The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-11 00:00:00

help expressing the satisfaction with. which I have heard the
declaration of the Noble Viscount; a.nd I must add my sincere
desire that the Noble Viscount will be disappointed in his
appresehenaions that the course takeru by this House may lead
to inconveniences in the government of Canada, and to evils
such as he has described. I feel 2. sincere conviction that
the people of Canada, as well as the people of this country,
will do justice to your Lordships upon this subject—(Cheers)
—and that they will not be led to believe that it was the in-
tention of your Lordships, or even that your Lordships could
possibly imagine, that the course pursued last night is calcu-
lated to lead to the evils which the Noble Viscount appre-
hends.—( Cheers.) Having said thus much upon the course
taken by the Government, I must say that I concur entirely
in the proposition made by the Noble Viscount, that in Com-
mittee we should proceed to amend the Bill, so as to give
indemnity as proposed in the second clause. With respect
to the amendment proposed by the Noble Visconnt, and the
alterations which he proposes to introduce, I must avoid giving
any positive opinion on such a subject until I have seen what
the amendments are which he intends to propose. But
some circumstances have occurred to my mind, even when
first hearing the Noble Viscount's proposition, and afterwards
on hearing the objections stated by the Noble and Learned
Lord, which induce me to think that it would be highly in-
expedient to adopt that proposition. We arc now at the dose
of the Session of Parliament, which we commenced by adopt.
ing this Bill, after full consideration in both Houses of
Parliament. I contend that it was perfectly understood, in
the other House at least, if not in this, that the proviso in the
Act did provide for those cases which I contended last night
it provided for. Under these circumstances, I should say,
that it would be highly inexpedient in the Committee on
another Bill so far to alter an Act of Parliament which was
passed at the commencement of the Session with universal
consent, universal in this House with the exception of the
Noble and Learned Lord (Lord Brougham), and by a great
majority in the other House, I think it would be highly
inexpedient now to alter that measure. I must first bog
leave to submit to the Noble Viscount that the alteration
proposed is by no means necessary.—( Cheers.) It is not
necessary for carrying into execution the purpose of Govern-
ment to punish rebellion and treason within those provinces.
I believe that the late Governor-General acted under the pro-
visions of this very Act, and he must have had the power to
punish rebellion and treason, as the present Governor- General
must have under the Act of parliament as it existed at pre-
sent without the alteration proposed. Under these circum-
stances I should wish that this proposition should not be
brought under the consideration of the House, having a sincere
desire that this matter should be discussed and should termi-
nate without any further division of opinion upon it, and really
feeling that if it is now brought on no real service will be
done to the State. I hope, therefore, that Government will
adopt that suggestion.—( Hear.)
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said he had supported this Bill,
and he was ready to take any share of the blame that might
attach to those who had done so. When an illegal act was
done in any colony, and when an illegal law was passed and
came to this country, it was their duty to take the earliest
opportunity of stating that they would not confirm such an act.
The Earl of RIPON said, in his opinion the fault of any
of the consequences which were apprehended, he thought
without cause from this discussion, was with those who in-
structed the Governor-General to constitute his Council in such
a manner that it was impossible he could receive the advice
which was necessary.
The Marquis of L ANSDOWNE said they could not over-
look the fact that the possible effect of what had taken place
might be to convince a party in Canada, however unjustifiable
the conclusion, that the Governor-General and the Govern-
ment there had no longer the authority they had believed
them to possess, but that they were stripped of that autho-
rity by the act of the Legislature. He contended that
the maintenance of the authority of the Canadian Govern-
ment was essential to the preservation of peace and tran-
quillity in the colony, and to the continuance of the
connection between the two countries, which it was the
first object of their Lordships to consider. Were they not
then, bound to consider what would be the effect of this
measure on the minds of persons in Canada, who were still
disposed to Ore encouragement to the cause of rebellion in
that country ? In that view alone he should feel himself called
on to support such an amendment as was suggested by his
Noble Friend ; the effect of which would be to remove the
doubts that had been raised as to the power of the Governor-
General. But if it were true that the Noble Lords opposite
had acquiesced in the power which had been exercised by Sir
J. Colborne, a power which went far beyond that which it was
said they had assumed would have been exercised by the pre-
sent Governor-General—if it were admitted that the power so
exercised by Sir J. Colborne was conformable to the law, then
the object of his Noble Friend would be in a great measure
gained. It was contended that the words of the Act that had
been so often quoted deprived the Governor- Generai of the
power of attainder. That had not been considered the
case heretofore; because, if such were the proper con.
struction, Noble Lords had been neglectful of their duty
hitherto, inasmuch as they had allowed an Act of Sir J.
Colborne to lie upon their table uncondemned, unnoticed,
for the last six weeks; that Act being an Act of attain-
der, and professedly founded on the authority of the Act
of this Session. Was it not clear that it was sonic new doubt,
some new suggestion, that had occurred to them, and inclined
them to raise the question as to whether those powers had been
legally exercised ? He claimed for Lord Durham the power
which had been exercised by Sir John Colborne—(Hear)—
and he would say that power to that extent was necessary to
the peace of Canada, and, being so, he trusted that the Noble
Earl would continue undauntedly and fearlessly to exercise it
when necessary to put down the efforts of those who were
guilty of resistance to the lawful Government. Sir John Col-
borne acted on this principle, and, as he would it-whitely, most
properly ; but he desired to be told whether he was considered
to have acted in conformity with the law or not. He was
confident that he had ; and if he had a declaration to that
effect from Noble Lords, and Lord Durham was allowed the
same power, he should be satisfied; and that much in behalf
not of the Government, but of the public and of the interests of
the people of Canada, he had a right to expect.—( Cheers. )
Lord BROUGHAM said there could be no doubt that
whatever power Sir John Colborne possessed Lord Durham
could legally exercise. As regarded the question asked by
the Noble Marquis, be did not know whether it was ad-
dress? d to himself, to the Noble Duke, the Noble Baron, or
the Noble and Learned Lord opposite ; but if the Noble Mar-
quis intended to ask him to state his opinion as to whether
Sir John Colborne had exceeded his powers under the Act or
not, be begged to say that the Noble Marquis put a ques-
tion to him such as he did not feel himself at liberty to an-
swer. Sir John. Colborne, if he had exceeded his powers,
would be liable to an action, or to impeachment ; and how
could he give an opinion on a case which, as a Member of
their Lordships' House, lie might be called on in his judicial
capacity to decide? Nor, indeed, did he see the use of giv-
ing. such an opinion; because if Sir John Colburn had not
acted illegally, he had nothing to apprehend ; and if he
bad, the declaration of an opinion would be no protection
to him.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought he could show
the Noble and Learned Lord the use such a declaration would
be. It was on record that Sir John Colborne had used these
powers, and he believed the majority of their Lordships would
say that he had done no more than was right. But if there
exited doubts as to the legality of these Acts, however proper
they were in any other respect—if by the exercise of those
powers he had rendered himself liable, as had been hinted by
the Noble and learned Lord, to action or impeachment, that
surely was not a state in which the house ought to leave the
question, either as regarded Sir J. Colborne or any one that
succeeded him.
Lord IIR.OUG HAM—God forbid he should say that Sir
John Colborne was liable to impeachment or action. What
he did say was, that he or any other man who did that which
was unlawful was so liable. Whatever opinion he gave, nei-
ther Sir John Colborne nor the Earl of Durham would be any
the better for it, for still they must act on their own respon-
sibility. Still they would be safe if they did not disobey the
law, and still they would be unsafe if they did. Ile really
hoped a strong recommendation would go cut to the Noble
Earl to select a real Council, not a Council of persons who
were merely another name for himself.
After a few words from Lord Wil A RNCL IFFE and the
Marquis of LANSDOWNE,
Lord BROUGHAM said it would be quite unusual in the
middle of a Bill of Indemnity to give new powers to the very
persons whom they were indemnifying for having broken
the law.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said, if in issuing an
Act of attainder, Lord Durham had done what was illegal,
so had Sir John Colborne. If this was not illegal, the only
illegal act of Lord Durham was sending persons to the Res.
mudas, and ordering what should be done with them there,
the Bermudas being out of his jurisdiction.
The Earl of WICKLOW said if any evil resulted from the
discussion, he should throw the blame on the Noble Viscount,
because the discussion might have been avoided if he had
only consented to do last night that which the wisdom cf his
Cabinet had since deterinined was desirable.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the construction put
on the Act by his Noble and Learned Friend was never put
on it till now. And suppose that were a right construction,
what would be the consequence ? It would be this, that the
Noble Earl would not have it in his power to alter any Act of
Great Britain, or of the United Kingdom. Nay, an Act of
attainder was contrary to law. However necessary it might
be considered to the peace of Canada, he could not issue an
Act of attainder, neither could he suspend the Habeas Corpus
Act.—( Hear, hear.) He could do neither of these things,
because he could not depart from the criminal law as adminis-
tered in any county in England. All that was asked of the
Noble Lords was that they would grant those powers
which they thought the Governor-General ought to possess.
If the limited construction now put on the Act by his
Noble and Learned Friend had been put upon it during
its progress through their Lordships' House, would they
note have objected to its passing in that shape ?--(Cheers.)
Those Noble Lords who objected to the powers conferred by
the Acrof course would not favour a declaratory Act to define
what those powers were • but those who thought the powers
whichit
was believed n
eli
mere, necessary to remove possibly evoet pot.dActbgave when it was under con-
sideration,alyi
douojbcotst towanhyataemveerndcomnesntrtusetthioant
was put now upon the words introduced
Fol-
lett, there could bo no doubt o this—that iI by Sir William
construction was put upon then when the
a very different
the Bill passed the
Commons from that contended for by
Friend and others. his Noble and Learned
The Earl of MANSFIELD contended that th
the Earl of Durham and Sir John Colborne were ccases°f
essentially
different.
The Bill was then reported, without amendment, and the
House resumed.
On the question that the report be brought up,