state of the provinces of tipper Canada and New Brunswick, showing how all their complaints had been re moved, and how anxious they were to co-operate with his Majesty and the Government of this country, rather than with the discontented and violent party in Lower Canada. The demands of the House of Assembly might be divided into two classes—those which affected the honour and integrity of the country, and those which affected the sovereignty of the King. With respect to those which touched the honour and good faith of the country, they related to the tenures of land, or rather to the Acts respecting tenures, which in volved very many complicated details, with which details, however, he did not consider it was necessary to trouble their Lordships. But the point on which the House of Assembly took their stand was based on the Act of 1791, which pro vided for the conversion of feudal tenures into free anp common soccage ; and upon this the question had been raised formerly, whether this conversion of feudal tenures did or did not carry with the English law of alienations and descents.—( Hear.) To solve that doubt, an Act was passed in the year 1825, which determined that it should carry with it the English law of alienation and descent. That law then was so passed in 1825, and yet in all the petitions of 1828 no allusion to, or complaint, was made of that law. Subse quently, however, it was made a grievance, and an imperial Act of Parliament was passed authorising the King, with the local Assembly, to repeal that Act. That point was now es tablished under the authority of an Act of Parliament. Titles, therefore, had been acquired to property, and yet the House of Assembly sought to abolish all rights acquired under the sanction of an imperial Act of Parliament, to abolish rights by which the whole property in this country was defended. This was what they called the simple and unconditional repeal of this Act. He prayed the House not to commit any such breach of faith. So with the case of the Canada Land Company, which had been incorporated by the charter of the King, whose legal right to grant such charter could not be questioned. But as there were in this case certain powers which only an Act of Parliament could effect, an Act was accordingly passed giving those powers. It was necessary, too, that it should be an Act of the Imperial Parliament, because the domicile of the Company was in this country. Under the sanction, then, of their charter and this imperial Act, the Company had bought lands and sold them, because the whole of their property was thus protected. And yet nothing was to remain safe if the demands of the Assembly were to be acceded to—for they called for the abrogation of this charter. He would say that both their demands involved a sacrifice of the national faith. But there were other demands which involved the government of the country, so far as re garded every thing which constituted property. The Assembly required the whole disposal of all revenues—not only of those arising out of the department of taxation, which were usually levied by popular assemblies, but also of those revenues which appertained to Crown property. All these claims were made : they demanded the disposal of all Crown property at their own discretion. He need not tell their Lordships that this was a principle evhich never had been, and never could be, comprised in the constitutional law of property. The next claim was, that the Executive Council should be made so responsible to the House of Assembly as to be dismissible at the will and pleasure of the Assembly.—( Hear, hear.) If mea sures considered in a provincial Parliament, and connected with local interests had nothing external about them, it would be of little consequence if the rule were established. But let it be recollected what must be the situation in which the Executive Council must be thrown by admitting this principle. If the Assembly disapproved of an act of- Parlia ment, then their councillors would lose their office at the in stance of the House of Assembly. What, then, was the course to be pursued ? Were the Executive Council under such cir cumstances to be replaced ? If not, what must be the conse quence? Why, the Provincial Assembly would decide in matters of foreign policy, and exercise its own judgment, in dependent of the parent country, and the result would be, that they would have a series of independent states, each exer ting independent functions. Then there was the third de mand which had been made, that the Legislative Council should be an elective council. The object of this was that the Executive Council should be identical in its principles with the House of Assembly. In one word, the two Houses were to be animated by the same views, influenced by the same con stituencies, and by the same career of policy, whatever it might tend to. This system would go to put the whole of the Canadian people under the control of the French Assembly. Then there were the demands which had been urged by the House of Assembly, aiid he would ask their Lordships whe ther they had left the Government any alternative as to the course which they should pursue. He might be told, per haps, that they had resorted to the power of refusing the sup plies in order to obtain a redress of t heir grievances. They certainly had the cons ti tu ti ona l r i g h t to re f use t h e su pplies, but he presumed that the demand which should be made should be constitutionally m a de, an d o f a const i tut i ona l c h ar acter, and that there should be no abrogation of the Constitution when the right of withholding the supplies was resorted to. He appre hended that it was the corresponding duty of the Assembly t o maintain the con di t i ona l pr i nc i p l es of that Constitution under which it existed. The right to stop the supplies had been exercised in this coun t ry on l y on one occas i on, w hi c h i n volved the general overthrow of all rights. He contended that this right was given, not to abuse, not to destroy, but to improve the Constitution. So long, as it was necessary to keep up the connection between the parent country and the colony, so long must the constitutional principle be qualified in the case of the colony, and limited by the very principle of its dependence. It was competent for the colonial legislatures to suggest alte rations, but not to enforce, in any particulars, the overthrow 0, the Constitution, because this could only be regarded as a law less abuse of a remedy placed in their hands. It might be said that there were other grievances. What were those grievances? Were they those of 1828? The grievances of 1834 were in course of inquiry, and during that inquiry these unfortunate differences sprung up. But it was said, why have recourse to the resources of the colony ? He believed it had been made a matter of taunt in the other House of Parliament that some members of the Government felt no great regret and reluctance at being compelled to adopt these resolutions. Now, for himself, he would say that he should be ashamed if he did not feel the greatest compunction at the necessity to which he was re duced. He knew what Constitutional rights were; he knew it was quite impossible for any man not to feel the utmost repugnance when such measures were rendered necessary. The French people of Lower Canada were of most peaceful habits, and were happy until they were roused by those who had taught them to consider their grievances were irreme diable ; and these French people possessed virtues which ex posed them to the machinations of ambitious and designing men. It was then only under the most urgent necessity that he called upon their Lordships to adopt the resolutions which he should submit to their consideration. But look to' the case of the public servants who had been deprived of their recompense. If it were said that this was an infraction of great Constitutional right, he would say, the House of As sembly had no right to withhold the salaries of the public ser vants. He thought it was quite impossible to regard the case of these sufferers without feeling the greatest commiseration for them. He would not take the matter up even on the ground of humanity, but upon that of national justice, be cause they were not at liberty to trifle with the public ser vants. The King bad called these individuals to their duty, and a compact had been made with the public to remunerate them for their services. They had patiently performed their duties under all circumstances ; and again he would say this was not a question of humanity, but it was a solemn debt of justice due from the King and the Canadian people, w hom the King had the right to compel to pay their servants out of those revenues from whence they had before been paid. Would this country pay these officers ? Did their Lordships think that if they gave their negative to these claims they would obtain a liquidation of these arrears, if on every occa sion these claims were treated not only with contempt, but the House of Assembly, moreover, stated their determination as to the disposal of the public men in the province ? He knew a plan had been proposed by an Hon. and Learned Gentleman in another place, which that Hon. Gent. believed would con ciliate all parties. That plan involved the important topic of the abolition of the Legislative Council altogether.— ( Hear, hear.) He (Lord Glenelg) felt he need not argue the question of the proposition itself ; but he should like to know on what authority it was supposed the Assembly could consent to such a proposition, which was totally inadmis sible, because it laid the government of the whole colony prostrate at the feet of the French House of Assembly. Matters had reached that crisis that further delay in dealing with the evil would be most injurious to the British population in Canada. That people formed the minority ; they had watched all these proceedings with intense interest for some time; they had suffered what a minority would be content to suffer ; they had borne the efforts of the opposite party to in terfere with their interests; their commerce had been inter fered with, their resources had been narrowed, and their greatest efforts had been weakened. He was not there to defend in discriminately the conduct or temper which the British popula tion had evinced. lie did not mean to express his approba tion of the manner in which they had conducted themselves ith respect to their French fellow-subjects, but great allow ance was to be made for them. But if there was any danger of these animosities and hostilities increasing, it became the duty of the Government to interfere. The French people of Canada were warmly attached to the British Constitution ; vie had raised them from their small beginning to their present state—we had respected their laws, their church, and their priests. Unfortunately many speculative notions had been raised by their leaders ; but he would call upon them to recol lect that the Constitution of 1791 had been and was their asy lum, and that nothing was so dangerous to them as embarking in theoretical disputes with the parent Government. lie hoped, however, that the intervention of Parliament would arrest the progress of these animosities, and that the French people would be able to see their true interests. But he might be told that this measure was feeble and inadequate, and that if they did interfere they should interfere effectually that they should repeal the Act of 1831. After some further observations, the Noble Lord observed it was proposed that the revenues of the colony should supply the deficiencies up to the 10th of April last. He therefore contended that this measure limited itself to the strict necessity of the case. It was proposed to draw strictly for the arrears due to the 10th of April, and orders had been issued that subsequent to that date the Governor would carry on the government of the co lony on its own resources. By the Report of the Commis sioners it appeared that these resources were adequate to a cer tain extent. But when it was said that the present measure was inadequate for the purposes required, was it intended to be argued that it was inadequate because it did not discard the House of Assembly altogether from taking any share in the proceedings connected with the colony ? Was it meant that because they had not resorted to the principle of governing the colony without reference to the Assembly, that therefore it was inadequate ? That, surely, was a recommendation to the measure, for he never would recognise any principle of action which should exclude the aid of the House of As sembly. Much might be done by the declaration of Par liament, and he was persuaded that the French people would see how slow the Government were to adopt the measure now proposed, and how seriously they were im pressed with the necessity of the case. But when the Go vernment was called upon to repeal the Act of 1831, would the repeal of that Act prevent the House of Assembly from carrying on a war of annoyance, if they should think fit to do so ? One hundred thousand pounds a year would be in the hands of the Assembly for the supplies. In submitting this measure to their Lordships he was anxious to state the inten tion of his Majesty's Government to bring forward a variety of measures with a view to amend the Constitution of the Legislative and Executive Councils. It might be well to con sider whether in this great colony they should not give every facility to opening outlets to our superabundant population to emigrate. It was the intention of the Government to avail themselves of the situation of the country, and to affix a boundary to Lower Cenada. Their attention should be di rected to New Brunswick and Canada, which were advancing in the scale of nations. It was necessary, indeed, with refer ence to our colonies in North America, that there should be some presiding authority to watch over the immediate in terests of the people ; and for this purpose it was in tended to nominate a Committee to consult together for the common interests of these growing colonies. Looking to Upper Canada, it would be seen she was advancing with gigantic steps, not only by increase of population, but 1 1 the influx of strangers. The population in twenty years had increased from 90,000 to 400,000. That province, however , was landlocked, and had no outlet of her own ; they would n ot avail themselves of the St. Lawrence. The people of Upper Canada had prayed to be placed in a more favourable situa tion, and had begged that Montreal and the town of Montreal should be added to that province. It had been suggested , therefore, that a Committee should be appointed, to be corn posed of men chosen from each House of Legislature of each province. This would have the effect of diffusing a new in fluence—of elevating the public mind ; w hil s t measure s re commended by such Committee would come with great weight to the different Houses of the Logislature, and would outweigh the obstinacy or ignorance of party, whilst it would enable the parent country to appreciate, and better inform herself of, the wants and wishes of the people of the colony. It could 110 t be denied that the time would arrive when the relations between the mother country and her several dependencie s might require some modification ; and in that case the authority and influence of the body to which he had been adverting might be most advantageously exercised towards all parties. The N o bl e L or d conc l u d e d b y mov i ng, t h a t their Lordships concur in the resolutions under their cons ideration.. The Earl of RIPON o b serve d, that his Noble Friend h a d stated so fully and ably all the circumstances of tho case, thet were it not for the peculiar situation in which he (Lead Ripon) had been placed, he should have abstained from troubling their Lordships on the present occasion. No small part of the difficulty of the existing c i rcumstances arose out o f t h e Act of °f that time which he had i n d uce d t h e i r L or d s hi ps to pass . At tna ,- time his Noble Friend a t t h e h ea d o f his Majesty's Gove r 'L ment and other Noble Lords entertained apprehensions on the subject. Uufortun a t e ly th ose appr ehensions were realiset and his hopes were di sappo i nte d . I n consequence of w hat had since occurred, he certainly considered it absolutely r'_e r.. cessary that the Imperial P ar li ament s h ou ld i nter f e re, in der to redress the evils which existed in Lower Canada. i on _ Noble Friend had adv er t e d to t h e R eport o f t h e Commission' ers on the subject. H e ( L or d Ri pon ) con f esse d t h a t he renter tained doubts with resp ec t to t h e va l ue o f t h at R e port. n this i Commissioners got n o i n t' ormat i on w hi c h was not country before. In fact, it was difficult to know in 11 u_ s y . respects what the real opinion of the Commissioners. red There were five Reports ; yet no sooner were they Gentleman, than one of the Commissioners, a Learned b fi e r;_li g o added to the general report a particular report his signature, but certainly not very consistent wi t . t", that Report in which lie bad originally concurred ; ar.ei after, another Commissioner, a military man, fired his battery ot7 o position, not only against his brother Commissioners, but s i ur t o his own mouth. On h the fullest consideration of the mea. of 1831, and °fits results, he (Lord Ripon)had been a par ni tY eat the manner in which the subject had been treated by the . at sure proposed by his Noble Friend in 1834, conceiving o ttl o t b i e that time the colony was ripe in the course which his N h he Friend now proposed. On the whol e , h e con fessed t ,at hat , thought the Commissioners had been a dear bargain.. however, was at present a question of coinparatively lit"'l, th in e portance. What their Lordships had now to do with viaj dis , resolutions before them, To those resolutions he was not