The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-24 00:00:00

CANADA.

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL the House re-
solved itself into a Committee of the whole House upon the
Canada resolutions.
Mr. BERNAL in the Chair.

On resolution 7 being proposed,
Mr. GROTE said as this resolution was of a very se-
vere and penal nature, he would be sorry that it should
pass the House without a few observations.—(Hear,
hear, hear.). It would put a great affront upon, and
would almost abrogate the authority of the House of
Assembly in Lower Canada. Before passing that resolution,
let that House look how far its own conduct had been either
just or politic. With respect to the tenure of land held in
Lower Canada, all the complaints made by the people of that
country or by the House of Assembly had been approved
of by the Commissioners of Inquiry. In his opinion the
passing of the Tenure Act by that House was as impolitic
and unjust an Act as it was possible for it to commit.
With regard to the substantive provisions of the resolution,
it would be seen that the Tenure Act in 1825 was ac-
knowledged on all hands to be unwise, yet that resolution
did not propose to repeal it, until a certain thing was
done by the House of Assembly of Lower Canada.
Sir GEORGE GREY defended the resolution.
It was admitted on all hands that some enactment was ne-
cessary for the commutation of the tenure of land in
that country from feudal to free or common suffrage.
Upon that point there appeared to be less difference of
opinion among the Commissioners than upon any other
point submitted to them.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the consequence is of the change
of the Tenure Act, alluded to by the Hon. Under-Secre-
tary for the Colonies, had been that the whole country
was raised against it, bus the Gouernment did
not come down and in a straight forward way, say
we 'will repeal the law.—(Hear.) The Hon. Under
Secretary fancied that he knew what was good for them
better than the people of Canada themselves,—(Hear,
hear,)—and came down to legislate upon a subject
of which he knew very little, or in fact
nothing at all. The Hon. Gentleman had acknow-
ledged that lie knew very little of the tenure laws. He
knew less of the feelings of the people. He (Mr. Roe-
bue',44 complained of the interference of that House in
the affairs of that province in any shape, for they had
most distinctly laid down the principle that the House of
Assembly was the proper authority for domestic legislation.
Having passed the Tenure Act it was the duty of the
House now to repeal ir, hnd let parties do what they like

with their land. He should therefore move, as an amend•
ment to the resolution, that it was expedient at once to
repeal the Canada Tenure Act.
The CHAIRMAN having put the question,
Mr. HUME said that he would be glad to hear an
answer to the statement of his Honourable Friend the
Member for Bath who had observed that he did not think
the motion before HOUS3 was understood by any Hon.Mcm-
ber. For himself he would say that'he did not understand it.
He felt himself bound therefore to complain that such im-
portant questions as the Church-rates and other matters had
been put off in order to afford an opportunity of bringing
forward resolutions which he would venture to say that not
one man of twenty in that House understood.—( Hear,
He considered the discussion on these resolutions
was wasting the time of the House.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Hume) had given much time and attention to the
subject, and professed not to understand these resolutions
fully. It required much more time and research than the
House had devoted to the svbject, and he feured to very
little purpose, as the present was the fifth day that had
been wasted upon the subject. It was admitted by the Noble
Lord himself that this was a matter which the
local legislature should itself take up, and he would there-
fore suggest to them the propriety of withdrawing it for the
present. He complained of the manner in which the busi-
ness was conducted in the Colonial-office. There could
not be a worse conducted office, and their policy was equally
bad.—( Hear, hear.) He was only surprised to see so many
liberal men dragged through the dirt in supporting these re-
solutions. The support of the Hon. Members opposite did
not surprise him, as it was their principle to advocate
every illiberal measure. The Colonial Minister was, in his
opinion, incapable of discoarging the duties of his office, and
was merely following the dictates of Tory advisers. He
was satisfied these resolutions would be the commence-
ment of hostilities between that country and Canada ;
and the Noble Lord might find himself mistaken
if he was impressed with the idea that the people of
Canada would not fight. He believed the Colonial
Government knew nothing of the real condition of
the people of Canada, and he deplored exceedingly
that the Noble Lord should have been so ill-advised
as to come down to the House with the proposal of such a
system of coercion.—( Hear, hear )
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not pretend to possess
more knowledge upon the subject of tenures than he did
upon fines and recoveries ; but still upon the information he
had received from learned persons, he believed he had good
grounds for the vote he gave on the Fines and Recoveries Bill
as he also had for the vote he should give on the question
before the House. He only wanted the great principle
established—the details he was quite willing to leave to
the wisdom of the Provincial Parliament.

Mr. ROEBUCK said the Noble Lord was quite right
in what he had stated with respect to the Fines and
Recoveries Bill. There had been an inquiry entered into
there by gentlemen learned in the law. But what in-
quiry had been instituted in this case ? Who were
the Commissioners ? Were any of them learned in
the law ? One of them was a country gentleman (Lord
Gosford), was he likely to be learned in the law of
tenure in Canada. Another was an officer of Engineers,
and the other one an Indian Judge—not one of whom could
be expeCted to know more of the laws of Canada than the
Noble Lord himself. All he (Mr. R) asked of the Noble
Lord was that he should put the law into the same
state as he found it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Such was
the wish of the Canadian people, and if -they did not find
it to work well, then they would themselves appoint

Commissioner's learned in their law, but the Noble Lord
said no, and called upon the ,House of Commons to put its
faith upon the report of a country Gentleman, an officer of
Engineers, and an Indian Judge.
Mr. HUME said that notwithstanding the statements
of the Noble Lord, he should vote to please the people of
Canada, and not the Colonial Office.
Mr. G. KNIGHT defended the resolution.
Mr. ROBINSON thought the Hon. Member for Bath
wiiied to have it understood that nobody but himself was
acquainted with the Canadian law.—(Cheers.) The Hon.
and Learned Member could not be considered an unixte-
aested advocate of this question, as he was avowedly the
paid agent of the people of Canada.--(Hear, hear.)
The on. Member had said that it was impossible to know
any thing about these resolutions without being-acquainted
with the French law of tenure. He (Mr. Itolmek)
would take leave to deny that proroition. When
Canada became annnex d to the British Crown it was
arranged that the Erencb tenure should not be disturbed
in the cases of property previously acquired ; but that the
English settlers should have in all property acquired either
by purchase, or any other means, have the porotection of
the Briti.h laws. He could see no objection to such an
arrangement, and he should, therefore, give his support to
the present resolution.
Mr. G ROTE did not think the Hon. Member for Wor-
cester had read the resolution, or he would not have so
entirely misstated it. The resolution did not provide
whether the commutation of tenure should be compulsory
or voluntary, and there was a vast difference between the
two modes.

(LEFT PIPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Lord SHAFTESBRY took his Lem o❑ tho woolsack in
the absence of the Lord Chancellor.

Lord BANDON presented several petitions from Su
folk in favour of Church-rates.

The Bishop of St. ASAPFI presented similar petitions
from several places in Montgomeryshire and Denbigh.
The Bishop of LONDON presented petilions from the
Clergy, Clerks, and Sextons of several metropolitan pa-
rishes against the West London Cemetery Bill ; also peti-
tions in favour of Church-rates from places in Suffolk,
Staffordshire, and Sussex.

The Earl of HADDINGTON presented petitions from
the elders and clergy of a p Irish in Dunbar in favour of
Church-rates ; and praying that better measures might be
adopted for the observance of the Sabbath ; also a petition
from the same body against the system of National Educa-
tion in Ireland ; and several petitions from places in Stafford
in favour of Church-rates.

The Earl of ROSEBERY pr:sented a petition against
Church-rates from the Lord Provost and Citizens o:
Edinburgh.
Lord TEYNHAM postpon&l his motion for returns re•
lative to the Poor Law till the 2d of May.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.

Mr. BROTHEL:FON and other Members of the Com-
.nons brought up the Dublin Police Bill.
Lord CLONCUR RY presented petitions from places
in the County Cork, the County Meath, and the Queen's
County, in favour of Irish Corporate Reform and the abo-
lition of tithes.
Lord FITZGERALD presented a petition from the
Queen's County against the Irish Municipal Bill.
Lord REDESDALE presented petitions in favour of
Church-rates from places in Stafford and Northampton.
The Archbishop of YORK presentel a number of peti-
tions from places in his diocese to the sune effect.
The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented similar peti-
tions from places in Gloucester, Worcester, and Kent.
The Bishop of CHESTER presented similar petitions
from 2,000 operatives in Manchester, from Bolton, and
from other places.
The Bishop of HEREFORD presented similar peti-
tions from parishes in Herefordshire.
The Bishop of CARLISLE presented similar petitions
from parishes in Cumberland.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented petitions to
the same effect.

The Bishop of LLA NDAFF said he had a number of
petitions to the same effect, which were signed by persons
to all of whom the nature of the petition had been explained ;
amongst them were one from Llandaff, one from Merthyr
Tydvill, and from a large number from parishes in Gla-
morganshire.
Viscount DUNCANNON presented a petition in fa-
vour of Church-rates, and laid on the table the Bth Report of
thePost-officeCommissioners,theßeport of theComrnissioners
appointed to inquire into the state of the Corporations
in England and Wales in reference to London, and the
Report of the Commissioners on the boundaries of cor-
porate towns.
Lord BROUGHAM said that a petition had been
intrusted to him to present from the Lord Mayor,
Aldermen, and Council of the city of biondon, against
the unjust distribution of the land tax, which he felt
great pleasure in presenting, as the Corporation did not
in that House possess the right which they had in
the other House of appearing by their Sheriffs and
officers at the bar, and presenting their petitions. The
Noble Lord then presented a petition from Lambeth against
Church-rates ; also petitions to the same effect from Maid-
stone, and from parishes in Northampton, Durham, Somer-
set, Derby, Buckingham, and York ; from Brandon in Suf-
folk, from a parish in Denbigh, from Plymouth, from a
parish in Leeds, from parishes in Kent, from the Mayor and
inhabitants of Chesterbury, and from places in Denbigh
and Carmarthen ; from Kettering, in Northampton ; from
parishes in Suffolk and Westmoreland ; from Newmarket ;
from the Guild and Corporation of Perth. The Noble:Lord
also presented a petition from Bradford, and another place
in Yorkshire, signed by, he might say, thousands of persons,
in favour of the Irish Corporation Bill.
Lord HOLLAND presented petitions against Church-
rates from a parish in Leeds, in Yorkshire ; from a congre-
gation of Dissenters in Bristol ; from Honiton, in Devon-
shire ; from the Wesleyans in Huddersfield, in Yorkshire ;
from Hull ; from the Eastern Division of Devon ; and
from Chetwynd, in Stafford.
Lord RADNOR presented similar petitions from
Highgate, Bradford, Brixton, and other places.
Lord HARE WOOD presented a petition from a place
in Yorkshire against the Poor-law Bill.

Viscount MELBOURNE presented petitions against
Church-rates from, Ramsey, and other places in Suffolk,
from Stockport, Knaresborough, and several other places in
Carmarthen and Glamorganshires.
The Earl of RODEN presented petitions from Dublin
against the Irish Municipal Bill ; also from parishes in the
County Tyrone, to the same effect.
IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS IN IRELAND