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

in of the Bill respecting Canada. He had stated, on the first
introduction of the Bill, that the Governor, with the Special
Council, might, under that Bill, pass such Acts as occasion
required for the Government of the Province. And he had
subsequently stated that the Bill would enable the Gover-
nor in Council—of that Council five being sufficient to
constitute a quorum—to pass any laws, during the suspension
of the Legislature, to make provision for the temporary Go-
vernment of the Province, and other purposes—evidently
meaning that the general legislative authority possessed by the
Legislative Assembly in Lower Canada, was to be vested in
the Governor and Special Council. Was any objection made
to these 'proposals ? No ; except by those who opposed the
Bill altogether as establishing a dictatorship. But various
amendments were proposed, among others, by the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth, which, after great dis-
cussion, were agreed to, and which did not touch the points
to which he ( Lord John Russell) had been alluding. That
part of the Bill was proposed by the Right Honour-
able Baronet to be omitted, which authorized the
Governor alone to propose laws to the Special Council.
On the suggestion, however, of the Right Hon. Member for
Coventry ( Mr. Ellice) that proposition was abandoned.
There were in the course of the debates certain statements
made by the Noble Lord ( Stanley) and the Learned Gentle-
man (Sir William Follett), who said that the Governor
in Council would have power as to permanent laws
which were not necessary for the peculiar purposes of the Act.
Now, the language that was used by the Noble Lord op-
posite, the Member for North Lancashire, with regard to the
manner in which such laws would be propounded, was very
remarkable. He said it was all very well to talk of the Council
as a matter of courtesy, but that in reality everything rested
with the Governor, who was dictator. The Nobl Lord,
who was a supporter cf the Bill, took this view of
it, that the Governor in Council wag dictator, end
that all laws would emanate from him.---( Hear, hear, hear.)
He believed his Noble Friend would not depart from that
statement now ; but it was rather inconsistent with the decla-
rations now made, that it was supposed that the Special
Council would be in fact an independent authority, over which
the Governor-General could exercise but a very limited in-
fluence. Now, the Noble Lord mentioned some questions
over which he thought that the dictator ought not to have
authority—one was the rights of the Roman Catholics, an-
other the protection of the Protestant Church, and the third
the tenure of lards. His Honourable and Learned Friend
the Member for Exeter followed the course of the Noble Lord.
He stated that he had a great objection to the Governor and
Special Council having authority over these particular matters,
and stated his reasons very clearly why, these being matters
of permanent concern, it was necessary that the Provisional
Legislature should have no power with respect to them. He
then stated it was not a question cf local police, or affecting
the affairs of the local Government. The Under-Secretary
of State upon this statement then said, in substance, that if
that was the object—if they only wanted words which should
exclude the Governor in Council from affecting such sub.
jects, he should have no objection to them. His Hon.
and Learned Friend afterwards stated his only object was to
exclude from the operation of the clause the laws which he
had stated. He was certain the Honourable and Learned
Member would never have made that statement if be had
wished to prevent the Governor-General from passing
Acts affecting the security of the province; if he had
wished to say the whole course of the criminal law
should be unaltered, and that the Governor in Council should
have no such power, he would have stated such to be his ob-
ject—(Cheers)—and have asked the House to agree to or
dissent from it ; but it could not be supposed that he meant
any such thing. The attention of the House had been called
to the principles held by the Hon. Member for Westminster,
who disputed the Bill altogether. Their attention had like-
wise been called to the amendments proposed by the Right
Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who argued on
the general purposes of the Bill ; but, with respect to the
amendments of the Hun. and Learned Gentleman, he only
viewed it as an amendment to provide for what it was est
necessary to provide for. It seemed to the Government that
as far as principle went, the amendment was not materi .1, end
they consented to the intreductien of the words. After this
het( been den,e, they were still reproached with this being an
act of despotism.—( Hear.) They admitted that reproach.
They did not say that it was au Act of peculiar mildness
which would only provide for mere matters of local police, in
conformity with the laws of England. On the contrary, they
admitted that it was an Act despotic ha its form, but neces-
sary for the safety of the Province.—( Heir, hear, hear.)
He thought, therefore, that nothing had passed in that House
which could induce any one to suppose that there was anything
in the ordinance of Earl Durham which was contrary to the
pow ors intended by the Act to be confided to him as Governor-
Gensral. The fill went into the other House, and in a pre-
vious debate he hound his Noble Friend the Secret,Ty for the
Colonies stating that although it was an arbitrary measure, it
was absolutely necessary under existing circumstances. If it had
been their intention to deprive the people of L ewer Canada of the
powers which ether colonies enjayed in cases where rebellion
took place, would that have been the disadvantageous descrip-
tion which his Noble Friend would have given to the measure?
For a Minister to say that a measure was arbitrary and in.-
politic, when there was nothing of the kind it, would
have been to invite reproach without being liable
to it, and could hardly enter into the mind of any per-
son holding authority. But there were others who described
the measure after it had passed through the House of Lords,
and after it had received the amendment of the Hon. Member
for Exeter, in protests now upon the Journals of the House of
Lords. These were not mere fugitive \lords, \villa had escaped
in the heat of debate, but words uttered by eminent .persons in
tl:e House of Lords, as theirown deliberate opinion. The descrip-
tion of the Bill in one of these was :—" The Bill interposes
a long interval of cleseotism before aly settlement can be ob-
tained"—and the ninth reason was " Because the Bill has
postponed the calling of a new Parliament to a period neces-
sarily more unfavourable," end it terms it " coercive des-
potism." That protest was signed with the names of
" Ellenborcueli and Brougham." Another protest
alleged, " that it deprived the Canadians not only of the rights
given them by the British Legislature; but of the Con-
stitution they had previously enjes ed." That was
signed by " Fitzwilliam and Brougham." Such 11'13
the character of the Act as it had pressed through Parlia-
ment ; such was its general purport and nature ; such were
the declared intentions of its purposes, and such was the cha-
racter given of it by its opponents after due delibe-ation.
When the Bill went out to Canaria, he was asked whether he
intended that the powers under it should be exercised by Sir
J. Colborne, or whether it was to lay dormant until
the arrival of Lord Durham. He anseered that
as it might be necessary to provide fur the safety
of the province, the powers under it were to be entrusted
to Sir John Colborne, a clear proof that he did not think
them of a merely ordinary n ,cure. The sense in which
the Bill was utdentood, might also' be gathered from the
conduct of Sir J. Colborne under the Bill. On the 7th May
Sir John Colborne sent home despatches making mention of
several ordinances passed by Inns in Council, and amongst
them was one making protision for giving power to the
Governor to grant pardons to those 'engaged in the late insur-
rection, &c. These were laid upon the table of the House with-
in a month after; therefore the House could not say they were
unaware of the ordinances of Sir J. Colborne, and it could hardly
be said that they proceeded according to the criminal law of
this country—it could hardly be said that they did not affect
and alter any Act of Parliament.—(Cheers.) If the absurd
and extravagant meaning attempted to be put upon the Act
were the true one, these ordinances should have been called
in question—they ought to have been told they had misun-
derstood the Act, and that acting upon their instruction,
Sir J. Colborne had exceeded his authority.—(Cheers.)
He was not arguing the question whether or not these ordi-
nances of Sir John Colborne justified, or did not justify the
the ordinance now in question of the Earl of Durham. The
question he was putting to the House was, whether
was conceivable that Sir John Colborne having issued his
authority, that the papers having been presented to Parlia-
ment, it would have been any one's suspicion that these or-
dinances were totally contrary to the Act of Parliament
which had been passed, that Sir John Colborne was
violating the law, and that he would either be liable to prose-
cution or require indemnity for passing such ordinances.
Such, however, at least he would say was not the opinion of
the Government. They conceived he was acting within the
intention and spirit of the Act of Parliament, that he was
proceeding in this extraordinary occasion in the manner in
which he was justified, acting according to the best of his
judgment, actin,'' with severity perhaps against persons sus-
pected of high treason, who had fled the Province, but
at the same time acting with great mercy to those who con-
fessed themselves guilty. This, at least, was apparent, that
it was hardly possible there should have been an Act of Par-
liament brought in for such a purpose, that there should have
been words introduced to which no one paid much attention ;
that a Governor should have acted in conformity with the ori-
ginal intent and purport of the Act,and yet that there should be a
vice in that Act which rendered null and illegal the whole of
these proceedings, and that that vice should never have been
discovered till the Earl of Durham issued an ordinance.
He (Lord J. Russell) must believe that it was not because
the Earl of Durham had acted illegally, but because Sir J.
Colborne was a person not obnoxious to political animosity—
whereas Earl Durham was—that a vote, which had been
harmless to Sir J. Colborne was directed against Earl
Durham.—( Hear.) When Earl Durham went out to Canada,
difficulties had increased, and he had issued a certain
ordinance ; as to that portion of it which regarded
Bermuda, he (Lord John Russell) considered it could
not be justified, by law; but if what Sir J. Col-
borne had done was justified by the Act, that which
was done by Earl Durham was equally within the mean-
ing of the Act.—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord John Russell)
therefore declared himself ready to maintain, at whatever risk,
that these powers were intended to be given by Parliament, that
theyyt
ee wereotjauwnsoatuidfilideadns bmyetehe necessity of the case, though arbitrary
and despotic they might be called.—( Hear.) And he said
aich
id,Gth beoi
feared, had as_s
heart n h c
mighttcoknp asoiwra that,ey
and
at
rebellion,
peril,
ayet rerlilved too much encouragement—
(Loud cheers.)lfaprcolceuarrelisde,g
hleatiwveouldnoutmeeting of Parliament could be
declarationboef
wshaatitsfipeodwerws i‘tvhooruetiotreceiving
o
be conferred by Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) But as that was
not the case, it was neeessoarythattbe Government should un-
dertakeresponsibility the risk u
nd
o f actingou
undoubtedly n
tedly its own
was great. He had no doubt that
interpretation of the Act.
the Earl of Durham felt it to be at once great and painful ; but
he (Lord J. Russell) hoped that, supported as Earl Durham
would be by the general opinion of the province of
Canada, and by the general opinion of Parliament, he
would consider himself bound to continue to his country
his best services, notwithstanding; the obloquy and the at-
tacks by which his course might bo marked.—(Cheers.)
The Noble Earl's treatment had certainly been different from
that which he had a right to expect.—( Hear, hear.) The

Noble Earl had been deeply sensible of the perilous nature
of the undertaking on which he was to embark, and in
the presence of his political opponents had solicited
their generous forbearance.—(Hear.) And it would have
been but manly and fair to intimate to the Noble Earl the
harsh manner in which his conduct was to be treated.—
( Hear, hear.) At the time he framed the ordinance
in question, doubtless the Noble Earl had considered that
they would be viewed with a just appreciation of the
difficulties of his situation.—( Hear, hear.) He would
not now discuss that policy, because he was not fully
aware of all the circumstances by which Lord Durham had
been influenced in issuing the ordinance in question. He was
aware that the question was a most difficult one, both with
regard to those confined for treason, and those who had fled
from the province. With regard to the former, it had been
a questiom, from the time of Lord Gosford and Sir John
Colborne, much considered in Canada and in that country.
It would have been possible to have acted with great
severity, and yet to have kept within the letter of the law.—
( Hear.) It would have been possible to have defied the most
casuistic to find a blot in the conduct of the Governor-Gene-
ral, and:yet to have acted with great severity. The law with
respect to juries lied undergone a change within the last few
years, and it would have been possible under it to have sum-
moned a jury of those who had been engaged in hostilit e against
the insurgents, and influenced by revenge towards them.
It would have been possible to have summoned such a jury,
and, no doubt, a clear arse of rebellion—these men having
been taken with arms in their hands—could have been made
out, and they could have been convicted and found guilty, and
if the persons who had to pronounce sentence ware of a san-
guinary disposition, their lives would have inevitably been
forfeited.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If persons had by such a
course of proceeding lost their lives, he (Lord J. ;Russell)
would have defied any lawyer to say that they were
not borne out by the letter of the law, but such a case he
( Lord John Russell) would have felt less able than he now
did, in spite of illegality, in spite of informality, in spite of
violation of principle if they would, to stand forward to vin-
dicate the Noble Earl in the course he had taken, which,
while it was regarded by the British inhabitants as one of mis-
taken and over-generous lenity, was one which he thought cal-
culated to conciliate and promote the peace of that colony.
With these impressions upon his mind, he asked the House at
once to pass this Bill of Indemnity, limited as it was, but
telling them at the same time that when the time came he
should be prepared, not indeed to say that the terms and
words of the ordinances passed by the Earl of Durham were
altogether to be justified—riot that he thought it a light mat-
ter, as the Honourable Member for Westminster sup-
' posed, that persons who had not been arraigned or
summoned to answer for their offences, should be
punished if they should be found within the province--
but he should be prepared to say, that looking at the conduct
of the Earl of Durham as a whole—that believing him to be
animated by the deepest zeal for the welfare of this country
—that believing him likewise to have wished to avoid any-
thing which could be construed into unnecessary severity—
that he should be ready to take part with him, that he should
be ready to bear his share of the responsibility which was to
be incurred in these difficult circumstances.—(Cheers.)
And be did say, that if that province was preserved to this
country—that if that insurrection being suppressed, the punish-
ment of death could be altogether avoided in practice—and
that if there should be restored to these provinces the enjoy-
ment of a free Constitution, he should then say that no
sophistry, that no accumulation of circumstances, and that
no bitterness of sarcasm, accompanied by professions of friend-
ship—(Great cheering from the Ministerial benches)--
and thereby attempting to disguise, but not in fact disguising,
the petty and personal feelings which were at the bottom of all
these attacks—the Noble Earl would have deserved well of his
country, well of his Sovereign, and well of all posterity.
Lord STANLEY said that he never addressed himself
with more unwillingness to the consideration of any po-
litical question, not only on account of the difficulty of
contending against the apathy and indifference which must
prevail at ties late period of the Session, but also because he
could not help feeling, that its agitation and discussion must
almost inevitably lead to consequences prejudicial to the main-
tenance of order in the Province.—(Ministerial cheers.) The
Noble Lord who had just sat down, in the commencement of
his speech, gave credit to the House for the forbearance
which throughout this long protracted Session had been exercised
towards her Majesty's Ministers and the Earl of Durham; but
towards the conclusion of the Noble Lord's speech he seemed
to intimate that the Earl of Durham had a right to have ex-
pected more forbearance than he had met with—a greater
latitude.--( Lord John Russell here made a remark across
the table which was not heard in the gallery.)—lt was diffi-
' cult to mistake the personal allusion. But when the House of
Lords had s motioned by their proceedings declarations, the dis-
cussion of which sees now forced upon this House, it was but just
that even if the Noble Lord found fault with any individual
whom he might think had put himself unnecessarily forward in
this matter, it should be clearly and distinctly understood that
against the great body of the Noble Lord's political op-
, pencil's he bsought no charge of want of forbearance.—( Hear.)
nt the same time he would say, that from whatever motives or
upon whatever grounds an individual might act, lie (Lord
Stanley did not tidnk he was liable to the censure of the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), because that when he saw these
despotic ordinances—when he saw a gross violation of
an Act of Parliament end the principles of law—when ho saw
a despotic Act of Parliament, pus'ed far beyond what hadbcen
intended by Parliament, or what could have been conceived
by either House of the Legislature, he, in his place in
lia,-liament, denounced such conduct. He ( Lord Stan-
ley) regretted that such a discussion had been forced
upon them, but he would not on that account shrink from
stating his belief of the despotic nature and gross illegality
of the ordinances—an illegality which had been declared to
be indefensible by all parties. The sending persons to Ber-
muda, a place out of his jurisdiction, certainly vitiated the
whole of the ordinances of Lord Durham. He did not question
the motives of the Noble Earl, he believed he was actuated by
an anxious desire to do all that was consistent with humanity—
( Cheers)—to protect the interests of the Province, and to
save the effusion of blood—( Loud cheers)—but he, for one,
could not answer the call of the Noble Lord to concur in that
which was so decidedly illegal. The ordinances applied to
two classes—those who had confessed and thrown them.
selves upon the mercy cf the Crown, and those who
were not in the jurisdiction of the Governor-General.
Upon both those classes--upon the one who confessed his
guilt, and on the other who had not been admitted to his
trial—Lord Durham passed alike this ordinance, adjudgieg
the penalty of death. The Noble Lord, in the latter part of his
speech, most unnecessarily as he thought, most unwisely as he
was convinced, endeavoured to draw an invidious distinction be-
tween the cases and tf e conduct of Sir John Colborne and
Lent Durham.--( Hear, and cries of " No, no.") The Noble
Lord made a comparison between the conduct of Lord
Durham and the conduct pursued by Sir John Col-
borne. The Noble Lord had stated that ordinances had been
passed by Sir John Colborne, he being a person not so obnoxious
to any political animosity—(Cheers)—and, if flaws there were,
none were discovered in t,:e operation of Sir John Cilberne
until the Caine course came to be pursued by the Earl of
Dud] rm. He would not express an opinion on the legality
or illegality of the ordinance of Sir John Colberne ; but this
Ire would say, that between the ordinance of Sir John Cul.
borne and that of Lord Durham, on constitutional grounds,
there were broad, plain, palpable, and manifest distinctions.—
(Cheers.) He would by and by venture to turn to the
effect of that portion of the Act which restrained the Go-
vernor.. General from interfering with, altering, or suspending
any .Act of the Imperial Parliament, or any Act passed by the
Colonial Legislature.—(The Noble Lord was here inter-
rupted by a message from the Lords, demanding a conference
on the subject of the amendments made to the Sheriffs' Court
( Scotland) Biil.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer and others then left the
House to manage the conference on the part of the Commons.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER reported
that the Managers for the Commons had met the Managers for
the Lords on a conference with regard to the Sheriffs' Courts
(Scotland) Bill.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.

A Message from the Lords desired another conference with
the Commons on the subject of the Imprisonment for Debt
Bill, which was agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appeared
at the Bar, and reported that the Managers for the Commons
had received the Bill with certain amendments.
Lord STANLEY then resumed—From the commence-
ment to the end, the whole course of Sir John Colborne'l
conduct in the arbitrary powers entrusted to him had not been
very different from that of his successor.--( Hear, hear.)
Ile certainly did much towards reconciling the people,
by showing that he did not select his Council from
those whose interests were not those of the province.
The tight to trial by jury was made by this Legisla-
ture part of the Constitution of Canada, and he con-
tended that no person had a right to abrogate that privilege.
If the Legislature had no right to abrogate the trial by jury, a
fortiori, Lord Durham had no right to do so. No one would
contend that the ordinance of Lord Durham had not, so far
as iegarded those persons, set aside their right of trial by
jury. Did the ordinance of Sir J. Colborne go that length?
That Governor had passed an Act of Attainder which certainly
could not be said to go to that extent. If the party, in such
cases, did not come in and take his trial (not before a new
and unconstitutional tribunal) before the ordinary tribunals
of the country, judgment was suffered to go by default, and
sentence was then pronounced against him. With respect
to the eight persons sent to Bermuda the ordinance
of Lord Durham bore some anology to that of Sir
John Colborne; but with regard to the other class,
there was a wide and most important distinction. They were
to be proclaimed traitors merely for coming back and
demanding a trial.—( Hcar, hear.) He was surprised that
the Noble Lord should stand up and attempt to defend
so unconstitutional and unheard-of a proceeding. When
the Noble Lord came down early in the ses_
sion, and called for the support of the House, in
order to support the authority of her Majesty in
Canada, did he meet with a refusal? No, both sides joined
to afford such support ; but the Noble Lord did not tell
them that he further intended to institute a despotism That
suppoit was obtained on a statement that it was merely to
o p ide for the Government of the country, while the
Legislaturery of the Province refused to act.—( Hear, hear.)
Why had not the Government told Parliament that nei-
ther justice nor legislation could be carried
On, and
then have asked Parliament to substitute arbitrary
Courts for the regular Courts of Justice. If the Govern-
ment had come down and stated that, he did not say
what course they would have taken, but he would have
given all the assistance he 'could to th!. Government, for
the purpose of having substantial justice ?drninist,..,red.
Ile held in his hand a copy of the speech of the Right
Under Secretary for the Colonies, delivered on Monday, the
22d of January, in which he complained that the Colonial Le.