The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-12 00:00:00

only been laid upon the table that day, especially when it
was considered that those papers contained points upon
which the French Canadians had made great resistance
Session after Session. The House ought to remember that
they acre legislating for fifty thousand proprietors of
the soil, who had among them a million of acres, which
they held under the feudal system, and whoever
took their rights away from them committed a flagrant
set of injustice. Would the House, he would ask, attempt
to take away those powers at the close of a Session, when
tile House was necessarily thin, which they would not
attempt to take away during the last Session, when they
had all the facts connected with the subject before them? If
a proper degree of energy had been shown by the Noble
Lord on this subject, a great deal of the difficulty and
mischief that had arisen in Canada might have been
avoided.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME would detain the House but a very short
time. The Right Hcn, Gentleman who had just sat
do;vn had made the best Radical speech on this subject
that he had heard for some time. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had stated that taxation and representation ought
to go together, and that nothing was more monstrous than
that the Canadians should be taxed by this Council. In
all that he (Mr, Hume) agreed. That was a lesson
witch the Right Hon. Bayonet and the Noble Lord
would do well to take to themselves—they had
both erred in this respect, for they had suppressed
the ceenstitutionel rights of the Canadians. The delay
and dilatory spirit of the Government had given rise to
r4ost of the difficulties upon Canada, but that the same
delay might occur next Session in bringing forward that
measure which all concurred in thinking was so desir-
able to be adopted. He had always held they destroyed
their own colonies by interfering with their legis-
lature, and regulating their own affairs ; and he had
no hesitation in saying, that all the difficulties which
the Right Baronet statsd to be in the way of legislation,
were all difficulties that have been created by the British
Government not making the Executive Council accord
with the popular body in each Province. He was as ready
as any man could be to blame the Ministers for their dila-
toriness in legislating for Canada-4 Hear, hear)—but con.
sidering that the Ministers themselves admitted the fault—
considering that the Right Hon. Baronet also admitted
that he was to blame—he should recommend his Hon.

Friend to withdraw his amendment.—(Cheers and disap-
probation.)
S. O'BRIEN endeavoured to address the House
arnidsi:general interruption and cries of " Divide." After
some minutes' dumb show the House divided.
The numbers were—
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority for going into Committee —195
Mr. HUME proceeded to say that he would rather be
under a single despot than under several. Let them have
Sir John Colborne if they pleased.
Mr. LE AD E Rsaid the only object of appointing so
many Councillors was to avoid the responsibility.
Mr. DUNCOMBE asked the Hon. Gentleman to show
some substantial reason why the present Councillors should
be superseded by twenty new ones.
Mr. L ABOUC HE RE explained. Those Councillors
would be -responsible to the public.
Mr. HUME said the Legislative Assembly had been
so; yet fur ten years they had laughed the people of the
province to scorn. Out of 88 there were always 80 oa the
same side.

The number of twenty Councillors instead of twelve was
at length agreed to.

The Coriimittee then divided on the question whether
clause 1 should stand part of the Bill or not, and the
numbers were—
For the clause..
Against it

Majority
On the second clause being put, after Mr. L A BOU-
C HE RE had proposed some verbal amendments,
Lord STANLEY said that the House must recol-
lect that when the Governor and Special Council
was established last year, it was under circumstances
of absolute and imperative necessity that powers so exten-
sive and so despotic had been conferred, and they could
be only justified by the consideration of the state of anarchy
in which the Province was then placed, and the necessity
of providing an ad interim Government. Five restrictions
were impose,: on this despotic authority; first, that he
should have no power of enacting permanent laws; second,
that he should not impose taxes beyond those already in
existence ; third, that he should have no power of interfering
with the legislative authority, or with the qualifications of
electors ; fourth, that he should have no power of violating
an Act of the British Parliament, which, under certain cir.
cumstances, the local Legislature possessed : three out of
these four restrictions it was now proposed to do away
with, and the fifth, that he should not appropriate to the
service of the Province a larger sum than had been so appro
priated in 1832, they were about to evade, by enabling
the Governor to raise sums from other sources, and
applying them to those services. The principle he should
go upon would be to define and restrict the Governor's
power within accurate limits, beyond which he should not
go. The principle of the Government on the contrary
was that no powers should be denied to him except those
which were expressly excepted by this Bill. Which
course was the safe one to adopt? There could not be a
doubt that it would be better to confine the powers granted
strictly to such as were necessary for carrying on an ad
interim government, so as to avoid anarchy and con-
fusion. It was most important that these powers should be
so limited as would enable the legitimate Government which
should succeed to confirm or reject his acts, so as to make
legitimate Government work for the public advantage. If
the clause remained as it now stood, what was to ensue ?
There was nothing which affected the social relations of
the country which they might not form, unrestricted by
any authority except the assent of the Crown. The House
ought to pause before granting this unconstitutional power.
He would not consent to give the power of permanently
legislating ; and without any restriction, taking the whole
community for any purpose, and authorising other persons
to tax the community—delegating the power to municipal
bodies hereafter to be created to tax Lower Canada for
municipal purposes. This power was so monstrous that
be was confident the Committee would never sanction it.
If the Government showed to what extent they wanted
this power he would go with them. Nothwithstanding
what had been said by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, he

(Lord Stanley) would not admit that it was the duty of
his (the Opposition) side of the House, although they had
during the Session taken it upon themselves to a consider-
able extent—(Hear, hear)—to remedy the blunders made
by the Government. He was willing to give a great por-
tion of the powers asked, but he could not consent to an
unlimited power of taxation. It was said they ought to
have all the powers which were not expressly denied. On
the contrary, he (Lord Stanley) said they ought to have
no power given, except that which was expressly
conferred. It was acknowledged that there was a
surplus revenue. Why, then, could it not be ap-
plied to the purposes of quarantine and registr) ? He
was ready to give permanent taxation if they would limit the
subjects which were necessary to promote the local improve-
ment of the country, the preservation of peace by the im-
ployment of police, and the system of lighting, watch-
ing, &c. They (the Opposition) objected not to delegat-
ing the power of making local improvements, but did
object to giving the power of framing such large and gene-
ral measures as ought to be proposed by higher authority
than a Governor and Council. He (Lord Stanley) would
now move the rejection of the second clause, leaving it to
the Government to frame a modified enactment to meet
the objections he had urged.
Mr. L A BOUC HE RE begged to set the Noble Lord
right as to the revenue of Lower Canada, which left a
surplus (as he had before stated) of only 35,0001. for
local purposes, which defrayed all the expenses of paro •
chial schools, and other important objects, so that Sir J.
Colborne had stated his inability to maintain an efficient
police, much less to form local improvements. As to con-
ferring the power of permanent legislation on the Council,
in respect of taxation for local purposes, such power was
necessary ; for it would be absurd to pass a Road or a
Railway Bill for one year only. With regard to more
large and general measures, there were many which could
not safely be deferred. Sir J. Colborne especially referred
to the urgent necessity of depriving the disaffected of that
influence which they derived from unremedied abuses.
Now, what was the danger of leaving legislation in that
colony for one or two y ears, perhaps more, totally para-
lysed or unwisely fettered? The House would certainly
hesitate, therefore, before they adopted the proposal of
the Noble Lord.—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. LEADER quite agreed that the House of Com-
mons was not able to legislate for Canada, though it had
delegated to a small and despotic body the power of
legislation. He concurred in the argument of the Noble
Lord ( Stanley), and could not imagine any independent
Member, really favourable to the representative principle,
supporting this clause, and he should vote for rejecting it.
Sir R. PEEL said that he doubted the right of the
Right Hon. Gentleman to make use of the authority of
Sir John Colbourne as the foundation of this measure.
Sir John Colborne did not advise that the Special
Counsel should have power to legislate permanently
for the country. He merely asked for permission to
make the experiment, and if it were found successful it
could be embodied in a permanent Legislative measure ;
and that was what he ( Sir R. Peel) agreed in, there was
no recommendation of Sir John Colborne that the Special
Council should have the power of permanent Legislation.
What was the power proposed to be given with regard to
tenures? Why, it was proposed to give the power to
make permanent and compulsory regulations on this sub-
ject. If this was a subject of such paramount and pressing
importance, why was not the despatch laid on the table
before the 11th July? and then only in conzequence of a
question from him (Sir R. Peel). He trusted that
the House would not give the Government this unlimited
power of taxation, and that in the last yenr of its exis-
tence the Government of Canada, which was to expire in
1840, would not be empowered to make permanent laws
for the regulation of property.
Mr. L ABOUCHER E said that the other alternative
suggested by Sir John Colborne was pregnant with
evil, that the whole laws should be merely temporary.
Mr. HUME objected to the making of laws by irres-
ponsible persons, and he could only account for tho pro.
position by supposing it was not intended to re-establish
the representative Government at all.
Mr. CHARLES. BULLER said that the course
adopted by Honourable Gentlement opposite seemed to
be to abolish representative Government with the utmost
facility, and then to make up matters with their con-
sciences by crippling the Government established in
its place as much as possible.—(Cries of " Oh I" answered
by cheers.) Except the regulation of the tenures
of land, and of matters connected with religion, ,he
knew of no power that ought to be taken out of the
province of the Government exercising legislative functions.
The question was this, whether they should have a Legis-
lature with the power of making permanent laws that might
be repealed by a future popular Legislature, or whether it
should only have the power of making temporary laws
which that popular Legislature might Continue. By the
plan of making every law temporary, and to expire at
the meeting of the new Legislature, they would throw
upon that leg,tslatere almost all questions calculated to ex-
cite a strong party feeling.—( year, hear.)
After a few words from Sir R. PEEL and Mr. C.
BULLER in explanation,