The Sun. — London, England, 1849-06-16 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 15. Their Lordships met at Five o'clock. The Earl of HARROWBY presented numerous pe titions praying for an alteration in the law regulating the sale of beer. TRANSPORTATION FOR TREASON BILL. Lord CAMPBELL moved that this Bill be read a second time.—Agreed to. The standing orders w ere then suspended, and the Bill was passed through Committee, reported, read a third time, and passed. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Manchester Law Association, expressing a hope that the Bankruptcy Law Consolidation Bill might pass into a law this session; also a petition from South Shields in favour of a measure for the better ventilation of col lieries; and a petition from a shareholder in the Dub lin and Dundrum Railway, complaining of the conduct of the directors. CANADA. The NOBLE AND LEARNED LORD then laid upon the table the resolutions which he proposed to move on Tuesday in relation to the affairs of Canada. SALE OF BEER BILL. The Earl of HARROWBY then rose to bring for ward the motion of which he had given notice for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the operation of the laws regulating the sale of beer. He could not venture to propose the sweeping alterations which he thought necessary without a previous inquiry, and therefore he should now content himself with moving for a Committee of Inquiry. The petitions which had been presented from all classes of the community, more par ticularly from magistrates, proved the enormity of the evil of which be complained. It was perfectly anoma lous that one set of traders engaged in the trade of beer should a be subjected to the surveillance and control of the magistrates of the district, another set of traders, dealing in a similar article, should be emancipated from such surveillance and control. He trusted that he should not be met by the old objection of damage to the revenue. He trusted that we were no longer open to the sarcasm of the poet— " Ye all can drink, your country asks no more." This was a question affecting the public peace, and he trusted that the inquiry he sought for would be granted. Lord MONTEAGLE thought the question required the most careful consideration in all its bearing before any new mearure of legislation could be introduced. If his Noble Friend merely wished to introduce a measure of police fot the better regulation of beer-houses, he should not object to it. But if it was proposed to revert to the old system of magisterial licensing the public-houses, he should oppose it. It was proved to demonstration when this law was enacted under the administration of the Noble Duke, that the public would never receive the benefit of that enormous reduction which took place in the duty on beer unless the whole system were thrown open. The licensed victuallers were a powerful body, and had great influence with ma gistrates and Members of Parliament, and for years they had endeavoured to crush their rivals in trade; and in Committee be should be prepared to show the enormous amount of capital invested in beer shops, and to show the , interest of the public in their continuance, and be should object to commencing an inquiry in the month of June, and reporting the ex parte evidence taken without the beer-shop keepers having had an opportunity of being heard in their defence. The Earl of HARROWBY was totally unconnected with the licensed victuallers. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE did not object to in quiry, although he was not disposed to consent to any alteration in the law as it at present stood. The motion was then agreed to. THE FRENCH EXPEDITION TO ROME. The Earl of ABERDEEN asked when the commu nication from the French Government relative to the invasion of Roma would be laid before the House ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that he should shortly lay on the table of the House the documents called for ; at the same time he thought proper to say, that one of those documents would not be presented verbatim, because he thought it improper that the document should be published in extenso without previous communication with the French Government. At the same time he stated that the object of the expedition was reported to be to secure the equilibrium of power in the Italian States, and the safety and independence of the Roman people. These papers would ex plain the objects of the expedition more particularly with regard to the restoration of the Sovereign Pontiff. Those documents would not put their Lordships in pos session of all the negotiations which had taken place, but they would show the opinion of her Majesty's Govern ment on the steps which had been taken for the restora tion of order in Rome. The Earl of ABERDEEN wished for no papers the production of which would be improper, but what he desired to know, what the House had a right to know was, why so large a French force was at present in the Roman territories. He! must suppose, that before her Majesty's Government assented to such expedition they must have known its object. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE was at a loss to knew why the Noble Earl made use of the word assent. If the word assent were used as implying approba tion, then he begged to say no such assent had been given to that expedition by her Majesty's Government. The Earl of ABERDEEN said that he alluded to the words of the Noble Marquis in which he said that Government had not disapproved of it. If it was a mattter of indifference that was one thing, but if the Government did not disap prove of it he concluded that they approved of it. He rejoiced at the good understanding subsisting with the French Government, and he hoped they would give that Government a piece of advice—that when the object of an undertaking was such that they were afraid or ashamed to avow it, it would be well to let it alone. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the Noble _ Earl had misrepresented him when he said that he (the Marquis of Lansdowne) had said they did not express disapprobation. What he had said was, that the Go vernment did not think proper to raise any ob stacle. He thought it would be extremely wrong to raise any question at the present moment which would embarrass the French Government, but at the proper moment they should be prepared to demand explana tions from the French Government, the Austrian Government, and the Neapolitan Governmeht, which had not as yet keen demanded. Lori BROUGHAM said that when Government saw a French force of 25,000 landed at Civita Vecchia, they must have guessed that the object of that expedition was not confined to the mere occupation of a seaport town. Anything more unlike a Government than that of Mazzni's could not easily be imagined, and he thought the object of the French expedition was to over throw that. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said be regretted that this discussion had been raised under the present circumstances of the French Government. He had ab stained from referring to the affairs of France through • out this session, because they knew that on the conduct of these two countries depended the peace of Europe. He thought that the discussion was premature, and would have been glad if it had not taken place. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, since the dis cussion had commenced he had received the papers re lating to this subject, and was enabled, by command of her Majesty, to lay them on the table. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said it was known that, in the first instance, the French sent an expedition to Civita Vecchia of 6,000 men. It could not be be lieved that with that number of troops they could have contemplated taking the city of Rome by force. The papers now presented referred to that transaction. The circumstances were now very different, and he wished to know whether the Government had had any communication with that of France since these papers were received ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he could not undertake to discuss the mode in which an expedition had been conducted with which this Government had nothing to do. He had no other papers on the sub ject besides those which he had laid on their Lord ships' tablP. CONSULAR CHAPLAINCIES. Earl NELSON then moved the second read ing of the Consular Expenditure Act Amendment Bill. He said the object of the Bill was to bring the chaplains of English congregations abroad under epis copal authority. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, no Parliamen tary ground had been made out for this Bill. The Foreign Secretary was the proper person in whom the appointment of foreign chaplains should be vested, and upon whom the responsibility should rest. He ww, however, in the habit of consulting the highest ecclesi astical authority in the country on the fitness of the parties nominated to these appointments. The Bishop of LONDON said, it was a great anomaly that these chaplains should not be under any episcopal control. No person lamented more _sincerely than he did that this question had arisen. The facts were, that a very excellent clergymen of the Church of Engla nd, who had officiated in Madeira for twenty years, had adopted a closer adhesion to the forms of the rubric, which gave offence to one party of his hearers, although he gratified another who encouraged him. The discon tented party appealed first to him, and not being satis fied with his decision they applied to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, instead of the highest ecclesi astical authority. The Foreign-office communicated with him, but before he could t a k the proper steps to termi nate these differences a dispatch was sent out from that office, authorising a meeting to bo called of the sub scribers to the church in Madeira, who elected another clergyman, but he, under these circumstances, thought that there was no just cause for revoking the license of the chaplain, and declined to do so. Earl MINTO considered the Foreign Minister the prope r person to make these appointments. They should not forget that the Church of England was not the only church established in this kingdom. There was the Church of Scotland, and it was to ba observed that pro • vision for chaplains of that church was provided for by the Act which this Bill was proposed to amend, and that th e y were entitled to receive salaries under it. The Bishop . of LONDON said he never intended to extend his jurisdiction to chaplains of the Church of I Scotland Lord EDDISBITRY said that according to the Act of Parliament regulating foreign chaplains, - a certain por tion of the chaplain's salary must be paid by the resi dents, and • if so the: Foreign-office was authorised to supply the other portion. In the case under considera tion the salary ceased, as the proportion paid by th e British residents was not forthcoming. The appoint ment therefore fell to the ground, and there existed a necessity which rendered it expedient that steps should be taken to elect another chaplain, which was done under the authority of the Foreign-office. The Act of Parlia ment he had alluded to regulated their proceedings. The license of the Bishop was to be only co-existent with the appointment, and the absolute appointment and dismissal of the chaplain rested with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The license was nothing more in this case than a testimonial, and the Bishop of London had no more power to dismiss or appoint chaplains abroad than he had in the army and navy. He therefore trusted their Lordships would reject this Bill. The Bishop of LONDON said he had never attempted to dispute the prerogative of the Crown of appointing these chaplains; but until an Act of Parliament passed, investing her Majesty's Government with the ecclesias tical jurisdiction over these chaplains, he should decline to withdraw his license until a cause was adduced to justify such an act. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained that the Bishop of London had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the colonies which he could enforce. The Bishop of SALISBURY hoped that, under the circumstances, the Noble Earl would not press his mo tion to a division. The Earl of REDESDALE hoped that the Noble Lord would not press the Bill at the present moment, as it would be impossible, at this late period of the ses sion, that it could receive the sanction of the other House of Parliament. He thought that at some future period their Lordships would sanction the principle of this Bill. ....._ ____. Earl NELSON said he would withdraw the Bill, as it seemed to be the wish of the majority of their Lord ships. The Bill was consequently withdrawn. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 15. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock. LORDS' AMENDMENTS. The amendments of the Lords to the Division of the Living of Richmond and Kingston-upon-Thames Bill were taken into consideration and agreed to. THIRD READING. The Sheffield and Tinsley Road Bill was read a third time and passed. AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. Sir C. KNIGHTLEY presented a petition from Staffordshire, complaininz of agricultural distress. Sir JOHN TROLLOPE presented a similar petition from Holbeach in Lincolnshire. SUNDAY TRADING. Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from certain of the inhabitants of Westminster, against Sun day trading. THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 16_ 1849. DISTRESS IN TOBAGO. Mr. DISRAELI presented a petition from merchants and planters in the Island of Tobago, complaining of the distress to which they were reduced by the alteration of the sugar duties of 1846, and praying for redress and relief. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from the county of Essex, praying for an inquiry into the state of the nation; and a similar petition from Kingston on-Thames. MARRIAGE BILL. Several petitions were presented against the Marriage Bill. SMITHFIELD MARKET. Mr. C. PEARSON presented a petition from Lambeth against the . removal of Smithfield-market. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from certain stone masons of Lambeth, praying for inquiry into the con dition of the people. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION. Sir WILLIAM JOLLIFFE presented a petition from Surrey praying for protection to agriculture. WEST INDIA PROPERTY. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON presented petitions' from the House of Assembly of Jamaica, and from the West India body in this country, complaining of the depre ciation of property in that colony, and praying for the adoption of measures with a view to their redress. Mr. P. MILES presented a similar petition also from th© House of Assembly in Jamaica. SUNDAY TRADING. Sir DE LACY EVANS presented petitions from St. George's, Hanover-square, and other parishes, in favour of the Sunday Trading Bill. MR. ROEBUCK AND MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE. Mr. ROEBUCK said that he was compelled to throw himself on the indulgence of the House. It was always a disagreeable thing and a misfortune for a public man to have to speak of himself and his private affairs.— , (Hear.) This misfortune, for it was a misfortune, • had befallen him through no fault of his own, but through the fault of another. In what had fallen the other night from the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. B. Cochrane) a reflection was cast upon a relation of his. The state of the facts was this—during the rebellion in Canada and the excitement which it occasioned, a friend of his, M. Gironard, had been suspected by the Government of treasonable intentions. A tumult had been raised by upwards of five hundred people. In order to escape from the danger with which he was threatened he had fled to his (Mr. Roebuck's) house at eight o'clock on a winter's, night. His father then held the command of a district, and was therefore in the direct employment of the Government. His relation did that which as a subject and a friend it was his duty to do. He took M. Gironard down to Montreal, and then found that a reward of 5001. had been offered for his apprehension. In the House of Assembly these cir cumstances had been stated. He would say then, what he would have said before, that M. Gironard was a man of the highest respectability and had volun tarily given himself up to the proper authorities. 5001. had been offered by the Government for the appre hension of Monsieur Gironard. He should say that his relation was at that time in the direct service of the Crown, and was a person not only trusted by every pre vious Governor, but by the very Governor who was in the country at the time. He did apprehend that man, and he (Mr. Roebuck) was bold to say that he applied the 5004 to charitable purposes, and had not by so doing forfeited either the repect of the constituted authorities or of the people about him. It appeared then that, in answer to a question in the House of As sembly, he stated that he had received the reward, and at the same time spoke in approbation of M. Gironard. There was no imputation, however, against him, for he took M. Gironard down to Montreal at his own request, and for his protection. He did no more than his duty to his country. Now those were the state of facts which the Hon. Gentleman had imputed to him as wrong. He had at least learnt one thing from the discussion of last night, viz., that the weak, and more especially the intellectually weak, were always cruel.—(Laughter.) Mr. B. COCHRANE said what he stated was, that this man was publicly accused of rebellion, and that a reward of five hundred pounds, which was offered for his apprehension, was received by a person (a Mr. Simp son) who had been placed high in the confidence of the Governor of Canada. He had mentioned precisely the facts stated, by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) that Mr. Simpson had received the 5004. and had made a complimentary speech in favour of M. Gironard after having been appointed Commissioner of Crown Lands. He would say, in conclusion, that nothing coming from the Hon. Member would injure the fair fame of any man.—(A laugh, and cries of " Hear, hear.") Mr. BROTHERTON asked the Hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Bankes) if he was prepared to retract the words which he made use of last night—that he was a tool in the hands of the Government.—(Loud laughter.) He hoped the House would throw its protection over him with regard to the expressions and imputations that had been cast upon him, which he certainly disavowed.— (Hear, hear,) He could conscientiously say that during the time he had been in the House, he had always had a sincere desire to act impartially without regard to either side of the House.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had thought proper to stigmatise him as a subservient tool of the Government, and also as a person who looked to what they wished without any regard to what was right and proper. Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE, referring to the motion made by an H on . M em b er th e o th er night, suggested that this affair should be referred to arbitration.—(Roars of laughter.) Mr. BANKES agreed with the Hon. Member for Middlesex that this was a matter which should be re ferred to arbitration. lie was not aware when he made that remark that the Honourable Gentleman was not a fighting individual, since he heard him say that he was almost tempted to say that he re spected him more now than be had done before. Inasmuch as his motion for adjournment had fallen to the ground, the :remark which hei had made—that if the Hon. Gentleman had persevered in his motion, it would look as if he was acting subserviently to the Go vernment—on this occasaion certainly did not, or rather could not, impute to the Hon. Member that he had so acted. SUPPLY RETURNS. Mr. DISRAELI, referring to his observations yester day with respect to the delay in printing returns, said that though ten days had elapsed since a certain return had been placed on the table, it h a d no t y e t b een pr i nte d. Now, he would undertake to get it print e d a n d cir culated in twenty-four hours. The Right Hon. Gen tleman t h e President of the Board of Trade stat e d tyheesyterwdearyo laid that on ne the e d triaci;leau.ttority over ret urns a ft er and he found that the blam e 'did u n t o He, however, acquitted the Right li any blame, inasmuch as no one h t ead mad e i nqu i r i es lie Son. with the printe r . was less liable of charge of being actuated by sinister motives thantotraet Right Hon. Gentleman. Now, he wanted these papers before they went into a Committee of Sup ply, and he gave notice that unless they were in his hands by Monday, he should move that the printer and the officer of the Board of Trade responsible for the preparation of the return, should be called to the bar, to give an explanation of their conduct. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. The House, at its rising, was ordered to stand ad journed until Monday. OFFICERS' UNIFORMS AND MEDALS. In reply to Sir DE LACY EVANS, Mr. FOX MAULE replied that all the officers upon whom the Order of the Bath had been conferred, were permitted to retain their names in the Army List, and to wear their original accoutrements; but the same regula tion did not refer to officers who had sold out, and upsin whom that honour had not been conferred. He was aware of every regulation with respect to the medals. Sir DE LACY EVANS expressed himself dissatisfied with the reply, and intimated that he should again call the attention of the House to the subject on the motion for going into Supply. BETTEIZ GOVIkiNMENT OF TUE AUSTRA LIAN COLONIES. Lord JOHN RUSSELL intimated, in reply to Mr. F. Scott, that he did not intend to proceed with this Bill on Monday; he should state when on another day. MR. SMITH O'BRIEN. Mr. NAPIER begged to ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he would have any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of the document which related to Mr. Smith O'Brien, Signed by th e U n d er -S ecre t a ry of State for Ireland ? Sir G. GREY said he would have no objection to lay on the table of the House the letter written in answer to the Lord -Lieutenant's intimation that mercy would be extended to the prisoners, on condition of their being transported for life. Mr. FRENCH asked when the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department would lay the letter on the table of the House. Sir G. GREY replied on Monday next. CANADA. On the order of the day for the adjourned debate, Dr. NICHOLL rose to address the House, but such was the noise prevailing below the bar that the Hon. Member was wholly inaudible for some time. He was understood to say that he for one declared most un feignedly that he felt the greatest possible -difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to how he should vote on this question. If be had been forced to give that vote last night he should, however reluctantly, have given that vote against the resolution of the Right Hon. Gentleman, not so much because he approved of what was to be done by her Majesty's Government, as that he was taken by surprise and that he believed in a moment of surprise, that it was the wiser and more prudent course to take. He was free to confess, however, that his intention was very much shaken by what had taken place in the course of the debate. He con fessed he did see great inconsistencies in the speech of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord said he would not give his assent to this Bill, or take any steps to give the sanction of her Majesty's Government, until he had received the instruction which Lord Elgin was to address to the Commissioners, which instruction he was sure would have the effect of preventing any part of this compensation being withheld from those to whom it was justly due, and which would exclude persons who were manifestly guilty of rebellion. He did not think that the Attorney- General could show that the Crown or the Governor- General had any authority or competency to limit or qualify an Act which had been previously sanctioned by the Sovereign, as had been done in the case of bringing those persons who had been transported to the Bermu das, and he felt assured for his part, that no such con struction could be put on the Act itself to justify such an act, for it was directly opposed to such a course of pro ceeding. He recollected that the commission appointed in 1845, to inquire into the condition of those who sus tained losses in the rebellion were, as a matter of course, to draw a line of demarcation between those who were rebels and those who were loyalists, and he was still at a loss to know whether those who were engaged in that rebellion and those who had been convicted of high treason, were to be compensated by this recent Bill of the Canadian Legislature. If such a Bill were put in execution, he believed that it would create disgust in the loyal people of Canada, and that such might endanger the honour of the Crown, and the safety of those colo nies. He should, whatever may be the result, vote that the address be presented to her Majesty not to approve of the Bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that in compli• ance with his duty, he had endeavoured, to the best of his legal power, to answer all the questions that had been put to him last night, and this day, on the present subject. He would now say, in reply to the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Nicholls), that the Crown had no power whatever to qualify any Act by its instruc tion, but that its duty was only either to agree to or ne gative any Act of the Colonial Legislature, for the act of qualifying or limiting any Act of that Legislature would be an act of usurpation. He should also say, that the Governor-General had no power whatever to vary any Act of the Colonial Legislature contrary to the spirit of that Aet, but if the Commissioners find that there are some persons who are not proved to be guilty of treason and rebellion, it is in their power, according to their oath, to grant them a just and fair compensation for the losses they had sustained in that rebellion. He should say, that he was surprised at the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Nicholls), that he should have stated that it was an insult to the Crown to call on it to give compensation. In that case he (Mr. Nicholls) might have said that all who were suspected of being rebels in prima facie cases were to be deprived of the benefit of the doubt, and were to be exempted from the compensation given to others, because they were not suspected. Be also said that the Commissioners should actually know who were the rebels; but, he would ask, were men to condemn themselves when they were apply ing for compensation? There was one class of men who were exempted from compensation, namely, those who were convicted and those who were attainted. Then there was another class, who should be indulged in the benefit of the doubt, unless they confessed that they were engaged in the rebellion. Then that party was held to be guilty of treason morally, though not legiti mately. And a third class, against whom no proof or confession was extant. This party were, in his opinion, liable to compensation. Such were his legal opinions on the subject, to the utmost of his humble knowledge. Mr. DRUMMOND said that this question, disguise itself as it might, was, when translated into the English language, an address to the Crown to dismiss Lord El gin, to put an end to the present Ministry in Canada, and to weaken, if not to destroy, the Government in this country. This question was introduced in a most extra ordinary way. One Right Hon. Member made a speech without a motion, and another a motion without a speech. --(Laughter.) In the first case he looked upon the speech as being without any end in view—(Laughter)— which left the end, as the beginning, all doubt and un certainty; and the only justification for such a speech was, that it alluded to the subject rather as a local question than as an imperial one, for nothing of an imperial ques tion was even alleged; but he thought the logic of it was this—that rebellion is not a local offence, but an imperial one, as being opposed to the Sovereign, ergo, rebellion is an imperial offence. All agreed that Lord Elgin was an able man—all agreed that he was a man of talents, and well suited for his present situation. There were over five hundred gentlemen in that House, and he thought that all were not as able and as clever as that Noble Lord.—(Laughter.) Yet he could not help saying that the two Right Hon. Gentlemen wished to take authority out of his (Lord Elgin's) hands, and to convert this House into an administrative, instead of a legisla tive, Assembly. Thus, he asserted that those who were to receive compensation, and those who were not, should be left to the Canadian Legislature, and not introduced into this House, as it peculiarly and justly belonged to that House. He should say that two Gentlemen who were not two heads of two parties, but two half heads of two parties, were discussing in a very radical manner, and he thought that the matter should be solely left to Lord Elgin. Mr. V. SMITH said that he was glad that the con cerns of the colonies had been discussed in that House so coolly. He was astonished that the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Herries) bad not brought on his motion until after the speech of the Right Honourable Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel). Without entering into the details of the question, he would simply express his firm conviction that it extended much beyond the limits of that debated between the Honourable Gentlemen op posite and the Attorney-General. It involved the great question of a responsible government for the colonies, which question, in his opinion, was quite at issue upon the motion of the Honourable Member for Stamford, They were seeking to carry out the principle of the re sponsible government by laying upon the colonists bur dens formerly borne by the Imperial Legislature. When Hon. Gentlemen :armed that they meant no insult to the majority of the Legislature of Canada, be would ask the House whether they could possibly devise a greater insult than to adopt in their resolution the very words negatived by the vote of the Canadian Assembly? He considered that a formidable inroad on the doctrine of responsible government.—(Hear, hear.) The danger of admitting some few men, who might have been en gaged in the rebellion, to some portion of the compen sation, was nothing to the hazard they would run in telling the Parliament :of one of the greatest of their co lonies that they would not listen to their resolutions until they had proved to the letter that they had fulfilled all their engagements. He would not ask the Honourable _ _ Member opposite not to persevere :in his motion, but he would certainly say that to.press the question to a di vision at the present moment would be most premature. They had heard from the Attorney-General, and from Lord Elgin, their opinions of the legal effict of their Act of Parliament. Lord Elgin had been chosen to rule Canada, without the slightest reference to party ques tions of any shade, and such a man was the proper one to govern a colony of such importance. He asked them not to interfere with what Earl Grey or Lord Elgin had done, but he asked them, as it affocted their right to the Canadas, to beware how they rejected an Act which the deliberate attention of the Parliament of that country had sent home to them merely because of the construction of an Act, or of a particular clans,: of it, which, after all, was probably erroneous. _ _ _ Mr. HUME said it was not often that he had to ex press his approbation of colonial government, but he thought that in this instance the Colonial Office had taken the proper line of conduct which recent events had suggested. No one had watched the course of events in Canada longer or more attentively than he (Mr. Hume) had, and he could safely say, that Lord Elgin had not distinguished himself so much in any state of affairs in this colony, than in those recent proceedings— vHe e r y could much n o r t e g ret concurt e d in ny the t ho i s n o t e those disgraceful proceedings—which he believed were w nt h io o n t o o f o t k h pa eN r o t b in le t to em rd . given s wasse res to eoau the Commissioners. o v. f withholding rly a w r h n i n s gd one;e cis o a n n th until e h G e o s v a e w r n t o h r e i a n n s d t r h u i c s t i o n n a t have th e p ow power of f thought finally that passingt ha t a Bill. The party who raised the outcry in Canad a were i n o ff ice , and recommend e d a ll the d their inconsistent con d uct b y steps for making compensati o n, ow clamouring against. showed Feb ruary, and at last ther e vvas a vote measure was carried in by debentures, for the purpeseor of 10,0001. t o b e ra i se d If they would allow the people O meeting e these losses. to conduct their own government, and develop the n. r that country for their benefit and our own, believedierrcs of that the Canadas would become as advantageous tco lony to this country, as hitherto it had been otherwise. Lord Elgin, he thought, had acted in a manner which showed himself fitted for the duty he went out to perform. He found his opponents in power, and gave them an op portunity of carrying on the Government. He found they were unequal to the task, and then he deter mined on dissolving the Parliament, and allowing the people to choose those representatives by whom they thought they ought to be go verned. That was done, and that was, at the bottom, the cause of the rebellion. It was true those men were implicated in the rebellion; but was it not a singular state of things to see her Majesty's troops engaged one day in one way in this matter, and another in another way? He, however, hoped that he should never see her Majesty's troops so engaged again, and that the day was not far distant when he would see the Canadians in pos- session of a free constitution, and when administered by such hands as Lord Elgin's he had no fears that any attack would be made on the institutions of the country, or that there would be much necessity at all for troops in Canada.— (Hear, hear.) He hoped, in conclusion, that her Majesty's Ministers would receive the support of the House in the course which they were in this in stance so firmly and so much to their credit pursuing. Mr. NEWDEGATE regretted that this debate was prolonged, for he felt that it bad already been most fully gone into on the previous evening, and that delay was the only object which some Honourable Members now had in view. He could not approve of the sentiments expressed by the Honourable Member for Montrose; he could not approve of any plan or system of support which recognised in men who had been guilty of re bellion against their Sovereign and the Government, a claim to compensation far alleged losses. Hon. Members seemed to be forgetful of the course taken by those men. What, he would ask, was the object of the American " sympathisers "of the States of the Union ? Was it to aid in obtaining for the Canadian rebels responsible go vernment? No; but to effect, if possible, a separation of the Canadas from the British possessions, and the an nexation of them to the States. And looking at the con duct of the Government of Canada now, and at the course pursued by the Home Government in relation to that conduct, he did not feel surprise at seeing that the loyal inhabitants of Upper Canada were much irritated. He warned the House that there.would be great risk to the Imperial Crown of the loss of those possessions should this Bill bo confirmed by the British Legislature. He could only say that he should feel it to be his duty to give his vote in support of the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford.—(Hear.) Sir W. MOLESWORTH should most decidedly give his vote against the motion of the Right Hon. Gentle man the Member for Stamford, and his support to her Majesty's Ministers in the just course which they were now pursuing.—(Hear, hear.) He felt that there had been much to complain of in the way of misgovernment of the colonies, and he believed that there would be nei thor safety nor content in those colonies until a better system of government should be adopted. He was at a loss to know how compensation to a few rebels for rebel lion losses could so much move the hostility of Hon. Members in that House. He considered that this Re bellion Losses Bill was founded in justice; it had a pre cedent in a similar Bill passed in favour of Upper Ca nada, and he hoped sincerely to see it passed, for those losses decidedly ought to be compensated. The Hon. Baronet alluded to the instructions of Lord Stanley on this subject, in which the Noble Lord was of opinion that the application of both parties in Upper and Lower Canada for compensation might be put into one Bill, thus recognising the justice of giving indemnity to the one as well as to the other; and observed that it appeared to him that the Bill now under consideration for compensa tion for the rebellion losses in Lower Canada was but a fulfilment of the instructions of Lord Stanley, in 1845, to Lord Metcalfe on the subject. As this Bill was, therefore, a Government measure, we were bound to it by every principle of justice and fairness, and it would be a violation of public faith if they did not see that the provisions of the Act were fully carried out. Mr. ANS TEY said that the loyal subjects in the co lony would be called upon to subscribe their money to contribute to the demands of those who had been dis loyal, and the question now was this—would the Queen throw the shield of her sovereignty over those men who were loyal, and save them from being oppressed, for the sake of rebels? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then contended, that while care was taken of rebels who had suffered losses, the claims of such men as Colonel Fitz gibbon, who had suffered in person and property, were overlooked. The determination of the Noble Lord not to give any explanation on this subject was a most ex traordinary one. A middle path had been pointed out by the Hon. Member for Stamford, but as that had been refused, could they hesitate in giving their vote against the Canadian Bill? He was astonished that nothing had been said by her Majesty's Government in grateful re turn for the services which had been rendered by the loyalists of Canada during the late disgraceful rebellion. The Hon. Member proceeded to contrast the period of 1812 with that of 1837, and said that at present it was well known that there were 40,000 persons in Canada who were members of hunters and other such societies, whose object was the abolition of British Government in Canada, and the annexation of the colony with the United States. Mr. MACGREGOR said he would indeed lament if her Majesty's Government refused their sanction to the Bill which had been agreed to in Canada, and he felt confident, that if that Bill should go back disapproved of, the greatest disgust would be excited in the minds of the loyal inhabitants of Canada. The Hon. Member referred to the period when Sir James Kempt went out as governor, and who, he said, had determined to admi nister the laws impartially among all classes of Cana dians. The consequence of the rebellion of 1837 was the union of the two pros inces, for no choice was left to the Government, and that union was necessary to prepare the way for the self government of the colonies. As to the compensation which bad been so much complained of, what, after all, was it? It was given to parties who re sided in Canada for losses they had suffered in Canada, and the money paid was to be levied in Canada. Under such circumstances, how the compensation money could be said to have anything imperial in it he could not pos sibly understand. Up to a late period the people of Canada had no self-government, and he approved of the course which her Majesty's Government had determined also to pursue with reference to the Australian colonies. He approved of the conduct of Government with refer ence to the compensation money, and he had no doubt that the people of Canada would look strictly after the application of the money which would be levied for that purpose. Mr. ADDERLEY said he rose to state, that he and some of his friends could not vote for the motion be fore the House, at the same time that he could not ap prove of the course pursued by her Majesty's Govern ment. He could not vote for the motion, because he thought it had come too late—and he thought also that as the Crown had given its assent to the measure in Canada it would serve no purpose now to refuse a sanc tion to that Act, and should they do so, the effect would be greatly to exasperate the Canadian people. Ile, how ever, could not say that the affair was one of a local character. He thought it was more calculated to give encouragement to rebellion than to serve any other pur pose, and he thought it not unlikely that Mackenzie himself would be one of the first recipients of the com pensation money. The present was the first time that the Act had been brought under the consideration of the Imperial Parliament, and those who opposed it did so on the ground of the vagueness of the language em ployed in the Act. After the rejection of the amend ment proposed by Mr. Wilson, it seemed clear that a proof of the loss applying had edw beenould theb a e rebl e o o n r ly not t . hin l g f necessary, and that an inquiry could no t t a k e p l ace, whether the party y they could induce the Crown to withhold its consent till the wording of the Act should be altered, it would meet the objection which he and others entertained against it; but it that could not be done, he thought it was too late now to reject it, and he felt therefore that he could not give his support to the motion before the House. Mr. M. MILNES contended that the Indemnity Bill was simply an act of justice, being the fulfilment of an agreement entered into when a similar measure for Upper Canada had passed the united Legislature of both provinces. Ile admitted, however, that there would be to a certain extent some difficulty in discriminating where the losses fell, whether on men more or less loyal or on men more or less rebellious. If the Indemnity Bill were really objectionable, it ought to have been dis cussed and decided when it was proposed for Upper Canada. Looking at the history of the Bill, there was no doubt that it had gene through a fair species of in quiry in the Canadian Assembly, and he could not con ceive a question of the kind brought before the British Legislature in a manner less likely to bo beneficial to the colony of Canada. The question now for their consi deration was whether they could preserve the relations between Canada and this country in th e on l y way i n which the Rght lion. Gentleman wi s h e d i t to b e pre d, the namccOlylO by establishing:a c onsc i ousness on the part ery of colony that the connexion with E ng l an d was s honourable and creditable to it. It certainly was right that a Bill similar to that enacted for Upper Canada should be passed for Lower Canada, when they consi dered that the money to be spent in compensation came out of the common funds of both countries. They ought to make it the interest of Canada to be attached to this country, end he thought one of the best means of doing so would be by giving their fullest assent by the largest majority to the principle of the Bill, which had received the sanction of the Legislative Assembly of Canada. I The Marquis of GRANBY thought the question o under consid era ti on h a d b een very much narro we d since o the debate commenced. The question was not whether they could or could not pervert the principle of respon ' sible government, but whether, by adopting the resolu tion of his Right Hon. Friend, they would act contrary to that principle? The present case was one, he con tended, which fully justified the Government iu refusing the assent of the Crown to the measure passed by a majority of the Canadian Assembly. It had been ad mitted by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, and by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney-General), that if the Rebellion Losses Bill became the law of the land, rebels should be compensated for their losses in the rebellion. If that were the case, was not the ques tion an imperial rather than a local question, and one in which the Government was called on to interfere? The Noble Marquis ridiculed the idea, as suggested by Lord John Russell, that it would be impossible to dis tinguish between those who were loyal and those who had rebelled. The Honourable Member for Sheffield said that the men who had been taken with arms in their hands were merely going out on a shooting expedition; and he added, that he had frequently gone out on similar expeditions himself. But let him (the Marquis of Granby) ask if the Hon. Mem ber eve- went out with 800 armed men for such a pur pose, and if he ever mistook a red coot for a stray duck. —(Hear.) Instead of loyal men feeling disinclined to prove their loyalty, he tho ug ht th e y would rejoice at the opportunity of showing how unfounded and anjust were the suspicions of their disloyalty. He thought the Bill did not go far enough. It gave compensation for wan ton destruction, but it withheld it from what was not wanton destruction. The rebel whose property was wantonly destroyed m i g h t claim compensa tion, but the e t s h il h e o o u u ß l s d i e l lwaya The tl l i lan e to ta Right fter loyal man who suffered accidental destruction of his pro e perty could claim none. That was one of the reasons why he thought the House should express an opinion Honourable Member for the University of Oxford pre pared for such a motion as that of his Right -Honour ablesuch a speech as the Right Honourable Gentleman ' (Mr. Gladstone) had made, that the House was by no means surprised that such a resolution should be pro posed. He (Mr. Gladstone) had stated that his motive for not brin g i ng on such a motion was, that he did not wish to excit e th e f eel i ngs of the people of Canada, oriof this House. He should say that such a speech, unsup ported by any moti on , was more than sufficient to excite the acerbity of . the people o f C anada. —(H ear. ) H e and many others Nrshed to r e f ra i a from party opposition, yet he wished to? join with him in defeating a measure which he thought it was justifiable to defeat. The Hon. Gen tleman (Mr. Drummond) had designated his (Mr. Glad stone's) speech as one without a motion or an end; but he should say that it had a good end, though it had no motion attached to it, 45 he thought it should. He amid say, in opposition to the Noble Loral (Lora J Russell), that this measure of indemnification aas derogatory to the interests of the country; that it interfered with the great principle of justice, and one which would tend to tarnish the honour of the Crown, and would be false to the true principles of good government; and he, there• fore, thought that his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. 'ferries) was perfectly justifiable in proposing the resolution, which the Right. Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had not ventured on. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that under responsible Go vernments occasions might arise in which it might be necessary for imperial authority to interfere; and if ho believed that the present Bill, which they were now dis cussing, was framed to insult the British Crown, or to offend portions of the people of Canada, who wished to expel foreign invasion, he should be the first prepared to advise her Majesty's Government to reject such a Bill; but he did not think that the faithful people of Canada wished for the rejection of this Bill, but would agree to the Legislative decision of that colonial Parliament, in which there was a majority of 48 to 18 in favour of this important measure, and these were not the people of Lower Canade,or those of French descent, but the repre sentatives of Upper Canada were most favourable to the measure. If this Bill were in any way opposed to the Crown, he should tremble for such a case, ns it would involve that country in a fearful dilemma. He placed the highest value on the connexion between this coun- try and that colony, for he held such to be a connexion of duty, honour, and affection, which should be sup• ported by all parties. He also thought, after the pro longed arguments on this Bill, that no charge of party feeling could be brought against the representatives of Canada. lie would ask the House to consider under what circumstances this Bill had been brought forward, and his motive for requiring this consideration was to show that Lord Elgin did not introduce it as an isolated case, but as one to be incorporated with the Act passed for Upper Canada, and he should say that the Act passed for indemnifying the Upper Canadians was very vague and dangerous respecting Upper Canada, for ono clause of that Act was to indemnify all persons who sustained losses in Upper Canada, which he considered to be extremely vague. He thought that the question narrowed itself into a small compass, for all admitted that such an Act for Lower Caaada was a just measure; and that the only question was, whether the present Bill was a proper or an improper measure, so as to warrant the interference of this House. He did not think that this House should interfere if the Bill was not an impro per one; and he believed that the oppositiou against an amnesty to the Lower Canadians offered by the two Right Hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Berries) was owing chiefly to this Bill, and not to any other mea sure of the kind; but all he thought of this Bill was, that there was nothing in it to insult the Crown or to warrant the interference of this House with respect to colonial le gislation. He should say that he thought that men who, after the lapse of 12 years, had accidentally or inciden tally lost their property, had a right to be indemnified, and that if any of these claimants had been engaged in rebellion, that it was the wish of the people of Canada to throw the veil of oblivion over their faults, and he felt assured that the people of that colony, whose loyalty he should never forget, would rejoice at the passing of this measure, and hoped that the opinion that he gave utter ance to would not be the cause of provoking disagree able feelings in the minds of any person in this House, and he also regretted that this House had not left these people to themselves, as should be the case in all free institutions, such as those of the Canadian Legislature. When the Noble Lord (Marquis of Granby) stated that provisions were not made for the loyal people of Canada, he should say that he felt assured that the Commis sioners would readily take their case into consideration whenever it would come within their jurisdiction, and that such a charge was therefore unfounded, and he also stated that the Bill was not large enough. He thought that that question should be left to the people themselves. If he doubted the decision of the House on this measure, ho should say that he would be affected with much anxiety, and if he thought that the Howse would adopt the resolution of the Right Honourab!e Gentleman (Mr. Berries) he believed that the people of Canada would feel deeply insulted by such an undue interference on the part of this House. He was glad to find that all who spoke on this question had ap proved of the conduct of Lord Elgin, and, for his own part, he believed that the Noble Lord would not lend himself to any factious party against the loyal people of Canada. He hoped that the House would reject this re solution, and that the people of Canada would give this House credit for having wished to fulfil their duty towards them, and that this House never wished to interfere with the free institutions of their colonial Legislature. Mr. BANKES said that he perfectly agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchcre) that this House should not interfere with the legislation of the colonies, except on those rare occasions when the in terests of the empire at large were at stake, yet he should say that this was a question for the Imperial Legislature, as affecting the honour of the Crown and the safety of the colonies. When the lion. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) alluded to Ireland and Irish treason, he should refer to the adage that treason cannot prosper, because when it does prosper no one dare call it treason. He thought, on the whole, that a measure of such importance should not be carried on hastily. He recollected when the secretary of the First Minister was accused of writing a letter abetting rebellion.—(Oh, oh.) The ground on which he supported this motion was, that this Bill had the effect of encouraging rebellion. The Noble Lord might not have that intention. If they would not give their word that compensation would not be given to rebels, he should be compelled to vote for the amendment. Sir IL PEEL then rose and said—Sir, I quite feel that the arguments upon this subject have been ex hausted, and yet I am unwilling to give the vote I intend to give without a brief explanation of the ground upon which that vote will rest.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, Ido not put exactly the same construction upon the amendment of my Right Hon. Friend that has been put upon it by the Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House. I do not consider that amendment to be merely an address to the Crown to come to no hasty decision with respect to the ratification of the Act of the Canadian Legisla ture. I understood that amendment to be substantially this—to pray the Crown not to assent to this Bill until certain amendments which were moved by the minority in that Legislat u r e are i n t ro d uce d i nto i t. —(Mi nisteria l cheers.) The motion of my Right Hon. Friend, whether intentionally or not, or from inadvertence, is identical, as was remarked by the Right Hon. Member for North ampton (Mr. V. Smith), with an amendment which was moved by the minority in the course of th e ::discussions in the House of Assembly. Consequently, that which the House of Commons is called on to aflirm is substan tially this—that the measure approved by the majority shall not have effect until that majority shall adopt an amendment which was submitted to its considera tion by a small minority, and which was rejected.— (Cries of " Hear, bear.") It is possible, if we accede to the motion of my Right Hon. Friend, that we may be about to engage in a conflict which will be attended with no small amount of danger—a conflict in which we ought to engage if the honour of the Crown imperatively re quire it; but before we engage in it let us maturely con sider what will be the nature of it, and what are the circumstances under which we are called upon to enter into it. We have before us a measure which provides for a certain appropriation of the funds of a great colony of the British empire. At a former period it was pro posed that the compensation provided by this Bill should be made cut of the Imperial Treasury.—(Hear.) That proposal was rejected.—(Cheers.) The present measure does not contemplate any appropriation of the revenue of this country.—(Hear.) The measure now under our consideration proposes an appropriation of colonial funds to colonial purposes.—(Cheers.) And the measure so proposed has been affirmed by a majority of the Legisla tive Assembly of the province, of no less than forty seven to eighteen.—(Renewed cheers.) lam unwilling to refer to the character and constitution of that ma jority; for the act of the majority is . that which, under ordinary circ u mstance, ought t o prevail. I say under ordinary circumstances, because I am perfectly willing to admit that if the honour of the Crown re quires it, you should exercise that authority which I do not question you possess. I say, however, that under all ordinary circumstances, the act of the majority ought to be conclusive, without reference to the pecu liar character of that majority. But if you analyse the constituent portions of that majority, you will find that it was not composed exclusively of the representatives of a particular class, of a connexion not the same with our own. We are told that fifty-one members repre senting Upper Canada voted upon the question; that thirty-seven voted for the Bill, and f our t een on ly against it; that in Lower Canada the members of English descent were ten in number, and that six voted for the Bill, and four only against it, consequently whenever you refer to the extent of the majority, or to the consti tution of it, I cannot but think that these are elements in the question which deserve our most serious conside ration.—(Cheers.) I consider these to be perfectly dif ferent questions, whether the amendments proposed in the Assembly of Lower Canada ought to have been as sented to; and whether, as they were not, we ought to try to give effect to such amendments here. It may be consistent to say that the proposal of Mr. Wilson was a reasonable one, and that had we been members of the Assembly it would have had our concurrence ; and yet, as that Assembly did not consent to it, the same men who approved of the amendment may dis approve of the proposal to give effect to it by the exer cise of an extraneous authority. Observe, the act of rejecting this measure, and of advising the Crown to disallow it, will not have the support of the whole of the minority who voted in opposition to it.—(flear.) Lord Elgin calls your attention to the remarkable fact, that two of the members of the minority who took a very de cided part against the measure, and were most active in proposing amendments, were amongst the foremost to contend that the principle of responsible government ought to be maintained, and that they would not be par ties to any advice to be offered to the Crown of Great Britain to rtject or disallow this Bill after its passage through the colonial Legislature. The minority, there for., opposing the Bill and friendly to the amendments —that minority was not unanimously of opinion that the Bill, when passed, ought to be modified by any other authority. They distinctly- maintained that, having been passed, the will of the majority ou g ht t o preva il , an d that the Bill ought not to be disallowed by the Crown.— (Rear, hear.) Sir, that Act so passed has received the concurrence of that authority which has been deputed by the Crown to guard the honour of the Crown and promote the general interests of the colony, but pith the interests of the colony to maintain its con nexion with the mother country, and to maintain that connexion on the only terms upon which it is worth maintaining, viz.—that of the honour of both parties and reciprocal good-will. I own that it would have been most painful to me if I had been called upon by a strong sense of public duty to take any line of conduct which would have implied a reflexion upon Lord Elgin. I re collect the commencement of his political career. I re• collect the sanguine expectations which were formed from his first Parliamentary speech—(ficar, hear)—and I think than n:n 1,- "r1 '"" 1 ; ~.1 (Cheers.) Those who heard the tir.t, speech winch he made in Parliament—all men of all parties—concurred in this opinion, that that speech was the omen of a future career, alike honourable to himself and useful to his country.—(Cheers.) He was selected for a high office by a Government with which ha was politically con nected. He had to discharge in Jamaica, under circum stances of great difficulty, a very high and important trust. He conciliated the confidence of those over whom he presided, and of the Government with whom he acted; and the Noble Lord has stated that the sole reason of his having been selected for the more im portant government over which he now presides was the experience of his success in the administration of the affairs of Jamaica.—(Cheers.) My firm belief is that a nobleman better qualified for a high trust could not have been selected; and that looking at the whole of the correspondence which has taken place, and con sidering the extreme difficulties of his position, he has acted from no other motive than a sincere desire to do his duty towards the Crown and the colony, over the affairs of which he had been appointed to pre side. It appears to me that he has acted with great firmness, great resolution, and great impartiality— (Cheers)—t hat he gave his entire confidence to the Go vernment which was supported by a majority of the As sembly; that ho dissolved the Assembly upon their request; that when a majority of the new Assembly transferred their confidence to other parties, he then, in deference to the principles of a representative and re sponsible Government, selected for his Ministers those who had the confidence of the majority, and that he gave them, upon the same principle upon which he had acted with regard to the former Administration, his cordial concurrence and support.—(Hear.) Sir, I should deeply regret, I say, if con s id erat i ons o f pu bli c d uty compelled me to do that which would indeed be no more than a reflection upon his judgment—for his high honour and integrity I believe no one can doubt— (Hear, hear)—yet, I think, considering the opposition he has encountered, the outrages which have been offered to him---(Hear)—l greatly tear that an erroneous con struction would be put upon the performance of that act of duty, and upon the announcement to the colony that the conduct of Lord Elgin was virtually disowned. But no deference to Lord Elgin, and no fear of an erroneous construction, ought to prevent us from discharging our duty, and rejecting this Bill, if the interests of the country and the honour of the Crown demand it.—(Hear, hear.) I conceive that a great part of the difficulties with which Lord Elgin has had to contend were difficulties of an earlier date than those immediately connected with his own period of office. The Hon. Member for Staffordshire founded his observations entirely upon this fact, that in every pre ceding Bill the claims of the loyal inhabitants only had been admitted, whereas in the present Bill for the first time the word "loyal" was omitted. Now I can assure my Hon. Friend that he is mistaken—that this is not the first occasion on which the word "loyal" has been omitted as a qualification of the word " inhabitants." If you look through the papers you will find a remark able distinction between the cases of Lower and Upper Canada in the earlier part of these transactions. Nuw, observe in 1839 and 1840, Lower Canada was governed by ordinances. In the case of the ordinances issued by Lord Colborne, the compensation for losses sustained during the rebellion was confined to the loyal inhabitants of Lower Canada. Concurrently with the issue of these ordinances an Act was passed providing compensation in the case of others. An Act was passed by the Legis lature of Upper Canada, an d th e wor d s "loyal inhai tants" were omitted from that Act. The ordinance in the case of Lower Canada contains the words '• loyal in habitants," and provides compensation for them alone. In the case of Upper Canada the word "loyal" is omitted, and certain and sundry inhabitants are substituted. The Act was amended in the subsequent year. There was the example of the Lower Canada ordinances, but never theless in the second Act the word " loyal" is omitted, and the phrase of " inhabitants generally for losses sus tained during the rebellion" was inserted. And, if you observe in the oath applied to the Commissioners in the case of Upper Canada, they declared they would award compensation to the inhabitants according to the terms of the Act. In Lower Canada the oath administered to the Commissioners provided that they should award compensation to the loyal inhabitants only.—(Elear.) The Legislatures of the two Canadas are united. An address is presented to the Governor that he will act on the principle adopted in Upper Canada, and provide compensation to Lower Canada on the same terms. That address was not acted on by the Government pre ceding the present. When the present Government came into possession of power they fulfilled the address which had been voted, and the question n ow i s , h ave they, in providing compensation for Lower Canada, materially departed from the terms or principles of the Act which provided compensation for the inhabitants of Upper Canada ? If they have not, will not the contrast be an invidious one ?—(Hear, hear.) Will not the duty we are assuming— of rejecting this Act, providing for the case of Lower Canada, alter the case of Upper Canada has been provided for—be peculiarly invidious, if the Act which we reject contains no provision materially at variance with the previous Act?—(Hear, hear.) Why did not some one give Lord Elgin a caution on this point? Why was it not pointed out to Lord Elgin, that in the case of Upper Canada no distinction hail been made between loyal inhabitants and rebels? Why did we not convey to him an intimation that the honour of the British Crown was concerned, and that the claims of the loyal inhabitants should bo allowed?—(Hear, hear.) But what took place in Lower Canada? Lord Metcalfe issued a Commisson, which recites the necessity of providing com pensation for the loyal inhabitants.—(Hear, hear.) Lord Cathcart assumed the government, and a secretary was appointed to that commission, who issued instructions with regard to certain classifications. Mr. Daly, the secretary of Lord Cathcart, was asked by the secretary to the Commission as to the classification of the claim ants, and Mr. Daly answered—" It is not the intention of the Governor that, in classifying the persons who are to receive compensation, you are to adopt any other prin ciple of classification but the evidence furnished by the sentences of competent tribunals." It was in cense , quence of these instructions that the Commission originally appointed by Lord Metcalfe proceeded—l will not say to make their award—but to examine claims. Under these circumstances, does the honour of the Crown require from us the extraordinary intervention asked for by the Right Hon. Gentleman? Shall we control the decision of the Crown, at this last stage of the proceedings, by our ad vice? Shall we assume for the popular branch of the Constitution the responsibility which now rests, and justly rests, in the Crown, the duty of advising the Crown to suspend or allow this Act. In my opinion it will be much wiser to leave this discretion and respon sibility with the Crown, and not to commit ourselves to a contest with the popular Assembly of Canada, a con test which I foresee to be inevitable if we take the course of advising the disallowance of this Bill.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time, I agree with the Right Hon. Gentle man in the sentiment which he has expressed, that it would be much better for us to dissolve all connexion with a colony, however important, rather than maintain that connexion at the expense of the honour of the Crown.—(hear, hear.) I entirely agree in that senti ment. I must also say that I feel a deep sympathy for those gallant men who stood by the colony in her hour of difficulty during the rebellion.—(Hear, hear.) lam not surprised at the sentiment expressed by my Right Honourable Friend. It would be most unwise in us if we were to confound all distinction between loyal and disloyal men.—(Hear, hear.) I do not believe that those men who stood by the colony in 1837 nn 1838— who resisted American invasion, and all attempts to dissever the connexion between Canada and the mother country--I do not believe that they—indeed I acquit them all together of any participation in the outrageous and disgraceful acts by which public disturbance has been created in Canada respecting Lord Elgin. There is not, I am sure, a man in this Ilouse—whatever course he may feel inclined to take on this question—who will not repudiate any connexion with the disloyal and dis affected men who insulted the Governor by proceeding to acts of violence.—(Hear.) I believe that that party in Canada whose loyalty I must applaud and admire— whose past exploits in vindication of British connexion I never will forget—are as little responsible as we are for the acts of those persons.—(Hear.) They have shown by their address to the Governor that they were ready to put on record the expresiion of their indigna tion at the acts to which I refer. At the same time, while I admire the fidelity with which these parties have adhered to British connexion, I cannot consent that we should make ourselves partisans to Canadian politics.— (Hear, hear.) I believe the only hope we have of maintaining that connexion permanently and with reci procal advantage to the mother-country and the colony, is by acting on the principles on which Lord .Elgin has acted in maintaining justice and impartiality. Are we, then, to make compensation to rebels ? It is said that two exceptions have been made, and that the excep tions in this Act constitute the difference between it and the Upper Canada Act. The two exceptions do, in fact, constitute the rule which must be observed by compet ing you to exclude every rebel unless they fall within the two categories. What said Lord Cathcart on this point ? You have his positive assurance that he had no intention of encouraging rebels or treason in Ca nada. You have also the delaration—made, certainly, since the Act passed—of Mr. Lafontaine and of those who were parties to the Act, that it was not their in tention to encourage rebels. Lord Elgin says that in the Assembly it was stated that the principle on which the Bill was framed had already been acted on in Upper Canada, and that Parliament by its unanimous vote had given a pledge that it should likewise be applied to Lower Canada. Lord Elgin also says that it was false to affirm that the measure was intended for the benefit of rebels, but, on the contrary, that all convicted rebels—all who had confessed their guilt and been sent to Bermuda were expressly excluded from it. Lord Elgin goes on to say that with reference to all the rest—those not in cluded in the two categories, the Cummisioners under the Act would be bound under the sanction of an oath precisely in the same way as the Commissioners for Upper Canada h a d b een before them, to exam i ne mi nutely into the justice of all claims, and apportion the indemnity according to the true intent and meaning of the Act.—(Hear.) If that be so—if the principle of the Act be itidentieal with the principle of the Upper Canada Act—l ask you whether it would be wise, with the information before us, to draw this invidious distinc tion between Upper and Lower Canada, and to impose by Act an obligation on the Crown to take a different course in Lower Canada from that which it had taken with respect to Upper Canada, and against which we, cognisant of the facts, made no objection.—(llear, hear.) In addition to the assurance of the Governor of Canada, we have the assurance of the Noble Lord opposite that the decision of the Government, will be suspended till the instructions which are to be received arrive. The Attorney-General had been applied to for his opinion as to the legal construction of the Act, and to state as a lawyer whether he believes the exceptions introduced will limit the discretion of the Commissioners, and compel them to exclude every other party from the Bill. I under- would emover the qu, soon as a lawyer, and that looking to the preamble of the Act, he did not think it imposed an obligation on the Commissioners to exclude any ()ther claims than those of convicted rebels. if that be so--if the same latitude b e g i ven t o th e C omm i ss i oners in Lower Canada as had been given to the Commissioners for Upper Canada, I do d e p reca t e th e a d opt i on b y this House of a course which, I think, would create a rnatFe rill distinction with reference, to Lower Canada. I said before that I am willing to draw a distinction, as far as can draw it, between loyal and disloyal men.—(Hear. I should lament the day when this House showed an un willingness to give due credit to men who, in times of difficulty, rally round the British standard for the pro tection of British honour and British interests.—(Hear. But I cannot allow th a t f ee li ng , warm and cordia l as it is, so far to influence me to give a party vote, which would be destructive of th e p r i nc i p l e of representative goverment.—(Cheers.) Our constant interference with local affairs, with which we must be imperfectly ac quainted, will only cloud the prospect which I trust 13 opening to us, of a long, permanent, and cordial con nexion with a colony, in the welfare and prosperity of which England ought to feel the deepest interest.-- (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI—Before I address to the House the very few observations which, after the lengthened de • bate which has taken place, I feel it my duty to make, I must, with the permission of the House, remark that the Right Honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, in quoting the opinion of Lord Elgin, with the view of legitimately influencing our opinion, has, through inad vertence, been guilty of what I must consider a consi derable omission. The Right Honourable Gentleman said that he quoted the words of Lord Elgin (Sir Robert Peel was understood to express his dissent). The sentence used by Lord Elgin, from whom the Right Honourable Baronet quoted, began—" To this it was answered, the paragraph of the Bill was framed," and the Right Honourable Baronet omitted the words " to this it was answered."—(Hear, hear.) But to proceed. I must say that having, I believe, listened to the debate to-night with as much attention as any Gentleman in this House, and having heard many inge nious observations, many loyal and many liberal sentiments, yet I am, I must own, at a loss to discover why the debate was adjourned last night.—(Lead cheers.) I am, notwithst an di ng t h e speec h es o f this evening, still of opinion that the subject last night was most amply debated. The three • most considerable parties were represented by some of their most dis tinguished Members. That section of the House which has taken a most active part in the Canadian discussions for the last fifteen years, had the opportunity of having its views most ably argued; and then, and as if to ren der the debate complete, a most able and accomplished member, and one who is regarded with respect by all, the intimate connexion of the Governor General, also addressed the House (Hear.) The case, then, appears to me, after all we have heard, not to have lost the ori ginal simplicity which it assumed in my view from the first.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) has told us, in referring to a system of constitu tional government, that the opinion of the majority should be conclusive under ordinary circumstances. Who, I ask, denies that position?—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman, however, warmed up in the course of his address, and he then told us that the principle of con stitutional government in Canada was dependent upon our vote to-night.—(Hear.) Another Right Hon. Gen tleman (Mr. V. Smith), who addressed the House in the early part of the evening, told us that the real question at stake was whether or not there is to be responsible government in Canada.—(llear, hear.) Now, Sir, I think the real question at stake is, whether her Maj , sty shall exercise her constitutional right of a veto or uot? —(Cheers.) Why, if the opinion of a majority is to be always conclusive, how can there ever be such a thing as the exercise of a veto? And it; under the constitu tion of Canada the exercise of a veto his been contem plated, how comes the discussion as to the expediency or inexpediency to be perverted into the question whether er not responsib!e government is to be taken away from Canada?—(Hear.) Whatever may he my opinion and that of many gentlemen in this House as to the circum stances under which the Canadian constitution was framed, and as to the expediency or inexpediency of a political adjustment, yet I would be the first man to say that, that constitution having been established, nothing would be more impolitic or more unprincipled than the House of Commons, directly or indirectly, interfering to prevent the constitution from having full and free play in that country. I wish to state this, because I have heard the opinion expressed as to the expediency of severing the alliance between the two provinces, and forming a federation of o th er prov i nces, something like that plan that has been suggested with regard to Austra lia. I trust that no such scheme as that will be adopted without very tnatui e consideration. I am - rather con firmed in ray apprehensions upon this point by reading the resolutions that were arrived at at a meeting at Frede rickton, in New Brunswick, and by which were de nounced the very Bill, the fate of which we are this night assembled to discuss. If I am to form my opinion from the feeling expressed at that public meeting of the most respectable inhabitants of New Brunswick—l would say, that at this moment they are not inclined to a federal union between that province and Canada; and therefore the united provinces may be permitted to enjoy that Constitution which we some years since thought proper to sanction.—(Hear.) The question then, is not the ex istence or non-existence of the Constitution of Canada; and when I he ar th e Ri g h t H on. Gentleman the Presi dent of the Board of Trade appealing to us in such a pathetic and moving tone about the Constitution of Ca nada, I must say, that when I hear him so speak, I am reminded of a speech that he made ten years ago, on a subject congenial to the present, but not altogether of a similar nature. lam reminded, I say, of the powerful and eloquent harangue that the same Right Hon. Gen tleman made when he came forward and called urn this House to abrogate the Constitution of another colony.—(Loud cheers.) Who, I ask, could suppose when they heard of the Right Hon. Gentleman's alarm and indignation at our contemplating the possibility of her Majesty's exercising her prerogative, that the same Right Hen. Gentleman should ten years ago have sup pressed a responsible Government—that he should have abrogated—abrogated by wholesale—the Constitution of a most ancient, powerful, and loyal colony.—(Cheers.) And now with the same Right Honourable Gentleman no one is to mention the constitutional exercise of a veto by her Majesty. Such is now his extreme delicacy and tendert', ss with a Constitution, that in his opinion the iuterference—the constitutional interference of the Crown is not to be tolerated.—(Cheers.) I wish her Majesty's Ministers would apply that sensitiveness and delicacy to our foreign relations.—(Loud cheers.) These Noble Lords and Right Hon. Gentlemen whose nerves will not allow their Sovereign to exercise her constitu tional functions because, forsooth ! they will not inter• fere with a constitution in Canada, are yet to be found busying themselves in every part of the world—will per mit no Government to administer any affairs in which they have not sonic hand—(Cheers)—and, as in Spain, intrusted their envoy to call on the Ministers of the country, and to recommend them to study public opinion. —(Cheers and laughter.) I think the case before us is a very simple case. We are not going to attack the con stitutional liberties of Canada. We are hound in policy, in honour, and in feeling, to take care that all parties are maintained in the full exijoyment, the fitting exercise of their constitutional rights.—(Hear, hear.) It is a simple case before. us. Is there, or is there not, a scheme, produced and promulg a ted un d er th e consti tution that was granted to Canada, which scheme affects the honour and grievou , ly tarnishes the credit of the Crown of England?—(Bear, hear.) Is th e re, or p there not, announced, on the credit of the Ministers, In Canada, a plan which is hostile to the interests of those whom it concerns? The honour of the Crown should be justly dealt by.—(Hear, hear.) Here, then, is a case , which I think it would be well that the House should be acquainted with. It is ono with which I myself hdve been but recently acquainted —even so lately as within the last hour. It is the case of Colonel Chisholm.— .eo b lo u n t e i l t appearshisho Chisholm to is me one t o o (Hear, hear.) Ido not kn ow w h et h er the house is ac quaintedg ed o with e it . t gentlemen—he is one of those possessing t f h h t h e e o a h s v g e g h r y l 1 i n h qua lities which the Right Hon. Gentleman has so justly praised. He had arrested in the unhappy rebellion a tell-known traitor—F. Malcolm, for whose arrest a reward of 250/. had been offered. It so happened that Colonel Chisholm, being a man who considered him self sufficiently rewarded by the exercise of his loyal duties, did not take the 2501. reward.—(Hear, hear.) But; the circumstances of Colonel Chisholm had changed ; he was not so prosperous as he had been ten or twelve years ago. Probably his fortunes had been affected by these economical experiments which Lord Elgin, your great authority, declares have Canada.—(Cheers.) In no slight degree contributed to the disaffection of Colonel Chisholm, however, hear ing that the whole question of rewards and compensa tions had been opened, a memorial was addressed by him to the Government, in which he reminded them that he had a claim for 250/ ; and this ho asked for without interest, not like the rebels, who always made a claim with interest.—(Laughter and cheers). To this request a letter was sent in answer to Sir Alan M‘Nab, by whom the memorial was forwarded. The secretary's letter was dated the 18th March, 1849, and the secretary said that he had to inform Sir Alan M`Nab that his Excellency had considered the petition of Colonel Chisholm, request ing to be paid the reward of 250/. for aprehending the traitor Malcolm, in December, 1837, and his Excellency said be could not admit the claim. "it having been allowed to remain dormant for so long a period, cannot now be entertained."—(Hear.) That was the answer of the Governor-General, who was preparing lists of claims for rebels—(Cheers)—claims of as old a date, and thus re wards were to be given not to loyal men, brt to rebels. —(Cheers.) Well, I say, that a document like that is very instructive, and it would have been well if it had been placed on the table of Parliament along with that curious collection which the Colonial-office has favoured us with, and on which I shall have to make some re marks presently. I said just now that I should be sorry to see or to entertain the thought that to remedy these evils we should dissolve the political knot that unites the two Canadas. I remember that the scheme was devised by eminent statesmen, to whom I give credit for vaster know-10p, and who have bestowed a larger consideration on the subject, than myself. I think that the combina tion of the Canadas, and the qualities of the population of Upper Canada will ultimately remedy the inconve niences that are now suffered.—(Hear.) But, Sir, that very circumstance that it is unnessary to dissolve the tie between the two colonies, and that in the increased popu lation, and consequently increased energies of Upper Canada, the remedy for political grievances will be found, that very conviction imposes on us the consideration that it is of the utmost importance that as public men we should avoid permitting any party to triumph over the other. It is possible that, supported by a majority of the House of Commons, the party now dominant in Upper Canada fur a brief space might reward ancient service, and treat loyal men in a manner similar to that in which Colonel Chisholm has been treated by that Governor. General whom you have so much lauded,--.