The Sun. — London, England, 1844-05-31 00:00:00

..-...,..° T. tint:. diet 11 , se-yera ition f rCin, e Sam a petit ion Or ) coursing' stingy Pr °. ly present/ therefore, .dship not D With re WAY. cd - tbst Bill whic b pnstru cti oll o 'he rea s s ap point, inten o 'noney ilj o r Y, had arts ;recteuf - til ed by l Holybef. at it w ' !oyez-800 id for the ght to be , inasol° eli 1 Itailol ntraen t of I not Ant i ' I not boo nd he 51 1; arn i c a ri , / )n of the ave ri°l ) ension ° of ntatent SOUS IS ' tee op the Ai derSt ° T ir pra ;leg ad be dified ask t" 'odd 00 ad on 1.11. wh" ignesS to the nub' ; us cireu lt he eir . ,t 1 ester bcPP.a.' ness es Lion to the of fut_ le to stecl ° i t ;veil (f n . pet"i Lt to se b ,, fight. tO jrcUlt• 1 . 0 , gretlt, 5 , OSS iie . u ld be c' )t. 'SC Of a pt COU be g ive l l ;, JO , a no t where Cour" few daf doit be , " t io R 4 ge o (dges' tt vise re , nr o I a a f r Wer e ite d )t in tile 1g t° t geSt tl3_s,„ Zits !no r ; betwe case Pi n in `" eel &Jail , o r se—or .cp lo s Lt the ce. 0 1 crime that fa snch rL n the i t stain. by 0 0311 c co je fl 7 the hte:„'3lli ql the rcti r , t be r. - „ ' ti'y , iieoo .ll . )1: tir e • roc' s icli orso-11 s ) c 7 e e )O1 its ill 3' ; 5 6 ,seD W 1 ! ) " j a sec yr tba t • r oo to fr . ro ar r , t ~ as,c ol 7 l o let' t ha t f e lt ra , 1,11;00 i 5 his c" . ibilj l e We s ' ri'' ,r; ,feel he " "t foo 15 fr°llll it , 0 115 ' 0°6'44 00 COI tniptaining of the monopoly of the Bank of Ireland, yr.Ying the House not t o renew t h e c h arter. ;l•V (1 CASTLEREAGH presented a petition from and in f avour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill; discs ;Petition from a congregation of Wesleyan Methu 10In the county of Down, and a congregation of .an Methodists in Newtownards, against - the Bill. ti o4 r • eOBDEN presented a petition from a congrega; cha_o_fsD_issenters in Scotland, against the Dissenters chapels Bill. se, A , r. G. PALMER in a petition from a Dis_ congregation in Berkshire, and one from a con -s.!.gation in B uekinghamshire, to the same effect. of, and HARRY VANE presented a petition in favour sir pre.yrtit,ion against, the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. IA trLIS presented a petition from the '''un and deny of Oxford, against the union of ees o f b Arch the el ern , anger and St. Asaph ; also a petition from the e ast l•Yroon of the Church of England, residing in New ker:°,l,Tyne, against the Dissenters' Chapels BM. i-E4tiNL Presented petitions from several . places ,A 1 rsetshire, against the Dint nters' Chapels Bill. re etp r ; T; DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the lk:"1 )01 ?.s, in favour of art-unions ; and another from tirnsp,'re, again s t t h e Dissenters' Chapels Bill. ti on BRIGHT prese n t e d a pet i t i on f rom a co fs° ngrga , cf P rotestant Dissenters at Swindon, in Wiltshire ; ciP e titions f rom the counties of Norfolk and Durham, l'taarbits)) "3,,,0ii ,rd other places, praying that the Dissenters' might not pass ' into a law. -AIKEY presented petitions from several C o mplainin g o f t h e state of medical law. The urable 'limber al so p resente d a petition, signed eoione hundred inhabitants of New Plymouth, in the 11ieh c _ f• New Zealand, stating that the district in til e . taey were located was one of the most fer- Veatel4 the• Colony, but that they had the ra ki , st difficulty in procuring labour, because 444 , 44 0 r the proprietors- of land were absente_es s tri ct ° petition from the inhabitants of various di V alla ' i, 'n the metrolis, raying that the Waterloo, t ° h and Southwark-bridges might be thrown open nbl" "alertr tiii/Te*, — " 1, 4 presented a petition from some place in h a gainst the union of the dioceses of St. Asap L or rgor. tees oftj~ UNCAN presented a petition from the trus , so . • 'knit s / .1; „ savings banks in Bath against the Savings' kr G i T l;* 'eya --UCGER presented a petition from the Wes- Ch. Meth o di sts of Durham against the Dissenters' 4 Irll A r a • frog CLA UDE HAMILTON presented petitions k ale% ln° Wesl e y an congregat i ons i n Tyrone to the keik r w et i • • Eq . „ " L LSON PATTEN presented a petition from a brio c ongregation in Cheshire to the same effect ; i o a Petition from the board of guardians of some zletv Cheshire against the bastardy clauses of the Mr, p oor- Cheshire Act. attilo,,''„VlLLE presented a petition from Windsor, 111 11 ; e ` so ut t e 0 ;:enters' Chapels Bill. f r • W (). (1 0 , . "ES presented a petition from the Baptists gainst the Dissenters' Chapel Bill. Th—N'tIESTER ROYAL INFIRMARY BILL : titzrealap,nacshseedst.er Royal Infirmary Bill was read a third Bteod for Tue • "UNCOMBE postponed his motion_ , which sday next, till Tuesday, the 25th of June . tf r. BANK CHARTER. 'r th e /,' A WES gave notice that, on the second reading e at alt Charter Bill, he should move that no suffi 'terfe ri ` 4e nce had b een g i ven to justify the Mouse in sir with banks of issue. Charte- . 1-1 - , LIAM CLAY gave no ti ce th a t on th e B an k Ha ase 5 , B ill bei ng rea d, h e s h ou ld move t o omi t of a n ,d other c l auses w hi c h di re ct e d the substitu -antt of England notes for country notes. 11r 1 , ~BANG OR AND ST. ASAPII. 4e.tr.:_v• STANLEY gave notice, that on the 22d of 1„1,;uould move for aSelect Committee on the 6th ,4114.",Nilliana IV , chap. 27, with a view to repeal so l'a , t tO ti r ' , lhe as related to the union of the sees of „Al t ijr,n(LSt. Asaph 4 r114 -- „," ) . I ,E gave -- no ' tice that, on , the 25th of June, he c atie * . ' ° 'e for returns with respect to the Royal ray. with respect to his motion t Tuesday the kr, c - -DANISH is RIIISTIE postponed Tuesday nett to 18 tli aill'h Claims from CLAIMS. pc),fane T I the tjuUllTA MARTIAL (EA'BLL the report on an.. Nn the rsetio n of Dr. NlC_:ll_ Bill was brought up d tto4lllartial (East India) NDIA) BILL. _ly e& the m°- kr :reASt2r J. A. R. CHICHESTER. bring forward ouse ti f)ll 4,- tllVlam- aid he rose " That t *il l (''. Which h e had given otice, CHICHESTER. Committee to Is ;Majesty, that is to her her Ma ti sit er of the following address be presented to pleased 114i1 tiesd aY next, resolve n itself into a .its,Y' t hat an humble address to Utipraying that her claim made by Inn,. llob" tt ,' Into Consideration the,,,. . of Lincoln's..,nwell Majesty - will be graciouslyhJohn lit ' ;41 Itussell Chichester, e, ' William 1 tin 1,1,(;)4e executor of Robert •alist, to 14F i',rpensated American to} '„list, pleased to e to the 44 th q,tY will be graciously . t the balance -Tosses advancein anth at tstkte`‘a,,troant the povid'eelle:ased, of the s I Robert With to for litistl - 4 4 f his adherence amount ....am ointed ta a , 4 consequence e o issioners a- N p r i3 * stv that thlt 'ertained by the C-mm re her --ade He had th, „purpose, and to assu good the hfi9srallegiance, same.'for him to 141'41°1/ will make b e necessary se, but as takks that it would not . ° in matters were interested mote been 11 tajnY It observations to the u efthrerstood that those who tscient ease had on, he mad is kind thought that the gentleman for Nicicitt to warrant an that no political lio4itraceed to satisfy the Ho case. It involved entle ,tillestir,„e aPpeared had a good ac a qu all ie u sc se ence in the of the , g ''ku Z• Mr. Powell, the grandfatherd was man • out o f the 14.014,ac5e ca se he advocate , the breaking thousand 41.4 0 and influence before embarked forty thousand time Ptami:an War, and hea of cons:derable At good feeling It ik s - , in mercantile the connexion. op th-- or importance !(:) ( 1 5 to British nem_ensa shpaedculaeteinonres. 111 8 '. sse who were incline from the throne .n p Crown. Mr. 444et,41 of the speeches Ni,/sas promised to those who to the • he A 'yque o allegiance remained faithful, , - f lvo .l Wee of their . who injury in el of it, rcil htism Wa s one of thob.e., _ m i g ht sustai and as colon Of the i,tilted aPgitnent of militia, the Crown. he only ,'''l *g i e greatest services to compensation _ , in 182 I„eLairo that he had to 9 0001. , to 1 , claim 10,175 L a,""aM to establish a . received loyalists 'c lb heedt of that amount, to the li ki te port* of the money belonging to Hanover, _ ..,, L.... ion in to royal excursions a balance of ,olibrvki expended leaving only was , 1 ,00 41 ,- 1 / atu to Edinburgh, The principle in 'itek.,.,.,' fordthe despoiled loyalists._n se of Commons . ,7 —ose of the House colonists who 66 „d by several votes that the e° indemnified. 1/111fisp',..11'1,1 the following year, should be stir ;`4 l t fj, bY their allegiance proclamation s a nified. Ilk ti ,' ' Lord Cornwallis issued a Id be indemnified. ~`ll th-,%loyalists that they ro sh?nef Carlisle had p ;atm- llouse of Lords the Earl of those deserving men had 'ltl a i a4inst the abandonment that ent of day ban hiettr en emies ; and the Gever•mnthe extreme to a f one msa th e that it would bo base in the expense At the o been e Atil erica -loyalists. could have s lists they Nt ear opai these loyalists • and Yet. d h °N d gu t and prosperity , had sacrifice ns 4 i b e to happiness e w h o ;: , ti t :4 abandoned. Surely those were en country _ i'ltletiri,r°Pq'ty In the service of their in the treaty a re , ;Pee t ; conapensation The article , Leen design teu_ p h 41. il , -.• , , l is t s bau u The House 11 ,/ Le 4"e American ioi a ~ race. u kl 1.41 r a national (11. g not make good th. a blush „ ave as if it did with these men. I: toleta, for shame • entered into which might a't.theet.' engagements was matter thia recollect that this i D rtance to of lit - e Could they t,llll ()enr• It might again become tr - nieh 1 Ilat - t situated in their allegiance. hold them harm he =t, hatti to not only the ~'h ? xi.n Otissolemn engagements had and (' ' ;I° • for in this instance they of Parliament, a rkl t '- cll 'the Crown,but an Act to make ge'd. t, the el ett ,, e of the House had sustained. If U tter '' engagement less they engagements th e the!,,tnost farthing every solemn refuse in liaZro Prana dto violate the h of them, -m4e -.‘ triter d 're and, in the teeth that, whenever Ithey iLlairas, tleieylntocht depend upon it that, be judged of ZY throe Pronals s m i le ' future, they NT integrityof this country ~o41(1---- Lornier ac e tion a s, and the theworld. qtr . I,p questioned in every part of 0. the motion. Ihe 14IComBE seconded - 1 SPAXPR having put the question, otion. ose the m n a q—Csito 4 to ePP d a t e th n err e eitip. ,irE CLERK rose d 0 u • n t s er i fs , s ' he Was not t all dispose • the America 'hr. e ' th e A • al 'alias during those claims kr b ut , Inerican 0) that . remembered, sed that ` - 'se s It must be was surprised th q 4 cols 6He d one 0 or 70 years ago. have selected t ' l rt,. ° „ t ;* 41 1 d Le a rmed Gentleman should On the treaty ef 1-44111. ease t bring before the House. had been given, ktiritce, arnplec 'a ndfull compensation impediment should be 1,111,'01%,,w,•43 st•pul ted that no ."Ni o „' 411 th%aa„f any just claims. to ad- JAkiclitaL'erg had 12,„--„4 appointed - by Lord Commissioners Grenville were (ktae-' 4 Poll th -- o f the power, in ri ea „,, _ e chums. Two and they had When f i ' s c of ilir, and two were English, C mmissioner. . in_ 'Wel, "crence to choose a fifth 1 , 4 ,. er, case s , for ° decision, it was ~,,Ittlih, found ea were nearly ripe Commissioners „I''''ttleti that the two American impossible to s ec ed e ' a ki the l that it became 00l put it t, ~ to ht , , .r.esu t ryas, Lord LiverP d t rlb e l .Y aecsion. In 1802, ewe have a ren the ~,(,)tuoli,, 94toants whether they would . sfaction of "coif, -si on or filed sum in satisfaction tion, the lq it e Of thei ac cept a some consideration, T 1 eof th r Flainis. After _ the latter alternative. paid li;;('3' itg,.„!, claimants acceded to .. inch was to be _ ,„•1 Arg,,,;‘" to accept aspeeifiedsum w 0 000 L was ac - Ptq ), -- ' 4, in" fair of alt d mands-60-' American it,%. '1 this e d paid by the . The (1 ' ellttle •13 G°vernment' an those claims. made-atriial, at i full satisfaction of as being c lua t its felt-* dissatisfied • h this sum, 43 a t o ii... with t() hoOneigate their just demands.. A Commission 1804, the year 0 000/. it ~,djladie'Stv_ 1_ .ppoin.ted I d a to divide the 6 ' ° dation o,as y et : _oo tile. claims . atn in h the only stipulation ropo- titTeciiii was 44(rzunharitrial.eble r t tie a s _ n i answer to t t. p ~ e m T as re citliteer ttlrd LiveYrpoolPain 1802, 5o per ce'• 1811 the k,Orti,,,e the arc ' f h claims. in ney. In !,!112 7,,,51en tnade itusa-t o d t distributed the a petition to k, sqt '---"e American awe it:a u nts presented t iou. '`te e) Prann f ther co ensation. . 113 1 1 ho went taki ernulittee g or ur that year, w to Wh' 4 4141 IVt3 91134inted in all the matters f 'eh „ minute investigation of Member re ettQl tile 1I investigation and Learned th House tltelgt. resolutic 0 osed tttte tilt that th ese I a? pr cl p aimants had a out a ma_e t l ti: eC'tlikilSatill,,r i t ri t ea t T i l t motion was negatived the ttlt,,t Zreund that the Parties a had elected t o take. _ meri t of raakinn the best terms they could with the afterwards, 1 / 4 eQ e3ll Qever ''' T two u iv, rt, in , ~, ntent. /s, , • ow a ) ear or .Powell 4 's ooe 'ass of clainiants, of whom compensation, httqin. , , Put in a claim for further been -Nalis that although the sum of 600,0001. had native Altlerr divided, yet there Were a number o f 4AccuiZe.ll.3_ who had not b engaged in commercial katzt „lens, and" whos ' • to eell - tances entitled them n_ der th; Peculiar claim. elliractapillelition was brought u . 0 rope,ernsideration of the House by Lord Devon, of the ~_loa, Qe a /notion soniewhat similar to that f o h INII foratimettlan• On the division there were seventy- Wad -- '''' e motion seventy against it. Very THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 51, 1844. soon after the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered the claimaints one moiety of the balance then due to them. The offer was accepted, and it was considered to be a full satisfaction of all demands. The amount of the claims of these fifty-five persons was 227,000/. Having reeei VC d by the award of the Commissioners, in 1811, 105,0001., a balance was still due to them of 122,024 L, end they received exactly half of that sum. Now, he asked the House whether, after this subject had been fully discussed in i°2l and 1825, and a settlement had been made, they would permit the question to be again re-opened ? By agreeing to this they wouAl open all the other claims, and revive a question which had been settled 25 years ago. The parties had accepted one moiety of their claim in full satisfaction of their demands ; and he thought that there could be nothing more unwise than re-open ing a question that had been satisfactorily settled. He must oppose the motion. Mr: VILLIERS did not know that the claims had ever been satisfactorily settled. The Hon. Baronet said that nothing could be more unwise than re-opening this question ; but he could not see that it would be unjnst. The claimant was not a di,tant connection of Mr. Powell ; he was his grandson, and the representative of the last of the claimants. So that the• objection that allowing his claim would open that of the others, did not hold. The settlement of 1802 was opened again in 1821. Colonel Powell did renew his claim every year; and the Exchequer did not say that his claim was unjust, but that there were no means of satisfying it. Sir G. CLERK said that from 1815 to 1821 the in terviews of Colonel amen with the Chancellor 'of the Exchequer were much more frequent than once a year. , Mr. lIUME said that none of the parties had ever considered their claims as satisfied. He was one who ad vised them to take what the Government offered. If the relative of Colonel Powell was declared entitled to this claim the relatives of all the others would have a claim also. He was much averse to refusing justice to any individual, and he thought the Government had in many cases acted very badly—as in refusing the Danish claims, and the compensation to the British merchants in China ; but he-should advise his Hon. Friend not to press his motion to a division, as the House was in fl state of ignorance on the subject. Mr. JIMVIS The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place.—The motion was then negatived without a di- vision. APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES. Mr. KELLY rose pursuant to notice to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to provide an appeal in criminal cases. It was almost incredible that while in every case of a civil character, no matter whether the question involved a large or a small amount of money, the law as it stood at present gave an appeal. A person who felt himself aggrieved' either by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge, could appeal from that verdict or that decision, and carry the case even before the highest tribunal of the • land. But in a criminal case, which must involve a question of character, property, or even life, there was no appeal, according to the law of England, against the verdict of the jury, however erro neous, or the decision of the judge, however mistaken. In every country in Europe, and throughout every civilized country in the world, an appeal was given as well in criminal cases as in civil, and the error of a jury or a judge must be rectified by appeal ; but in this country the state of the law was such, that no matter how glaring and palpable might be the • error into which the jury might have-been led, or however mistaken the judge might have been in point of law, there was no remedy for the party injured, though his liberty, his character, his property, or even his life might be in jeopardy. To -remedy such a state of things he now asked for leave to bring in a Bill—the guiding principle of which was that it endeavoured to assimilate as far as was practically -possible the law and practice in criminal cases, to the law and practice in civil cases. The Ho nourable and Learned Gentlemen then went on to show what the practice _was with regard to civil cases. In all civil cases any person who thought himself ag grieved, either by an error in the verdict of the jury or by an error in the statement of the law as made by the judge,. had an opportunity of appealing, first of all to a court composed of four or five judges, next to a court composed of double that number of judges, and ulti mately to the House of Lords. The consequence was that, in the administration of the law in civil cases, any errors which were committed were remediable, were cor rected most frequently, and ultimately justice was done. The result was, that in all civil cases there was the ut most confidence throughout all classes of the com munity that justice was done in courts in civil cases. It was almost without an example that any attempt had ever been made either in Parliament or by the press to impeach the judgments of courts of law in civil cases, because all were agreed that if a party acquiesced in an unjust decision it was his own fault, because he pos sessed the power of appealing, if he chose to exercise it. In criminal cases, however, the state of the law was directly the reverse, and it was inconceivable, looking at the constant improvement which bad taken place in our laws, and to the anxiety which the Legislature had manifested to amend the defects, it was inconceivable that century after century such a state of things should have been suffered to exist, when the remedy was so plain, so easy, and so certain. In civil cases, in which property alone was affected, an appeal was allowed, but there was no appeal in criminal cases, in which lite itself was sometimes at stake. He proposed to remedy this evil ; but before he drew the attention of the House to the remedy which he proposed, lie must take the liberty of observing that he did not believe that such a state of the law would have been suffered to exist if the Members of either House of Parliament had been as liable to be indicted for crimes as all were to be parties in civil actions.—(Hear, hear.) It happened that the criminal law applied . more frequently against the humbler classes of. society; but if the Members of the Legislature had been as liable to have their characters, their liberties, ' their property, and their lives placed in jeopardy by the criminal law, as their property was in civil cases, be felt assured that the same remedy would have been provided in criminal cases that was at present provided in all civil cases. It was impossible to conceive any state of the law more opposed to the due administration of justice than was the state of our criminal law. A man was in dicted—he was tried, evidence was adduced, as in other - cases, on the one side and on the other. By a modern improvement, which, strange to say, had been much op posed, counsel might now be heard for the defence in criminal as well as in civil cases, which he acknowledged was a great improvement ; the judge summed up the case, and the jury returned their verdict. The verdict was returned ; there was only one of three courses which could be taken, whatever doubts might exist as to the propriety of that verdict, or as to the correctness of the learned judge in stating the case to the jury. After a verdict of guilty was once pronounced against a pri soner, however convinced the counsel might be that that verdict had been procured by'means of false evi dence—although the prisoner might know it was wrong, —although all present might be convinced that the pri soner was innocent—although all lawyers might feel as sured that the judge, in his charge to the jury, was mis taken, there was no appeal allowed by which this mis take could be remedied. There was no means of ob taining a reviewal of that decision but in two ways, which he would state to the House. But before doing so, he would observe that, upon a verdict of guilty, even if the evidence was ever so untrue or misrepresented, if the Learned Judge was satisfied with the verdict there was no remedy ; he passed sentence, and it was carried into effect even to death itself.—(Hear, hear.) No one familiar with the practice of the criminal courts of this country could entertain a doubt upon the fact that there had been a great many cases where the verdict had been wrong or the charge of the judge wrong, inasmuch as there was no power of correcting if injustice was done and the innocent suffered death. He could mention many cases to prove what he had stated, but as he did not wish to trouble the House at length he would only advert to one. Nine years ago a man named Chalker was indicted with another man at *Suffolk, for the murder of a gamekeeper in a wood. The trial came on before an eminent judge now no more ; evidence was given that Chalker was in the wood at the time of the murder, blood was found upon his clothes, and there was circumstantial evidence more or less strong of his guilt. The Learned Judge had early in the trial taken an impression against the prisoner; he summed the case up most clearly and imparti ally, but most ingeniously. Chalker was convicted, and his fellow prisoner acquitted. He declared that his fellow prisoner was as innocent as him self, and the counsel for Chalker being convinced of his innocence, took the greatest trouble to establish that fact, and having collected a mass of evidence on the sub ject, he laid it before the judge, in hopes, at least, of obtaining a respite for some time of the sentence of death that had been pronounced on Chalker, but the Learned Judge adhered to the opinion he had formed, declared himself perfectly satisfied of the prisoner's guilt, and refused to interfere. Chalker suffered death ; but it had since transpired that the man who had actually committed the murder, who had seen the miserable vic tim executed, had come forward and confessed his guilt, declared he was the murderer, that the mau who was executed was innocent, and gave himself up to jus tice. This was one among many instances which time brought forth, of persons being convicted of crimes, and suffering punishment, because there was no appeal . from the . sentence passed upon them. There was no remission of the penalty, because there was no appeal by law. It might be said that whenever the cir cumstances warranted doubt of the prisoner's guilt, whenever there was any serious objection raised, that no judge would refuse an inquiry, which might be had by applying -to the Secretary of State for the Home Depart ment ; and whenever a legal objection of weight was put forward in the prisoner's favour, it could be argued in error, before twelve or fifteen of' the judges. In answer to these arguments, he replied that there was nothing to compel the judge to reserve these objections ; and most learned and eminent judges had, over and over again, refused to reserve objections which subsequently appeared to have been well founded. He remembered a case in point among his own extremely limited practice in criminal law. A man was indicted in the county of Huntingdon some years ago, and tried before a Learned Judge now no more. Evidence was given ; the case had closed ; he (Mr. F. Kelly) was counsel for the prisoner,and sub mitted with great confidence to the Learned udge cer tain very strong points in the prisoner's' favour. He ' submitted that although the man might have been guilty of a very gross offence, which would have amounted to a misdemeanour, and perhaps rendered him liable to transportation, still, according to the terms of the indict ment, he was not guilty ; he should have been tried on an indictment differently framed. His offence, be sub mitted, was not a capital one, and he should not be punished for it as such. He urged these points on the Learned Judge in Court with all the force and earnest ness he was capable of, but the Learned Judge decided in a most peremptory manner against reserving the ob • jection. He again pressed upon the Learned Judge in Court the propriety of suspending the execution of the prisoner, but was again refused in the same peremptory wanner. Feeling the strength of his objection, he went to the Judge's private resenee in the middle of the night. He was received with all the courtesy whiyh distinguished. the Learned Judge, but his ,application was in vain. In short, after five fruitless applications, when the man was about to suffer death, he (Mr. Fitzroy Kelly) waited, f,r the sixth time, on the Learned Judge, and again urged, er rather insisted, in terms which would cer tainly not have been justifiable under any other circum stance, on the propriety of writing to the Lord CbiefJus tice of the Queen's Bench, or the Lord Chancellor, to have their opinion as to whether there was anything in the point which he urged. At length the judge con sented, and he communicated with Lord Tenterden or the Lord Chancellor. Both of these learned individuals thought the point ought to be reserved—(lcer, hear) — and eight hours before the period fixed for the man's execution, he was respited. The point was; on the fol lowing term, argued before ek yen of the judges, amongst whom was the Learned Judge who tried the man, and they were all unanimous that the point should have been reserved, and that the indictment was not sustainable.— (Hear, hear.) Here was a case in which a man's life had been saved by mere chance ; then let him not be told that the judge would, on every occasion, reserve a point for argument, if there was anything in it, however eminent or learned that judge might be.— (Hear, hear.) The man .was now living. a reformed person, and a good member of society. Such was the state of the law when there was a verdict of guilty re turned, and when, to every impartial bystander, the reasons urged •by the prisoner's counsel might be all sufficient, still the judge might be inexorable, and the unfortunate accused, although innocent, as in Chalker's case, might suffer the punishment of death. However contrary the conviction might have been to the law of the land, yet still it rested upon the fiat of the judge whether the prisoner might not suffer punishment, or even death itself.—(Hear, hear.) He asked if this state of thiggs should be allowed to continue in a country where the law was fairly administered ? But even where the Learned Judge was disposed to entertain the objections urged, the remedy—if remedy it could he called—was of a most unsatisfactory character. What was the course when a man bad been convicted of a crime, and when the objection of his counsel had been reserved by the judge for argument ? First, the judge's entertaining the objection at all was a matter of indul gence, and not a matter of right. So that the prisoner might be indebted for his life, not to the law, but to the kind and merciful discretion of the judge. He did not speak in any manner disrespectfully of the bench, but it was a well known fact in Westminster Hall, that some of the judges would entertain objections which others would absolutely refuse—so that it was altogether a matter of accident, whether or no the prisoner, innocent or guilty, should have the point which his counsel had honestly raised in his favour argued at all or not. But even, as he said before, where the point was reserved what was the proceeding ? The judges met together, not in open court, as on objections is a civil cases, but in some private room in Sergeant's Inn, or elsewhere, and there counsel was heard, and heard, he must say, after a most irregular manner. It often happened that counsel for the Crown was not employed on these occasions. and it sometimes occurred that the prisoner was not able to fee counsel. Then in this private room the judges met, and the point was decided which was to grant liberty or inflict death on a fellow-creature. In a civil case, on a like occasion, all the customary forms in our courts of judicature would be gone through, and, what was still more valuable, the arguments of the counsel and the reasons of the judges would be stated before the public ; but in this case the judges gave no reasons at all, but it was made known in some private or conventional manner to the prisoner's counsel what the result of the judges' deliberations was—whether the man's life was saved, or whether it was to be taken away. Thus no addition could be made to the code of the common law of the realm—no decisions were re corded, or reasons published, which might be guides hereafter in like matters. In fact, at present we had no digested body of criminal law at all ; and it required the master mind of the individual who had now undertaken it, to reduce our criminal law to an intelligent code. The other course left open for a person convicted under the criminal law was still more objectionable—viz. by application to the Secretary of State. If there was a strong case made out for interference, the Secretary of State referred to the judge who tried the man, and in most cases the Secretary of State was guided by the opinion of the judge. Thus again the man's life depended on the will of a single individual. But suppose the Secretary of State went further, and demanded the evidence to consider ; hence the Secretary of State was certainly placed in a position of awful re sponsibility. Well, then, he received a copy of the evi dence from the judge's notes—he must receive such evi dence as was laid before him—he had no power to demand any other—it might be false, but he had no power to examine parties on oath—no means of satisfy ing himself whether the statements made were correct or incorrect ; and yet upon these slender grounds ha must come to a decision upon the life of a fellow-crea ture.—(Hear, hear.) But in most cases the Secretary of State rested satisfied with the judge's bare representa tion, and acted accordingly.—(Hear, hear.) The con sequence of these things was, that the guilty often escaped, and the innocent often suffered. (Hear, hear.) It was to provide a remedy for these evils that he submitted the present measure to the House. Where there was an erroneous verdict, or where there was a misdirection of the judge, or good grounds for supposing either, he proposed by this Bill to render the mode of appeal the same in criminal as in civil cases, or at least as nearly so as possible, taking their specific difference into consideration. He proposed that in every criminal trial, whether at the Central Criminal Court, or before the going judge of assize, or at quarter sessions, or any other criminal tribunal, to enable the prisoner by his counsel, when there was a verdict of guilty, to:move in any of the superior courts at Westminster Hall to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, why there should not be a new trial, and why the ver dict not guilty should not have been returned, or why the judgment should not be reversed •, and whenever the court was satisfied, either upon affidavits or upon a review of the evidence, or upon a belief that improper evidence had been received upon the trial, or proper evi dence rejected, or where witnesses were brought forward suddenly, and whose testimony the prisoner could have satisfactorily disproved if due notice had been given, or where the Learned Judge had misdirected the jury in point of law, or in an erroneous summing up of the facts, in all or any of these cases, as in civil actions, he proposed that it be at the discretion of the Court to grant a new trial, or to order that the verdict of guilty be set aside and a new verdict of not guilty be recorded. He also proposed that there should be full power to move for an arrest of judgment, and that, as in civil cases, appeal to the House of Lords might be made, which he presumed would very seldom occur, but, nevertheless, resort should be had to it under proper restrictions. The mode by which he proposed to carry out this part of the measure was by giving an absolute power, in all cases of conviction, to suspend the sen tence until the appeal should have been decided. It was absolutely necessary that the judge should have a dis cretion upon this subject. What he proposed was, that in all cases where a judge should have tried a prisoner, and he had been found guilty, the prisoner should declare, before the sentence was pronounced, that it was his intention to appeal ; and he would give power to the judge either to pronounce a conditional if t sentence, eee v t i o e t e a n k e s b eff eu e l c d t b o e n e t e h e e fi t r e m r mi e d , n a e t r i o t n e p o fe onestthpe a p appeal sentence until the motion had been heard. He pro posed to leave it to the judge either at once to pass sen tence, or to order the prisoner to remain in custody, or to admit him to bail, either upon his own recognisances, or upon good and sufficient bail, until the appeal mo tion had been decided, when, if this appeal were rejected, the sentence should be pronounced. Undoubtedly this part of the measure was open to the objection that it would still be in the power of the judge, if he were perversely determined to carry into effect the verdict, to refuse to respite the sentence. But it was impossible to guard against mischief in all cases, and he certainly thought the matter might safely be loft to the judges of the land; unless the thing were so clear that no human being could entertain a doubt about it, the judge would, in all capital cases, postpone the execution of the sentence ; while, if the sentence were exe cuted, except in cases of life and death, the worst that could happen was that the prisoner would suffer imprisonment, or undergo the first stages of trans portation, until the ensuing term. But be had no doubt that, practically, if this measure passed into a law, Jus tice would always be done. In cases where a frivolous objection was raised, the judge might pass sen tence; on, the other hand, in cases where any ' serious doubt existed, either upon a matter of fact or a matter of law, or the verdict of the jury, upon notice of appeal being given it might be taken for granted that the judge would postpone or arrest the sentence. Now, he was at a loss to understand what reasonable objection could be made to this measure. It had been urged, as an objection to the power of appeal under such circum stances, that it would give an advantage to the rich over the poor ; that the rich would always be able to appeal, and that the poor could not afford to do so ; that it would be in fact making one law for the rich and another for the poor. He thought that objection would equally apply to the power of appeal in civil cases. Such advan tages were incidental to the nature of things, and could not be avoided. But, looking at the practical operation of the measure, he saw.no reason for believing that the rich man would enjoy a privilege which was not equally possessed by the poor man. The judge was not bound to admit the rich man to bail. He might order him to remain in prison until the appeal were decided; while the poor man, if unable to obtain bail, might be libe rated, at the discretion of the judge, upon his own re cognisances. Now, there was only one case in which he desired to give power to the prisoner to obtain a respite of his sentence at an earlier period than it could be s obtained in other cases—he al luded, of course, to indictments upon capi tal charges. He proposed that in such cases, if the judge before whom the prisorer was tried refused to allow the appeal, the prisoner should, upon giving notice, have the right to be heard before the recorder and two judges, and this provision would extend to the judges of assize. It might be urged as an objection to his measure that it would be impossible, in the present state of the courts, and with the present number of judges, to dispose of the numerous appeals which would take place if this measure were carried. He must take leave to say that if this measure were just and expedient in itself, it was no answer to the demands made upon the Legislature, on the part of the public, to say that it would create a necessity for some additional judges, and thus cause an additional expense to the country.— (Hear, hear.) But he did not believe that any such necessity would be found to exist. Undoubtedly, if an appeal were to take place in every case, it would occupy half the time of the court. But they did not find the courts of law inundated with appeals in civil cases ; why, then, should they anticipate such a result in criminal cases ? The Bill would be found to afford redress in all cases of a criminal nature where injustice had been done, auli in no case could it be seriously abused. Frivolous appeals would be discountenanced, and if they ever took place they would very soon cease, whereas, in those case, which were of very frequent occurence, in which judges, from the fallibility of human judgment, fell bit° error upon points of law, and in which juries, upon false or misapprehended evidence, fell into error on points of fact, this Bill would provide a remedy. Another conse quence would be, that they would no longer have that House made a tribunel of appeal in criminal casts. No gentleman who had long been a Member of that House, could have failed to recollect a number of discussions which had takea place upon complaints made against judges, or upon objections made in matters of law on cri minal trials. The appeals which were made to that House in the case of Frost . , after he had been convicted, must be fresh in t'.e recollection of the House. Persons who thought themselves aggrievel by the ruling of judges or the verdict of juries, in criminal cases, appealed to that house; and if they could obtain no redress in that House, they appealed to the public newspapers, and there canvassed the decision of the judge or the jury. This was because the law gave them no power of appeal. He might state the whole o f hi s measure in a very few words. Its effect would be to place persons tried and convicted in criminal eases in exactly the same situation with regard to the power of appeal to the courts of law and the judges of the land as that which was occupied by persons concerned in civil cases. He had now started the measure which he had to propose ; he had endeavoured to meet the objections which might be urged against it ; he had pointed out the advantages which he conceived would follow from its adoption. He believed that it would be productive of no evil consee quences whatsoever. It brolte in upon no legal or constitutional principle ; it invaded the rights of no one member of the community ; it involved not the ex penditure of one shilling of public money ; and he be lieved that it would tend to the advancement of the pure, just, and righteous administration of the law in this country. He would now move for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for appeal in criminal cases. Mr. GODSON seconded the motion. This power was, in fact, already possessed by those who could pay for it in cases of misdemeanour. A criminal matter was con verted into a civil one by writ of certiorari. Surely, in proportion to the weight of the punishment should be their care in providing against injustice. He would, on some future occasion, be able to adduce other arguments in favour of the measure ; but he thought this was un answerable, namely, that the power was already pus sessed in criminal cases of another description. Sir J. GRAHAM said that if a gentleman of lesser eminence than the lion. and Learned Member who had introduced this motion had made the proposition which he had brought under their notice, and if that proposi tion had been made in a speech infinitely less able than the one which they had had the pleasure of listening to, he would not have .thoughtit eansistenCivith his duty to resist the preliminary. motion for the introduction of a Bill on this subject. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman, with his long experience, had said that, in his opinion, the cause of - justice and truth, and even of mercy, required appeal in criminal cases. Now he had listened with great attention to the speech which had been made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and he had been struck with one reflection, that raised a doubt in his mind with respect to the policy of this mea sure. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman observed, with great truth, that the administration of justice in this country had raised its character among the nations of the world ; and he remarked also, at the same time, that the utmost attention had been bestowed in efforts to improve the administration of justice generally, and especially of criminal justice. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had remarked, with truth, that this anomaly —for he admitted it to be an.anomaly—of the absence of appeal in criminal cases had existed for centuries, and that, up to the present time, no law reformer bad ever proposed that there should be the power of appeal in criminal cases. Now he did not say that that fact was decisive against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's proposal, but it should certainly inspire him with caution, and prevent him from arriving at once at the conclusion which lie had so positively pronounced. Now, he thought the defence of the proposition made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman mainly rested on an analogy which he stated was established between civil and criminal jurisdiction with reference to appeals. Ho must say that to an unlearned mind that analogy did not appear perfect. He thought he could see a great difference be tween civil and criminal cases. Not waving for one in stant the question of justice, but coincident with the question of .justice. he thought the prominent considera tion was, what course in this matter was most conducive to the public good. In civil cases it was a matter of com parative indifference to the public whether or not con siderable delay should intervene before the settlement of a suit. That could not be said, however, of criminal cases. He conceived that it was then of the last. im portance to the public that punishment should follow quickly upon crime. The object of punishment was example ; public example was the real and only legitimate object of punishment, and -punish ment, as related to the public, lost its efficacy if it were long delayed after the perpetration of the crime. Now the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said he was satisfied that frequent errors were committed in cri minal cases. Tribunals were fallible, and he feared that some errors had been committed ; but the conclusion to which he had come was the opposite of that at which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman stated he had arrived. Although justice,in criminal cases did occasionally mis carry, he believed that crime rarely escap e d, and inno cence rarely suffered. It must not be forgotten that the appeal sought to be established by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was in the nature of a double appeal. He could well understand the arguments in favour of appeal in matters of law, because the decision was pronounced by a single judge ; but the verdict of a jury on a mat er of fact was easily and naturally distinguishable from he fiat of a single judge upon a matter of law. Upon ,he matter of fact there was the concurrence of twelve impartial men, sworn to do justice, and aided by the learning and experience of the judge. Many arguments appeared to him applicable to an appeal front the dictum of a single judge on a point of law, which would alto gether fail when applied to the jury. sow, some of the remedies applied by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman appeared to him altogether inconsistent with the argu ments which be had used. If he understood the Ho nourable and Learned Gentleman rightly, he was willing to depend still on the discretion of the judge. He was sorry that so important a subject was discussed in so thin a House, and he took shame to himself that he was not now prepared to go into a discussion of the whole question. But there was a very important part of the subject to which the Hon. and Learned Gentle man had not adverted—the constitution of the appellate tribunal. He thought that where truth and Justice were concerned, expense was not to be considered. How was the appellate tribunal to he formed ? The present number of judges was not sufficient and to increase and it was not, in his Government Graham's) gone as far as it could go in ' e s) opi n i on , that number beyond fifte en . He thought that the Exe cutive (Sir Jamesgiving its assent to the bringing in of the Bill. The llon. and Learned Member had re f erre d t o th e case o f a murder, committed in Surrey n i ne years ago , respect i ng which a soldier in India had d ec l are d hi mse lf to b e t h e guilty person. It was, however, to be borne in mind that soldiers abroad had sometimes strong inducements to take extraordinary steps to be brought home, and that men had frequently charged themselves as guilty of crimes which they had never committed for the sake of returning home. He would not oppose the motion for bringing in the Bill, but he must say that it required more consideration than he had yet been able to give it, before he could pledg e her Majesty's Government to support it. After a few words from Mr. KELLY, leave was given to bring in the Bill. STATE OF GAOLS. Mr. MACKINNON postponed till Tuesday next his motion fur a Select Committee to inquire into the state of gaols. P OOR - LAWS—GILBERT'S ACT. _ _ On the motion of Sir JiMESGRAHAM, the fol lowing gentlemen were appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the state of those parishes which are under the operation of what is called Gilbert's Act:— Mr. Barneby. Captain Pechell, Mr. Thomas S. Dun combe, Sir R. Heron, Mr. Colvile, Sir Wm. Heathcote, Mr. Beckett Denison, M. Wrightson, Viscount Bar rington, Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. Strutt, Viscount Marsham, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Wakley, and Mr. Pro theroe. Captain PECHELL observed that the people under Gilbert's Act were comparatively happy, and he hoped that it was not the object, and would mot be the result, of the Committee to bring them all under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it was impossible for him to say what the course to be taken by the Govern ment would be until they received the report of the Com mittee. Sir WALTER JAMES gave notice that he would withdraw, for the present session, his motion on the subject ofpoor-laws. DISCHARGED PRISONERS. Mr. HAWESZtained leave to bring in a Bill for the formation of county asylums for the reception of desti tute persons released from prison. SUPPLY—CANADA. On the reading of the order of the day for bringing up the report of the Committee of Supply, Mr. ROEBUCK said that he had to call the attention of the House to a very important subject, and it was no t his fault that there was so small a number of Members present. He wished to warn the Noble Lord opposite of the consequences of the policy which the Government had pursued in reference to the most important of our American possessions. In order to overcome what had been supposed to be the French interest in Canada, a law was passed for the union of the two provinces. Under that law the French Canadians had been used with the utmost rigour—a rigour that was alike discre ditable to the Government and those who represented it. The rock upon which the Noble Lord opposite had split was American democracy, which was now most potent . The only chance now was to deal with the French Ca nadians kindly. He would show that the Government was in the hands of those who were not aware of the effect of what was about to be done; they had miscon ceived their position, and did not understand the task they had to perform. After the House had determined to unite the two provinces it was necessary to carry that project into effect. In order that the House might un derstand the subject he was about to bring under its attention, he must enter a little into the history of the country at that time. Lord Durham went out to that country in consequence of the report of a Committee containing what had been demanded by both colonies for the last twenty years. Then came Lord Sydenham, with whose acts be could not agree. The course pur sued by that Noble Lord showed that the whole of the union of the two Canadas was based on fraud, and was calculated and had led to great injustice to the Canadians, especially the French Canadians. In their elections the polling places were, by orders from the highest authority, placed at such distances from each other, as to render it impossible for many to poll ; in short, the coarse that had been pursued justified the hostility of the French population to the union. But I not content with fraud, Lord Sylenbam imported into _the elections vhl•rice and corruption. That violence, corruption, and fraud, could be clearly shown by the agents of the Noble Lord, and especially one man, whom he had brought over from Ireland. Lord Syclenham was • now no longer Governor of Canada, he was dead—he died at the very moment that would save his reputation, because the proceedings of which he had been ,guilty would have been made clear and brought to light.—(Hear.) Sir Charles Begot was then appointed Governor, and then came a change in the Ad ministration of th e affairs of the country which he would . call to the attention of the House. Sir Charles Begot, adopting a resolution of the House of Assembly, declared he would govern Canada upon the provisions of that resolution, and that the people should hare a respon sible governm..nt. Sir Charles Bagot acting upon the resolution, selected from the House of Assembly persons having their confidence for his Executive Council, deter mining at the same time that his course as regarded the in ternal policy of the" country should be regulated by the advice of the Executive Council. Those individuals had shown themselves the unflinching friends of Canada. It was astonishing to see how the people of Canada re joiced -at the establishment of the new government ; they had been hitherto hunted by the soldiery, their property destroyed, and their wives and children either murdered, or turned out to suffer the inclemency of a Canadian winter. Yet the very persons who had seen all this misery, when sickness fell upon the Governor, and he was in pain and danger of death, put up a sincere and ardent prayer to God for his recovery. These were the much calumniated French Cinadians. At length Sir Charles Bagot died, and was succeeded by Sir Charles Metcalfe. The edam _ tion of Sir Charles ketcalfe was unfortunately far from fitting him for a system of representative government. flowevar learned he might be, however well accustomed he might be to the management of men, he was not well calculated to preside over a representative system of go vernment. lie did not take the view of affairs that Sir Charles Bagot had done. By a representative govern ment, Sir Charles Bagot meant what he had already de scribed. Sir Charles Metcalfe said he meant something else. But from that hour to the present he had never explained what it was he did mean. He said he intended to govern in a responsible manner, but he had never take❑ the trouble to explain in what that responsibility consisted. But before he went into this, he would call the attention of the House to an extract from the pub lished life of Lord Sydenham, for it was right that the Noble Lord should know what power the subordinates of .his own office possessed. Mr. Murdoch, stating the events that took place after the death of Lord Sydenham, and, in commenting on them, remarks :—" No one at all aware of what has, passed, and is still passing there, can doubt that by this appointment the Home Government has' incurred a fearful responsibility, and their embar rassments have now accumulated to such a degree as to threaten a recurrence of the events of 1839." Now he wanted to know if that was the Noble Lord's opinion— whether he thought that Sir Charles Bagot took a wrong view of responsible government. He was anxious that he should declare in face of the House of Commons, what he understood by this somewhat mystical phrase ology. He also begged to call the attention of the House and of the Noble Lord, to what was the state of the Bri tish colonist when he went to Canada, if he had not that which he (Ur. Roebuck) required for him—responsible government. They must recollect, that every English man, leaving England and going to Canada, had all the objects of ambition here entirely cut off from him—all he could expect in that country was the sort of advancement which the local government could afford; and he wished the Noble Lord to bear in mind what country the colonist would compare Canada with. A ri ver, only divided him from America, where the government, the army, and the navy, were all , open to him. He would say, " Were lan American citizen there is nothing at which I could not aim—no object of ambition I might not hope for ; but here I am crippled in a colonial settlement, subjected to an irre sponsible Governor, who has the supreme control. I have no representatives who I can hope will sympathise with me. I am, in reality, the mere offspring of colonial sufferance—the mere wretched dependent of colonial dominion." That was the sort of comparison he would make ; and if they confined him to that interpretation of responsible government, he asked them, taking warning by what had passed, and looking with the eye of states men to the future, what would be the effect of such com parisons made by the English colonists with their inde pendent neighbours on the other side of the St. Lawrence? If men had gained the confidence of their fellow-citizens they ought to enjoy the privileges that confidence gained for them; and he asked which system was to be followed, —that of ruling by means of the Governor, or a complete system of administration, leading on the people step by step, and accustoming them day by day to that system of self-government which would make them friendly to the connection, or lead eventually to to a cordial sepa ration from the mother country, instead of a hostile one? Sir Charles Metcalfe came into power, and pursued a course of policy at variance with the opinion of the peo ple and the Legislature. In appointments affecting the polity of the colony he never consulted them, and this was especially seen in the appointment of the Speaker to the Upper House of Legislature. That appointment was offered to one of their bitterest opponents. He should like to see how the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government would look if he was told that Lord Cottenham had been appointed Speaker of the House of Lords. The cases were quite parallel, and it w as perfectly fair to make the comparison:. When remonstrated with, the answer of Sir C. Metcalfe was that he still intended to pursue that policy, and he said he would not surrender the prerogatives of the Crown. That was the very question in dispute. The minister: of the cnlony immediately said if such were the views o the Governor, they could not any longer act as his ministers, and therefore begged to resign their offices. Sir Charles Metcalfe accepted their resignations, and from that to the present the country had been without an administration. There was a Governor, but there was nothing else ; there was nominally a President of the Council—an individual for whom he had the highest respect, a gentleman who had suffered most bitterly under the Government, who bad been imprisoned with out cause, and released without inquiry, but who, in his old age, wishing to conciliate all parties, consented to act as President. But he would not accept the office— he had taken no oath, and therefore was not actually the President of the Council at all. Another individual, Mr. Daly, was in office before these differences, and he stuck to his office still. But the Receiver-General, the Chief Commissioner of the Crown Land=, the At torney-General and the Solicitor-General of Upper Canada, the Attorney-General of Lower Ca • nada, and the Inspector-general of Accounts had all retired. Of the three individuals who still acted in an official capacity not one was responsible. At the present moment the Receiver-General did not exist—the duties of the office were performed by a chief clerk, who gave no securities. What made him bring this state of things under the consideration of the House was, that it afforded an irrefragible proof that the Governor h a d u tterly failed in all his attempts to form an administra tion. The local law of election had settled this point. At the end of the present year, when the Parliament would necessarily cease to exist, they would have to go to a fresh election, and the majority against them would be larger than it was at present. The Government would then have arrived at that happy consummation which was prophesied at th e ti me th e y b roug ht i n th e i r precious Bill. They had formed one united Parliament, which was now so powerful that they could not hope to oppose it. They could not succeed in sowing disunion among the people. They could only do one of two things, however painful, must be the alterna tive—they must either yield to the desires of the people, or they must govern them by the bayonet. At the pre sent moment Sir Charles Metcalfe was the sole governor of that country. Now, he would ask if that was a state of things which the Noble Lord contemplated as a con tinuance? He wanted to know if that was the Noble Lord's construction of responsible government? Was it one of responsibility to the Home Government alone, or a Government to be chosen out of those who had the confidence of the people? There was no medium—it must either mean government through Sir Charles Met calfe, or a responsible administration ; it could not be described as a sort of hybrid, which meant neither one nor other. All through Canada at the present moment the people were animated by the same spirit. There was no middle- course for the Government to take; and, if they attempted to do so, they would only bring upon the people direful misery. Ever since the resignation of the Canadian Ministry in November, 1843, Sir Charles Metcalfe had been unable to select a single per son for any responsible situation in that coun try. He was not able to call the Parliament together, because he knew what would be the consequence of doing so. And the English party would be found just as Ca nadian in feeling as the French, and just as strongly calling for a responsible Government. Nay, of the two they , would find theirmost formidable opponents among the democrats of Upper Canada. It was the rough de mocrat of Upper Canada who would be found the greatest opponent of England, while they had lost the friendship which they might have secured from the quiet and sub missive,andlar more polished inhabitants of LovverCanada. But to return to the local management of the colony. A British North American Bank had been established during the administration of Lord Sydenham by charter, which was made a bank of issue in Canada. The Canadians refused to listen to Lord Sydenham's plan, and they passed a resolution in the House of Assembly, protesting against the charter, and interference in their internal affairs. Then a North American Colonisation Company was established by Act of Parliament, for the purpose of acquiring land in Canada. He (Mr. Roe buck) had been informed that advantage had been pur posely taken of his absence to pass the Bill, that it might not come to his knowledge. Now they required, and it was rational, that no Bill shoUld be passed by this Parliament without due notice being given to the colony. All of those things went to exasperate the people of Canada. They were now about to impose a permanent civil list on the colony. This would be a cause of discontent and quarrel. The colonists claimed the power of taxing themselves, and appropriating.those taxes as they pleased. They were now on the brink of another quarrel. What he asked on the part of the colonists was simply this, that they should be allowed_ to govern themselves as far as related to their in t ernal policy ; but that when anything arose which concerned both - this country and Canada, that thein terests of this country should bind the colony. What was the objection to that ? What had they gained by interference with the people in their local affairs and municipal concerns ? If they denied the people of Canada the right of governing themselves, they would either make them separate themselves into a democratic republic or add to the desire of uniting with the States of America. No person who looked to that grasping republic could for a moment doubt that it was her desire to penetrate to the Pacific through Texas, and sweeping round the Oregon, to include Canada within the union. When America had ac comp li s h e d th i s, France or Russi a need no longer trouble them, America would be their most dangerous rival, for she would have the will and the power, and the opportunity of meeting them_in other parts of the gloi-e. They should .gain the good will of the people of Canada, and not exasperate them. Let them not turn any ill-feelings that might exist at present into bitterness and gall. He begged of the Noble Lord to look to this. Let him be their good governor, and he would make the people of Canada attached to this Government. Lord STANLEY said he certainly anticipated that the statement of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would be followed by some specific motion, on which the sense of the House would be expressed. The importance of the question and of the principle involved in it, 'and of its bearings on the future possible relations between this country and Canada. could not be over estimated. He had no reason to complain of the tone and manner of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, or of any wantoffrank- ness or candour in the mode in which he stated his own view. His objection was to the principle as laid down broadly by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in which he stated, that if they wished to avoid American demo cracy they must introduce the principle of 'self-govern ment. His objection to that, which would draw a dis tinction between what the Hon. and Learned Gentleman called the Government at home and the Government abroad, was simply this, that however true the principle might be with regard to an independent republic, it was inconsistent with the existence of monarchical govern ment, and with the relations between a colony and the mother country. Admitting to the fullest extent the importance of that upon which 'the Ho nourable and Learned Member laid so much stress, of treating the people of Canada with kindness, of using no exasperating language towards them, and of confiding the administration of local affairs to the friends of the people, he was yet prepared, on the part of her Majesty's Government, to express their unhesitating and cordial approval of the course pursued by Sir Charles Metcalfe, on the two matters made the ground of accusation against him. What were those two points ? They were not left to conjecture on the subject, for the ,Governor- General stated publicly, and he was uncontradicted by he mouth of one of those who adhered to the Govern. ment, in opposition to the Executive Council, that the ground of resignation 'vas this, that persons came, on the part of the Council, with those demands—that he (the Governor) should consent to make no agreement without the advice of the Council—that the list of can- didates should be laid before them—that they should have the power of recommending others—and that the Governor-General should make no appointments preju dicial to their interests. This was one ground ; the other was that the patronage of the Crown should be'given to the Council for Parliamentary support. They wanted, that the Governor-General should bind himself to this by an instrument, under his hand and seal. Sir C. Metealfe• rejected those propositions, and he was right. —(Hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman made no distinction between the Governor of a province and the Sovereign. Admitting that there was an analogy, he would say that these demands were such as no constitu tional Minister ever made. But he denied the analogy. The constitution of Canada might be formed upon the model of the British Constitution ; but it was impossible to give it the life and energy of the British Constitution. Now what was the British Constitution ? What were the functions of the Sovereign ? It was this, that the Sovereign was irresponsible for his acts, and that the responsibility centred in the confidential advisers of the Sovereign. They were responsible to Parliament and the people for they advice they gave the Sovereign. But though they existed by the will of the Sovereign, he admitted that no Minister could long:hold the reins of power who did not possess the confidence of the popular branch of the Legislature. But the Crown not being responsible personally, exercised no political powers, and the exercise of political powers without responsibility would not be more dangerous to the liberties of a country than the exercise of a responsibility without power would be absurd and ridiculous. This theory was well understood, and practically fol lowed. Every Minister, in making recommendations to the Crown, except where urgent necessity demanded otherwise, always considered it his duty to pay defer ence to the personal wishes of the Sovereign ; and, on the other hand, the Sovereign, in sanctioning such recom mendations, often sacrificed personal considerations to public advantage. In this country the Crown was here ditary, and the people were attached to the Crown and to its functions from a principle of loyalty. The here ditary peerage exercised no unimportant influence directly through the House of Lords as a branch of the Parliament, but they also exercised an influence over pub lic opinion through their rank and station, their wealth, their territorial possessions, and hereditary titles, which gave to the peerage of the country 'an influence, each in a separate locality. Now, compare this with Canada. There was there a House of Representatives, fairly chosen by the people ; but where was there anything corresponding to the House of Lords ? They found a Council thr:re possessed of some functions, but they had no rank nor station. They had no territorial or here ditary claim to influence, and they held their offices from the Crown only during life. There the Governor- General only exercised a delegated authority, having an income which was only moderate for a country gen tleman in this country. He was personally a stranger to a country the Government of which he administered. He had no means of personal influence, and on his first arrival he had no personal connexions. Such a state of things, where a Governor was compelled to act, in every respect stripped of all real power and authority—subject to act under the control of whoever were the ruling party—would constitute in Canada that which, but for the influence of the Crown, and but for the influence of the Peerage, would be the result in this country, if a ne cessity was imposed on the Prime Minister of this coun try to possess alone the confidence of the House of Com mons, a republican and not a monarchical government. Such a state of things was inconsistent with monarchical government, and it was inconsistent with colonial depen dence also. It was overlooking the distinction which must exist between an independent country and a co lony subject to the mother country. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman might wish that Canada should shake off her dependence, but let him say so. The:argu ments which he used, if pushed to their legitimate extent, would lead to the independence of the colony. The system proposed by the Hon. Gentleman was incon sistent with the opinions which had been propounded by every British Colonial authority who had ever en • tered upon the question of responsible government in the colonies. The Hon. Gentleman had traced the his tory of the Constitution of Canada from the period when Lord Durham - had made his report down to the present _ _ time. He had looked carefully through Lord Du - rham's report respecting the principles of responsible govern ments ; but although he found there many principles propounded, of which he did not approve, he did not find that Lord Durham had anywhere recommended that species of responsible government which had been pro pounded by the Hon. Gentleman. Undoubtedly Lord Durham recommended that:all officers except the Gover nor, should beresponsible to the Legislature, and that the responsibility to the Legislature should bo secured by all the means known to the British Constitution; that the Governor should carry on the Government by means of the heads of parties in which the Legislature reposed confidence.—(Hear.) Lord Durham laid it down that the administration of the internal affairs of Canada could not be carried on properly while the per sons administering those affairs held office nominally during the pleasure of the Crown, but were really for life, and were not changed with every change in the Go vernment. The internal Government of Canada, ac cording to Lord Durham, ought to be conducted b y heads of departments, each answerable to the Legis lature for the conduct of Isis own department, and that if such head of a department was no longer sup ported by the Legislature, that then he ought to re sign. To that principle, so limited, he had not heard that, from the days of Lord Sydenham to those of Sir C. Metcalfe, the slightest objection had ever been made. In order that there might be no doubt as to the under. standing of the Government of this country on the sub ject, at a later period than that of Lord Durham's mis sion to Canada—at the time when Lord Sydenham was sent out to carry out Lord Durham's views—he would quote from the dispatch which had been written by the Noble Lord the Member for London to Lord Sydenham, in which he stated what were the views which the then Government entertained as to the sys tem under which the affairs of Canada were to be administered.—(The Noble Lord here read various extracts from the dispatch alluded to, in which Lord Sydenham was recommended to refuse any explanations which might be construed to imply any acquiescence in the prayers of the petitions on the sub ject of responsible government ; for, although it did not appear that the petitioners attached any definite meaning to the term, yet its very vagueness might occasion much future embarrassment, should anything like an acquies cence in their demands be hinted at. The dispatch then went on to dilate on the difference in position of the Executive Council in a colony, and that of the Minister of the Crown in England. The power, for the exercise of which the Minister was responsible, was not his own power ; it was the power of the Crown ; and, to show the inconvenience of the Governor of Canada acting always solely by the advice of the Executive Council, the dispatch went on to suppose a case in which the Executive Council had recommended the Governor to pursue one course of conduct, which was at . direct va riance with the instructions which he had received from the Queen. If he obeyed the instructions from England ho would be acting contrary to the principle that he was to be guided in all things by the advice of the Executive Council, and if he followed the advice of the Council, he would cease to be a responsible officer of the independent Crown, and would bo in fact an independentsovereign.) He (Lord Stanley) concurred entirely in the principles laid down by the Noble Lord in that dispatch. But, said the Hon. Gentleman, the theory of responsible co lonial government is n o t to interfere with the responsi bility to the local Legislature , where theinternal rela tions of the colony alone were concerned ; but to inter fere only in those questions which affected m e t ro p o li tan as well at local interests. But who was to draw the line of distinction . between these two subj ec t s ? Th e Noble Lord, in the dispatch from which h e had b een quoting, ans wered, as if by anticipation, the ques ti on o f the Hon. Gentleman. Gentleman. He put a case in ill ustrat i on, which was . this—at the time that M. Papinean ruled the Assembly of Lower Canada, it was hi s a i m to discourage all who did their duty to the Crown, and all those who wished to introduce British population, British habits, or British customs into Lower Canada. It would have been impossible for a Ministry in the Parliament of the United Kingdom to justify the measures of a Papineau Ministry in the colony. British officers punished for doing their duty—English mer chants pillaged—British emigrants oppressed—would apply to Parliament for protection, and it would be im possible, if that principle were sanctioned, to prevent the affairs of the colony falling into inextricable confusion. The Noble Lord (J. Russell) went on to say that, while he saw insuperable obstacles to the adoption of the prin ciple as stated, he saw none to the adoption of the prin ciple recommended by Lord Durham. The Queen's Government, he said, had no desire to thwart the Assembly of Canada, and he wished to give to talent and character among the leading persons in the colony the same advantages as in this country. No political constitution could except by forbearance among those who exercised the supreme power. If, in this country, the Sowreigu were to exert the prerogative of the Crown to the utmost extent, and the House of Com mons were to exert its powers of the purse, in order immediately to force through any of its measures, the utmost confusion would be produced in less than twelve months. The Government of the colony could only be carried on by each party exercising a moderation.—(Cheers.) Such were the senti ments of the Noble Lord, and in those sentiments he entirely concurred. He deeply regretted that, in the exercise of his discretion, Lord Sydenham, then Mr. Poulett Thompson, had not thought it necessary to layv before the Legislature of Canada that dispatch. He laid in extenso before them another dispatch of the Noble Lord regarding the tenure of political office, which was to be contingent on the party retaining the confidence of the Assembly; and it was unfortunate that he had not also laid before them the dispatch on the subject of re sponsible government, for, had that been communicated to them, it must have prevented much misapprehension. Mr. Poulett Thompson entertained the same views, as appeared from his dispatch relative to the tenure of office in Canada, in which he stated that the principles of responsibility, if carried to their utmost extent, were incompatible with colonial dependency. The Hon. Gentleman had asked if he concurred in the view taken by Sir Charles Begot of responsible govern ment. He would state explicitly to the House his views on the subject. He understood by a responsible govern meat in Canada, that the administration of Canada should be conducted by the heads of departments en joying the confidence of the people and of the Legisla ture of Canada. With regard to the Executive Coun cil, he thought it was necessary to the due exercise of their functions, that they should have the power of ad-: vising the Governor, of propounding their legislative measures to the Parliament of Canada, and that the Go vernor should be guided by the advice of those whom be had called to his councils, they being responsible ,for the advice offered. But if be were asked whether the Governor-General should be in all things the mere ma chine—the mere passive instrument of the Executive Council, his reply would be that he did not so undera stand the term " responsible government ;" and if such were to be the case, the Governor- General would cease to be the Governor of a British colony. He apprehended that Sir Charles Met calfe understood the term " responsible government" in the same manner ; and in terms the most explicit, Sir Charles Metcalfe had expressed his adherence to the resolution of the 3d of September, 1841. He had stated that he considered every other government but one which recognised the responsibility of the-heads of de partments to the people as represented in the Assembly, was impracticable in Canada. He would not- stop to inquire whether that species of government—necessarily a party one—would be the most likely to conduce to the happiness of Canada. The principle had been frankly conceded by the Government at home, and to that prin ciple Sir C. Metcalfe had expressed his adhesion; but the Governor-General was responsible to the imperial autho rity alone.—(Cheers.) If he was made a mere instrument in the hands of the Executive Council, what became of his responsibility to the Imperial Government. It was a practical absurdity to leave the Governor without any authority, and yet to make him responsible. With out power there could be no responsibility. If they took from the Governor all power it was a mockery to talk of his responsibility. For what was he responsi ble ? He was responsible for the proper distribution of rewards and honours, and for the exercise of the prero gative of the Crown in refusing or giving the Royal consent to the Bills presented to him by the Colonial Legislature—of these powers the Executive Council wished to deprive the Governor. The Hon. Gentleman would not deny that demands had been made upon the Governor-General by ,the Executive Council to give up both of these. Mr. ROEBUCK—I do not see any proof of that. Lord STANLEY—The Governor-General had made that statement to the Assembly, in the presence of the Executive Council ; and that statement had been uncon tradicted. It was a remarkable circumstance, that the Executive Council had made a statement in writing of the grounds on which they had resigned, and the Go vernor-General had protested against that document as not containing a true statement of those grounds, and that protest had not been answered. When that dis missal had taken place, the Governor-General had written to him (Lord Stanley) stating what had occurred, and the conversation which he had had with the Coun cil previously; he had written back approving of the course adopted in the acceptance of their resignation, but expressing his regret that he had not required them at the time to put their demands in writing as the mem bers of the Executive Council might charge the issue upon him, and state other grounds as the reason for their resignation. Within two days after, he received a dispatch from the Governor-General, which proved that his anticipations had been correct. So long ago as the month of May last the Governor-General wrote to him (Lord Stanley), and said "I am required to give myself up entirely to the Council, and to submit to their absolute dictation and judgment as to the manner in which I shall bestow the patronage of the Government, appointing some persons and proscribing others, and they require me to make some public and unequivocal declaration of my adherence to these conditions, involv ing a complete nullification of her Majesty's Governa ment." As early as the month of May that principle was contended for, and pressed upon the Governor- General, not only that he should so exercise the patron age of the Crown, but that he should make a public declaration of his intention so to act. The Governor- General in December last wrote to him, and he then stated that he had done all he could in his appointments to consult the wishes of the Council, but ho did not feel that he was absolutely bound to do so. Now, with regard to the patronage, the House must not run away with the notion either that the Co!onial-office at home, or the Govern ment at home, was in the slightest degree connected. Long since, the whole patronage of the Crown in the North American colonies had been placed in the hands of the Governor of the colony. He (Lord Stanley) as Se cretary of State, had not the disposal of the value of 50/. worth of patronage in all the North American colonies put together. Every appointment was made on the re commendation of the Governor, and no appointment was made of any person who was not resident in the colony; and he (Lord Stanley) declared that since he had-held the seals of office, he had neither, by recommendation, hint, or suggestion, been interested, either directly or indirectly, in any one appointment which had been made, or any appointment which had not been made, in Canada. The patronage of the Crown was vested in the Governor, in the exercise of those functions, for which lie was re sponsible to the Crown of this country. And do not let the Hon. and Learned Gentleman say that the distribu tion of patronage in a country like Canada was of such merely local importance that it might be safely—that it could be wisely—intrusted to the absolute control of a political party there. He (Lord Stanley) was sure that it would not be to the advantage of any colony that pa tronage should be so dispensed. He would shortly illus trate this. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was well aware that in all small communities, and in all colonies, the leading men, or a large portion of the leading men of all parties were gentlemen of the legal profes sion. They were men about the seat of Government. they were generally men of superior education, men of some leisure, and men whose attendance at the seat of Government, and the places of legislature, did not interfere with their ordinary pursuits. They formed therefore a very large proportion of every colonial legis lature. Did the Bar and Learned Gentlemen think that was a class from which judicial officers ought to be se lected, upon the recommendation of the Executive Coun cil, which was composed of those - very persons ? Did the Honourable and Learned Gentleman think that the judicial offices—the best paid offices, as they ought to be —did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman think it was de sirable such offices should be given as prizes for politi cal leadership, or as rewards for political partizanship ? He (Lord Stanley) could not conceive any principle more likely to tarnish the source of justice.—(Cheers.) He said the appointments to the judicial office were safely vested in the Governor-General exercising the preroga tive of the Crown, and that it was not wise or safe to vest them in any leader of a political faction. Suppose that rivalry of race should again begin. Suppose that rivalry of race should be rekindled in Canada, and sup pose it should happen that the British party should be aiming at the exclusion of the French party, together with their political power in that colony. Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman think it desirable or safe that a political party, in such a state of things, should have the power of excluding from all office—not only all political office, but all office whatever—the whole French population ? But he would go a little farther. Suppose an administration to be formed mainly of those persons who, at least, had been lukewarm when the colony had been threatened to be torn from the mother country. Suppose a Legis lature, or Administration, so constituted, having the ab solute disposal of the patronage of the country, did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman think it consistent with the dignity—consistent with the honour—consistent with the metropolitan interests of the Crown, that the patro nage of the Crown should be placed in the hands of an Administration so composed ? He (Lord Stanley) did not know what the House would think of such a pro position —yes, he did think, and he did believe that the House would see that it was inconsistent with the ho nour of the Crown to place that power in an assembly so formed. He felt confident that, sooner than submit to such demands, there was no privation and no sacri fice to which Sir Charles Metcalfe would not submit, and he was sure that nothing could induce him to be subser vient to such a demand. But the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that Sir Charles Metcalfe had been most unfortunately educated for the service of a free coun try. Now, who and what was Sir Charles Metcalfe ? Was he a man of extreme opinions with respect to a des potic Government? Was he a man of repulsive manners, hostile to all public institutions, and willing to be the instrument of any Government for crushing free insti tutions? Those who knew anything of him, knew that be was precisely the opposite of all these. They knew that he was not a supporter of the present Government — (Hear, hear)—and that he was a man extremely liberal in political matters.—(Hear, hear.) They also knew that he was the man who first introduced into India the liberty of the press. lie was also selected by the late Government to the government of the colony of Jamaica, at a moment when the legislative Government of that colony was in such a state of hostility to her Majesty's Government, that it was considered almost as being ab solutely incapable of being made a fit instrument of government. Sir Charles Metcalfe was sent out, and in two years he brought the island of Jamaica into a state of order and subordination. Yet this was the man whom the Hon. and Learned Gentleman said had been unfortunately brought up for the management of the affairs of a free country. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had alleged that Sir C. Metcalfe had never explained what his views were with respect to a responsi ble government. Now he (Lord Stanley) must say that I 1