The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-08 00:00:00

less sarcasm at me, but through my side you wound your own
Ministry ; for if they have experienced the evils of delay as re-
gards Ireland, why did they fall into the very same
error respecting Canada ?__( Cheers from the Opposition.)
When there was a hope of accommodation at the period of
the Act which deprived the Crown of its controul over the
hereditary revenues, the proper measures were neglected
which might have prevented the rebellion.—( Loud cheers.)
In the first place, he would show the House (and that was of
the utmost importance) the secresy with which the Commis-
sion was to be directed. Lord Glenelg gave those instruc-
tions. He enjoined the observance of secresy, as a premature
disclosure of the steps they took might greatly embarrass
Ministers, and even obstruct their own proceedings. Even
in the very questions to be put to the witnesses this secrecy
was to be observed.—( Hear, hear.) He should wish to ask
the Hon. Gentleman chat was the particular look he put
on to prevent persons from entertaining the slightest suspicion
of what his political feelings were ?—( Hear, and laughter.)
Sir C. GREY attempted to make an observation, but was
called to order.

the precedents and speculations which he ( Sir R. Peel) had never
doubted of the tenacity ofi life of a Ministry under severe inflic-
tion—(Laughter)—that tenacity of life he was willing to admit
which he ( Sir R. Peel) under a sense of duty had on a former
occasion exhibited.--(Cries of " Oh, oh 1" from the Minis-
terial benches.) He was afraid, however, that the Right
Hon. Gentleman with all his precedents for the tenacity
of life of an Administration wider severe beatings hardly
could survive the infliction of the present stripe.--( Cheers.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman said, how could they presume
to bring the present amendment forward ; in answer to which
he would tell him that the honour of the Conservative party
was at stake if they did not do so--( Cheers )—in order to
vindicate their before expressed opinions upon the subject.—
( Cheers.) What would the Right Hon. Gentleman have
had him (Sir H. Peel) do ? Would he have had him ab-
sent himself from the House altogether ? That was one
course that he might have pursued; he might have been
compelled to avoid giving a vote, because the question
might have been so put, as that he could not safely give his
affirmative or negative, but he would never shrink from ap-
pearing in that House in order to avoid such a matter.—
(Cheers.) Would the Right Hon. Gentleman have them
move the previous question?—(Cheers.) Alas I they had sodamaged the previous question—(Cheers)—that for some-
ti:oe to come the previous question would hardly shew
its face.—( Loud continued cheering.) After the use
that had been made by those on the other side of the House
of the previous question, in the course of last week, he had
no great encouragement to pursue that course.—( Cheers.)
What would the Members on his side of the House say to him
had he moved the previous question for the purpose of shielding
them ?—(Cheers.) That course would be difficult to pursue.
He could not vote for the motion of the Hon. Gentleman in
the first place, because he thought it was unjust.—(Cheers.)
If a Minister had committed in his department some act of
gross neglect or malversation, or some act for which
he was singly and personally respsnsible, it would be
perfectly right that the House should signify its opinion
that that Minister ought to be removed. In the present in-
stance, the charge against Lord Glenelg was, with respect to
the whole course of Canadian and Colonial policy. According
to the lion. Gentleman's motion, his object would be achieved
by Lord Glenelg being removed from the Colonial Office,
and for anything lie knew himself being substituted. He
could not say that that would answer his object ; he could not
be content to cast imputations upon Lord Glenelg and relieve
the rest of the Government from responsibility on account of
their Colonial policy; but the Hon. Baronet said that his in-
tention was to visit indirectly the whole Government with pu-
nishment ; if that was his object, why shouldla single individual
be selected for the purpose of punishing a whole Government ?
Considering the whole progress of Canadian policy, not to be
the act of one Minister but of the whole Government, they
preferred applying their disapprobation to the whole of
the policy. The Noble Lord and the Hon. Gentleman opposite
(said the Right Hon. Baronet) might have relieved us from
that difficulty by taking the course which I naturally expected
they would.—( Cheers.) I thought that after the panegyric
of the Noble Lord on Lord Glenelg, and indignant of
the charge made against them, they were determined to
meet that charge by a counter-resolution, implying the
approbation of the House.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Bart.
the Member for Leeds gave them so fair an opportunity
of moving that counter-resolution that I cannot under-
stand how the flesh and blood of attached friends
could resist it ; and even now, when I suggest it to them,
I am very doubtful whether they will not adopt
my suggestion, as they did my amendment to the Canada
Bill—(Great laughter, and uproarious cheering on the Con-
servative benches)—and relieve us from the necessity in
which we are placed of moving this resolution.—(Hear,
hear.) If I venture to promise, on the part of my Noble
Friend (Lord Sandon) that, if the Noble Lord will adopt
my reasonable suggestion of a count:r-resolution, flattering to
his Noble Friend—that in that case we will waive our resolu-
tion, and we will fight the battle in opposition to the reso-
lution of the Hon. Baronet.—(Tremendous cheering.)
See what the Honourable Gentleman does. He proposes
that an humble Address be presented to her Majesty
respectfully expressing the opinion of this House, that the
Colonial Minister should be a man of judgment, forethought,
diligence, activity, and firmness. Now the Government are
going to negative that.—( Great laughter.) lam not surprised
at it.---( Renewed laughter.) These successions of qualities are
sometimes the most unfortunate things ; but still it is rather
hard to be called upon to give a direct negative to the propo-
sition that the Colonial Minister ought to be a man of judg-
ment and activity.—(Laughter.) Then the Hon. Baronet
goes on to declare, by his motion, that Lord Glenelg does
not enjoy the confidence of this House and the country. Now
I say the natural amendment to the Hon. Baronet's motion,
and which I think having suggested it the Noble Lord will
adopt, was to leave out those latter words, and distinctly to
vote that the Colonial Minister ought to be a man in whose
judgment, diligence, forethought, activity, and firmness this
House and the public could place reliance ; and seeing the
Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department
did unite in himself those qualities of activity, judg-
ment, forethought, diligence, and firmness, this House
is of opinion that the administration of Colonial affairs
should continue to be committed to the Noble Lord,
They (the Tories) would then withdraw their proposition,
and meet the resolution of the Noble Lord.—(Cheers.) The
Noble Lord had recent precedent for such a course. When
Mr. Canning's Spanish policy was attacked, he did not content
himself with rejecting the resolution of condemnation, with
moving the previous question—but he moved a counter-reso-
lution, calling on the House to mark its approbation of the
conduct of Ministers.—( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Lord,
after assuming the attitude of bold defiance, and exclaiming
" I will not move a previous etuest.on," concluded by saying.
" I must say No' to this motion."--(Laughter.) Why not
have tried the faintest approbation of this unhappy
victim, selected by the Hon. Baronet, Sir W. Moleswoith ?
—( Cheers.) " Sir (concluded the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet), I know not what will be the result of this
motion, but this I know, that the course which
has been pursued on this debate—the appeals to the
party spirit of Members, instead of appeals to the justice
of the cause—that this reliance on the political partiali-
ties of your friends, instead of showing the charges
untrue, convinces me that it was equally impossible adhering
to the form in which this resolution must be met, to meet it in
any other way'than by a distinct declaration of our opinion; and
that it is to the honour of the party with which I am connected,
whatever may be the consequences of their amendment, so to
frame it that it may not expressly seek the support of those
who differ from it with regard to principles of general
policy ; and of this I am assured that we should have
been charged by you with weakness and timidity had
we taken an evasive course—if, compelled to approach
the discussion of Canadian and Colonial policy we
had shrunk frcm the duty of faithfully adhering to the
opinions which we have entertained, and that we should
hare been visited with the condemnation of those whom we
consider mainly the authors of the revolt, and whom we
believe have undermined the prerogative and power of her
Majesty. The Right Hon. Baronet resumed his seat amidst
tremendous and long-coutinued cheering.
Sir CHARLES GREY rose to explain, but was consi-
dered by the Speaker out of order.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—As we have now proposed from
the other side of th-. House the question of a direct vote of
censure upon the conduct of the Administration, I cannot forbear
more especially after the declaration of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman at the close of his speech, to notice in what a singular
manner, and at what an extraordinary time, this motion has ,
been brought forward.—( Hear, hear.) We discussed
the affairs of Canada a few days ago—we went through a
Bill containing provisions of very great importance with respect
to the Government of Canada, and we passed enactments by
which a supreme power was conferred upon the persons who
should administer those Provinces. In the course of those
debates there was a question as to the instructions to be given
to the Governor, and upon that point especially I called upon
the Gentlemen opposite, if they wished to condemn the Go-
vernment then to make the motion of condemnation. Upon
that occasion the Right Hon. Baronet expressly said--" I
move no condemnation."
Sir R. PEEL —No condemnation on the instructions.

Sir R. PEEL was giving Hon. Gentle:nen an instance of
vigilance on the part of a Colonial Secretary, without a pa-
rallel on the political records of the country.—( Hear.) He
stated in his instructions, that he would not too earnestly enjoin
the observance of secresy, nor too strongly point out the neces-
sity of this, in the very tone and manner of addressing wit-
nesses.—( Hear, hear.) This was of the utmost importance
to prevent jealousies, and keep alive the good feeling of the
parties concerned.---( Cheers. ) Well, this Commission went out
and Lord Gosford having got his instructions, made a speech
to the Assembly, and he ( Sir R. Peel) charged that speech
with being calculated to raise false hopes.--( Hear, hear,
hear.) Any instructions given by a Minister, so equivocal and
so calculated to elude, he had never read.—( Hear, hear. )
The menifest intention of the Colonial Secretary was that the
Legislative Council should not be elected. If he wanted
an instance of irresolution—an instance of an act having a
tendency to deceive—he had only to read the instructions
given by Lord Glenelg. He said the Constitution must he
supported; the King's Government always had certainly
an intention of applying reforms, but it was neces-
sary to support the Government and the Constitu-
tion—and whether the Government had any interest in the
Legislative Government or not, it was demonstratively clear
the wish was that the Legislative Council should not be elected.
Lord Gosford made a speech to the Assembly. He left it in
doubt whether the Legislative Assembly should be. elective or
not, and what was the result? Why, that the Canadian As-
sembly presented an address. After the first speech of
Lord Gosford them appeared to be every prospect
of an accommodation. Mr. Gipps saw the course pursued
was so far successful that there was a very reasonable
prospect up to the 9th of that month that the arrears for the
last three years would be granted. The result of the first
speech which Lord Gosford delivered was the expression of
the readiness on the part of the Assembly to grant three years
arrears. Mr. Gipps said, without desiring to exaggerate the
evil consequences of the disclosure of the instructions
at so critical a juncture, he was justified in saying that if the
supplies had been obtained there was a fair chance in the
next Session of having a majority in the Assembly.
Now, what took place? The instructions which Lord
Gosford had withheld were published by Sir Francis
Head ; and what was the consequence ? On the 7th
of March, 1836, there was a complete assurance of
the determination to grant the supplies. This was provisional—
adopted at a meeting of persons of the most influence in
the House of Assembly. The question being to come on on
the 11th March, the instructions reached Quebec on the 9th,
and the course of proceeding was entirely changed—the Sup-
plies were voted for only six months, and a new Address
was carried by the same majorities as in the years 1834
and 1835. On that occasion the minority was reduced to
the old number of eight, although on the question of Supplies
it had been carried by 35 against 47. Was not that a defeat
of all reasonable hopes of accommodation by the misconduct of
the Colonial officers ? What said Lord Glenelg? He gave the
same account. Whose fault was it that the instructions were
published? Lord Glenelg communicated them to Sir F.
Head. Lord Glenelg knew it was the custom in Canada to
publish instructions, but he never accompanied his transmis-
mission of these instructions with a hint that Sir. F. Head
was to be careful :how he published them, but on the
contrary, he expressly said, " Lay the contents of that dis-
patch before the Colonial Assembly of Upper Canada."
The dispatch was published and what was the consequence?
What was the consequence ?_Why, the defeat of all the hopes
they entertained. Was that not a case in which it was clearly
proved that from a want of foresight and decision great evils had
arisen. They knew the character of that body—they knew
that there was in the colony a party of disaffected indi-
viduals who would be glad to seize on any pretext of
this sort to spread discontent around them.—( Hear, hear. )
Was it not a duty incumbent on Government to take
care not to allow themselves to be placed in the wrong,
or to give these men an opportunity of making
a pretended appeal for justice ? They had done precisely the
same thing with respect to the executive government. They
had deluded them with false hopes. When the Government
proposed the resolutions of last year, one of the important
conditions attached to the depriving the House of Assembly
of the controul of the public money was, that they
would make improvements in the Legislative Council. The
grace and favour wh:ch they were disposed to grant, in lieu of
the constitutional privileges of which they proposed to de-
prive the Canadians, wore exactly what Lord Aberdeen had
promised two years before. Could any man doubt that a
prudent and wise Government having to deal with a disaffected
people, ready to take advantage of any laches on their part,
would have deprived them of the opportunity of saying
that they had put their hands in the purse of the-
Colony without giving them what had been promised
them in lieu of their constitutional privilege ? In 1836, what
said their own Governor with respect to the Executive Go-
vernment ? He wished to convict them on the testimony of their
°lvn officer. Sir G. Gipps, writinglon the 14th of March, 1636,
said—" neither on the subject of the Executive Council does
the Report express a sufficiently decisive opinion, considering
that we are now six months in the province. As the Governor
declared that the Legislative Council was vicious, I think
that, about this time, we ought to have arrived at some
settled opinion on that p( Hear, hear, hear.)
The year 1837 approached, and they (the Government) took
the money out of the public chest on a promise that the Coun-
cil should be improved.—( Hear.) Lord Glenelg then wrote
out that the time for procrastination was gone by.---( Hear.)
But when the time came, the resolutions for taking the money
Were sent out to Canada, but nothing was said about the im-
provement.—( Cheers.) True, the Ministers said that there
Were more difficulties in the way than they had foreseen. But
At that time they knew the state of the colony, and they knew
from what class of persons the Councillors wet e to be selected.
They were as cognizant at the time when they made the
promise as they were when they passed the resolutions.—
( Vehement Tory cheers.) Why did they not take the
course then which they took afterwards ?—( Loud cheers.)
Why did they not say to Lord Gosford, that upon
him it must ultimately fall to make the selection of the Town
Councillors, and to tell him to make the utmost enquiries in
the mean time, to enable him to make the selection of the best
Persons. In that, again, they gave the Assembly an advan-
tage.—(Tory cheers.) He was obliged to go through this
demonstration of the errors of her Majesty's Ministers, because
if he stated only general charges, the Noble Lord opposite
(J. Russell) would be ready to reply that he had not stated far-
ther instances, in which hopes had been raised which had not
been realised. But he had now shown that in consequence of
their own acts, the institutions of this country and of the Co
levy, had been materially prejudiced.—(Tory cheers.) Ile
would not go into the question of military force—( Ministerial
cheering)—he would not go into that question now ; but the
Papers which he held in his hand were conclusive proofs that
three years ago the Government was aware that the two par-
ties were inflamed with inextinguishable rancour and hatred
towards each other. They were aware of the coming storm,
and they should have presided a sufficient force in Canada
to prevent the necessity of employing one party against an-
other. They ought not to have created the necessity
of drawing up those two parties of their fellow subjects in
hostility and in arms. On these grounds he felt justified in
supporting the amendment, as embodying the opinions which
he held respecting the conduct of her Majesty's Ministers in
regard to Canada. He was entitled to bring it forward, be-
cause one Hon. Gentleman had given notice that be would
call the attention of the House to their Colonial policy, and
he wished to know why-.he was brought to account for this ?
How was he to proceed ? He made no apology.—( Cheers. )
It was a perfectly novel policy, that because a Ministry was
to be displaced, the conduct of the Government was never to
be questioned.—( Cheers.) Why, what was the whole of the
defence? It was not a defence of the Colonial policy of the
Government—( Hear, hear.) Not a word could be said
in defence of the charge of vacillation and indecision.
Not one word ; and every Gentleman who had ad-
dressed the House, except those who were connected
with the Government, had abandoned them.—( Hear. )
The first Honourable Member who had risen after the
'ton. Baronet had brought forward his motion, the lion.
Member for Marylebone, had stated,, I
think exceedingly
for he ( Sir Robert
teel) had taken down his words,
rlof the colonial policy of the present Government ;".
ben, using a metaphor which was afterwards borrowed
by
another Honourable Member, lie added, " I don't con-
eider their Colonial policy is the brightest gem in the Minis-
terial Crown, but I am deterred from voting for tlis amend-
tficent, because the certain coesequence will be the displacing
(3' the Government." 'lt was so with every other Gentleman—
they had all virtually abandoned the Government on the sub-
ject of Canada—they had admitted that the resolution was
"11 founded; but they and the Government united in
°he general compact, because the consequence of its success
would be that they would be displaced.—(Cheers.) Was
that consideration always to deter men from expressing their
opinions? The Right" Hon. Gentleman opposite had been
searching for precedents of consolation for a beaten Govern-
Illent.—(Vehement cheering and laughter from the Opposi-
licm benches.) The eight lion. Gentleman had led them
44t0 amusing speculations as to the degree of beating
14 Government could sustain consistently with the maintenance
of its existence—(Great laughter)—and he had been
locking back, suffering under the stripes he Lad receivrd
last week, in which, out of five divisions, he had been left in a
tnitiority in he believed four of them.—( Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Gentleman having been qualified for the office had
applied himself to that consolation, not mourning over the
'asses he had met with ; but he had said that beaten as he was,
he Would aply himself fur consolation to the records of past
beatings__( Great laughter)—and he had said " I do find that
on several occasions, on the Salt Tax, and other measures, the
Ty Governments have suffered severe beatings."—( Hear,
;al.• He, Sir R. Peel, could hive afforded an instance
41 himself, of a man remaining in office after suffering
various that that lastbeatings ; but the Right Hon. Gentleman must admit
stripe thus inflicted upon him, notvtithstending all

Lord J. RUSSELL—The Right Honourable Gentleman
says and says most truly, that he meant that he moved no
condemnation on the instructions. I fully admit that; but if
the Right Hon. Gentleman, the mover of a great party in
this House, meant to say—l do not interfere with your Go-
vernment of Canada, I leave you to carry on that Govern-
ment by a person who must be invested with almost des-
i.otic powers, and yet have an intention —if intention
Ito had of remaining behind to impugn the manner in
hich that Government should be conducted, it would
be utterly impossible for those entrusted with the Administra-
tion of that country to carry on any :part of that policy.
If the Right Hon. Baronet acted in that manner, having the
intention of pao.ing this vote of censure, he would have been
guilty of the greatest duplicity. But the fact is, he bad no
such intention.—( Cheers.) The intention of the Right Hon.
Gentleman evidently was, that this power, vast and unusual as
it was, should be conferred on the present Secretary of State for
the Colonies, and that these powers should be exercised under the
responsibility of her Majesty's advisers. With respect to the
Hon. Baronet the Member for Leeds, who had brought for-
ward the motion as to the Secretary for the Colonies, I must
say that if he had been the representative of a considerable
party in the House—if he had come forward as the
representative of that party, as his Noble Friend
ironically described him to be, pretending to carry
on themselves the Government of this country—it would
have been necessary to have proposed some declarati?,n
on the subject. But what was the case? He brought
forward a motion on grounds especial to himself. Going
over all parts of this habitable and even the unin-
habitable globe, and ending with a general condemna-
tion of the policy pursued by various administrations,
my Noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool left all these sub
jects untouched ; he took no notice of the miserable condition
of the Aborigines of New Zealand ; he took no notice
of the disputes which unhappily prevailed between the
Caffres and Hottentots, who entirely neglected the state
of the Mauritius ; he took no notice of the questions
relating to the West Indies—but he at once fixed upon Ca-
nada, and said it is true that this motion has no reference t.
Cane liar Effairs, but the opportunity is too good to be
lost; now is the time to move it, and let a vote of cen-
sure be carried on the subject of Canadian affairs. I can-
not but entertain the feeling which must be entertained
by others that the proper time, if the motion had been intended
was not on the first day, when the address was proposed, but
that the measure should not have been finally allowed to pass
without some notice having been given that Honourable
Gentlemen opposite meant to bring forward this motion—
( Loud cheers)—and that they did not do so I firmly
Right Hon. person says is not a com-
pa attribute
alliance,bute to rs. what the
is
s
perhaps a compact union—it is a union
of Gentlemen, many of them differing in prudence and temper

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 1838.

f ern the Right Honourable Gentleman, but who do seem
at this time to have a mastery over his conscience.—( Cheers.)
I have observed the party opposite during some years in different
circumstances in their prosperity and their adversity, and I
certainly have observed in their later days that the observation
which was made in olden time, " that parties were like serpents,
and were moved by their tails"—( Laughter and cheers)
the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman on the Canada
Bill I believe to have been influenced in this way. He pro-
posed amendments on the Bill—( Hear, hear.) He said
that he was constrained to move those amendments,
even though the consequence should be the resignation of
Ministers. I must say that after the Bill has been passed,
the course pursued by the Right Honourable Gentleman,
merely because the Honourable Baronet the Member for
Leeds has brought forward this motion, is as unlike
any former conduct of the Right Honourable Gentleman
as can possibly be conceived. With respect to the charges
made against the Government in relation to the affairs of
Canada, I dae think there never was a time when a motion of
censure by the House of Commons, to remove a Ministry, was
made upon grounds so slight. I will refer, in the first place,
to a former precedent, to show how, and under what circum-
stances, a great man, allied with a great party, acted.
On the Bth of March, 1732, at the end of the American war,
Lord John Cavendish brought forward a series of resolutions,
which, after stating the vast sums expended in the war, con-
' eludes in the words very similar to those in the amendment of
the Noble Lord, that all the evils which had been there set
out were attributable to want of foresight and ability on the
part of the Government. If a person wanted to parody these
resolutions, is is only necessary to state, that half the expendi-
ture was in an unsuccessful resistance to a successful revolt.
Whether the conduct which we have pursued has been the
best, the result has been different from that of the American
war, to which it has been improperly likened.—( Ministerial
cheering.) How, then, can Gentlemen opposite come for-
ward to support a vote of censure upon this occasion ? What
is the question? Has the rebellion been successful? No.—
( Cheers.) Has the resistance to it been unsuccessful ? No.
—( Renewed cheers.) But that is their case—( Laughter)
—and it is one which they cannot make out by any one docu-
ment which they have quoted. It might be, perhaps,
that by a different course of conduct the revolt
would have been prevented.—( Tory cheers.) That might
be, but I do not think it was so; yet we cannot be expected
to prove the negative—( Hear, hear)—and equally impos-
sible is it to prove that there might not have been
some conduct but for which there might not have been
a revolt.—(Laughter, and Hear, hear.) But looking to the
whole course of the policy of my Noble Friend, and looking
to the position in which he was placed by the conduct of the
former Government, I think that he cannot be charged with
any want of foresight, or of any incapacity in the leading
principles by which his conduct was governed.—( Cheers.)
Looking to the Constitution of 1791, my own opinion of that
Constitution is, that it did create two antagonist bodies, which
were sure to come into a collision sooner or later.—(Hear,
hear.) And it framed machinery which it was impos-
sible to work for any length of time.--( Hear, hear.) You
gave to one party the House of Assembly, and for the
other you reserved places in the Legislative Council. The
result was, that differences and collisions occurred between
the two Assemblies, and in truth the wonder is not that colli-
sions took place, but that harmony had been so long pre-
served. The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel)
speaks as if some upon this side of the house, who were
connected with Lord Grey's Government, were responsible
for the conduct of Governments which preceded them pre-
vious to 1830. That is not the question—the charge is
not made upon any such ground. Previous to the year 1830
there were grounds enough for votes of censure. We have
the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons of
1828, in which it is stated, that in the progress of the dispute
between the two Chambers—the House of Assembly and the
Legislative Council—the local Government had found it ne-
cessary to have recourse to a measure which nothing but ex-
treme necessity could justify, in appropriating annually
one hundred and thirty thousand pounds, without the consent
of the Representatives of the people. The Committee re-
gretted that such a necessity had existed without any commu-
nication having been made to Parliament upon the subject.
Now, I say, that that would have justified a resolution of cen-
sure, if it had been the object of the Opposition of that day
to bring before the House a question of Colonial misconduct.
—( Cheers.) I say, Sir, that the Right Hon. Gentleman,
being then Colonial Secretary, we should have been far more
justified than you now are, in demanding how you were
to defend yourselves from the charge of takieg their money
without the sanction of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) But did
that misgovernment cease in 1828? In that year the Com-
mittee had come to a resolution for whic'i the people of Ca-
nada felt very grateful ; but did the Government then formed
by the Duke of Wellington act upon that resolution ? Did the
Colonial Secretary bring in any Bill upon the subject ?
( Hear, hear.) I believe lam right in stating, that the whole
of 1829, passed without the introduction of any Bill to carry
into effect that Report which was rightly said by my Right Hon.
Friend the President of the Board of Trade, would be the
best chance for effecting a reconciliation. So much for dilatory
conduct. The special charges imputed to my Noble Friend,
Lord Glenda, is delay ; and I should like to know how they
can be acquitted of delay when they allowed the
whole of that year to pass without introducing any Bill.
What happened in the next year ? In the next year, or, I
believe, in the c, urge of that very year 1829, there came
strong representat. ens from Sir J. Kempt, that the matter ought
to be settled. In 1530 my Hon. Friend brought forward reso-
lutions to the House on the subject, declaring, among other
things, that Judges should not be members of the Executive
Council—that Executive Council of which we are now
accused of not having promoted the reform.—( Hear, hear.)
That motion was seconded by my Noble Friend the
Member for Liverpool—( Cheers)—and he used very strong
terms with regard to the want of good government in
that colony. lie stated that he was afraid in the course of
ten years of a former Administration they had contrived to
reise up a little faction of interested persons, who had too
frequently opposed themselves to the wishes of the Govern-
ment. The terms used by my Noble Friend were very strong
with regard to the Government of the colony, and he seconded
the motion on that occasion. Who opposed that motion ?
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for l'rnworth,—( Loud
cheers)—the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire,
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Pembroke, and
certainly the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, all voted
in the minority to carry that resolution; and now we hare the
Noble Lord, having failed in that object, coming forward, and
knowing as he does, that that delay, and that neglect had
produced the misconduct, he then turns round and joins the
Right Hon. Gentleman—(Loud and protracted cheering)—
in order to lay blame upon us, which would be much more
fairly attributable to neglect of the Committee of 1828. But
the Right Hon. Gentleman says that there came a time when a
great and decided measure was taken by the Administration
of which he was a Member, if not the head—(Cheers)-
-that there was a time, at the end of 1834, when at length
a decisive remedy was to be given, all evils redressed, all
grievances put an end to, and the colonies placed in a per-
fect state of harmony and tranquillity. What assurance have
we that such would be the case ?—None, but that there was a
dispatch sent to the Colonial-office.—( Cheers.) That it
would produce harmony was a matter of speculation, with
which he differed from the Right Hoe. Gentleman. What
eas his account of this dispatch ? Why, that to remedy the com-
plaints of the Canadians with respect to the revenue, they
put an absolute negative on the Elective Council. Lord
Gosford proposed in 1835 that the whole revenue should be
given up to the House of Assembly in the same manlier as
Lord Aberdeen proposed. That did not satisfy them because
they were not satisfied that there was any intention
to make the Legislative Council elective. What was
an-
sweri
the
of the House of Assembly at that time ? Why, it is true
you have made the proposal to us of placing the revenues at
our disposal ; but if you refuse us an elective Legislative
Council, we will refuse you the supplies.—( Cheers ) What
has been their conduct since ? Why, they have refused the
supplies, because they thought the present Government would
be opposed to ae elective Council, and therefore that it would
not he granted. When this was pressed upon Lord Aberdeen,
he did not meet it with a direct negative ; but supposing that
he had, what I ask would have been the effect? Why, they
would have still demanded an Elective Council, and the stop-
page which took place in 1837, would have taken place then.
Then, Sir, I say the Right Hon. Gentleman cannot suppose
that the instructions given by Lord Aberdeen would
produce any thing like harmony. But if it were
necessary to accompany, as he says, a refusal of the Elective
Council by a large armed force—if the refusal of the Elective
Council in 1837 should have been accompanied by
a large
armed force, as the Right Hon. Gentleman says that the
colony has been for three years in a state of clamour-7.1.
such were the case, how is it that the Right Hon. Baronet dld
not send out a sufficient force when he was in office?—( Cheers: )
But the question that would have come before the Assembly
would have been nhether they would have granted the sup-
plies ? My argument is, and my belief is, that things hid then
arrived at that crisis, that without an Elective Legislative Conn;
cil they would not have granted money ; and if they would no.
have granted money it was impossible for any Government 0I
this country to do other than one of two resolutions, either
to carry on the Government by the Imperial Parliament
without grantitig the Elective Legislative Council, or to grant
the elective Legislative Council, and any other demands they
might make. The Right Honourable Gentleman took the
first of these alternatives. The Right Honourable Gentle-
man has complained much of certain parts of the instruc-
tions to the Commissioners with respect to the Executive,
and my Noble Friend the Member for North Lancashire
has complained of the ins. ructions with respect to
the Legislative Council. Sir, my opinion now is, after
the experience I bare had, that unless you had placed
in the Legislative Council, and also in the Execu-
tive Council, persons devoted to that party of which
Papineau was the leader, that you would not have given con-
ciliation to the Assembly of Lower Canada. That has been the
difficulty. Lord Gosford latterly, by the instructions of LorLordGlenelg, placed certain persons in the Legislative Council
of Canadian extraction, and generally of liberal feeling, but
not being of that party, the meetings in Canada declared that
concession was totally insufficient. They declared that it was
rather an insult to the people of Canada.—( Hear, hoar. )
Wily, then, if matters in Canada had arrived to that state
that the people, led by Monsieur Papineau and others, would
not have been satisfied unless you placed their followers
in the Legislative and Executive Councils, and that, on the other
hand, the British party would have found it intolerable if that
power had been given to that party, whatever might have
been the steps to it, you must have come to the collision that
has arisen. But we did think, and we have been blamed for
that, that although the Canadian Assembly would not have
granted our demands, that although there would have been
touch discontent in the Province, we did think that the Cana-
dians would not have resorted to force of arms, or to raise the
standard of revolt. Persons judging candidly on that proposi-