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

of conciliation ; and if he were in the same situation still, he would
exercise his influence in the same direction. There was not ore
step that at that time had been adopted whi th he now lamented,
and he did hope that the House would make one more attempt rt
conciliation. Such was the course of policy h recommended and
was prepared to adopt. He recommended th 'in to pars te a tem
perate and moderate course, until they were enabled to pu. au end
to all these unfortunate and miserable dispute ..—(Cleers. )
Mr. CRESSETT PELHAM saw theMin-stry w ere determin
to pursue a course of policy to which he, as a lover of the C nsti-
tution, never could agree.
Mr. LEADER had a few observations to make upon the speech
delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for North Laneashir.
That Noble Lord ought to have remembered shat a Minister of
the Crown had said in the last century, when he proposed for the
consideration of the House measures to be applied to these North ,
American provinces. "He hoped," he said, " that they wou'd
enter into the discussion deliberately and dispassionately, and have
no recourse to violent language"—(Hear, hear)—that they wool t
not have anything of the wain-locum incendia." If the Noble
Lord had remembered the wise advice of Lord North, he would
have abstained from the violent, inflammatory, and insulting
language he had used towards the Canadians.—(Hear, hear, and
loud cheers.) He thanked the Noble Lord for that speech—
violent and insulting as it was. It would, he believed, have
the game effect upon the people of Canada which the speech of
another Nob'e Lord had upon the people of Ireland —(Cheers. )
The one had insulted the Canadians, as the other had insulted t he
Irish people.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord had the distinction
being calied the evil genius of Ireland ; he might now acid to
the ui env!able title-of being called the evil genius of Canada.
Mr. ROEBUCK wanted to know if the House had come. to the
&termination of proceeding with the resolution without having
before them the evidence given in 1834? He must have an an-
swer to-that question befom they proceeded to the next resolu-
tion. He would again ask the Committee whether they would, ,
decide on this question without having the entire of the evidence
before them ?

The Committee then divided, when the numbers were—
For the original motion
For the amendment 66
Majority —262

Sir G. GREY said that after ibis division he trusted no further
opposition would be thrown in the way of the views of Government
on t'iis subject.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that a direct appeal having been made to
him by the Noble Lord opposite, in reference to the evidence of
the Committee on the affairs of Canada, upon which he believed
this question greatly depended, he felt called upon to demand the
publication of that evidence. The Hon. Baronet, alluding to the
large, the overwhelming majority by which the Ministerial mea-
sure had been carried to-night, expressed a hope that no further op-
position would be made-to it. He begged the Hon. Baronet to re-
collect that he (Mr. Roebuck) went out in as small a minority on
the Irish Coercion Bill.
Mr. ROBINSON, as a Member of the Committee in question,
begged to state why lie was opposed to the publication of the evi-
dmiceadduced before it ; namely, that it was an ex-parte statement-
The inquiry of the Committee was cut short when the Noble Lord
at the hea l of the department went out of office ; the evidence up
to that period had been all on one side of the question, there not
having been time to call the evidence on the other side.
Mr. HUME, without any reference to that evidence, wished to
a k the Hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for the Colonial De-
partment what measures Government were about to adopt in pur-
suance of these resolutions ?

Sir G. GREY said, that if the Hon. Member could not gather
the information he called for from the speeches which had been
made on the subject by the Noble Lord the Home Secretary, the
Noble Lord the Secretary of War, by himself, 4nd others in the
course of this debate, he (Sir G. Grey) really was at. a loss to
throw further light upon the subject. The Hon. Baronet then
briefly repeated a few of the beads of the Ministerial views on the
s abject.

HUME wished to know how the responsibility of the House,
of Assembly was to be ensured ? He believed the measures men-,
tioned by the Hon, Under Secretary would be quite futile.
The CHAIRMAN then read the fourth resolution.
Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the Chairman report progress.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when the nurseoers
were—

Fur reporting progress... ......... 39
Against it
Majority. ........ ....-•• -248
- - • • - • • •

Mr. ROEBUCK asked what objection there could possibly be
to grant the papers at once, and defer any further discussion till
they were printed and in the hands of Members?
The CHANCELLOR of the'EXCHEQUER said there was
every disposition on the part of Government to give the fullest
information that the Honourable Member for Bath could re-
quire. They were ready to produce every public document irs
existence, but the House would recollect, that when the pa-
pers relating to the question were laid on the table, the Ho-
nourable Member for Bath did not give the slightest inti-
mation that more evidence Would be required, and that he
only 'that night announced that the evidence taken before
the Committee in 1834 was necessary to make good his case.
He did not. anticipate any such question, and he considered it ono
of mere delay, and nothing but delay. He would, however, state
that before the House rose that night he would move for the pro-
duction of these papers, and to-morrow they would be on the table
of the House. The original papers were destroyed when the Houses
of Parliament were burned down ; but many 3lembers were in
possession of documents unless they had parted with them. He
had his own minutes of evidence, and was ready to lay them on
the table.

Mr. HARVEY considered the papers were necessary in order to
enable Hon. Gentlemen to form a correct judgment on the ques-
tion. He was surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer
say that there was nothing in these papers that the House could.
require. He shoul I have understood that that Committee had been
appointed as a jury to judge and decide the merits of the question;
but so little were these papers known, that he had never heard of
them till that night, and they might as well pass all the resolutions
at once as agree to the proposition, that it was inexpedient to sus-
pend the proceedings till the papers were produced. file resolution
stated that it was inexpedient to grant an Elective Council. It in
fact admitted the principle, though it was only to be postponed; and
he would ask Members if the House were to determine a question
of peace or war on the pica of expediency? For his part, he would
wait, if it were to six o clock, till they got that evidence, and every
thing necessary for the prop'r discussion of the question.
Mr. B ROT HEATON moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. HUME could not see what reason there was for refusi
to suspend proceedings till the papers were produced. The Go-
vernment could take up the Irish Tithe Bill or sonic other measure
in the meat:time.

.•
Mr. HARDY would put it to the Hon. Member for Bath, after
he had heard it stated by members of the Committee that a great
deal of ex-parte evidence was given before the Committee, whether
he would preis for the production of the papers.
Mr. WARD was the last man who would throw out obstacles in
the Way of any public proceeding merely with reference to form ;
but in so important a matter as this he thought it essential that all
evidence that could be procured should be laid before the House.
Lord STANLEY had not rested his argument on any evidence
except that contained in the Report of the Commissioners. The
chief object which he had in view in wishing for the production of
the evidence in question was to justify the conduct. of the Govern-
ment with which he (Lord Stanley) had been connected.
Mr. ROEBUCK observed that one allegation against the Ca-
nadian people was, that they had been guilty of a breach of faith.
The evidence he wished for would show that this was a eoniplote
misunderstanding, and that if there had been any stipulation on the
part of the Canadian people they had more than fulfilled it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that if
the Honourable Member for Bath were assured that the evidence
would be on the table to-morrow, it was unreasonable, on his part,
to ask the House to suspend their decision on the question before

them.
Mr. P. STEWART should suggest to the Right Honourable
Gentleman the expediency of some delay until the production of the
evidence.

Mr. ROEBUCK had no objection to agree to the resolution un-
der the consideration of the Committee if it were understood that
any further proceeding should be delayed until the production of
the evidence.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in order to show
that he had not the slightest wish to withhold tha evidence, was
ready to acquiesce in-the proposition of the Hon. Member for Bath.
Mr. AGLIONBY professed himself at a loss to understand this
course of proceeding.—( Hear, hear, hear.) When it became ma-
nifest, from the speech of the Noble Lord opposite, that the evi
dente in question was necessary, the Hon. Member for Bath urged
the postponement of the proceeding until the production of that
evidence. if the evidence was allowed to be necessary now, it
was necessary before they came to the discussion on the resolutions.
However, he was in the hands of the Hon. Member for Bath.
Mr. ROEBUCK observed that, morally, the resolution already
passed would be in abeyance until the whole had been agreed. to.
Lord SANDON could not consent to the proposed compromise.
He could not consent that the resolutions should be considered iu
abeyance.

The CHANCELLOR 'of the EXCHEQUER was at a loss to
understand how the Noble Lord could apply the term compromise
to what had fallen from him. , Neither the Hon. Member for Bath
nor himself had said any thing about agreeing to the resolutions
pro forma.
Lord SANDON said that the reason of his objection was, that
the Hon. Member for Bath had put the matter on this issue—
namely, that the whole question should be hung up in suspense--
that it should be in abeyance.
Lord HOWICK contended that in the eyes both of the Cana-
dian and of the English public, the first division was virtually a
settlement of the question. He understood the present propose-..
tired to be, that the first resolution having been passed, the re-e
mainder shorild be postponed until the production of the evidence.
In his opinion, certainly, that evidence was of little importawee;
for they knew from experience that few Hon., Members would read
it. Ile thought, however, that it would Ira more convenient to all
parties to agree to the present repositioet.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG shou/et be sorry to misinterpret the Hon.
and Learned Member for Beth ; but if he understood him rightly,
he understocel him to offer a compromise on the point at issue (be-
cause the word " compromise" sees used), and then, he added, let
their resolution be taken pro forma. He (Mr. Young) thought
he had lima tire lion. and Learned Gentleman use those words,
and that it wee upon those words the Chancellor of the Exchequer
closed with 'the proposition. If the terms compromise anti pro
.048,2 mlte used, the Right Hon. Gentleman must have sub-,.
mitted. this question in a way which he could not inteeid.
Tne CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER nipealed to Haas
Gentlemen around him and opposite to him. whether any suet
proposition was ever made by him as that of sesating the resolutions
pro forma ? The proposition was matte br, his lion. Friend the
Member for Lancaster (Mr. P. M. Stows' t).
Mr. ROBINSON wished to ask his najesty's Government, and
all the Members of that House--(A 'eaugh)—whether it was in-
tended to go forth to the British publi e and to the people of Canada,
sith the Report of the Commis-
that they were not in, a conditeoe—y
sioners before thew., and deer two nights' debate—to go on, with-
out referring to certain ev.idenen which was purely ex part; and.
\glitch was never intended to be made public. If the facts whiche
they were already in eioesession of in this case were not sufficienee
1 the Goverment hted better withdraw their resolutions altogethta.
He was convinced that this proceeding on the part of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Beth was a mere pretext for delay. The
Hcme. and Learned Member for Bath had been +Ate first to quote the
evidence in question, and not the Noble T-..Ord (Stanley). He
railed this, in the sense in which the Hon. Member for Bath un-
derstood it, and in the sense in whiel it would be understood out of
doors, an unworthy compromise, He protested against such a pro-
ceeding on the part of the cha':acter and dignity of that Howe.
The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER—The Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Worcester spoke of an unworthy Com-
promise, arid of the eff'set which this debate would have in Cana/le-
lie (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said that in reference tee
this debate, and t'.,e effect which it would have on the minds of the
people of Canaria, that he wished for the production of th.e
i evi:-
deuce requireet ; because if this resolution were to be aifirines_
(and he dl's not deny the effect it might have on popisler.
feel-
ing in Genatia), he wished only to justify the line whit
Learned.
i
'M e cts he i 0
vernment were called upon to pursue; but if the Hog,,
ember for Bath, or any one else, should say
1 (Aticil which had keen referred to irerlebate he_.,!‘l peen ' deirianded wet