The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-16 00:00:00

gone into on the previous evening, and that delay was
the only object which some Honourable Members now
had in view. He could not approve of the sentiments
expressed by the Honourable Member for Montrose; he
could not approve of any plan or system of support
which recognised in men who had been guilty of re-
bellion against their Sovereign and the Government, a
claim to compensation far alleged losses. Hon. Members
seemed to be forgetful of the course taken by those men.
What, he would ask, was the object of the American
" sympathisers "of the States of the Union ? Was it to
aid in obtaining for the Canadian rebels responsible go-
vernment? No; but to effect, if possible, a separation of
the Canadas from the British possessions, and the an-
nexation of them to the States. And looking at the con-
duct of the Government of Canada now, and at the course
pursued by the Home Government in relation to that
conduct, he did not feel surprise at seeing that the loyal
inhabitants of Upper Canada were much irritated. He
warned the House that there.would be great risk to the
Imperial Crown of the loss of those possessions should
this Bill bo confirmed by the British Legislature. He
could only say that he should feel it to be his duty to
give his vote in support of the motion of the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Stamford.—(Hear.)
Sir W. MOLESWORTH should most decidedly give
his vote against the motion of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Stamford, and his support to her
Majesty's Ministers in the just course which they were
now pursuing.—(Hear, hear.) He felt that there had
been much to complain of in the way of misgovernment
of the colonies, and he believed that there would be nei
thor safety nor content in those colonies until a better
system of government should be adopted. He was at a
loss to know how compensation to a few rebels for rebel-
lion losses could so much move the hostility of Hon.
Members in that House. He considered that this Re-
bellion Losses Bill was founded in justice; it had a pre-
cedent in a similar Bill passed in favour of Upper Ca-
nada, and he hoped sincerely to see it passed, for those
losses decidedly ought to be compensated. The Hon.
Baronet alluded to the instructions of Lord Stanley on
this subject, in which the Noble Lord was of opinion that
the application of both parties in Upper and Lower
Canada for compensation might be put into one Bill, thus
recognising the justice of giving indemnity to the one as
well as to the other; and observed that it appeared to
him that the Bill now under consideration for compensa-
tion for the rebellion losses in Lower Canada was but a
fulfilment of the instructions of Lord Stanley, in 1845,
to Lord Metcalfe on the subject. As this Bill was,
therefore, a Government measure, we were bound to it
by every principle of justice and fairness, and it would
be a violation of public faith if they did not see that the
provisions of the Act were fully carried out.
Mr. ANS TEY said that the loyal subjects in the co-
lony would be called upon to subscribe their money to
contribute to the demands of those who had been dis-
loyal, and the question now was this—would the Queen
throw the shield of her sovereignty over those men who
were loyal, and save them from being oppressed, for the
sake of rebels? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then
contended, that while care was taken of rebels who had
suffered losses, the claims of such men as Colonel Fitz-
gibbon, who had suffered in person and property, were
overlooked. The determination of the Noble Lord not
to give any explanation on this subject was a most ex-
traordinary one. A middle path had been pointed out
by the Hon. Member for Stamford, but as that had been
refused, could they hesitate in giving their vote against
the Canadian Bill? He was astonished that nothing had
been said by her Majesty's Government in grateful re-
turn for the services which had been rendered by the
loyalists of Canada during the late disgraceful rebellion.
The Hon. Member proceeded to contrast the period of
1812 with that of 1837, and said that at present it was
well known that there were 40,000 persons in Canada
who were members of hunters and other such societies,
whose object was the abolition of British Government in
Canada, and the annexation of the colony with the
United States.
Mr. MACGREGOR said he would indeed lament if
her Majesty's Government refused their sanction to the
Bill which had been agreed to in Canada, and he felt
confident, that if that Bill should go back disapproved
of, the greatest disgust would be excited in the minds of
the loyal inhabitants of Canada. The Hon. Member
referred to the period when Sir James Kempt went out
as governor, and who, he said, had determined to admi-
nister the laws impartially among all classes of Cana-
dians. The consequence of the rebellion of 1837 was
the union of the two pros inces, for no choice was left to
the Government, and that union was necessary to prepare
the way for the self government of the colonies. As to
the compensation which bad been so much complained of,
what, after all, was it? It was given to parties who re-
sided in Canada for losses they had suffered in Canada,
and the money paid was to be levied in Canada. Under
such circumstances, how the compensation money could
be said to have anything imperial in it he could not pos-
sibly understand. Up to a late period the people of
Canada had no self-government, and he approved of the
course which her Majesty's Government had determined
also to pursue with reference to the Australian colonies.
He approved of the conduct of Government with refer-
ence to the compensation money, and he had no doubt
that the people of Canada would look strictly after the
application of the money which would be levied for that
purpose.
Mr. ADDERLEY said he rose to state, that he and
some of his friends could not vote for the motion be-
fore the House, at the same time that he could not ap-
prove of the course pursued by her Majesty's Govern-
ment. He could not vote for the motion, because he
thought it had come too late—and he thought also that
as the Crown had given its assent to the measure in
Canada it would serve no purpose now to refuse a sanc-
tion to that Act, and should they do so, the effect would
be greatly to exasperate the Canadian people. Ile, how-
ever, could not say that the affair was one of a local
character. He thought it was more calculated to give
encouragement to rebellion than to serve any other pur-
pose, and he thought it not unlikely that Mackenzie
himself would be one of the first recipients of the com-
pensation money. The present was the first time that
the Act had been brought under the consideration of the
Imperial Parliament, and those who opposed it did so
on the ground of the vagueness of the language em-
ployed in the Act. After the rejection of the amend-
ment proposed by Mr. Wilson, it seemed clear that a
proof of the loss
applying
hadedw beenould thebaerebl e oonrlynott.hinlgf
necessary, and that an inquiry could not take place,
whether the party y
they could induce the Crown to withhold its consent
till the wording of the Act should be altered, it would
meet the objection which he and others entertained
against it; but it that could not be done, he thought it
was too late now to reject it, and he felt therefore that
he could not give his support to the motion before the
House.

Mr. M. MILNES contended that the Indemnity Bill
was simply an act of justice, being the fulfilment of an
agreement entered into when a similar measure for
Upper Canada had passed the united Legislature of both
provinces. Ile admitted, however, that there would be
to a certain extent some difficulty in discriminating
where the losses fell, whether on men more or less loyal
or on men more or less rebellious. If the Indemnity
Bill were really objectionable, it ought to have been dis-
cussed and decided when it was proposed for Upper
Canada. Looking at the history of the Bill, there was
no doubt that it had gene through a fair species of in-
quiry in the Canadian Assembly, and he could not con-
ceive a question of the kind brought before the British
Legislature in a manner less likely to bo beneficial to the
colony of Canada. The question now for their consi-
deration was whether they could preserve the relations
between Canada and this country in the only way in
which the Rght lion. Gentleman wished it to be pre-
d,
the
namccOlylO by establishing:a consciousness on the
partery of
colony that the connexion with England was
s
honourable and creditable to it. It certainly was right
that a Bill similar to that enacted for Upper Canada
should be passed for Lower Canada, when they consi-
dered that the money to be spent in compensation came
out of the common funds of both countries. They
ought to make it the interest of Canada to be attached
to this country, end he thought one of the best means of
doing so would be by giving their fullest assent by the
largest majority to the principle of the Bill, which had
received the sanction of the Legislative Assembly of
Canada.

I The Marquis of GRANBY thought the question
o under consideration had been very much narrowed since
o the debate commenced. The question was not whether
they could or could not pervert the principle of respon-
' sible government, but whether, by adopting the resolu-
tion of his Right Hon. Friend, they would act contrary
to that principle? The present case was one, he con-
tended, which fully justified the Government iu refusing
the assent of the Crown to the measure passed by a
majority of the Canadian Assembly. It had been ad-
mitted by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, and by the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Attorney-General),
that if the Rebellion Losses Bill became the law of the
land, rebels should be compensated for their losses in
the rebellion. If that were the case, was not the ques-
tion an imperial rather than a local question, and one
in which the Government was called on to interfere?
The Noble Marquis ridiculed the idea, as suggested by
Lord John Russell, that it would be impossible to dis-
tinguish between those who were loyal and those
who had rebelled. The Honourable Member for
Sheffield said that the men who had been taken
with arms in their hands were merely going out on
a shooting expedition; and he added, that he had
frequently gone out on similar expeditions himself. But
let him (the Marquis of Granby) ask if the Hon. Mem-
ber eve- went out with 800 armed men for such a pur-
pose, and if he ever mistook a red coot for a stray duck.
—(Hear.) Instead of loyal men feeling disinclined to
prove their loyalty, he thought they would rejoice at the
opportunity of showing how unfounded and anjust were
the suspicions of their disloyalty. He thought the Bill
did not go far enough. It gave compensation for wan-
ton destruction, but it withheld it from what was not
wanton destruction. The rebel whose property was
wantonly destroyed might claim compensation, but the
et
shilheoo
uußlsdiel lwaya The
tll ilane
to
ta Rightfter
loyal man who suffered accidental destruction of his pro-
e
perty could claim none. That was one of the reasons
why he thought the House should express an opinion
Honourable Member for the University of Oxford
pre-
pared for such a motion as that of his Right -Honour-
ablesuch a speech as the Right Honourable Gentleman' (Mr.
Gladstone) had made, that the House was by no
means surprised that such a resolution should be pro-
posed. He (Mr. Gladstone) had stated that his motive
for not bringing on such a motion was, that he did not
wish to excite the feelings of the people of Canada, oriof
this House. He should say that such a speech, unsup-
ported by any motion, was more than sufficient to excite
the acerbity of. the people of Canada.—(Hear.) He and
many others Nrshed to refraia from party opposition, yet
he wished to? join with him in defeating a measure which
he thought it was justifiable to defeat. The Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Drummond) had designated his (Mr. Glad-
stone's) speech as one without a motion or an end; but
he should say that it had a good end, though it had no
motion attached to it, 45 he thought it should. He amid

say, in opposition to the Noble Loral (Lora J Russell),
that this measure of indemnification aas derogatory to
the interests of the country; that it interfered with the
great principle of justice, and one which would tend to
tarnish the honour of the Crown, and would be false to
the true principles of good government; and he, there•
fore, thought that his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. 'ferries)
was perfectly justifiable in proposing the resolution,
which the Right. Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had
not ventured on.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that under responsible Go-
vernments occasions might arise in which it might be
necessary for imperial authority to interfere; and if ho
believed that the present Bill, which they were now dis-
cussing, was framed to insult the British Crown, or to
offend portions of the people of Canada, who wished to
expel foreign invasion, he should be the first prepared to
advise her Majesty's Government to reject such a Bill;
but he did not think that the faithful people of Canada
wished for the rejection of this Bill, but would agree to
the Legislative decision of that colonial Parliament, in
which there was a majority of 48 to 18 in favour of this
important measure, and these were not the people of
Lower Canade,or those of French descent, but the repre-
sentatives of Upper Canada were most favourable to the
measure. If this Bill were in any way opposed to the
Crown, he should tremble for such a case, ns it would
involve that country in a fearful dilemma. He placed
the highest value on the connexion between this coun-
try and that colony, for he held such to be a connexion
of duty, honour, and affection, which should be sup•
ported by all parties. He also thought, after the pro-
longed arguments on this Bill, that no charge of party
feeling could be brought against the representatives of
Canada. lie would ask the House to consider under
what circumstances this Bill had been brought forward,
and his motive for requiring this consideration was to
show that Lord Elgin did not introduce it as an isolated
case, but as one to be incorporated with the Act passed
for Upper Canada, and he should say that the Act
passed for indemnifying the Upper Canadians was very
vague and dangerous respecting Upper Canada, for ono
clause of that Act was to indemnify all persons who
sustained losses in Upper Canada, which he considered
to be extremely vague. He thought that the question
narrowed itself into a small compass, for all admitted
that such an Act for Lower Caaada was a just measure;
and that the only question was, whether the present Bill
was a proper or an improper measure, so as to warrant
the interference of this House. He did not think that
this House should interfere if the Bill was not an impro-
per one; and he believed that the oppositiou against an
amnesty to the Lower Canadians offered by the two
Right Hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Berries)
was owing chiefly to this Bill, and not to any other mea-
sure of the kind; but all he thought of this Bill was, that
there was nothing in it to insult the Crown or to warrant
the interference of this House with respect to colonial le-
gislation. He should say that he thought that men who,
after the lapse of 12 years, had accidentally or inciden-
tally lost their property, had a right to be indemnified,
and that if any of these claimants had been engaged in
rebellion, that it was the wish of the people of Canada to
throw the veil of oblivion over their faults, and he felt
assured that the people of that colony, whose loyalty he
should never forget, would rejoice at the passing of this
measure, and hoped that the opinion that he gave utter-
ance to would not be the cause of provoking disagree-
able feelings in the minds of any person in this House,
and he also regretted that this House had not left these
people to themselves, as should be the case in all free
institutions, such as those of the Canadian Legislature.
When the Noble Lord (Marquis of Granby) stated that
provisions were not made for the loyal people of Canada,
he should say that he felt assured that the Commis-
sioners would readily take their case into consideration
whenever it would come within their jurisdiction, and
that such a charge was therefore unfounded, and he
also stated that the Bill was not large enough. He
thought that that question should be left to the people
themselves. If he doubted the decision of the House on
this measure, ho should say that he would be affected
with much anxiety, and if he thought that the Howse
would adopt the resolution of the Right Honourab!e
Gentleman (Mr. Berries) he believed that the people of
Canada would feel deeply insulted by such an undue
interference on the part of this House. He was glad
to find that all who spoke on this question had ap-
proved of the conduct of Lord Elgin, and, for his own
part, he believed that the Noble Lord would not lend
himself to any factious party against the loyal people of
Canada. He hoped that the House would reject this re-
solution, and that the people of Canada would give this
House credit for having wished to fulfil their duty
towards them, and that this House never wished to
interfere with the free institutions of their colonial
Legislature.
Mr. BANKES said that he perfectly agreed with the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchcre) that this
House should not interfere with the legislation of the
colonies, except on those rare occasions when the in-
terests of the empire at large were at stake, yet he
should say that this was a question for the Imperial
Legislature, as affecting the honour of the Crown and
the safety of the colonies. When the lion. Member for
Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) alluded to Ireland and Irish
treason, he should refer to the adage that treason cannot
prosper, because when it does prosper no one dare call
it treason. He thought, on the whole, that a measure of
such importance should not be carried on hastily. He
recollected when the secretary of the First Minister was
accused of writing a letter abetting rebellion.—(Oh,
oh.) The ground on which he supported this motion
was, that this Bill had the effect of encouraging rebellion.
The Noble Lord might not have that intention. If they
would not give their word that compensation would not
be given to rebels, he should be compelled to vote for
the amendment.
Sir IL PEEL then rose and said—Sir, I quite feel
that the arguments upon this subject have been ex-
hausted, and yet I am unwilling to give the vote I intend
to give without a brief explanation of the ground upon
which that vote will rest.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, Ido not
put exactly the same construction upon the amendment
of my Right Hon. Friend that has been put upon it by
the Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House. I
do not consider that amendment to be merely an address
to the Crown to come to no hasty decision with respect
to the ratification of the Act of the Canadian Legisla-
ture. I understood that amendment to be substantially
this—to pray the Crown not to assent to this Bill until
certain amendments which were moved by the minority
in that Legislature are introduced into it.—(Ministerial
cheers.) The motion of my Right Hon. Friend, whether
intentionally or not, or from inadvertence, is identical,
as was remarked by the Right Hon. Member for North-
ampton (Mr. V. Smith), with an amendment which was
moved by the minority in the course of the ::discussions
in the House of Assembly. Consequently, that which
the House of Commons is called on to aflirm is substan-
tially this—that the measure approved by the majority
shall not have effect until that majority shall adopt
an amendment which was submitted to its considera-
tion by a small minority, and which was rejected.—
(Cries of " Hear, bear.") It is possible, if we accede to
the motion of my Right Hon. Friend, that we may be
about to engage in a conflict which will be attended with
no small amount of danger—a conflict in which we ought
to engage if the honour of the Crown imperatively re-
quire it; but before we engage in it let us maturely con-
sider what will be the nature of it, and what are the
circumstances under which we are called upon to enter
into it. We have before us a measure which provides
for a certain appropriation of the funds of a great colony
of the British empire. At a former period it was pro-
posed that the compensation provided by this Bill should
be made cut of the Imperial Treasury.—(Hear.) That
proposal was rejected.—(Cheers.) The present measure
does not contemplate any appropriation of the revenue
of this country.—(Hear.) The measure now under our
consideration proposes an appropriation of colonial funds
to colonial purposes.—(Cheers.) And the measure so
proposed has been affirmed by a majority of the Legisla-
tive Assembly of the province, of no less than forty-
seven to eighteen.—(Renewed cheers.) lam unwilling
to refer to the character and constitution of that ma-
jority; for the act of the majority is
.that which,
under ordinary circumstance, ought to prevail. I say
under ordinary circumstances, because I am perfectly
willing to admit that if the honour of the Crown re-
quires it, you should exercise that authority which I do
not question you possess. I say, however, that under
all ordinary circumstances, the act of the majority
ought to be conclusive, without reference to the pecu-
liar character of that majority. But if you analyse the
constituent portions of that majority, you will find that
it was not composed exclusively of the representatives
of a particular class, of a connexion not the same with
our own. We are told that fifty-one members repre-
senting Upper Canada voted upon the question; that
thirty-seven voted for the Bill, and fourteen only against
it; that in Lower Canada the members of English
descent were ten in number, and that six voted for the
Bill, and four only against it, consequently whenever
you refer to the extent of the majority, or to the consti-
tution of it, I cannot but think that these are elements

in the question which deserve our most serious conside-
ration.—(Cheers.) I consider these to be perfectly dif-
ferent questions, whether the amendments proposed in
the Assembly of Lower Canada ought to have been as-
sented to; and whether, as they were not, we ought to
try to give effect to such amendments here. It may be
consistent to say that the proposal of Mr. Wilson was
a reasonable one, and that had we been members of
the Assembly it would have had our concurrence ;
and yet, as that Assembly did not consent to it, the
same men who approved of the amendment may dis-
approve of the proposal to give effect to it by the exer-
cise of an extraneous authority. Observe, the act of
rejecting this measure, and of advising the Crown to
disallow it, will not have the support of the whole of the
minority who voted in opposition to it.—(flear.) Lord
Elgin calls your attention to the remarkable fact, that
two of the members of the minority who took a very de-
cided part against the measure, and were most active in
proposing amendments, were amongst the foremost to
contend that the principle of responsible government
ought to be maintained, and that they would not be par-
ties to any advice to be offered to the Crown of Great
Britain to rtject or disallow this Bill after its passage
through the colonial Legislature. The minority, there
for., opposing the Bill and friendly to the amendments
—that minority was not unanimously of opinion that
the Bill, when passed, ought to be modified by any other
authority. They distinctly- maintained that, having been
passed, the will of the majority ought to prevail, and
that the Bill ought not to be disallowed by the Crown.—
(Rear, hear.) Sir, that Act so passed has received the
concurrence of that authority which has been deputed
by the Crown to guard the honour of the Crown and
promote the general interests of the colony, but pith
the interests of the colony to maintain its con-
nexion with the mother country, and to maintain that
connexion on the only terms upon which it is worth
maintaining, viz.—that of the honour of both parties
and reciprocal good-will. I own that it would have been
most painful to me if I had been called upon by a strong
sense of public duty to take any line of conduct which
would have implied a reflexion upon Lord Elgin. I re-
collect the commencement of his political career. I re•
collect the sanguine expectations which were formed
from his first Parliamentary speech—(ficar, hear)—and

I think than n:n 1,-"r1 '""1;
~.1
(Cheers.) Those who heard the tir.t, speech winch he
made in Parliament—all men of all parties—concurred
in this opinion, that that speech was the omen of a future
career, alike honourable to himself and useful to his
country.—(Cheers.) He was selected for a high office
by a Government with which ha was politically con-
nected. He had to discharge in Jamaica, under circum-
stances of great difficulty, a very high and important
trust. He conciliated the confidence of those over whom
he presided, and of the Government with whom he
acted; and the Noble Lord has stated that the sole
reason of his having been selected for the more im-
portant government over which he now presides was
the experience of his success in the administration of
the affairs of Jamaica.—(Cheers.) My firm belief is
that a nobleman better qualified for a high trust could
not have been selected; and that looking at the whole
of the correspondence which has taken place, and con-
sidering the extreme difficulties of his position, he has
acted from no other motive than a sincere desire to
do his duty towards the Crown and the colony,
over the affairs of which he had been appointed to pre-
side. It appears to me that he has acted with great
firmness, great resolution, and great impartiality—
(Cheers)—t hat he gave his entire confidence to the Go-
vernment which was supported by a majority of the As-
sembly; that ho dissolved the Assembly upon their
request; that when a majority of the new Assembly
transferred their confidence to other parties, he then, in
deference to the principles of a representative and re-
sponsible Government, selected for his Ministers those
who had the confidence of the majority, and that he
gave them, upon the same principle upon which he had
acted with regard to the former Administration, his
cordial concurrence and support.—(Hear.) Sir, I should
deeply regret, I say, if considerations of public duty
compelled me to do that which would indeed be no
more than a reflection upon his judgment—for his high
honour and integrity I believe no one can doubt—
(Hear, hear)—yet, I think, considering the opposition
he has encountered, the outrages which have been offered
to him---(Hear)—l greatly tear that an erroneous con-
struction would be put upon the performance of that act
of duty, and upon the announcement to the colony that
the conduct of Lord Elgin was virtually disowned.
But no deference to Lord Elgin, and no fear
of an erroneous construction, ought to prevent
us from discharging our duty, and rejecting this Bill, if
the interests of the country and the honour of the
Crown demand it.—(Hear, hear.) I conceive that a
great part of the difficulties with which Lord Elgin has
had to contend were difficulties of an earlier date than
those immediately connected with his own period of
office. The Hon. Member for Staffordshire founded his
observations entirely upon this fact, that in every pre-
ceding Bill the claims of the loyal inhabitants only had
been admitted, whereas in the present Bill for the first
time the word "loyal" was omitted. Now I can assure
my Hon. Friend that he is mistaken—that this is not
the first occasion on which the word "loyal" has been
omitted as a qualification of the word " inhabitants."
If you look through the papers you will find a remark-
able distinction between the cases of Lower and Upper
Canada in the earlier part of these transactions. Nuw,
observe in 1839 and 1840, Lower Canada was governed
by ordinances. In the case of the ordinances issued by
Lord Colborne, the compensation for losses sustained
during the rebellion was confined to the loyal inhabitants
of Lower Canada. Concurrently with the issue of these
ordinances an Act was passed providing compensation
in the case of others. An Act was passed by the Legis-
lature of Upper Canada, and the words "loyal inhai-
tants" were omitted from that Act. The ordinance in
the case of Lower Canada contains the words '• loyal in-
habitants," and provides compensation for them alone. In
the case of Upper Canada the word "loyal" is omitted,
and certain and sundry inhabitants are substituted. The
Act was amended in the subsequent year. There was
the example of the Lower Canada ordinances, but never-
theless in the second Act the word " loyal" is omitted,
and the phrase of " inhabitants generally for losses sus-
tained during the rebellion" was inserted. And, if you
observe in the oath applied to the Commissioners in the
case of Upper Canada, they declared they would award
compensation to the inhabitants according to the terms
of the Act. In Lower Canada the oath administered to
the Commissioners provided that they should award
compensation to the loyal inhabitants only.—(Elear.)
The Legislatures of the two Canadas are united. An
address is presented to the Governor that he will act on
the principle adopted in Upper Canada, and provide
compensation to Lower Canada on the same terms.
That address was not acted on by the Government pre-
ceding the present. When the present Government
came into possession of power they fulfilled the address
which had been voted, and the question now is, have
they, in providing compensation for Lower Canada,
materially departed from the terms or principles
of the Act which provided compensation for the
inhabitants of Upper Canada ? If they have not,
will not the contrast be an invidious one ?—(Hear,
hear.) Will not the duty we are assuming—
of rejecting this Act, providing for the case of Lower
Canada, alter the case of Upper Canada has been
provided for—be peculiarly invidious, if the Act which
we reject contains no provision materially at variance
with the previous Act?—(Hear, hear.) Why did not
some one give Lord Elgin a caution on this point? Why
was it not pointed out to Lord Elgin, that in the case of
Upper Canada no distinction hail been made between
loyal inhabitants and rebels? Why did we not convey
to him an intimation that the honour of the British
Crown was concerned, and that the claims of the loyal
inhabitants should bo allowed?—(Hear, hear.) But what
took place in Lower Canada? Lord Metcalfe issued a
Commisson, which recites the necessity of providing com-
pensation for the loyal inhabitants.—(Hear, hear.) Lord
Cathcart assumed the government, and a secretary was
appointed to that commission, who issued instructions
with regard to certain classifications. Mr. Daly, the
secretary of Lord Cathcart, was asked by the secretary
to the Commission as to the classification of the claim-
ants, and Mr. Daly answered—" It is not the intention of
the Governor that, in classifying the persons who are to
receive compensation, you are to adopt any other prin-
ciple of classification but the evidence furnished by the
sentences of competent tribunals." It was in cense-
, quence of these instructions that the Commission
originally appointed by Lord Metcalfe proceeded—l
will not say to make their award—but to examine
claims. Under these circumstances, does the
honour of the Crown require from us the
extraordinary intervention asked for by the Right Hon.
Gentleman? Shall we control the decision of the
Crown, at this last stage of the proceedings, by our ad-
vice? Shall we assume for the popular branch of the
Constitution the responsibility which now rests, and
justly rests, in the Crown, the duty of advising the
Crown to suspend or allow this Act. In my opinion it
will be much wiser to leave this discretion and respon-
sibility with the Crown, and not to commit ourselves to
a contest with the popular Assembly of Canada, a con-
test which I foresee to be inevitable if we take the course
of advising the disallowance of this Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
At the same time, I agree with the Right Hon. Gentle-
man in the sentiment which he has expressed, that it
would be much better for us to dissolve all connexion
with a colony, however important, rather than maintain
that connexion at the expense of the honour of the
Crown.—(hear, hear.) I entirely agree in that senti-
ment. I must also say that I feel a deep sympathy for
those gallant men who stood by the colony in her hour
of difficulty during the rebellion.—(Hear, hear.) lam
not surprised at the sentiment expressed by my Right
Honourable Friend. It would be most unwise in us if

we were to confound all distinction between loyal
and disloyal men.—(Hear, hear.) I do not believe that
those men who stood by the colony in 1837 nn 1838—
who resisted American invasion, and all attempts to
dissever the connexion between Canada and the mother
country--I do not believe that they—indeed I acquit
them all together of any participation in the outrageous
and disgraceful acts by which public disturbance has
been created in Canada respecting Lord Elgin. There
is not, I am sure, a man in this Ilouse—whatever course
he may feel inclined to take on this question—who will
not repudiate any connexion with the disloyal and dis-
affected men who insulted the Governor by proceeding
to acts of violence.—(Hear.) I believe that that party
in Canada whose loyalty I must applaud and admire—
whose past exploits in vindication of British connexion
I never will forget—are as little responsible as we are
for the acts of those persons.—(Hear.) They have
shown by their address to the Governor that they were
ready to put on record the expresiion of their indigna-
tion at the acts to which I refer. At the same time,
while I admire the fidelity with which these parties have
adhered to British connexion, I cannot consent that we
should make ourselves partisans to Canadian politics.—
(Hear, hear.) I believe the only hope we have of
maintaining that connexion permanently and with reci-
procal advantage to the mother-country and the colony,
is by acting on the principles on which Lord .Elgin has
acted in maintaining justice and impartiality. Are we,
then, to make compensation to rebels ? It is said that
two exceptions have been made, and that the excep-
tions in this Act constitute the difference between it and
the Upper Canada Act. The two exceptions do, in fact,
constitute the rule which must be observed by compet-
ing you to exclude every rebel unless they fall within
the two categories. What said Lord Cathcart on this
point ? You have his positive assurance that he had
no intention of encouraging rebels or treason in Ca-
nada. You have also the delaration—made, certainly,
since the Act passed—of Mr. Lafontaine and of those
who were parties to the Act, that it was not their in-
tention to encourage rebels. Lord Elgin says that in
the Assembly it was stated that the principle on which
the Bill was framed had already been acted on in Upper
Canada, and that Parliament by its unanimous vote had
given a pledge that it should likewise be applied to
Lower Canada. Lord Elgin also says that it was false
to affirm that the measure was intended for the benefit of
rebels, but, on the contrary, that all convicted rebels—all
who had confessed their guilt and been sent to Bermuda
were expressly excluded from it. Lord Elgin goes on to
say that with reference to all the rest—those not in-
cluded in the two categories, the Cummisioners under
the Act would be bound under the sanction of an oath
precisely in the same way as the Commissioners for
Upper Canada had been before them, to examine mi-
nutely into the justice of all claims, and apportion the
indemnity according to the true intent and meaning
of the Act.—(Hear.) If that be so—if the principle of
the Act be itidentieal with the principle of the Upper
Canada Act—l ask you whether it would be wise, with
the information before us, to draw this invidious distinc-
tion between Upper and Lower Canada, and to impose
by Act an obligation on the Crown to take a different
course in Lower Canada from that which it had taken
with respect to Upper Canada, and against which we,
cognisant of the facts, made no objection.—(llear, hear.)
In addition to the assurance of the Governor of Canada,
we have the assurance of the Noble Lord opposite that
the decision of the Government, will be suspended till
the instructions which are to be received arrive. The
Attorney-General had been applied to for his opinion as to
the legal construction of the Act, and to state as a lawyer
whether he believes the exceptions introduced will limit
the discretion of the Commissioners, and compel them
to exclude every other party from the Bill. I under-

would emover the qu, soon as a lawyer, and that looking
to the preamble of the Act, he did not think it imposed
an obligation on the Commissioners to exclude any ()ther
claims than those of convicted rebels. if that be so--if
the same latitude be given to the Commissioners in
Lower Canada as had been given to the Commissioners
for Upper Canada, I do deprecate the adoption by this
House of a course which, I think, would create a rnatFe
rill distinction with reference, to Lower Canada. I said
before that I am willing to draw a distinction, as far as
can draw it, between loyal and disloyal men.—(Hear.
I should lament the day when this House showed an un-
willingness to give due credit to men who, in times of
difficulty, rally round the British standard for the pro-
tection of British honour and British interests.—(Hear.
But I cannot allow that feeling, warm and cordial as it
is, so far to influence me to give a party vote, which
would be destructive of the principle of representative
goverment.—(Cheers.) Our constant interference with
local affairs, with which we must be imperfectly ac-
quainted, will only cloud the prospect which I trust 13
opening to us, of a long, permanent, and cordial con-
nexion with a colony, in the welfare and prosperity of
which England ought to feel the deepest interest.--
(Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—Before I address to the House the
very few observations which, after the lengthened de •
bate which has taken place, I feel it my duty to make, I
must, with the permission of the House, remark that the
Right Honourable Gentleman who has just sat down, in
quoting the opinion of Lord Elgin, with the view of
legitimately influencing our opinion, has, through inad-
vertence, been guilty of what I must consider a consi-
derable omission. The Right Honourable Gentleman
said that he quoted the words of Lord Elgin (Sir
Robert Peel was understood to express his dissent).
The sentence used by Lord Elgin, from whom the Right
Honourable Baronet quoted, began—" To this it was
answered, the paragraph of the Bill was framed," and
the Right Honourable Baronet omitted the words " to
this it was answered."—(Hear, hear.) But to proceed.
I must say that having, I believe, listened to the debate
to-night with as much attention as any Gentleman
in this House, and having heard many inge-
nious observations, many loyal and many liberal
sentiments, yet I am, I must own, at a loss to discover
why the debate was adjourned last night.—(Lead
cheers.) I am, notwithstanding the speeches of this
evening, still of opinion that the subject last night was
most amply debated. The three • most considerable
parties were represented by some of their most dis-
tinguished Members. That section of the House which
has taken a most active part in the Canadian discussions
for the last fifteen years, had the opportunity of having
its views most ably argued; and then, and as if to ren-
der the debate complete, a most able and accomplished
member, and one who is regarded with respect by all,
the intimate connexion of the Governor General, also
addressed the House (Hear.) The case, then, appears
to me, after all we have heard, not to have lost the ori-
ginal simplicity which it assumed in my view from the
first.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R.
Peel) has told us, in referring to a system of constitu-
tional government, that the opinion of the majority
should be conclusive under ordinary circumstances.
Who, I ask, denies that position?—(Hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman, however, warmed up in the course of
his address, and he then told us that the principle of con-
stitutional government in Canada was dependent upon
our vote to-night.—(Hear.) Another Right Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. V. Smith), who addressed the House in the
early part of the evening, told us that the real question
at stake was whether or not there is to be responsible
government in Canada.—(llear, hear.) Now, Sir, I
think the real question at stake is, whether her Maj, sty
shall exercise her constitutional right of a veto or uot?
—(Cheers.) Why, if the opinion of a majority is to be
always conclusive, how can there ever be such a thing
as the exercise of a veto? And it; under the constitu-
tion of Canada the exercise of a veto his been contem-
plated, how comes the discussion as to the expediency or
inexpediency to be perverted into the question whether
er not responsib!e government is to be taken away from
Canada?—(Hear.) Whatever may he my opinion and
that of many gentlemen in this House as to the circum-
stances under which the Canadian constitution was
framed, and as to the expediency or inexpediency of a
political adjustment, yet I would be the first man to say
that, that constitution having been established, nothing
would be more impolitic or more unprincipled than the
House of Commons, directly or indirectly, interfering
to prevent the constitution from having full and free play
in that country. I wish to state this, because I have
heard the opinion expressed as to the expediency of
severing the alliance between the two provinces, and
forming a federation of other provinces, something like
that plan that has been suggested with regard to Austra-
lia. I trust that no such scheme as that will be adopted
without very tnatui e consideration. I am- rather con-
firmed in ray apprehensions upon this point by reading the
resolutions that were arrived at at a meeting at Frede-
rickton, in New Brunswick, and by which were de-
nounced the very Bill, the fate of which we are this night
assembled to discuss. If I am to form my opinion from
the feeling expressed at that public meeting of the most
respectable inhabitants of New Brunswick—l would say,
that at this moment they are not inclined to a federal
union between that province and Canada; and therefore
the united provinces may be permitted to enjoy that
Constitution which we some years since thought proper
to sanction.—(Hear.) The question then, is not the ex-
istence or non-existence of the Constitution of Canada;
and when I hear the Right Hon. Gentleman the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade appealing to us in such a
pathetic and moving tone about the Constitution of Ca-
nada, I must say, that when I hear him so speak, I am
reminded of a speech that he made ten years ago, on a
subject congenial to the present, but not altogether of a
similar nature. lam reminded, I say, of the powerful
and eloquent harangue that the same Right Hon. Gen-
tleman made when he came forward and called urn
this House to abrogate the Constitution of another
colony.—(Loud cheers.) Who, I ask, could suppose
when they heard of the Right Hon. Gentleman's alarm
and indignation at our contemplating the possibility of
her Majesty's exercising her prerogative, that the same
Right Hen. Gentleman should ten years ago have sup-
pressed a responsible Government—that he should have
abrogated—abrogated by wholesale—the Constitution
of a most ancient, powerful, and loyal colony.—(Cheers.)
And now with the same Right Honourable Gentleman
no one is to mention the constitutional exercise of a veto
by her Majesty. Such is now his extreme delicacy and
tendert', ss with a Constitution, that in his opinion the
iuterference—the constitutional interference of the
Crown is not to be tolerated.—(Cheers.) I wish her
Majesty's Ministers would apply that sensitiveness and
delicacy to our foreign relations.—(Loud cheers.) These
Noble Lords and Right Hon. Gentlemen whose nerves
will not allow their Sovereign to exercise her constitu-
tional functions because, forsooth ! they will not inter•
fere with a constitution in Canada, are yet to be found
busying themselves in every part of the world—will per-
mit no Government to administer any affairs in which
they have not sonic hand—(Cheers)—and, as in Spain,
intrusted their envoy to call on the Ministers of the
country, and to recommend them to study public opinion.
—(Cheers and laughter.) I think the case before us is
a very simple case. We are not going to attack the con-
stitutional liberties of Canada. We are hound in policy,
in honour, and in feeling, to take care that all parties are
maintained in the full exijoyment, the fitting exercise of
their constitutional rights.—(Hear, hear.) It is
a simple case before. us. Is there, or is there not, a
scheme, produced and promulgated under the consti-
tution that was granted to Canada, which scheme affects
the honour and grievou,ly tarnishes the credit of the
Crown of England?—(Bear, hear.) Is there, or p
there not, announced, on the credit of the Ministers, In
Canada, a plan which is hostile to the interests of those
whom it concerns? The honour of the Crown should
be justly dealt by.—(Hear, hear.) Here, then, is a case,
which I think it would be well that the House should be
acquainted with. It is ono with which I myself hdve
been but recently acquainted—even so lately as within
the last hour. It is the case of Colonel Chisholm.—
.eoblounteilt appearshisho Chisholm
to
is me
one
to o
(Hear, hear.) Ido not know whether the house is ac-
quaintedg
ed
o withe it
.
t
gentlemen—he is one of those possessing tf hht hee o ahs vg
eghr yl 1 inh
qua-
lities which the Right Hon. Gentleman has so justly
praised. He had arrested in the unhappy rebellion a
tell-known traitor—F. Malcolm, for whose arrest a
reward of 250/. had been offered. It so happened that
Colonel Chisholm, being a man who considered him-
self sufficiently rewarded by the exercise of his loyal
duties, did not take the 2501. reward.—(Hear, hear.)
But; the circumstances of Colonel Chisholm had
changed ; he was not so prosperous as he had been
ten or twelve years ago. Probably his fortunes
had been affected by these economical experiments
which Lord Elgin, your great authority, declares have
Canada.—(Cheers.)
In no slight degree contributed to the disaffection of
Colonel Chisholm, however, hear-
ing that the whole question of rewards and compensa-
tions had been opened, a memorial was addressed by
him to the Government, in which he reminded them that
he had a claim for 250/ ; and this ho asked for without
interest, not like the rebels, who always made a claim
with interest.—(Laughter and cheers). To this request
a letter was sent in answer to Sir Alan M‘Nab, by whom
the memorial was forwarded. The secretary's letter was
dated the 18th March, 1849, and the secretary said that
he had to inform Sir Alan M`Nab that his Excellency
had considered the petition of Colonel Chisholm, request-
ing to be paid the reward of 250/. for aprehending the
traitor Malcolm, in December, 1837, and his Excellency
said be could not admit the claim. "it having been
allowed to remain dormant for so long a period, cannot
now be entertained."—(Hear.) That was the answer of
the Governor-General, who was preparing lists of claims
for rebels—(Cheers)—claims of as old a date, and thus re-
wards were to be given not to loyal men, brt to rebels.
—(Cheers.) Well, I say, that a document like that is
very instructive, and it would have been well if it had
been placed on the table of Parliament along with that
curious collection which the Colonial-office has favoured
us with, and on which I shall have to make some re-
marks presently. I said just now that I should be sorry
to see or to entertain the thought that to remedy these
evils we should dissolve the political knot that unites the
two Canadas. I remember that the scheme was devised
by eminent statesmen, to whom I give credit for vaster
know-10p, and who have bestowed a larger consideration
on the subject, than myself. I think that the combina-
tion of the Canadas, and the qualities of the population
of Upper Canada will ultimately remedy the inconve-
niences that are now suffered.—(Hear.) But, Sir, that
very circumstance that it is unnessary to dissolve the tie
between the two colonies, and that in the increased popu-
lation, and consequently increased energies of Upper
Canada, the remedy for political grievances will be found,
that very conviction imposes on us the consideration that
it is of the utmost importance that as public men we
should avoid permitting any party to triumph over the
other. It is possible that, supported by a majority of
the House of Commons, the party now dominant in
Upper Canada fur a brief space might reward ancient
service, and treat loyal men in a manner similar to that
in which Colonel Chisholm has been treated by that
Governor. General whom you have so much lauded,--.