The Sun. — London, England, 1837-03-09 00:00:00

• h ire, praying for the repeal of the Bastardy Clause in the Poor-law Amendment Act. . . Lord MORPETH presented a petition from a parish in Yorkshire, to the same effect. Sir J. GRAHAM presented a petition from a place in Cumberland, praying that the Poor Law Bill might not be extended to that district. Sir F. POLLOCK presented petitions with a similar prayer. COUNTY COURTS. Mr. GORING presented a petition in favour of the County Courts Bill. CHURCH-RATES. Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition for the total abolition of Church-rates. Sir E. KNAVICHBULL presented petitions from Kvnt in favour of Church-rates. Sir S. WHALLEY presented a petition from the parish of St. Pancras, in favour of the total abolition of Church rates. MANCHESTER AND STAFFORD RAILWAY, Mr. COLLIER presented a petition in favour of the Manchester and Stafford Railway. HAMMERSMITH RAILWAY. Captain A LSAGER presented a petition from Rich mond against the London and Hammersmith Railway ; also a petition from Croydon in favour of Rennie's, and against Stephenson's, line of railway to Brighton ; also from an in dividual named Hill, stating that the London and Croydon Railway Company had done him great injury, that they were about to do him more, and refused to give him com pensation. OXFORD RAILWAY. Captain PECHELL presented a petition against the Oxford Branch Railway to join the Great Western line. GREAT NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. PEASE, the Great North of England Railway Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. BELFAST HARBOUR BILL. On the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, leave was given to the Committee on this Bill to send for persons, papers, and records. Captain PECHELL presented a petition from Oxford, against the Oxford branch of the Great Western Railway PRESTON AND WYRE RAILWAY. On the motion of Mr. H. FLEETWOOD, the Preston and Wyre Railway Bill was read a second time, and order ed to be committed. PRESTON AND WYRE DOCKS. On the motion of the same Hon. Member the Preston and Wyre Dock Bill was read a second time. LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY. Mr. P. M. STEWART moved the second reading of the London and Brighton (Gibb's line) Railway Bill. Captain PEC HELL objected to the second reading of the Bill, inasmuch as it was contrary to the wishes of ,► great majority of the inhabitants of Brighton. The Bill was then read a second time. STOCKPORT IMPROVEMENT. Mr. T. M NRSL AND brought in a Bill for the improve ment of the town of Stockport, which was read a first time. DUNDALK WESTERN RAILWAY. Mr. GREENE brought up the Report of the Committee on the Dundalk Western Railway Bill. LIVERPOOL APOTHECARIES' BILL. Mr. MARK PHILIPS presented ptitions from the College of Physicians and the Company of Apothecaries, London, against the Liverpool Apothecaries' Bill. LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY. Sir J. WR.OTTESLEY brought up the Report of the Committee on the London and Brighton Railway, and stating that the Standing Orders ought not to be dis pensed with. On the motion of Mr. ROBINSON the Worcester shire Cattle Market Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Mr. CAN ENDISH presented a petition in favour of the direct line of the Brighton Railway. Mr. BROTIIERTON presented a petition from the spinners of Stockport, praying for a repeal of tile duty on Italy Cotton. Captain ALSAGER presented a petition from Clap ham praying that tile House would not accede to the abo lition of Church-rates. Mr. GREENE presented a petition from the spinners of Manchester, praying for a repeal of the duty on Ra%N Cotton. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the parish of St. Mary, London, praying that the Poor Law Amendment Act might not be introduced into the City. Sir A. L. HAY presented a petition from Banff, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a petition from the Council of Edinburgh, either for or against the Glosgow and Edinburgh Railway Bill, according as a cer tain clause was struck out or retained. Mr. LEADER presented a petition from Bridgewater, praying for the abolition of the duty on Soap. Sir R. VYVYAN presented a petition from Bristol, praying, that under the Corporation Reform Bill some par ticular freemen objected, upon frivolous grounds, to a vast number of their co-freemen, and praying that one freeman should only have power to object to one name. CH U RC H-RA TES. Sir C. BURRELL presented a petition against the abo lition of Church-rates. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. Sir. W. FOLLETT wished to ask a question respecting this Bill of the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General. Air, impression prevailed out of doors that some of the clauses of this Bill were calculated to effect a very material alteration in the. internal commercial relations of this country, and he (Sir W. Follett) very much wished that the Bill should be recommitted, with a view of affording time for the reconside ration of these clauses. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to have the Bill recommitted, and if so, on what day ; as it was de sirable that some day should be fixed on when the subject would be likely to come on early in the evening ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that on the even ing on which ho had moved the Committee on this Bill, its provisions had been discussed during the whole interval be tween five o'clock and past midnight. He regretted that they had not been favoured by the attendance of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman on that occasion. However, though the clauses had been very fully discussed by Hon. Members on both aides of the House, he nevertheless intended to move on Monday next that the Bill be recommitted ; and if he were prevented from moving on that day, he should take the next earliest opportunity. Ha would only add, that he most anxiously wished that the measure might be sent to the Upper House with as little delay as possible, in order that, if possible, it might pass into a law before the Easter recess. CHURCH-RATES. Sir G. SINCLAIR, seeing the Right Hon. the Chan cellor of the Exchequer in his place, would beg to ask him respecting the resolutions which he had presented on Church• rates, whether those propositions had been framed with the corc►urrence of the Ecclesiastical Commission, of which some of his Majesty's Ministers were Members? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated that tlhe question would with more propriety be addressed to the :Noble Lord who was the organ of Government in that House. Au Hors. Menage said that the Right Hon. Gentle man had, on making the statement the other night, declared that he should not lay on the table the calculations on which that statement rested. Now, if ho (the Hon. Member) were not misinformed, a Noble Lord in another place had intimated that these documents would be forthcoming. He wished for information on this point ; as also whether the measure was intended to apply to the leases of mines as well as of lands. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it was wholly impossible for him to answer the latter question, involving, as that answer must, numerous details, in a manner that would be satisfactory to the House. He would repeat, however, what he had stated the other evening, that the mea sure was intended to have reference to mines ; but those Hon. Gentlemen in that House who knew the very great anxiety svhich existed in the country as to questions relating to mines, would agree with him that no imperfect statement on a subject so delicate ought to be permitted to go forth to the public. It would be, in his opinion, a much preferable course to open the whole subject fully and in detail, since Hon. Gentlemen and tl. e country at large would have thereby a much better oppor tut. ity of judging of 'the merits of the plan, than could be af ford., •LI by any explanations which could be given in a desultory discussion across the table of the House. (COUNTY-RATES BILL. Sir L . WILMOT wished to ask the Hon. Member for Middlesex what was the course he intended to pursue with re spect to the County-rates Bill, and whether he would con sent to postpon." it to the 3d of May, in order that the mea sure might be la.;d before the Grand Juries, and that the Ileuse might have the benefit of the suggestions of their experience ? Mr. HUME had no intention whatever of delaying the Bill, and he fully intended to proceed with it that evening, in casd he should be able to do so before ten o'clock. CHURCH-RATES. Sir E. WILMOT was understood to ask whether the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would object to lay on the table the data on which hi; calculations respecting, Church p roperty were grounded? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. could only reply, as he had stated on a former occasion, that he was not prepared to iay the ground-work of those calculations on the , table : and if he were prepared to lay those documents upon the table, they would not convey all the information that the House would require, whilst they would convey some inforsim tion which he had no right to give. The difficulty was, thy. g great part of them statements were merely replies to ques- Cons put verbally, and hence, in their present state, those s t sten:ems were necesso.ri'ry in an imperfect shape. Again, pr . et of them were drawn from documents which had been coi , tiden i illy imparted to him, and which, therefore, he had no r i g ', 1 . to make public. But he had no doubt that, from the au thori ty of Mr. Finlayson, and other gentlemen w h o h a d b een I " MA In working out these calculations for hi m , h e s h ou ld 1 :" . ' '''''' . 40.1trs4tisfy the House that his anticipation of a fund of a. kiik,lo derived from the means he had indicated was /- : Ta' - iiaol. thin the mark. 4 I-4_, ,f - ',' - _ - i ,7- p- -- .7,7„ . : '320 TATION OF FOREIGN GRAIN. I'4 tr'''';:! . :l - 4= -1 7:;94 ON wished to know what steps had been taken to put an end to the exportation of foreig n grain, and foreign flour and biscuit, under bond at Liverpoo? Lord PALMERSTON replied that immediately his Ma josty's Government had received information of this practice the officers of the customs had been apprised of it, and he had no doubt that they would be able to put a stop to it by enfor cing the performance of the shipmasters' bonds. CHURCH PROPERTY. Sir W. FOLLETT begged to repeat the question of his Hon. Friend as to whether the leases of mines were affected by the measure proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman op posite ? He very much wished to have this point settled. He was also desirous to learn whether the Right Hon. Gentle man would be able to lay on the table those statements which he had said he should communicate to the House before Fri day next ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER must be excused if he declined to make an answer which might give rise to misapprehension ; and he had to request that Hon. Gentlemen would put their questions at such times and on such occasions as would give him the opportunity of doing justice to the subjects of those questions in his replies.—(Hear.) He hoped to be able to lay on the table, before the discussion came on, those documents which had been asked for by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He begged to say that his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) was so unwell that he would not be able to bring on the discussion on Friday. Sir H. HARDINGE wished to know on what day the papers would be laid on the table of the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER stated it would be for gentlemen to argue that point when the question was before the House—namely, that before a resolution for a Bill was passed—a resolution, too, which committed no one —that they could not proceed without certain calculations. He, however, felt that he was warranted in going on with the discussion without the papers.—( Hear.) If the information they now asked for was before them, they might say that they had not enough of papers and documents, and until these were procured they could not proceed with the Bill proposed. Sir J. GRAHAM wished to know if they were to under stand distinctly that the discussion was to come on upon Fri- . . day ; he then hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state positively what day was fixed by his Majesty's Mi ,.. nisters for proceeding with the question.—:(Hear.) - - The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER assured the Right Hon. Baronet that he was not more - anxious for the discussion than he himself was.—(Cheers.) He should, therefore, move to discharge the order of the day for Friday next, and fix the discussion absolutely for Monday next. An HoN. MEMBER (on the Ministerial Benches) remarked that the Church lessees would nut before Monday have suffi cient opportunity for calculating the operation of the proposed measure, as it was likely to affect their interests. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had to say to the Honourable Gentleman wbo made the observation, as he had to remark to Honourable Gentlemen opposite, that all he meant to propose was a preliminary resolution as a ground for introducing a Bill. To the lessees, and to every other party interested in the progress of the Bill, abundant oppor tunities would be given for expressing their opinions The expression of their opinions could be made with much more effect when they had the Bill itself before them than upon a resolution, which was a matter of preliminary form. After the invitation from Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was anxious to proceed with the discussion ; he felt that anxiety particu larly, lest there should be the opportunity for misapprehension or mistake on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) Sir R. INGLIS wished to know if they could have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the calculations as he had read them ? The SPEAKER observed that there was no question be fore the House. Sir JAMES GRAHAM conceived that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved the Order of the Day. Sir R. INGLIS stated that it was perfectly true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had risen to move the Order of the Day for resuming the debate upon the affairs of Canada, and he, therefore, had a right to speak to that question. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on the affairs of Canada. Sir R. INGLIS then continued, by saying- that it was his opinion tint the Committee could not resume its sitting on Monday with effect, unless they had those calculations which had been used in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exche quer substantially before them. NAVY ESTIMATES—SPAIN. Lord MAHON :visited to ask of the Hon. Gentleman op posite ( Mr. Wood) whether he could state positively when the Navy Estimates Would he brought forward ? Mr. WOOD stated that in consequence of the illness of the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, it was his intention to bring them on upon Friday. Lord MAHON then gave notice, that in going into Com mittee upon the Navy Estimates, be would call the attention of the House to the conduct of the Government with respect to Spain. IRISH POOR-LAWS. established in that colony; that those embarrassments and dis contents were in a great measure attributable to the manner in which the Executive system was administered; thus laying the whole blame against 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 meal& 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.— (Hear, hear.) Had not the colonies an equal right to expect a redress of their grievances at the same time with this country ?—( Hear.) Unfortunately that was not the case,4and the same abuses existed now that existed in 1828. 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 sys tem of government in that country. But what more did this petition contain ? It contained, amongst other things, the al legations involved in the amendment of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Leader). The second paragraph of the petition expressed their deep regret that neither the recommendations nor the benevolent intentions of that honourable House had been exe cuted by the Executive Government in a manner so as to pro duce the desired effect. The recommendations of the Com mittee of 1828, had now, up to 1834, been unattended with 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 .Ca nada, or satisfaction to the Canadians, unless this principle was conceded to them. All reforms 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 bean guilty of high of fences—men who had been guilty of disgraceful crimes. These persons were continued in office up to the present mo ment ; 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 n stating that the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had used hose words. Mr. HUME said he took the words down at the time. Sir G. GREY—What his Noble Friend said was, that whereas the present Act of 1791 did not give the power of dis missal except in the case of offences against the Government, be 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. HUM E said that the Crown had this power without the interference of Parliament. They had used the power over and over. This was merely throwing out a tub to the whale.—( A laugh.) The petition to which he had before re ferred consisted of sixteen pages: it was presented to that House as containing at full length the abuses that existed in Canada, and the complaints made by the people of the colony. What had that House done 1 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, detail ing at full the abuses which were continued in Canada, and those abuses they set forth in a manner which was not to be mistaken. Those complaints had been repeated again and again; but they had received similar attention from the Exe cutive Government, notwithstanding the remonstrances of that House. The second Committee of this House pointed out to the Government the necessity of conciliation, and of doing away with the abuses that existed ; but notwithstanding their remonstrances the Executive Government kept on in the same course ; the same system, so disgraceful to all the parties con cerned, except these 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 ob tain 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 Consti tutional 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 con formity 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 in quiries ? 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 enquire 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 in quiry ? The Commissioners stated that, as at present con stituted, the Legislative Council did not answer these purposes, it did not give satisfaction, it did not ob tain the confidence of the people : on the contrary, the Commissioners told them—and it was well worth atten tion—in their last address of September, 1836, that the provincial Legislatures were interfered with and para lysed in their functions by the Legislative Council. How was that Council constituted? There were incapable and im proper men in that Council—men whose conduct was disgrace ful 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 intro duced into the administration. This was in 1836 ; the pe tition from 87,000 of the people of Canada had been pre sented in 1827 ; and since that time up to the present hour no improvement or amelioration bad taken place. The Ca nadians had for ten years borne this system of misgovern ment. Was not this a sufficient ground for complaint and discontent ? What were the grievances of which the House of Assembly complained? They complained that the Exe cutive Council stopped all legislation that was for the interest of the colony. They complained of the rejection by the Le gislative 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, four teen. These Bills were all passed by the House of Assem bly, and were of the greatest interest to the country. He was satisfied that any lion. Gentleman who read over these grie vances would see that it was not without good reason that the I-louse of Assembly had come to the resolutions to which ho 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 bad adop ted. These resolutions were the only consistent course of pro.. teeding 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 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, eed the House of Assembly said—" Re dress our grievances first."—( Hear, hear.) They were de termined to have their complaints attended to before they granted the arrears of supply. The Right Hon. Gentle man the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when Colonial Secretary, took upon himself to do that which was a most un justifiable proceeding. He took upon himself as Colonial Se cretary to violate the Constitution by appropriating- from the military chest the sum of 31,0001. to make up the deficiency of the supply that had been voted. Such a proceeding was con trary to the interests of the colony, and contrary to the privi leges 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. Stanley. What did that petition cora plain of ? It complained in the same manner of the Legisla tive Council of Upper Canada, as they now complain of the Legislative Council of Lower Canada. What did Mr. Stanley say in his letter acknowledging the receipt of that pe tition ? Upon the subject of the Legislative Council he (Lord Stanley) did not hesitate to say, without meaning any disre spect, or casting any reflection upon the individuals that com posed it, that it was the root of all the evils complained of in both provinces ; and he further added that a constitutional re medy was open to the public, by stopping the supplies. This was the advice of Mr. Stanley when he presented the petition in 1827, and he (Mr. Hume) had in his hand a copy of the letter 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 refit-re 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 stilt unredressed, that the power of levying and appropriating the public funds should be taken out of their bands, and that, in 'open defiance to 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, the other night said, that the Im perial Parliament had the power to appropriate the funds of the Canadians, so that they did it for the benefit of C ana d a. 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 these payments under existing circumstaxices, were of that nature, and refused to grant them. 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, wholly disqualified for their several functions, and they refused their salaries accordingly ; and ha (Mr. Hume) was quite ashamed that the Noble Lord should come down and propose the enforcemm.: of payments in this Mr. SHAW wished to know from the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether tho second reading of the Irish Poor-law Bill would be brought on before Easter? The CHANCELLORof the EXCHEQUER replied that he was unable to answer the question. Mr. C. BULLER complained of the irregularity of Go vernment proceeding with motions uon Wednesday. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that adjourned motions took precedence of all others, and it would have been the right of the Government to have pro ceeded with the Canada debate on Tuesday, but they had g iven way, as it had been the day fixed upon by the Hcn. Member for London for bringing forward that question to which he attached so much importance. Sir R. INGLIS asked if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Bill would come on upon Monday? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQ-UER was un derstood to say that it would not. vv An HON. MEMDER on the Opposition sidelasked what day the House was to be adjourned after Easter? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERstated that it was impossible for him to consider that question at present. AFFAIRS OF CANADA. Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know if there was any objet• tion on the part of the Government, before the House pro ceeded with the Bill relating to Canada, to bring before the House the evidence taken before the Committee in 1834? If there was any objection to it, he should move for the produc tion of the papers. Sir GEORGE GREY said that whether the House pro ceeded with the Bill or not, he did not see any objection to the production of the evidence. However, it was his intention to procec with the Bill, and it might even be passed before that evidence was formally printed. To its production he had not the least objection. It had indeed already been printed, ra ther irregularly, in Canada, and he saw no reason why Hon. Members, if they desired it, should not have the evidence before them. _ _ _ _ _ Mr. ROEBUCK now ad►erted to the subject because the Hon. and Learned Member for Tipperary had been prevented from reading a portion of that evidence, because it was not printed by the House. Mr. HUME asked whether any dispatches had been re ceived from Lower Canada subsequent to the 30th of Novem ber, 1836 ? Sir GEORGE GREY replied no dispatches had been received bearing materially on this question. Confidential instructions had been sent to the Governor of Lower Canada. A delay had taken place as to the forwarding of official dis patches, as the Government wanted to make a communication in which would be embodied the resolutions adopted by that House. The House then went into Committee : Mr. BERNAL in the Chair. Mr. HUME was sorry to be called upon to oppose the pro ceedings 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 against Ireland. With that proceeding his Ma jesty's Ministers ought not to be allowed to go on, and if they attempted to do so, he at least should sfate fairly his opinion as to what were the results likely to follow from it. The ques tion before them was one that appeared to him to involve civil war. It behoved then every person who entertained such an opinion to speak out fairly upon the question. 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 physical force to reduce them to obedience?—of what use would such colonies be to England ? It would be much better that she was without colonies, if they were to bo a source of weakness to her, 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 re strained by coercive measures such as were now proposed ? —( Hear, hear.) 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 Cana dians, 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 in dependence was guaranteed.—( Hear, hear.) 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 on the table of the House.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord bad 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 to 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 was sorry to find Hon. Members in the House interrupt such important proceedings with their con versation. Kip thought it much better for such Hon. Mem bers, if they did not find it convenient to attend to these pro ceedings, to leave the House.—(Cries of " Order, order.") He regretted to say that he considered the Colonial-office as one of the greatest nuisances connected with the Govern ment. He did not know whether the fault rested with the Noble Lerd at the head of the department or with the clerks, as the Hoe. 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.—( Hear, and cheers.) He held in his hand a paper of some importance : it was a petition from the House of Assembly of Lower Canada. This petition proved the complete want of attention and culpable negligence on the part of Government. The petition was signed by upwards of 87,000 inhabitants of the colony, and upon its being presented to the House it was referred to a Committee. That Committee, on the 18th of July, 1828, rep whi o c r h ted to the had long House that prevailed the i ncan embarrassments adahad ar iseann from discontent s co n variouse n t defects in the system of the Legislature and the Constitution THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1837. unconstitutional manner which they 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 As sembly, 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 9001., 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 attempted 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 As sembly 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 indig nation of the pretence set up by the Canadian Assembly to refuse supplies, unless accepted under conditions in this way. He (Mr. Hume), on the contrary, insisted that such a pro ceeding was a very constitutional and a very proper one. Lord Goderich himself had admitted this principle, and the right of the House of Assembly to vote their supplies with any con ditions which they thought fit. In the exercise , therefore , o f , 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 their salaries in some of these offices, but not in all, and he (Mr. Hume) thought they were perfectly right in making this condition. With respect to the failure of Lord Gosford's mission, 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 ? Was there no limit to human patience ? Was there not a stage of oppression and insult which might drive the pa tient 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 be cause 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 in terests as to allow the Noble Lord to override 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 and you would be done by." With this reflec tion 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 2—( Hear, hear.) The House of Assembly in 1830 voted all the supplies they had been accustomed to do, only 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 pro vided he did not also hold office and receive pay as Speaker of the House of Commons Would that be deemed so unwar rantable 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 of Lords in this country would have a right so to interfere with the authority of the House of Commons in mat ters of supply, then, and not otherwise, were the Legislative Assembly justified in what they bad 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 G. GREY interrupted the Hon. Member to observe, that the Government did not wish to enforce payments con trary to any of the conditions with which they were accompa nied 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. H UM E—But I am speaking of the vote of 1836, when the conditions in question were introduced.—( Hear, hear. ) 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 oppres sion to the utmost of their power? He trusted the House of Commons would never sanction such a sharnefel exercise of power ; lie trusted the House would recollect that, some years ago, when supplies were voted by the House of Assem ' bly for six months, and that a sum of 6,3511. was left un appropriated, 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 Govern ment 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 dis patches, had admitted that the House of Assembly bad 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 sanc tion of the Colonial Secretary, seized the money ; and was not that a monstrous proceeding ? Was not that robbing the pub. lie purse ? Why, what would be said if a Minister here took one thousand pounds, 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, lie must say that such a measure was highly unconstitutional, and if we had a House of Commons representing 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 here moved that the House be counted, and the Gallery was cleared, but more than forty Members being present, the Gallery was re-opened, and Mr. HUME proceeded. He said that while the House was sitting and deliberating on the liberties of six hundred thousand of their fellow-citizens, who were to be deprived of their constitutional rights, it might have been expected that more than fifty members would have been present.— ( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member, after adverting to a de claration of the people of Canada, in which they set forth their grievances, and prayed for redress, said the Govern ment, nevertheless, were determined to persevere in their course, and call upon the House of Commons to assist them in passing a coercion Bill against the House of Assembly. and to enable them 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 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 transac tion, 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 had 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 Home of As sembly 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 pre sent, because he was more likely to be open to convic tion 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 princi ple different from that on which he would act towards Ire land. The Honourable 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 Honourable Members on the other side of the. House, asking why he interfered with the system of Government existing in Ireland, said he con sidered 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 con cession should be made to the people of Ireland, and if he found he had not conceded enough he would concede more. M y w ish," 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 Go vernment the more she will be bound to English interests." That was the principle on which the Noble Lord had pro posed 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 ve rified. He would ask if Canada would be more sa tisfied 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. Ho would advise the Noble Lord, therefore, to adhere to that prin ciple, and govern Canada as he would govern Ireland. The Hon. Member here quoted a number of passages from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the grievances complained of in Lower Canada ; and adverting to their various recommendations, observed that it would be much better for his Majesty's Ministers to go openly to work, and to repeal the Constitution of Lower Canada. Did any one sup pose 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 discon tent. 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. Ho (Mr. Hume) raised his voice on the part of the people of Eng land against such a proceeding. The people of England, while they maintained their own rights, were always desirous of sup porting the rights of others. It was in opposition to their feel ings 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 pri vilege of legislation with reference to their own finances, and compelled them to pay money to persons whom they con sidered 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 towords the people of Upper Canada. He would then, and once for all, show how little liable he was to that charge ; although, when he considered by whom it was made, and the tone in which it was couched, he could not be lieve 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 Ilouse of Commons. That petition was presented to the House of Commons in the last session of Parliament, just before the prorogation. He (Hr. Hume) had been requested to present it, as he had before pre sented 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 Go vernment of Upper Canada those documents which would enable him to contradict the statements of that Report com pletely. 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 Com mittee 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 Honourable House and the country to the fact that the petition of Mr. Duncornbe was pre sented to the House of Commons by Mr. Joseph Hume, a Member of the Imperial Parliament for the county of Mid dlesex, 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 Co lonial-office. And it further appears from letters of Mr. flume 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 Com • mittee are of opinion that the honour and character of his Majesty's loyal subjects in this province require that it should be spromptly and emphatically declared by their representa tives that Mr. Hume is among the last men they would select to advocate their cause, or represent their feelings or wishes to the 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 10th, and ejection from the Assembly on the 17th, must hasten that crisis which is fast approaching in the affairs of the Canadas, 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 pro ceedings between 1772 and 1782, in America, ought not to be forgotten, and to the honour of Americans, and for the inte rest of the civilized world, let their conduct and the result be ever in view.' And when it is remembered with what indig nation and disgust the publication of this detestable communi cation was received throughout the province, his Majesty's loyal subjects cannot but regard with abhorrence the idea that the person who bad 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—l 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 deter mined spirit of opposition to abuse and misrule. " The Government and the majority of the Assembly ap pear to have lost the little portion of common sense, and the prudence which society in general now possess, and they sa crifice 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 Canadas, and which will terminate in independence andfreedomfrom the baneful domina tion 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 spirit 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 or 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 wicked. - ness 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 cen sure 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 peilbd have been overwhelmed in Europe. Long might it flou rish ; and let that justice be done to Canada which would pre vent 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 pro vince. He held in his hand resolutions which had been agreed to by the Common Council of the city of Toronto, which he would 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 bad so long been pursued towards that province by his Majesty's successive Go vernments, 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 pro ceeded 6om twenty counties and twenty towns of the pro vince. (The Hon. Member here read several of those docu ments, and especially one from the township of Caledon.) h might be asked, what had induced him to write the letter ' which he had written to Mr. M'Kenzic ? 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 Gover nor 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 Honourable 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 dif fered from his Majesty's Government it was obvious that they could not remain in office with advantage ; and in order, there fore, 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 despatch, 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 as he contended, 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 Judgeship 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 proceed ings which had taken place, and at the conduct of the Govern ment, 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 (Mr. Hume's) 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 pro posed by the Deputy Grand Master of the Orangemen in the colony whom, by-the-bye, he (Mr. Hume) had since given a lift—(Laughter)—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 sup ported 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 re ferred, in respect to the manner in which his letter had been received, that was true. The Hon. Gentleman, in order to es tablish the fact that the letter bud 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 re ceived from parties whom he did not name. One of them, dated the 29th of June, 1834, commenced with the words, " congratulate the Colony on the removal of Mr. Stanley, from what I know of Mr. Rice, and from what has passed." H ere the Hon. Gentleman exclaimed, " Oh, Sir, how lamentably have I been deceived in Mr. Rice l—(Laughter.) Never did any man in the world deceive me and my expectations of him more than Mr. Rice has done."—( Loud and renewed laughter. ) I say that the Right Hon. Gentleman ought to be impeached, and it is only the want of power that prevents me from moving that question."—(Laughter from both sides of the House.) ‘• Yes, yes, you know on a former occasion I said that I should be delighted to catch a Whig for the first prosecution by impeachment, in order that we might establish the peinei pie of responsibility in the Colonial Department." And now with regard to the resolutions which had been propounded to the House by the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he objected to them zn toto. If that House wee 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 had been suffering under admitted grievances. lie 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 promote good govern ment ; but the present Government stepped in to prevent this by insisting on a Legislative Council. If they annulled the just rights of the Canadians they would commit a direct rob bery upon them ; and this country must expect, if the Legis lature sanctioned such proceedings, that men thus used would not consent to give up all those privileges which they now enjoyed. What, then, was to be done? If the House of Assembly did not vote the supplies of money, were they (the House of Commons) to carry on the legislation of Canada by votes of that House ? If that were intended, it would be better to repeal their Constitution, 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 they had rights as well as we had; and that it was now intended by resolutions of that House to deprive them of what they were by law entitled to. He should give every opposition to the resolutions, and he hoped the House would rause before they sanctioned them. Mr. W. GLADSTONE, in addressing the House, said that with reference to all colonies, they were to be regarded as the children of the parent country. He did not mean, however, 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 analogous to that of the Legislature in this country, so long as they were in the situation of a colony. He could not help lamenting the fact that the Hon. Member for Middlesex, who was an economist of everything except the public time, had chosen, after a dis quisition on the affairs of Lower Canada, which was certainly not restricted to any narrow limits, to superadd a disquiel tion of one hour's duration on the state of Upper Canada-- (Hear) —nor could be (Mr. Gladstone) help adverting to the lengthy epilogue by which it was followed, and which he supposed would sink into obscurity, with all its details. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had quoted the sen timents of the Members of the Common Council of Toronto as if they were to be taken as indicating the general feeling's 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 Mid dlesex 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 Com mon Council, and were succeeded by a body of Gentlemen who, amongst their first and most prominent acts, expunged from the records of their body that very resolution of their predecessors which the lion. Member for Middlestnt had quoted with so much seeming triumph. So much, then, tor the Hon. Member in Upper Canada. It appeared that he had been fairly drummed out of that proviuce—( Laughter and cheers) —although he seemed to think that he had still some ',round to occupy in Lower Canada. —( Hear, hear.) The ?lon. Gentleman had talked much about the grievance's of Lower Canada ; but throughout the whole of his wo tracted speech did he succeed in establishing one Tingle case of real grievance? What were the grievances of Lover Canada? Was their personal security invaded? Was their property inadequately protected by the laws?—(Hear, hear.) Was their religion oppressed ?—( Hear, hear.) Was taxation heavy ?—(Hear, hear.) Upon which of these several parti culars, the usual grounds of grievance, had the people of Lower Canada reason to complain?—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman, who talked so much and so long 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, s ° totally inadequate to the maintenance of a proper officer, there fore a number of them had been joined together and placed c" !I I the hands of a single individual, and the Legislative Coun,,' though repeatedly requested by the House of Ass e mbly, 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 du ties 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 ?—( Hesr, hear, hear.) I f ' there were danger of convulsion in Lower Canada, it would not arise from taking the course which the Government in vited them to adopt, but from suffering the present state of things in the province to continue.—( Hear, hear.) Did the Honourable Gentleman mean to deny that at that moment payment of the arrears was refused by the House of Assembly unless the Home Government would consent to the establish ment of an elective Council ?.---[Mr. Hume intimated that he did not deny that fact.] Then the case stood thus—in a coun try where life and property were secure, where there was n ° oppressive law, where the franchise was wide and liberal, where the church of the majority was in possession o f the church property—( Hear, hear)—where there was no tangibl e grievance capable of being put into terms and brought be fore that House—in such a country the Imperial Legislatur e was called upon to grant an organic change in the constitu tion as the condition upon which, for the future, the ear plies necessary to carry on the government of the province should be voted by the Provincial Legislature.—( Hear, hear.) As far as the alleged undue preference of the English race was concerned, he begged the House to look for a moment at 0 6 , fact. During th e a dministration of the last two Governors 0 ` Lower Canada there had, he believed, been eighteen appoint ments to the Legislative Council, and of those eighteen er pointments ten had been given to persons of French origio- - ;: (Hear, hear)—and the remaining eight to persons of E n glish descent. It was true that ten did not bear that proportion to eight that the whole French population of the province did t° the British ; but it must be remembered that the French po pulation did not comprise so great a proportion of the uppe r class—of persons fit to be appointed to so important a situ's' tion as that of a member of the Legislative Council—as the British. It could not be said, therefore, that any gross Of glaring partiality had been exhibited in the appointments Oa' of late years bad been made to the Legislative Council.; ( Hear, hear). The Hon. and Learned Member for Bail read them a lecture the other night upon the extreme expediend of every one who advanced an opinion in that House telling all that he meant, and leaving nothing in reserve. He (M r ' Gladstone) wished that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had acted upon that principle himself.—(Hear.) They We re : told that the conduct of the Legislative Council was the potty _ upon which were concentrated all the grievances of Lo we ; Canada. What was the fact ? The Legislative Council lid been the outwork and defence of the Government. In all its most essential acts it had been countenanced by the Gae' nor and Executive Council, who, in their turn, had beeo borne out by the Government at home, and the Governm e°t at home had been borne out by the Imperial Parliament. -- ; ( Hear, hear.) Two Committees had been appointed by 012 House, the one in 1828, the other in 1834, in both of whic b the fullest investigation took place into the affairs of Lower Canada ; and the result of the inquiry was in both instancea to vindicate the conduct of the Government. The questio n ' then, was not so much one between the House of Assem bly and the Legislative Council in Lower Canada, as betWeel the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath and the Imper ia Parliament as to the policy pursued towards the province. -- ; ( Hear, from Mr. Roebuck.) What was the situation of Levi' s Canada ? It was divided between persons of two differ e ' l c i races, who did in fact r eg a r d e ach o ther as aliens in bloo d and language," and between whom there unfortunately existed a great deal of excitement and exasperation. The Hon. ar, Learned Gentleman the Member for Bath had spoken e' " howling herd of o ffi c ials ;" but could the H o n. and Lear be Gentleman charge any one individual of the class whom 0 ,, designated in such disparaging terms with a dishonour(' I A act ?—( Hear.) Had they not been serving the public wit ho s' _ any requital for the last five or six years ?—( Hear.) What 0 f o r the difference between the Hon. and Learned Member 1, Bath and the howling herd of Canadian officials? The °V a .- difference was this—that the Hon. and Learned Gentle o ld had received his salary, upon which he (Mr. Gladstone) "I' oo ,, no': then pronounce an opinion, without the sanction of the ' de r whilst the officials, who held regularly-constituted offices ° a re, the sanction of the law, had received no salary for several Y e t i's although they had continued punctually to discharge the d to t attached to their situations.—( Hear.) Then it was said I ;sig the British party in Lower Canada was composed of nu tb 'd e e more than a miserable monopolising minority of the puPe- i ' s 'd A of that province. What was the fact ? Ile held in his ba! s a, copy of a petition presented to that House from Montreal in ' o e signed by 10,197 of this despicable minority, Did this ' bear out the representations made by the Honourable and il a n c o er Member for Bath as t o th e na t ure o f th e con flict in -`!: 0 0e Canada ? Did it show that the popular voice was all n o , side, and that th e B r i t i s h i n t erest was su pp o rted only ;,', 0 4 contemptible few ? For from it. It showed that there, iOO a great divi s i on b e t ween th e p e opl e th emse lves —a ditt* 'ene accompanied with great exasperation and much exGd e t i r of of feeling ; and, ehowing this, it proved that of all aea &at could he chosen to discuss the question of the tion of Lower Canada from the mother country , the j r , of sent was the very worst.—( Hear, hear.) In illus tratfo sr this point the Honourable Gentleman quoted scorn' Foe sages from the provincial newspapers, and also fronlfroy, speeches of some of the Members of the House of Ass e we al in which very strong language was used towards thelbeecr Government and the policy of the mother country. e be he feared, were not isolated instances. They wer