The Sun.
London, England, 1838-01-18 00:00:00

(Hear, hear.) He (Sir H. Vivian) most sincerely believed
that unless this country asserted its power, and maintained its
dominion over Canada, the effect would be so destructive not
only to the Canadians themselves, but to every British subject
who, under the protection of this country, had settled there.
It was to prevent this that he sincerely hoped every means of
conciliation would be taken, that the Noble Earl who was
about to proceed thither would have full power to effect such
conciliation, and that through his exertions the Canadians
might long continue to live happily under the parental sway of
this great nation.
Mr. HUME was extremely happy to have heard from the
Hon and Gallant Officer, who had just sat down, a repetition
of what the Right Hen. Baronet opposite last night stepped
out of his way to notiee.—( Hear, hear.) Ile (Mr. Hume)
had feared that he should not have had an opportunity afforded
him to reply to that Right Hon. Baronet ; but the present cc-
sion afforded him that opportunity, and he should avail him-
self of it. The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman has, as well
as others, lent himself to state that which was a most garbled
and incorrect representation. The Hon. and Gallant Gen-
tleman has said (continued Mr. Hume) that I ought to know
that the revolt would take place, because I had foretold it
four years ago. Why, Sir, ten years ago I foretold it. When
on the opposite side of the House I recommended that the
colonies of Upper and Lower Canada should be separated
amicably from this country. On that occasion I stated that if
the policy which had been hitherto followed in Canada were
continued, it must ultimately lead to resistance and sepa-
ration. I foretold that, as soon as I beheld the
blind and narrow policy which this country was adopt-
ing towards those colonies. Ever since my attention
has been directed towards the state of our colonies in North
America, there has existed nothing but misrule on the part
of this country. A limited number of official persons, not
having any interest:in, nor being connected by property or birth
with the Colonies, have been uniformly maintained by the
British Government in all the official situations in those
provinces. The same spirit of religious persecution was pur-
sued, the same disdain shown towards the Roman Catholics
in Canada as had been for so many centuries exhibited to-
wards the Catholics in Ireland.—( Cries of " No, no.")
What? Every document proved this. Let those gentlemen
who say no, look to facts. In every respect, except the Go.
vernment provision for the Catholic clergy, the Catholics of
Canada are treated as the Catholics of Ireland have been.
The cry of no, no, therefore, can only have proceeded from
those gentlemen who have taken upon the one-sided tale which
they have heard in this House. It was impossible for any gen-
tleman who had read the report of the Committee of Inquiry
of 1828, to rise from its perusal with any other opinion than
that a system of misrule had driven the people of Canada
most reluctantly to the opinion that it ought to be met with
resistance. There is a period when resistance becomes a
virtue; arid as I have frequently before stated, the parties
interested must be the judges when the time for resistance
has arrived.—(Hear, hear.) Such is the fact, and is
there anything uncommon in this doctrine ? I may be erro-
neous in my opinions, but I never have flinched and never shall
flinch from an open and candid avowal of them. My opinions
with respect to the Canadian question have been before the
public for many years, and what I expressed in that letter,
which has been garbled by Sir Francis Head, is the opinion I
still entertain. I say garbled, because it has suited the pur-
pose of Sir F. Head to send home one part of the letter with-
out sending home the whole. He contented himself with
sending home a portion of one letter instead of a dozen letters,
which lie might have had if he chose.—( Laughter.) I am
now prepared to repeat all that I stated in that letter. You
are now seeing the consequences that have entirely arisen from
that system of injustice which has hitherto been acted upon to-
wards the Canadians. I will now read the letter from which
the objectionable words have been extracted. It is addressed
to Mr. Mackenzie. Gentlemen have spoken of a correspond-
ence between me and Mr. Papineau. I am not aware that I
ever had the honour of a letter from that gentleman, or that he
ever received one from me, or that anything ever passed between
Us, except on communication from him of a vote of thanks which
the House of Assembly had passed for the little services which
1 had been able to render Canada in this House. But let the
documents be produced ; let the letters come forward. Ido
think that that which I foretold has come to pass in the natu-
ral course of events, and that those gentlemen who had the
Power to prevent it have been the real cause of this unfortu
nate revolt. But I will not interrupt myself again.—(Hear,
and much laughter.) I must, however, before I begin:__
(Great laughter)—say that the manner in which the Right
Hon. Baronet last night alluded to Mr. Mackenzie did show a
worse and more vindictive spirit than I expected from him to-
wards any individual, and particularly an individual in the
situation in which Mr. Mackenzie is placed.—( Hear, hear.)
Now, Sir, who is Mr. Mackenzie ?—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Mac-
kenzie was once a member of the House of Assembly in Up-
per Canada. He had been the printer, editor, and proprietor
of an opposition paper called The Advocate. A party orga-
nization destroyed his property, pulled down his house, and
endangered his life. He prosecuted the parties, and obtained
damages for the injury he had sustained. But his enemies
were not satisfied. The House of Assembly expelled him
for a speech delivered by him on the hustings. The
county of York re-elected him. He was expelled again,
and re-elected again. Four successive times was he re-
elected, in spite of all they could do. His last rejection
was only effected by a majority of one. I applied to the
Colonial-office and asked whether it was fit that such a course
should be pursued ? The Colonial-office told me they did not
countenance any such thing, and sent out orders that, as far
as Government could influence the House of Assembly, Mr.
Mackenzie should not be again expelled. He happened to be
in England the last time of his expulsion, and what brought
him here ? He was deputed by the House of Assembly to sup-
port the claims of the colony. It was here I became acquainted
with him. Lord Goderich took immediate measures for re-
med3ing the grievances complained of, and I had the pleasure
uf presenting to that Noble Lord the thanks of twenty-five
!cunties and towns in Canada for the reforms he introduced.
Mr. Mackenzie returned to Upper Canada. Immediately
after, what was the sense of the people of Toronto towards
? They, at the first meeting of the Corporation estab-
lished the year before by Act of Parliament, elected him
Mayor of that city. This is the gentleman of whom the
Right Hon. Baronet spoke as a Mr. Mackenzie. True; he
is a Mr. Mackenzie : but there is also a Sir Robert Peel.
But that is not the way to speak of any individual. What
further did this lead to? Was he again expelled from the
House of Assembly ? No : he continued an active member
of it for two years. He was Chairman of the different Com-
Igoe', and prepared the reports of the grievances of Upper
Canada. Was it to be supposed that such a man would be
allowed by his opponents to remain quiet ? No ; they did
!very thing in their power to injure him ; but nothing could
be__ done to prejudice him in the minds of his constituents until
r Francis Head at the last election succeeded in getting
.ttins rejected. The House of Assembly, by a majority of 35
to 5. met, and tore from the journals of the House the record
°r the whole of the proceedings by which he had been ex-
Palled, in like manner as was done by this House in the case
.°,f Mr. Wilks. The Hon. Member then proceeded to say
__4l,at such being the character of Mr. Mackenzie, he felt that
:lien that gentleman left England he (Mr. Hume) was justi-
"Led in doing all he could to see that the measures which were
promised by the Colonial-office were carried into effect. He
would venture to say that Mr. Mackenzie, who, though he had
become a rebel—(Hear, hear)—why, if he had been success-
ful e he would have been called a patriot.—( Hear, hear.)
8, speeches had been made in that House by gen-
ttlemen as if no such thing as revolutions ever took
,oe- Why, by what power did the house of Hanover
otheir present scat on the British throne ? It
was by a revolution. Let the grounds of the revolution of
4688 be inquired into ; he wished the Honourable Member for ,
Tower Hamlets, who had stated that there was no pal-
lation or excuse for the present revolt in Canada, would
Ilktnine into the grounds of that revolution, and he (Mr.
'neater was confident that it would appear that there was no
justification for the revolution of 1668 than could be
itilirts'ed on behalf of the Canadian people. But by what right
b 4 King of the French hold his throne ? \Vas it any thing
;Itit. a revolution ? Yet had not this country even formed an
vitiatioo with that individual who sat on a rebel throne ?
I:.rther, on what ground was it that the King of Belgium
Ministerial)
his throne ? Were llonourable Members on that (the
riisterial) side of the House slow to recognise him as a
t.s,aciewfturilut!, Sovereign ? They seemed, indeed, to act upon the
that the people in all countries who made a popular
movement were rebels till they were successful, but patriots
Wilett they had triumphed. Honourable Members on the
Other side of the House had indeed asserted of the Belgians,
fl the Canadians now, that they had no grounds for their re-
orn• He would not stop to inquire which side was right
he which was wrong in the opinion they had formed : but
1,4 did say that the case of the Canadians and the Belgians
Ilsi;giit to stand together. The Belgians were successful, and
z„7 were proclaimed patriots all, and had been recognised as
; the Canadians seemed to be unsuccessful, and tey were
;71 denounced rebels • they gave title and honour tot he one
'nkrtY, and they would' gibbet and execute the other. Hon.
7ittlemen seemed most mealy-mouthed now, and to be afraid
'no mere mention of the term resistance : but did they recollect
IX...ate/tent which was made to the House in 1766, by a Mr. Pitt,
114"111 the Government of that day brought in a Bill, not, per-
-1?8, entirel • similar to the present Bill, hint partaking much
c'qfeltaispirit,)called the Stamp Act ? What would that Hon.
rlttpri.tio.,man have thought of the rhodomontade which had been
k,,,s.eu by the mealy-mouthed orators of the present day
aiost may man who should dare to think of resistance ? Let
e,.,Q41 mark well what he—" a Mr. Pitt"—said upon that occa-
iLti, We are told that America is obstinate—that America
si;nest in open rebellion. Sir, I rejoice that America has re-
1,
H7(l. Three millions of people so dead to all the feelings of
sj;1111 voluntarily to submit to be slaves would have been fit in.
milli to make slaves of all the rest." For the three
thiollinns let the House read one milion,or even five hundred
44tn
and, and would not the same argument apply in all its
i:l5 to the present case ? Mr. Pitt went on to say, " The
litZtricans have been wronged ; they have been driven to mad-
-114,-;°Y injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you
It% occasioned ? No ; let this country be the first to resume
by risruclence and temper." This was the language then held
,kikt" Whigs, and the success of the Americans was rewarded
!i 413Plallda, and the men who had taken part in the rebel-
o‘Zi-elri,ere eulogised as men wino had risked their lives for tho
i 1 6t of the country. And why did they not grant the same
hat Hence to the resistance of the Canadians? He thought
tlie Government was acting a most ungenerous part, and
114.°111(1 subsequently state his reason for this opinion more
I)st7tail ; but, first, he would apply himself to get rid of the
in,;(itosl attack which had been made upon him. The letter
had been complained of was dated the 29th May, 1834,
State/vas directed to Mr. Mackenzie on the accession of Mr.
`te,.'eY to the Colonial-office. After acknowledging the
tiPt of a copy of the Vindicator Newspaper, and alluding
Asa, "• Mackenzie's recent expulsion from the House of
G seemed
ttilli,r4E to2IY, be hd sai that th.c
sacrificea great public principlesovernment to gratify a paltry