The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-15 00:00:00

gislature would not vote the supplies for carrying on the Go.
vernment, nor fulfil the functions for which it had been ap-
pointed under the Constitution, and that it was to remedy this
the Bill was required. Good God, if the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman had intended to set aside the Constitution, to interfere
with the courts of justice, to abrogate trial by jury, shy did
ho not come forward arid tell this boldly and manfully ; and
state that it was their intention to adopt such unconstitutional

proceedings ? But they had placed their claim solely upon
the ground of the Colonial Legislature not discharging its
duty. The Bill had been grounded upon the expediency of
providing for the necessities of a colony left virtually without
legislation to carry on the routine of the Colonial Government,
but not to interfere with the Constitution to such an extent as
had taken place. They had not been told of such a course ;
they had not even been informed that the courts of justice were
not sufficient for the administration of the criminal law, and that
it would, consequently, be necessary to abrogate the trial by
jury in some cases, and pass sentence on men without a trial.
They had not been informed that the functions of the courts
of justice were not administered. If it had been required to
abolish trial by jury and set aside the constitutional privileges
of the colonists, why had not the Government boldly and man-
fully told them so?—( Cheers.) But no complaint had at that
period been made of the inefficiency of the courts of justice, or
the impossibility of procuring convictions in Canada. If the
Government had shown that they were insufficient, and that
the absolute necessities of the colony really required strong
measures, he could safely say that, for his own part, no one
would be more ready than he would to part with such powers
as would be calculated to secure the peace of the colony, and
sufficiently support the authority of the Crown. But when they
were told, instead of this, that powers which they granted were
only required ad interim, and not with reference to the crimi-
nal proceedings against individuals, the case was far different.
When that Bill was about to be brought in, they had not
been told that they were required to send out a dictator with
power to set aside the Constitution in Canada, and to do acts
which even the Colonial Legislature was incompetent to do.
The Noble Lord had said that when the Bill had been intro-
duced at the commencement of the Session there had been
very little objection made at that side of the House.
True, there had been few objections urged, but the Bill
•was, nevertheless, watched with peculiar 'vigilance and
attention ; and, although the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman opposite (the Attorney-General) remarked that
no great measure ever passed through the House with to
little change, yet it was not because attention had not been
devoted to it, but because it was felt that such a Bill t+ as re-
quired by the exigencies of the colony, at which time it was
not anticipated that such proceedings as had since been
resorted to in Canada--it was not anticipated that there
would be such a cause to complain of. The Noble Lord com-
plained that he (Lord Stanley) had called Lord Durham a
dictator. He had done so, and, in his opinion, even if Lord
Durham had the advantage of the advice of the wisest and best
men he could be looked upon in no other light, possessing such
powers, and having the privilege of dismissing any member
of the Council, if it pleased him to do so.--( Hear, hear.) His
opinion is in this respect was unchanged. What other ink-
renee could be derived from such a power over any member of
the Council ? But amongst all the Powers which had been
conferred upon him, it was not intended to give him the privi-
lege of changing at will any Act of Parliament, or of setting
aside the Constitution. The Noble Lord asked whether they
had at the introduction of the Bill made any objection with
respect to interference with Courts of justice ? He would
answer that distinctly. They had not, for they did not
think it safe, nor did they think it requisite to introduce
any change with respect to them in a Bill which they were
given to understand was only to be applied to furnish a remedy
for temporary evils of a different character; they looked to
the interests of the country in agreeing to that Bill—
they considered them paramount, and they supported it upon
that account. The Noble Lord had not given the slightest
intimation that any change in the courts of justice
would take place, or that any other than the ordinary
tribunals would be employed for the trial of persons in Canada,
and they could not have imagined' that this Special Council
would have taken upon itself to interfere in so unconstitutional
a manner. Was the Noble Lord prepared now to say that
there existed in Canada a necessity for such interference with
the ordinary tribunals of the country ? Lord Durham himself
had not said so much. He had not expressed any apprehen-
sion that it would be impossible or even difficult to obtain con-
cictions before the regular tribunals of the country, and that all
those persons who had been charged with offences could not
have been brought to conviction by the ordinary course of
law. Lord Durham bad stated facts which bore a construc-
tion of a contrary tendency. In his first despatch he said
that he had great satisfaction in being able to state that a spe-
cial commission which had been sent down to Montreal bad
been perfectly successful ; and yet this had been followed by a
complete setting aside of those tribunals, which had not
been complained of. Why were the ordinary tribunals
set aside when it was not pretended that they were
insufficient? Even the persons who were most affected
by the charges tacitly admitted that it would be quite
possible to obtain convictions, which was evident from
the course they had adopted, namely, throwing themselves
upon the mercy of the Crown, which afforded a natural
inference that they anticipated a conviction at the hands of
the juries. It was evident, by the fact of their having pleaded
guilty, that they did not expect the jurors would display any
unwillingness to convict them. He believed there was an
inaccuracy in the expression of the despatch as to pleading
guilty ; but they thre.v themselves upon the mercy of the
Crown, and that was of just as much weight so far as it af-
fected the wiliingness of juries to convict. In fact, Lord
Durham had been greatly in error when he stated that the
ringleaders had pleaded guilty, when, in point of fact, not
one of them had done so. The Noble Lord had said that the
proceedings against those men had been adopted upon prin-
ciples of humanity and benevolence, and so far from attri-
buting blame to Lord Durham for abrogating trial by jury
he had defended his conduct. That certainly was a stra ,ge
avowal from a Liberal Minister of the Crown.—( Cheers.) It
was going far indeed to defend such acts of despotism—
( Ch. eers)—to advocate such a departure from the principles
of justice—to tread the constitutional rights of the colo-
nists under foot—to supersede the conrts of justice by a
new, an unconstitutional, and an arbitrary tribunal. The
Noble Lord had said, that whether or not Lord Durham
had acted illegally, he had acted from motives of humanity.
lie ( Lord Stanley) believed that Lord Durham, although lie
had acted illegally, had acted from a mistaken sense of duty,
and he also believed that, apart from its illegality, the course he
had taken was well caculated to secure the peace of the colony,
and to prevent any further effusion of blood ; but that was no
justification of an unconstitutional proceeding. The Bill which
was now before them would go a great way towards prevent-
ing many consequences of that ordinance ; but the evils which
such an arbitrary and despotic course had already produced
were irremediable. They were bound to do as much as pos-
sible to prevent the colony from suffering the injurious results
of that ordinance; and he would ask the Noble Lord how
be intended to act towards those men who had been sent to Ber-
muda, as well as those who had not as yet been taken ? Were
they to be allowed after this Act of Indemnity—were they to
be allowed to return to that country, where already they had
effected so much mischief? Would the Noble Lord not take
some precaution ? It was a serious and important question.
Were they to allow all those persons to return to Canada im-
mediately upon the passing of this Bill ? It was a question
upon which he would not give an opinion ; he would leave it
to those better qualified.than himself; but he would ask, was
not some measure of prevention to be taken ? Were those
men to escape without further notice from the sentence of
death, and allowed to return immediately upon the passing of
this Bill to that country, which had been the scene of their un-
natural conspiracy, where they had occasioned so much misery,
so much guilt, and blood, and wretchedness—where in their
reckless attempt to aggrandize themselves they had plunged
themselves in affliction and suffering ? But beyond this diffi-
culty there ought to be no doubt left remaining as to whether
cr not the Governor of Canada and the Special Council had
a power to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act with impunity at
their discretion. This ought to be made a matter of certainty,
and if the Noble Lord took measures to secure this, he (Lord
Stanley) did not imagine that he should meet with any oppo-
sition. He did not know why the Noble Lord anticipated any
objection to introducing any amendment that would have the
effect of removing all doubt in future as to the suspension of
the Habeas Corpus Act in Canada; but he was of opinion that
if the Noble Lord stated his intention of doing so, he should
experience no difficulty, either in this or the other House of
Parliament. For his own part, he felt that he should incur a
great responsibility if he had not expressed his views upon this
subject, and what line of duty he conceived it imperative upon
the Government to adopt, in order to secure the administra-
tion of justice—to restore tranquillity, and support effectively
and permanently the authority of the Crown in Canada._.
(Loud cheers.)

Lord J. RUSSELL did not mean to draw any invidious corn-
parision between Sir John Colborne and Lord Durham ; he
meant to show that the same principle was involved is the or-
dinances of both. With respect to another point alluded to
in the Noble Lord's speech, he could assure hire that a Noble
Friend of his had intended to introduce a provision to nearly a
similar effect with that mentioned by the Noble Lord, and it
was withdrawn in obedience to the general wish of the House
of Lords. When his Noble Friend did not succeed in carry-
ing that provision into effect, he (Lord John Russell) did not
expect much success in carrying it through.
Mr. LEADER said that the speech of the Noble Lord at
that side of the House was directed to the Noble Lord ( Stan-
ley) at the other side; but that part of it had been so fully
answered by the Noble Lord to whom it was directed, that he
did not feel called upon to allude to it. When Lord Durham
was about to go to Canada he (Mr. Leader) did not wish to
throw any obstacle in the way of granting those powers, and
after his arrival he was slow to find fault, for he felt that it
was a difficult thing to throw back a revolution. There was,
however, a limit to patience, and when they saw him acting in
so illegal and unconstitutional a manner he felt it his duty to de-
clare his opinion of the Noble Lord's conduct. He would not
advert to the part of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell's)
speech, which referred to a Noble Lord in the other House
of Parliament. That Noble Lord was able to defend himself,
and it was probable he would do so in a manner which would
make the Noble Lord who commenced that attack, regret he
had ever made it. With respect to the Bill of Indemnity, he
had a doubt whether it ought to be applied to Lord Durham,
for if it were admitted as a defence that an illegal act had been
done with a good intention, or a view to the efficient discharge
of duty, this would apply equally to all Magistrates, and
would amount to a defence in case of false imprisonment. A
vote of censure might be in the present case more applicable
than a Bill of Indemnity. It was not to be supposed that this
was the only illegal act of the Executive Government of Ca-
nada ; they had done many ether acts quite as illegal and un-
cunAitutional. An article had some time since been published
in the London and Westminster Review, and because a pub-
lisher in Canada had copied it, his printing presses were
seized upon, and himself thrown into prison. If there had

been anything illegal in the article, why had the pub-
lishers not been punished in England ; or why was that made
a crime in the colonies which was not a crime in the mother
country ? The Hon. Member then recited several cases where
very severe measures had been taken by the Government
against obnoxious persons. At the period when the Special
Council was established there were 300 or 400 persons in
prison, and the fate of all those was decided in one day, for the
ordinance came out the next day. The ordinances themselves
might be divided into two parts, of which each might be con-
sidered differently by different people. The first pert was al-
lowed on all hands to be illgeal. On referring to Lord air-
ham's despatch it would be seen that the words he used were
that "he had transported these persons, but not to a convict
colony." Now, it was very strange that when transportation
was condemned in this country, that Noble Lord should intro-
duce it into that colony ; and it was also strange still for him
to state that the Bermudas were not a convict colony ; men
worked in chains there, and in point of punishment they were
second only to the most penal of all our settlements—Norfolk
Island. But what was the excuse alleged for transporting these
persons thither? The House had it on the authority of the
Morning Chronicle that they had pleaded guilty of high trea-
son. He ( Mr. Leader) denied that they had done so. Such
was the niggardliness of the Government in granting papers
connected with this affair, that he ( Mr. Leader) was obliged
to have recourse to the columns of the Times for the infor-
mation which they should have supplied to the House. He
should, however, first take Mr. Charles Buller's letter. That
precious document went on to say, " I enclose you our last
great Act ;" and the paragraph corcludes, " We have put no
one to death." The next proceeds, " They have all pleaded
guilty." That he ( Mr. Leader) denied. They might have
submitted to the Crown and thrown themselves upon its
mercy, but that was not pleading guilty. To constitute a
plea, there should be a regular arraignment of the parties ;
but such a thing was not even alluded to in the docu-
ment, and did not take place in fact. Ile (Mr. Leader)
had high legal authority for stating, that if these ordi-
nances were to be considered the law of the colony, the
Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, or even the
Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, might
be banished the country if they went to Canada at anv time
this current year. The letter went on farther—" We did not
interfere with the ordinary tribunals of the colony, nor had we
occasion to tamper with Juries." What sort of language was
that to hold for a high functionary in a disaffected colony ?
To " tamper with Juries !" Was that a fitting phrase for
such an individual to employ ? And yet it was plain that they
did not tamper with.them, simply because they knew that they
would be unsuccessful in their attempts. The letter then
added something about " those ignorant Canadians." How
conciliatory towards a disaffected people from a high member
of their local Government !—from a man who, aware that he
could not legally condemn victims, transported them illegally
instead. He (Mr. Leader) held in his hand a copy of their
applicationto Lord Durham. It was in French, and he hoped the
House would trust to his interpretation of a few of the strongest
passages which bore upon the statement that the individual
parties thereto had pleaded guilty of high treason. Wolfred
Nelson and the others were those who signed it, and they said,
" We rebelled, but not against the person or Government of
her Majesty, but against the bad colonial administration. We
await the issue in patience—on us let the punishment fall."
' The document then went on to compliment Lord Durham, and
stated that " if he had arrived sooner among them it would he
an event blessed for ever by the Canadian people." It added,
that they had never had recourse to arms except in self-de-
fence ; and that the Government had not only not attempted to
; stop them in the course they had pursued, but had actually to-
lerated and encouraged their enterprise. That was actually the
case, and he (Mr. Leader) might safely add, that the Governor
• of Upper Canada might be said to have brought about the re-
bellion in that province for purpcses best known to himself. A
: passage then followed in the document which justified Lord
Gosford fiom the Utter attacks made on him by interested
parties, and pointed out how his merciful intentions towards
the deluded people were defeated by the interference of the ma-
! gistracy. They asked no pardon for themselves, they only
prayed for peace for the country and forgiveness for the people,
t and they concluded with these words—" We pray to God
m success to your Excellency's mission of peace, Dead hope that
f two people worshipping the one God may be from henceforth
• and for ever free, united, and happy." If it was a crime to
urge such noble sentiments then he (Mr. Leader) admitted
that those persons pleaded guilty, but that was the only docu-
t ment on which any such allegation as that made by the letter
f of Mr. Charles Buller could be founded. As to the second
• part of the ordinances he (Mr. Leader) thought it much
worse than even the first. As a matter of law and a matter of
common justice, it was in every way most unjustifiable. Sen-
tencing men to death for returning to their native land, with-
. out trial or condemnation, seemed to him a most atrocious
proceeding.—( Hear, hear.) Nothing could be proved against
Monsieur Papineau, for instance, more than could be proved
any day in the week against Mr. O'Connell —( Laughter. )
Mons. Papineau was no more guilty of high treason than Mr.
O'Connell_( Laughter)—and yet he was to be executed if he
ever set foot again in the colony. But there was another case
much worse still. It was that of M. Louis Perrot. M. Perrot
was in New York purchasing type for time Vindicator news-
' paper at the outbreak of the rebellion; and because he staid
there, on receiving intelligence of the death of his brother,
who was slain by the Queen's troops at St. Denis, he was con-
demned to death if he ever returned to Canada. Was that
like law or kastiee. He (Mr. Leader) fur one prateate&
against any Bill of Indemnity for such an act. But these
were not the only irregular things he had to charge against
Mr. Charles Buller. In the debate of last January the Noble
Lord (J. Russell) had stated that it was not the intention of
the Government to proscribe any party in Canada. To pro-
scribe a party meant to punish the leaders of it ; for a whole
people could net be punished. Now, how did Mr. Buller
act He transported some of the leaders of the party, and
sentenced others to death. Was that proscribing them, or
was it not? Among other things which he ( Mr. Leader) had
to complain of as against Lord Durham's Government, was
the appointment of Mr. Arthur Buller, a young barris-
ter of four years' standing, to the judgeship of the Court
of Appeal, the highest tribunal in the colony. Would
such a thing as that be tolerated for a moment in Eng-
gland ? It was monstrous, and would only be tolerated
when everything illegal was tolerated in Canada. As to the
conduct of the Government at home, there were two parties who
had a right to complain of it in regard to this matter. The
first was the public; and they had a might to complain of it as
weak and contradictory. On Thursday night the First Mini-
ster of the Crown in another place protested against the Bill
before the House, and asserted that to pass it would be to en-
danger the Colony in question ; on Friday, however, he yielded
to the majority, retracted on every point, passed the Bill, and
sacrified his Friend and Colleague, Lord Durham. He com-
pared the majority on Friday night to a truculent democracy
for opposing hire:. Strange words these from a Noble Lord
who had climbed into power by the aid of the people, and ap-
parently indicative of a wish to knock down the ladder; but
yet, on Friday night, lie assented to all they said. The people
had therefore a right to complain of the conduct of 'Ministers,
aed above all men Lord Durham had so too. They first con-
tradicted themselves, and then sacrificed him to the party who
opposed them. It seemed to him ( Mr. Leader) an act of
poetical justice that they should now be compelled, at the end
of a long and discreditable Session to them, to come down to
the House of Commons to ask for a Bill of Indemnity.
Mr. lIA WES should have though that any person who
felt an interest in the welfare of the country would have tried

to avoid every expression which had a tendency to embarrass
the Government in this matter, or to throw difficulty in the
way of a settlement of that vexatious question. He much re-
gretted his lion. Friend the Membrr for Westminster had

taken the contrary course. He (Mr. Hawes) objected to any
Bill of Indemnity, but he did so on very different grounds
from the Hon. Member for Westminster. If an agent or
minister of the Executive Government did wrong, then he
should be made to ans.ver for his acts; if he did wrong under
the sanction of the Government then they should be made: re-
sponsible. But in neither case should a Bill of Indemnity be
brought in. The Government did not wish it; Lord Durham
did not ask for it. It was forced on the Government,
and they acceded to it of necessity. ( Hear, hear. )
Lord Durham confiscated no estates—he shed no blood—no

complaints were made against him, and yet the whole indig-
nation of both Houses of Parliament was to be let loose on
him for procuring peace at such a price. Under these cir-
cumstances he (Mr. Hawes) could not help thinking that
the interference of Parliament with the Executive Govern-
ment was at once both unjust and unconstitutional. He now
felt it necessary to say a word or two in favour of an absent
friend, who, he believed, was also a friend of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Westminster.
Mr. LEADER—I disown him.
Mr. HAWES—CouId not so easily permit public feeling
to interfere with private friendship as the Hon. Member; and
therefore he felt called upon to say a word or two on behalf
of his absent friend the Hon. Member for Liskeard. Was
Mr. Charles Buller responsible for the publication of the let-
ters quoted by the Hon. Member for Westminster ? Were
they his ? Had he in any way authorised their being made
public? These were questions which the Hon. Member was
bound to answer before he repudiated him. The Hon. Mem-
ber then concluded by protesting against any ex-parte state-
ments to the prejudice of absent parties.
Sir W. FOLLETT said that the Bill was not likely to
meet with any serious opposition, yet after what had been said
in allusion to the part he had acted on a former occasion it was
necessary for him to say a few words in his justification. The
fact was, as•it appeared to him, that Lord Durham was in a si-
tuation
of considerable difficulty, and that Parliament was
not at present in a situation to attain correct information
respecting the facts, and thereby to come to a just conclusion
respecting the wisdom or policy of his proceedings.—( Hear,
hear.) Nor did he think that the attention of Parliament
ought to be called to the consideration of that branch of
the subject till they had the fullest information thereon.
—(Hear, hear, hear.) Although he felt the greatest confi-
dence in the humanity of the Noble Earl, yet he could not help
feeling considerable surprise also at the manner in which those
enactments of his were passed. There was no Special Council
in existence till the 28th of June—( Hear, hear, hear)—on
which day the Noble Earl appointed five of his friends to form
it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) On that day they were sworn into
office, and on that day they concurred with the Noble Earl
in the ordinances which condemned eight persons to exile,
fifteen more to death if they dared to return to ask for a
trial—( Hear, bear, hear)—and many others equally uncon-
victed and innocent to punishments unheard. —( Hear. hear.)
It was impossible that these five councillors could in that day
have inquired into and learned all the particulars necessary
to enable them to judge justly in so many cases—to have pro-
perly and conscientiously sifted the eviderce affecting these
men, or the class in which they were pla.:!ed, by implication.
He did not think, therefore, that the ordinances e, old have
been framed with that just and deliberate consideration of all
the circumstances which their importance demanded. Hear.)
However, the question now before the House was whether

the Nabie Earl hid exercised the powers granted to him`
—large, and ample, and uncalled-for as they se-ere—whether'
,the Noble Earl who had exercised them had not gone beyond
them. —( Hear, hear.) He must
own that ho did enter-
tain the strongest doubts of the legality of the ordinances—
(ll- ar)—and the right which Lord Durham and his Couricil
had to inflict the sentence of banishment in the first place, and
in the next to denounce the penalty of death on those wile,
should return. Recoliectin?; what had passed on this subject
in the former case, he had no hesitation in saying that lie fete
it was not the intention of Parliament to vest him with suclr
arbitrary and irresponsible power.—( Hear, hear.) The ques-
tion was not now whether they gave him the power merely
to alter the Constitutional law of Canada and Great Britain,
but to set himself dictatorially above it, and put to death or
banish the inhabitants of Canada at his pleasure ?—( Hear.)
Had those who framed the Bill of powers with which Lord
Durham had been furnished declared openly that they would
not trust to the Judges and Juries of Lower Canada, or had
they declared that they wanted additional powers themselves
to puniAl the guilty ? If that had been said—although it was
never said—he for one would have consented to it; but if
they had said " Leave it to the Governor himself or to the Go-
vernor with the assent of his Special Council, to banish, im-
prison, or execute," he was warranted in saying every man
who heard them would have revolted from such an atrocious
proposition.-( osition ( Loud cheers.) Now, with respect to those
eight individuals who had pleaded guilty, but not formally, nor
sufficient to supersede their trial, it might have been evident
against them in England, but certainly not sufficient to inswe
their condemnation unheard. Next that Lord Durham had
declared ia his ordinance that if the fifteen persona who were
supposed to be guilty, and supposed to be within the juris-
diction of the Court, came within that jurisdiction they should
be convicted, attainted of high treason, have their blood disho-
noured, and condemned to death, even if they came there with
the innocent inteatiiin of taking their trial. He did not think
that the Colonial Legislature had such a power of dispensing
with the trial, with any of the examinations and cross-exami-
nations of witnesses before- the accused, ere they entered up
sentence against them. It was contrary not only to the law
of England but to that of every civilized nation that he ever
heard or read of. Sir John Colborne's ordinance was widely
different from that of Lord Durham, for it told the persons
against whom it was directed that if they did not come in
before a certain day they would be liable to certain penalties,
whereas the ordinance of Lord Durham told them that if they
came in they should be punished —(Cheers.) The one ordi-
nance, therefore, might be perfectly legal and the other ille-
gal. He thought the Government ought to provide some ee-
medy fur the effect that might be produced by annulling tbs
ordinances, as was intended by the present Bill, as far as they
applied to those men who were the known ringleaders of thr
rebellion, and to bring back to obedience those who had been-
misled by the acts of others. He was sorry to have detained-
the House at such length ; but he felt it to be his duty to
mske the observations he had upon this question.—(Cheers )
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that it was sci h
great satisfaction he heard his Hon. and Learned Friend rx"
press his regret that this subject had been at all agitated. bt-
cause it was his (the Attorney- General's) opinion that destruc-
tion to the Colony would be the consequence. The agitation
of the question could not be ascribed to her Mejesty's Go-
vTornent.—( A laugh.) It was well known that the pacific
measures pursued by Lord Durlfam were received with the
greatest applause by all parties in Canada, and if no objection
to the ordinances that had been issued had been made on this
side of the Atlantic everything would have gone on smoothl g
The object of the ordinances was to prevent certain persot-d
entering the territory of Lower Canada until the Provieee
should be in a perfect state of peace and security; and thi;
course would have met with complete success if the subject
had not been agitated at home. He hoped the Noble gar.'
would still pursue his glorious course, and set at nought the
detractions that were aimed at him by persons in this country-
This Bill of Indemnity was totally unnecessary, for no action'
would have ever been brought or thought of, were it not for'
this officious and insidious proceeding. As, however, the sub'
ject was agitated, he did not hesitate to give it as his opinion,
that those parts of the ordinances which went beyond the pro:
vinces of Canada in their operation was an excess of the autha
rity which the Act of Parliament gave to the Governor
and Council. The persons to whom those ordinance;
applied were in arms against the Queen's authority, and
were therefore liable to looked upon as traitors; but there
was no no authority to send them to Bermuda.—(Hear.,
As to the tyranny that was described as belonging to these or-
dinances, it had been altogether overlooked that Lord Dun"
ham could at any time give permission to any of those perm
to return, and only said that they should be tried if they re-
turned without that permission. A proper distinction had tie` n
been drawn between a legislative proceeding, as this was, "
a judicial proceeding, and therefore the mistake had been cote
mitted of charging Lord Durham with a grass violation of tls.c!
law. The Act which appointed the Governor and Council
gave to them the same legislative power which the old Lessi!':,
laturo of Canada possessed, provided the acts or ordinances did
not violate or interfere with any British Act of Parliamen
of
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then quoted various Acts f
Parliament to show the powers which the old Legislation °,_
Lower Canada possessed, and contended that the Ist of Victsacc
gave precisely the same powers to the Governor and Coun_lt-
He believed that part of the ordinance which extended b.e,
yond the province to be wholly inoperative, but that talc
extended to the province only he bad no hesitation in pro-
nouncing to be legal. He was sorry the subject had been
troduced fur public discussion, for he thought no benefit "t; °ea
arise from it; but as it had been brought forward, he reie-c,,,
'- to think that the conduct of Lord Durham had been shown
be calculated for the promotion of the peace of the colonY•
The Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire hard Bt%.
mitted that the conduct of Lord Durham, apart from its slice
gality, was well meant, and calculated in an
eminent degreeLicP
effect good. The Legislature of Upper Canada had passim
various Acts affecting, in quite as great a degree. those prig'
ciples which it was said Lord Durham's ordinances illegal
set aside. They had passed an Act to authorise the arrest an
detention of persons suspected of treason, misprison oftreascn,'
&c. Here was clearly a violation of the Habeas Corpus P.
for it enabled authorities to detain persons in prison without;
trial. It had passed another Act for the better securing the
trial of persons fur treason. This Act was a direct interferen
with the trial by jury. It also empowered the trial of Per,
.
sons from another State by Court-martial. Those vvereall
c:a
,
great interferences with the law as the ordinances of f
Durham. He repeated, that he looked upon the conduct ,
Lord Durham as perfectly legal ; so far as the ordinance '1,5
plied to those within the province, he was willing to share !t.
responsibility, He was sorry the necessity for it should e%lus!j,
and he hoped soon to see the time When the ordinary law we,..ch
againbe in force in all its vigour in Canada, a period
this discussion did not tend to hasten. of
St E. SUG DEN would not occupy much of thee tiMeo.
r.
i
the House by the observation which he was about t° °„ilesee
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated that be c° n
et
t
dered the conduct of Lord Durham perfectly legal, anal tf
he was about to assent to the passing of a Bill of Indere or
for th it conduct—a Bill which declared that conduct to
tie
posed to law.—(llear, hear.) If the conduct of the PN`f
Lord were really legal and defensible, why did the H0n.,,,A0'0,.
Learned Gentleman support the Bill? How could the river
and Learned Gentleman say be would uphold the laws ler
consenting to pass such a Bill ? Where there was no risr
and where there was no decision to follow it was very easY,loct
the Hon. end Learned Gentleman to pronounce the o°,o-the
of Lord Durham as legal, and within the province (see,
Act which had been passed at the commencement of the tiers
sion. He had read that ordinance, and the procionai,den
which accompanied it. The proclamation gave a free Rao of
to th -so concerned in the disturbances, with the excel:l'o%s.
a certain number, some of whom had been sent to Be.
under pain of death in case they returned to the colony. 01
i:resent Bill da&ared the Act which banished those men'ted
declared them under sentence of death in case they retsuirbeil
to their native soil, illegal, and of course inoperative. to
the inteliigence arrived at Bermuda those men were fete
return egain ; and what, therefore, was to be done with teo
Wt re they to be put upon their trial again ? No ; 00 orie
vernment would do that. It was a grave question. arl"„aer'
which the Noble Lord was imperatively called on to an.,"oce•
These persons might return and set the Executive at dil'4-tonf
He ( Sir E. Sugden) could conceive nothing more claogemra
than their return in spite of the Government. The Noble iitid
should be prepared to look this point fairly in the face' t
state to the House and the country what steps he 01"),..0 de'
take in the event of its occurrence. He (Sir E. Sugdo% t°
precated as much as man could do the personal turn gl/01,10
the debate, and the observations indulged in towards a th°
Lord not present, in connection with the subject beto's-osee
House. It would be far better, in his opinion, that dor
Noble Lord, a member of the Government, should strit
in another place sad reply to that Noble Lord than t"; he
should be attacked in that House in his absence, and wlthis
i'
could not have an opportunity of defending himself. Id dc'
were done there was no doubt that that Noble Lord w°ti to °-
fend himself as effectually as he was ever accustomed aaes;
upon all similar occasions. But as regarded the gre,a;
Lion before the House it was his (Sir E. Sugden's) lens
opinion that, unless her Majesty's Ministers met the il-Dur
tion of the Bill in debate, that the ordinances of Lord 611-
barn were illegal by some other measure, the Qucesn''in Car
vernment would not be able much longer to exist ."C
nada. As to the present state of things in Cana re
but ;
was quite evident that if Lord Durham had b"",
Council none of them could have happened. It vb-511 its
mockery of a Council ; and it proved itself to be se so I"
results. He (Sir Edward Sugden)
have meant well in the matter; but he was of opinion tad 'far
believed Lord pur'at t°
act legally and constitutionally he should hare act each
otherwise than he did. To adjudge fifteen persons
without trial or conviction, if -euvere the yet foot in -at Os"
again, was a little too much ; and though lie had n° debt, ihtlils
the Noble Lord intended the ordinance to that effect to at 4
tohpee rlaetsisv e
evil,in
regulationsit w as neoft,
Sirin Johnint of effect, lb f
been observed this could not have occurred,as th
a Bill for a second and a third time would have aff°,rireadd an
in
SomegO
d the
period to the parties who were to be affected by it, •
h
oe r
validity of the ordinance would have been observed. r
Sir G. GREY was of o inior that the same novi,e,atin„
disallowed the ordinances couldp alsol disallow t pros
he proca
There was an ordinance of Sir John Colborne wine" '„
sfoerlvaescgonudilittyiral pardon in cases of parties confest;.l 911 it
and petitioning. The ordinance of 0004,
ham would leave these parties in no worse condition.ror Woes
C. Grey) could not concur with the Hon. IVlembeisr.,i,h sesPe
minster, in thinking the conduct of Lord Durham "
to these ordinances was the result of cruel feeling.
„soot
Mr. LEADER did not use the phrase.
fr
Sir GEORGE GREY was glad to Iran that trh,e,l.Psis (.0. •
ale Member had not rote-tided to use• tuts phrase.. :,arbsol llt
G. Grey's) part, he never imagined that Lorisln
to effeinct.eard
tended to act upon the ordinance or carry
it• tendei rsolls
would be madness to suppose that it was ever in ape
ihto effect the sentence of death passed upon the 1111°'