The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-20 00:00:00

of the promise to bring forward this Bill, in furtherance
of the Canada resolutions, may indeed have hinted
the Papineau faction that Ministers were afraid to handle
their own weapons, and therefore that treason might march
on with impunity; but that the resolutions of April, 1837,
should have produced a rebellion, which has notoriously been
in preparation for five or six years at least, is a little too pre-
posterous. Let us ask Lord Brougham what it was that gave
rise to the resolutions themselves ? Was it. the tranquil or
loyal state.of Canada ? Vas not all civil government in
Lower Canada at that moment and fOr some time previously
in a state of positive dissolution, so far as depended on the
House of Assembly at least, by the withholding of those sup-
plies from which alone the civil and judicial functionaries of
the province could look for their subsistence? We are told
that the House of Assembly had " a right" to do all this, just
as much as the British House of Commons. But we answer
with the Duke of Wellington, that the British House of Com-
mons, since the Constitution came to be settled, has exercised
no such right as that of refusing a Civil List to the Crown, or
stopping the salaries of the Judges. In Great Britain at the
commencement of each reign the Crown gives up its
hereditary revenues, and obtains a Civil List in return. But
what has been the case with Lower Canada? There, in
1831, the King surrendered his hereditary revenues on, as
Lord Ripon says, the most solemn asseverations of the
Canadian democrats that there should be a satisfactory quid
pro quo in the nature of a Civil List granted. The Duke of
Wellington acted with more knowledge of those gentry, with
more characteristic sagacity and caution than 'Lord Ripon,
for his Grace protested against reposing any trust in such a
faction, and urged the necessity of insetting a clause repeal-
ing the said transfer of the Crown estates, if the Assembly
should not duly fulfil its engagement and secure a Civil List
in lieu of them. This wise and statesmanlike counsel was
rejected, and it is to that fatal blunder of Lord Ripon, and
not to the purely defensive resolutions of 1837, that the
rapid growth of factious insolence, republican sedition, and
rebsltious treason, ought in common sense ta be attributed. 2.
The ex- Chancellor's second paradox is, that we ought to
throw to the winds not merely French Lower Canada, bet
Upper Canada, inhabited by Britons, with Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick. Lcrd Melbourne does not seem to be a man
of weak nerves. Yet the gigantic folly of his Noble and Learned
"Friend's." proposal appeared really to astound, though
he could not, a e dare say, without affectation, have expressed
much surprise at it from such a quarter. But, whatever may
happen at ether times and in different circumstances, this as-
suredly is not the time, nor are these the circumstances, at or
under which we can sit down to argue gravely the sacrifice of
dominions, occupied by .more than a million of our own
countrymen, who cling to us for protection. The Duke or
Wellington, in quoting military authority for an admission that
Ministers might not be censurable for their slowness in sendirg
troops to Lower Canada, where, he it recollected, Sir John
Colborne found them so much wanting that he gladly drew
every man from the Upper Province to his own support, be-
sides hastily pressing for reinforcements from Nova Scotia--
the Duke, we say, fixed upon Ministers another charge, quite
as serious and as stigma ising as the former—viz., that after
placing at Sir J. Colborne's disposal the troops under command
of Sir C. Campbell at atlifax, they did not, as they ought to
have done, supply the vacancy thus created there by regiments
direct from home or from the West Indies. Such is the whole
amount of that panegyric" of which the Whig Ministerial
Press is boasting., and which it is blazoning right and left as
" the Duke of Wellington's approbation of the policy pursued
by the Queen's Ministers."— Times.

The speech of Lord Brougham on Thursday night was
one of the most splendid orations that was ever delivered in
the House of Lords. It was vigorous, sarcastic, and ener-
getic. It was one of those speeches which no one but the
Noble Lord could have delivered. In its incrimination of
the Government for not having fortified their resolutions, by
not sending additional military forces to Canada, it was all
powerful ; even Lord Melbourne himself confessed that he
did not know whether the Cabinet had taken a right or
a wrong course upon the occasion. That they did adopt a
wrong course—that they did pass resolutions abhorrent to the
feelings of/Englishmen, and most unconstitutional also—there
cannot exist the slightest doubt. The resolutions are re-
corded in the proceedings of the House of Commons ; and,
although we are fully aware that the acts of the Tory Go-
vernment laid the foundation for the insurrection now in
activity in Canada, we have, at the same time, no hesita-
tion in stating our belief, that the resolutions to which we refer
were the immediate cause of the rebellion which we so much
deplore. With regard to the policy recommended by Lord
Brougham—the independence of both the Canadas, and their
creation into an independent State—the question can be only
one of time. Ultimately they must become independent;
but neither Lord Brougham nor any one else can at the pre-
sent moment adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the Ca-
nadians are in a condition to manage their own affairs to their
own advantage, or are fitted for the task of self-government.
This at least is our view of the case, founded upon a delibee
rate investigation of the question, and upon information de.
rived from persons well acquainted with the condition of these
colonies. With respect to the right of the inhabitants
of Lower Canada to assert their independence, there can
be only one question the extent of the grievances com-
plained of, and their power of redressing them. The first
is not proved satisfactorily to justify rebellion. The
second is to a great extent proved against them by their inca-
pability to effect it by force of arms. That the Government has
been lax, or rather unsuspicious of rebellious designs on the
part of any portion of the French population of Lower Canada.
there cannot be any doubt. It has been fully proved, and
readily admitted by all parties; but it ought to be recollected
at the same time, that the Government, now that a crisis has
occurred, has done all that could have been expected from it
or from any other. The appointment of Lord Durham cannot
fail to give satisfaction to almost all parties. Although his
Lordship has disappointed the Radical party, by declaring
against certain popular measures, of which they believed him
to be the advocate, it is, nevertheless, certain that no other
nobleman could have been selected who is so highly calculated,
in every respect, to consult, on the one hand, the prerogatives
of the Crown, atel on the other the rights and privileges of the
people.—Morning Advertiser.
Tne intention of hearing Mr. Roebuck at the bar of the
House on the second reading of the Canada Bill may be
considered a step of very doubtful propriety as regards its
justice, its necessity, or policy. It may also be a matter of
surprised with some to find Mr. Roebuck at large and- forth-
coming to act the pleader upon this occasion, considering that
for language far less violent, followed by consequences far
less important, persons have been placed in situations which
called upon them to defend themselves, rather than the clients
whom they had previously been stimulating to mischief. In
all likelihood there would have been no rebellion in Canada
had not a few noisy Radicals here, with Mr. Roebuck at
their head, indulged in language of the most wanton
and inflammatory description. Nor does it all mend the
matter that Mr. Roebuck should hare been the acknow-
ledged and paid agent of the persons whom his intemper-
ance appears to have goaded into rebellion. If then it is
fittingithat any body should be heard at the bar of the House,
if the House hare any regard for its own honour and dignity,
that person should not be Mr. Roebuck. But we go further,
and doubt the propriety of any body being heard as an advo-
, cate for persons in an actual state of rebellion against the
mother country. No ; let rebellion be first put down, and
the return of the rebels to their allegianee, and then let the
imperial Legislature hear every thing that can be said for the
colonists, and be prepared to redress all real grievances, if
they have any. But persons who put themselves out of the
pale of the law, are not, while doing so, to ask for all the
rights and immunities of those who have not. Such a course
amounts almost to a premium on rebellion ; and in this case
on a rebellion, which is admitted, scarcely without exception,
to have been both wanton and uncalled for, and as such without
a shadow of excuse. —Morning Herald,