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

State for Foreign Affairs. The licence was nothing
more in this case than a testimonial, and the Bishop of
London had no more power to dismiss or appoint
chaplains abroad than he had in the army and navy.
He therefore trusted their Lordships would reject this
Bill.

The Bishop of LONDON said he had never attempted
to dispute the prerogative of the Crown of appointing
these chaplains; but until an Act of Parliament passed,
investing her Majesty's Government with the ecclesias-
tical jurisdiction over these chaplains, he should decline
to withdraw his license until a cause was adduced to
justify such an act.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE explained that the
Bishop of London had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in
the colonies which he could enforce.

The Bishop of SALISBURY hoped that, under the
circumstances, the Noble Earl would not press his mo-
tion to a division.

The Earl of REDESDALE hoped that the Noble
Lord would not press the Bill at the present moment, as
it would be impossible, at this late period, of the ses-
sion, that it could receive the sanction of the other
House of Parliament. He thought that at some future
period their Lordships would sanction the principle of
this Bill.

Earl NELSON said he would withdraw the Bill, as
it seemed to be the wish of the majority of their Lord-
ships.

Thi Bill was consequently withdrawn.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 15.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
_

The amendments of the Lords to the Division of the
Living of Richmond and Kingston•upon Thames Bill
were taken into consith•ration and agreed to.
THIRD READING.
The Sheffield and Tinsley Road Bill was read a third
time and passed.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
Sir C. KNIGHTLEY presented a petition from
Staffordshire, complaining of agricultural distress.
Sir JOHN TROLLOPE presented a similar petition
from Holbeach in Lincolnshire.

SUNDAY TRADING.
Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from
certain of the inhabitants of Westminster, against Sun-
day trading.

DISTRESS IN TOBAGO.
Mr. DISRAELI presented a petition from merchants
and planters in the ',land of Tobago, complaining of the
distress to which they were reduced by the alteration of
the sugar duties of 1846, and praying for redress and
relief. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from
the county of Essex, praying for an inquiry into the
state of the nation; and a similar petition from Kingston.
on-Thames.

MARRIAGE BILL.
Several petitions were presented against the Marriage
Bill.

I
S MITHFIELD MARKET.
Mr. C. PEARSON presented a petition from Lambeth
against the removal of Smithfield-market. Tne Hon.
Member also presented a petition from certain stone-
masons of Lambeth, praying for inquiry into the con-
dition of the people.
AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION.
Sir WILLIAM JOLLIFFE presented a petition from
Surrey praying for protPcti.n to agriculture.
WEST INDIA PROPERTY.

Sir JOHN PAKINGTON presented petitions: from
the House of Assembly of Jamaica, and from the West
India body in this country, complaining of the depre-
ciatiun of property in that colony, and praying for the
adoption of measures with a view to thi-ir redress.
Mr. P. MILES presented a similar petition also from
the House of Assembly in Jamaica.
SUNDAY TRADING.

Sir DE LACY EVANS presented petitions from St.
George's, Hanover square, and other parishes, in favour
of the Sunday Trading Bill.
MR. ROEBUCK AND NIB. BAILLIE COCHRANE.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he was compelled to throw
himself on the indulgence of the House. It was always
a disagreeable thing and a misfortune for a public man
to have to speak of himself and his private affairs.—
(Hear.) This misfortune, for it was a misfortune,
had befallen him through no fault of his own, but
through the fault of another. In what had fallen the
other night from the Hon. Member opposite (Mr B.
Cochrane) a reflection was cast upon a relation of his.
The state of the facts was this—during the rebellion in
Cauada and the excitement which it occasioned, a friend
of his, M. Gironard, had been suspected by the
Government of treasonable intentions. A tumult
bad been raised by upwards of five hundred people.
In order to escape from the danger with ehich he was
threatened he had fled to his (Mr. Roebuck's) house at
eight o'clock on a winter's night. His father then
held the command of a district, and was therefore in the
direct employment of the Government. His relation did
that which as a subject and a friend it was his duty to
do. He took M. Gironard dawn to Montreal, and then
found that a reward of 5001. had been offered for his
apprehension. In the House of Assembly these cir-
cumstances had been stated. He would say then, what
he would have said before, that M. Gironard was a
man of the highest respectability and had volun-
tarily given himself up to the proper authorities.
5001. had been offered by the Government for the appre-
hension of Monsieur Gironard. He should say that his
relation was at that time in the direct service of the
Crown, and was a person not only trusted by every pre-
vious Governor, but by the very Governor who was in
the country at the time. lie did apprehend that man,
and he (Mr. Roebuck) was bold to say that he applied
the 5001. to charitable purposes, and had not by so
doing forfeited either the repent of the constituted
authorities or of the people about him. It appeared
then that, in answer to a ques ion in the House of As•
sembly, he stated that he had received the reward,
and at the same time spoke in approbation of M.
Gironard. There was no imputation, however,
against him, for he took M. Gironard down to
Montreal at his own request, and for his
protection. He did no more than his duty to his
country. Now those were the state of facts which the
Hon. Gentleman had imputed to him as wrong. He had
at least learnt one thing from the discua.don of last night,
viz., that the weak, tted more especially the intellectually
weak, were always cruel.—(Laughter.)
Mr. B. COCHRANE said what he stetted was, that
this man was publicly accused of rebellion, and that a
reward of fire hundred pounds, which was offered for
his apprehension, was received by a person (a Mr. Simp-
son) who had been placed high in the confidence of the
Governor of Canada. He had mentioned precisely the
facts stated, by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) that
Mr. Simpson had received the 500 L. and had made a
complimentary speech in favour of M. Gironard after
having been appointed Commissioner of Crown Lands.
He would say, :n conclusion, that nothing coming from
the Hon. Member would injure the fair fame of any
man.—(A laugh, and cries of " Hear, hear.")
Mr. BROTHER fON asked the Hon. Gentlemen
(Mr. Banker) if he was prepered to retract the words
which he made use of last night—that he was a tool
in the hands of the Government —(Loud laughter.)
He hoped the House would throw its protection over him
with regard to the expressions and imputations that had
been cast upon him, which he certainly disavowed.—
(Hear, hear,) He could conscientiously say that
during the time he bad been in the House, he
had always had a sincere desire to act impartially
without regard to either side of the House —(Hear,
beer.) The Hon. Gentleman had thought proper to
stigmatise him as a subservient tool of tee Government,
and al,o as a person who looked to what they wished
without any regard to what was right and proper.
Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE, referring to the motion
made by an Hon. Member the other night, suggested
that this affair should be referred to arbitration.—(Roan
of laughter.)

Mr: BANKES agreed with the Hon. Member fur
Middlesex that this was a matter which should be re-
ferred to arbitration. He was not aware when he
made that remark that the Honourable Gentleman was
not a fighting individual, since he heard him say
that he was almost tempted to say that he re-
spected him more now than he had done before.
Inasmuch as his motion for adjournment bad fallen
to the ground, the remark which he had made—that it
the Hon. Gentleman had persevered in his motion, it
would look as it he was acting subserviently to the Go-
vernment—on this occasaion certainly did not, or rather
could not, impute to the Hun. Member that he had so
acted.

extended to the prisoners, on condition of their being
transported for life.
Mr. FRENCH asked when the Right Hon. Baronet the
Secretary of State for the Home Department would lay
the letter on the table of the House.
Sir G. GREY replied on Monday next.
CAN :\ DA.

On the order of the day for the adjourned debate,
Dr. NICHOLL rose to address the House, but such
was the noise prevailing below the bar that the Hon.
Member was wholly inaudible for some time. Ho was
understood to say that he for one declared most un-
feignedly that he felt the greatest possible difficulty
in coining to a conclusion as to how he should voteon this
question. If be had been forced to give that vote last night
he should, however reluctantly, have given that vote
against the resolution of the Right Hon. Gentleman, not
so much because he approved of what was to be
done by her Majesty's Government, as that he was
taken by surprise and that he believed in a moment
of surprise, that it was the wiser and more prudent
course to take. He was free to confess, however,
that his intention was very much shaken by what
had taken place in the course of the debate. He con-
fessed he did see great inconsistencies in the speech of
the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord said be would not
give his assent to this Bill, or take any steps to give the
sanction of her Majesty's Government, until
he had received the instruction which Lord
Elgin was to address to the Commissioners,
which instruction he was sure would have the
effect of preventing any part of this compensation being
withheld from those to whom it was justly due, and
which would exclude persons who were manifestly
guilty of rebellion. lie did not think that the Attorney-
General could show that the Crown or the Governor-
General had any authority or campetency to limit or
qualify an Act which had been previously sanctioned by
the Sovereign, as had been done in the case of bringing
those persons who had been transported to the Bermu-
das, and he felt assured for his part, that no such con.
struction could be put on the Act itself to justify such an
act, for it was directly opposed to such a course of pro-
ceeding. He recollected that the commission appointed
in 1845, to inquire into the condition of those who sus-
tained losses in the rebellion were, as a matter of course,
to draw a line of demarcation between those who were
rebels and those who were loyalists, and he was still at a
loss to know whether those who were engaged in that
rebellion and those who had been convicted of high
treason, were to be compensated by this recent Bill of
the Canadian Legislature. If such a Bill were put in
execution, he believed that it would create disgust in the
loyal people of Canada, and that such might endanger
the honour of the Crown, and the safety of those colo-
nies. He should, whatever may be the result, vote that
the address be presented to her Majesty not to approve
cf the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that in compli-
ance with his duty, he had endeavoured, to the best of
his legal power, to answer all the questions that bad
been put to him last night, and this day, on the present
subject. He would now say, in reply to the Right Hon.
and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Nicholls), that the Crown
had no power whatever to qualify any Act by its instruc-
tion, but that its duty was only either to agree to or ne-
gative any Act of the Colonial Legislature, for the act of
qualifying or limiting any Act of that Legislature would
be as act of usurpation. He should also say, that the
Governor-General had no power whatever to vary any
Act of the Colonial Legislature contrary to the spirit of
that Act, but if the Commissioners find that there are
some persons who are not proved to be guilty of treason
and rebellion, it is in their power, according to their
oath, to grant them a just and fair compensation for
the losses they had sustained in that rebellion. He
should say, that he was surprised at the Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Nicholls), that he
should have stated that it was an insult to the Crown to
call on it to give compensation. In that case he (Mr.
Nicholls) might have said that all who were suspected of
being rebels in primz Icicle cases were to be deprived of
the benefit of the doubt, and were to be exempted from
the compensation given to others, because they were not
suspected. Ile also said that the Commissioners should
actually know who were the rebels; but, he would ask,
were men to condemn themselves when they were apply-
ing for compensation? There was one class of men who
were exempted from compensation, namely, those who
were ccnvicted and those who were attainted. Then
there was another class, who should be indulged in the
benefit of the doubt, unless they confessed that they
were engaged in the rebellion. Then that party was
held to be guilty of treason morally, though not legiti.
mately. And a third class, against whom no proof or
confession was extant. Tnis party were, in his opinion,
liable to compensation. Such were his legal opinions on
the subject, to the utmost of his humble knowledge.
Mr. DRUMMOND said that this question, disguise
itself as it might, was, when translated into the English
language, an address to the Crown to dismiss Lord El-
gin, to put an end to the present Ministry in Canada,
and to weaken, it' not to destroy, the Government in this
country. This question was introduced in a most extra-
ordinary way. One Right Hon. Member made a speech
without a motion, and another a motion without a speech.
—(Laughter.) In the first case he looked upon the
sp• ech as being without any end in view—(Laughter)—
wh.ch left the end, as the beginning, all doubt and un-
certainty; and the only justification for such a speech was,
that it alluded to the subject rather as a local question
than as an imperial one, for nothing of an imp, rial ques-
tion was even alleged; but he thought the logic of it was
this—that rebellion is not a local offence, but an imperial
one, as being opposed to the Sovereign, ergo. rebellion
is an imperial offence. All agreed that Lord Elgin was
an able man—all agreed that he was a man of talents, and
well suited for his present situation. There were over
five hundred gentlemen in that House, and he thought
that all were not as able and as clever as that Noble
Lord.—(Laughter.) Yet he could not help saying
that the two Right Hon. Gentlemen wished to take
mobility out of his (Lord Elgin's) hands, and to convert
this House into an administrative. instead of a legisla-
tive, Assembly. Thus, he asserted that those who were
to receive compensation, and those who were not, should
be left to the Canadian Legislature, and not introduced
into this House, as it peculiarly and justly belonged to
that How.e. He should say that two Gentlemen who
were not two heads of two parties, but two half heads of
two parties, were discussing in a very radical manner,
and he thought that the matter should be solely left to
Lord Elgin.
Mr. V. SMITH said that he was glad that the con-
cerns of the colonies had been discussed in that House so
coolly. He was astonished that the Right Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. Herries) bad not brought on his motion
until alter trio speech of the Right Honourable Member
for Tam worth (Sir Robert Peel). Without entering into
the details of the question, he would simply express his
firm conviction that it extended much beyond the limits
of that debated between the Honourable Gentlemen op-
posite and the Attorney-General. It involved the great
question of a responsible government for the colonies,
which question, in his opinion, was quite at issue upon
the motion of the Honourable Member for Stamford,
They were seeking to carry out the principle of the re-
sponsible government by laying upon the colonists bur-
dens formerly borne by the Imperial Legislature.
When H n. Gentlemen affirmed that they meant no
insult to the majority of the L ,gislature of Canada, he
would ask the House whether they could possibly devise
a greater insult than to adopt in their resolution the very
words negatived by the vote of the Canadian Assembly?
He considered that a formidable inroad on the doctrine
ut responsible government —(Hear, hear.) The danger
of admitting some few men, who might have been en-
gaged in the rebellion, to some portion of the compen-
sation, was nathing to the hazard they would run in
telling the Parliament of one of the greatest of their co-
lonies that they would not listen to their resolutions until
they had proved to the letter thet they had fulfilled all
their engagements. He would not ask the Honourable
Member opposite not tai persevere
.in his motion, but he
would certainly say that to. press tho question to a di-
vision at the present moment would be m 'at premature.
They had heard from the Attorney-General, and from
Lord Elgin, their opinions of the legal e ffect of their
Act of Parliament. Lord Elgin had been chosen to rule
Canada, without the slightest reference to party ques-
tions of any shade, and such a man was the proper one
to govern a colony of such importance. lie asked them
not to interfere with what Elul Grey or Lord Elgin had
done, but he asked them, as it affected their right to the
Canadas, to beware how they rejected an Act which the
deliberate attention of the Parliament of that country had
sent home to them merely because of the construction of
an Act, or of a particular clause of it, which, after all,
was probably erroneous.
Mr. HUME said it was not often that he had to ex-
press his approbation of colonial government, but he
tbought that in this instance the Colonial Office bad
taken the proper line of conduct which recent events had
suggested. No one had watched the course of events
in Canada longer or more attentively than he (Mr.
Hume) had, and he could safely say, that Lord Elgin
had not distinguished himself so much in any state of
affairs in this colony, than in those recent proceedings—
those disgraceful proceedings—which he believed were
very much regretted by those who took part in them.
He could not concur in the intention of the Noble Lord
of withholding his decision until he saw the instructions
given to the Commissioners. He thought that that course
vsvit:rogleoaurgthytatwo
haverong othnee;poaws
power
rthoef
finallyGovtrnporassaiungd
a Bill.
The party who raised the outcry in Canada were in office,
and recommended all the steps for making compensation,
which they now showede their inconsistent conduct by
rl3 ary, andclamouring
at against.lat wasmaeaysoutereo;vlaos
ocarriedbe
Feb-
ruary, bd-
afollrowtheertehpeurypeooseploef
of
feetin these ehr)asise
Canada conduecst.
Ihty
tdhe, I,eye
would
their own government, and develop the resources of
that country for their benefit and our own, he believed
that the Canadas would become as advantageous a co-
lony to this country, as hitherto it had been otherwise.
Lord Elgin, he thought, had acted in a manner which
showed himself fitted for the duty he went out to perform.
He found his opponents in power, and gave them an op-
i
theypo rt uwn ietrye of
unequalc r r y n
tog ont h
etas the
Ir, aud he Government.
then Hefo und
deter-
mined on dissolving the Parliament, and allowing
at the bottom,
that by
was,
wthheomp?otphleey to choose
they those re,presentetativhee
verned. That was done, andoughts
troops engaged one
w trues i t thoseu:
a menei were e
gul
e r
stateitlnhepcauseco implicated
i ofng
tsthhteeo rebellion.
rseebee lhl er
M; Ibi
:ue stwt Ya s
and
day
way? in
He,onanothereothheerr
and that the day was
Majesty's troops so engaged again,
ehowwaeyveinr, thishoped
administered by
of a free constitution, and when
matter,that he should another
n e vienr
such hands as Lord Elgin's he had no fears that any
not far distant when he would see the Canadians pos-
sessioninoarttathclactwthouerlde
in Canada.—(Hear, hear.) lie hoped, in conclusion,
be
wouldm ad eh
eon
muchthe institutionsnee eesi t
y a toefl
lt
feecroturnet.erpye,
that her Majesty's Ministers would receive the support
of the House in the course which they were in this in-
stance so firmly and so much to their credit pursuing.
Mr. NEWDEGATE regretted that this debate was
prolonged, for he felt that it bad already been most fully

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 se stem of support
which recognised in men who had been guilty of re-
bellion against their Sovereign and the Government, a
claim to compensation for 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, it 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, be did not ft el 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 be 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 cr the Right llore
Gentleman the Member for Stamford.—(Hear.)
Sir W. MOLESWORTH should mesi decidedly give
his vote against the motion of the Right Hon, Gentle-
man the Member far 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 colenies, and he believed that there would be nei
ther 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 consHered 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 connpensa
;ion 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 at public faith if they did not see that the
provisions of the Act were fully carried out.
Mr. ANSTEY 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 fur Stamford, but as that had been
refused, could they hesitate in giving their vote against
the Canadian Bill? lie 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
ot, 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
diens. The consequence of the rebellion of 1837 was
the union of the two provinces, for no choice was lett to
the Government, and that union was necessary to prepare
the way for the self government of the colonies. As to
the compensation which had been so much complained of,
what, after all, was it? It was given to parties who re
sided in Canada for losses they bad 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, mad he approve d of the
course which her Majesty's Government had determined
also to pursue with reference to this 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 mosey 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. He, how-
ever, could not say that the affair was one of a local
character. He thought it was more calculated to give
eccouragement to rebellion than to serve any other pur-
pose, and he thought it not unl kely that Mackeezie
himself would be one of the first recipients of the com-
pensation money. The present was the first time that
the Act bad 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 sustained would be the only thing
necessary, and that an inquiry could not take place,
whether the party applying had been a rebel or not. If
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. He 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
e
or on men more or less rebellious. If the Indemnity
8.11 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
brought
Assembly,lik to be beneficial to the
before the British
ely
no doubt that it had gone through
na thaeircsopuelcdiensootfeoinn
e a
a.
quirt'Legtv,nisyli notuf trhe e
Canada.i questionCnaan
f thedai
naann,
col
hre klien
question now for their consi-
deration deration was whether they could preserve the relations
between Canada and this country in the oily way in
which the Right Hon. Gentleman wished it to be pre-
served, namely, by establishieg:a consciousness on the
pant of the colony that the connexion with England was
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.
The Marquis of GR ANBY thought the question
under consideration had been very much narrowed since
the debate commenced. The question was not whether
they could or could not pervert the principle of respon
sibly government, but whether, by adopting the resolu-
tion of his Right Hon. Friend, they would act contrary
to that principle? The present ease was one, he con-
tended, which fully justified the Government in 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. elernber for Sh. ffield, 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 met;-;ii-o--I;ad-1;e-en—talien

with arms in their hands were n' e;elTgoing out on
a shooting expedition; and he added, that he had
frequently gone out on similar expeditions himself. But
iet him (the Marquis of Granby) ask if the Hon. Mem-
ber eve went out with 800 armed men for such a pair-

pose, and if he ever mistook a red coot for a stray duck

prove their loyalty, he thought they would di
rejoice at the
opportunity of showing how unfounded and anjust were
the suspicions of their disloyalty. He thought the 13111
-(Hear.) Instead of loyal men feeling
_diesin.cl-ined to
_
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
loyal man who suffered accidental destruction of his pro-
perty could claim none. That was one of the reasons
why he thought the House should express an opinion
favourable to the rejection of' the Bill. The Right
Honourable Member for the University of Oxford
(Mr. Gladstone) said that the House was not pre-
pared for such a motion as that of his Right Honour.
able Friend (Mr. 'ferries); taut he should say that, after
such a speech as the Right Honourable G. ntleman (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 wag, that he did not
wish to excite the feelings of the people of Canada, orjof
this House. lie 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 wished to refraia from party opposition,
yet
he wished to join with him in defeating a measure which
he thought is 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 bad no
motion attached to it, as he thought it should, Ile should

say, in opposition to the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell),
that this measure of indemnification was 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. Herries)
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 he
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 (lid 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 the=e were not the people of
Lower Canada,or those of Fiench descent, but the repre-
sentatives of Upper Canada were most fay eireble to the
measure. If this Bill were in any way opposed to the
Crown, he Ousted tremble for such a case. as 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, aner the pro-
longed arguments on this 8.11, that no charge of party
'eeling coula be brought against the rspresentativea of
Canada lie would ask the House to consider under
what eircutestances this Bill had been brought forward,
and his motive for reepiring this consideration was to
show that Lord Elgin eid 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 one
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 opposition against an
amnesty to the Lower Canadians offered by the two
Right Hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Herries)
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 reanily 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, he should say that he would be affected
with much anxiety, and if be thought that the House
would adopt the resolution of the Right Honourable
Gentleman (Mr. Herries) he believed that the people of
Canada would feel deeply insulted by such an undue
interference on the part of this Howe. 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. Ile 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. BANIjES said that he perfectly agreed with the
Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) 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 Hon. 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
accu-ed of writing a letter abetting rebellion.—(oh.
ela.) 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 net give their word that compensation would not
be given to rebels, he should be compelled to vote for
the amendment.
Sir R. 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 vole will rest.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, Ido not
put exactly the same c mstructien upon the amendment
of my Right Hon. Friend that has been put upon it by
the lion. 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 Logisle-
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 trom inadvertence, is identical,
as was remarked by the Right lion. 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 affirm 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 out of the Imperial Treasury.—(Hear.) That
proposal was rejected.—(Cheers.) The present measure
does not contempl tee any appropriation of the revenue
of this country.—(Hear.) The measure now under our
consideration propeses an appropriation of colonial funds
to colonial purposes.—(Cheers.) Arid 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 nut composed exclusively of the representatives
.if 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 fburteen 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-
•erent 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.—(Hear.) 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
Britaie to reject or disallow this Bill after its passage
through the colonial Legislature. The minority, there •
'ore, 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.—
(Hear, hear.) Sir, that Act so passed has reeeived 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 with
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—(Hear, hear)—and

I think that all those expectations have been realised.—
, (Cheers.) Those who heard the first speech which he
made in Parliament—all men of all parties—concurred
in this opinion, that that speech was the omen of a future
career, alika honourable to himself and useful to his
country.—(Cheers.) He was selected for a high office
by a Government with which he 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 Lerd 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 administ. scion 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 resslution, and great Uniss; tiality—
((lheers)—thet he gave his entire confidence to the Go-
vernment which was supported by a majority of the A,-
sembly; that he dissolved the Assembly upon their
request; that when a majority of the new Assembly
traestern d their confidence to other parties, he then, in
deference to the principles of a representative and re-
sponsibl.. arverhment, selected tor his Ministers threes
who had the co fidence of the majority, and that he
gave them, non the same principle upon which he hat
acted with regard to the former Administretien, his
cordial concurrence and support.—(Hear.) Sir, I should
deeply regret, I say, it 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 in'egrity I believe no one can doubt—
(Hear, hear)—yet, I think, considerieg the opp .sition
he has encountered, the outrages which have been offered
to him—(l-I.ar)—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 Led 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 wire 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 qualification of the word f• 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. Now,
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 inhabi-
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 arc 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 dr clared 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.—(Hear.)
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 ?—(Eleer,
hear.) Will not the duty we are assuming—
of rejecting this Act, providing for the case of Lever
Canada, after the case of Upp. r 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
tipper Canada no distinction had 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 be allowed?—(Hear, hear.) But what
took place in Lower Canada? Lord Metcalfe issled a
Cornmisson, which recites the necessity of providing com-
pensation for the loyal inhabirants.—(llear, hear.) Loi d
Cathcart assumed the government, tied a secretery was
apts inted to that commission, who issued instructions
with regard to certain clasiticetions. 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 conse-
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 tor by the Right Hon.
Gentleman? Shall we control the decision of the
Crown, at this last stage of the proceedings, by our ad-
irics ? 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 respell-
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 wide 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 ba 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 1817 and 1838—
who resisted American invasion, and all attempts to
d,ssever the connexion between Canada and the mother
country—l 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 House—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 expression of their indigna-
tion at the acts to which '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•
thins 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 compel •
ing you to exclude ev• ry rebel unless they fall within
the two categories. What said Lord Cathcart on this
point ? You have his positive assurance that be had
no intention of encouraging rebels or treason in Ca- nada. You have also the delaration—made, certainly,
since the Act pissed—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 wag 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 Commisloners 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 raeaning
of the Act.—(Hear.) If that be so—if the principle of
the Act be indentical 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,
cognis int of the facts, made no objection.—(Hear, 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 wil 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 excly,de every other party from the 13ill. I uuder-

stood the Hon. and Learned Gentleman to say that he
I would answer the question 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 other
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 mate-
•
ri sl 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
diffieulty, 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 is
opening to us, of a long, permanent and cordial con-
nexion with a colony, in the welfare, and prosperity of
hch Eogland ought to feel the deepest interest.—
(Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI—Before I address to the House the
very few observations which, after the let gthened de-
bate which has taken place, I feel it my duty to make, I
must, well the permission of the House, remark that the
Right Holiourale Gentlemen who has just sat down, in
Teeing 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 censi-
derab!e 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.—(Loud
cheers.) I am, notwithstanding the speeches of this
evening, still of opinion that the subject last eight 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 sale 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 tap 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.—(ilear, hear.) Now, Sir, I
think the real question at stake is, whether her Maje sty •
shall exercise her constitutional right of a veto or not?
—(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 if, under the constitu-
tion of Canada the exercise of a veto has been contem-
plated, how comes the discussion as to the expediency or
inexpediency to be perverted into the question whether
or not responsible government is to be taken away from
Canada?—(Hear.) Whatever may be 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 tnaitue consideration. I am rather eon'
firmed in my 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 lam 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 proviiices 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 Constisutien 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 sp Tch that ho 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 upon
this House to abrogate the Constitution of another
colony.—(Loud cheers.) Who, I ask, could suppose
when they heard of the Right lion. Gentleman's alarm
and indignation at our contemplating the possibility of
her Majesty's exercising her prerogative, that the same
Right lien. Gentleman should ten years ago have sup-
pressed a responsible Govermnent—that he should have
abrogated—abrogated by who!esale—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
tenderness with a Constitution, that in his opinion the
iuterference—the constitutional interference of the
Crown is not t be tolerated.—(Cheers.) I wish her
Majesty's Ministers would apply that sensitiveness and
delicacy to our foreign relations.—(Loud cheers.) These
Noble Lords anti Right Hon. Gentlemen whose nerves
will not allow their Sovereign to exercise her constitu-
tional functions because, forsooth 1 they will not inter:
fere with a constitution in Canada, are yet to be found
busying themselves iu every part of the world—will per-
mit no Government to administer any affairs in which
they have not some hand—(Cheers)—and, as in Spain,
intrusted their envoy to call on the Ministers of the
country, and torecornmend 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 bound in policy,
in honour, and in feeling, to take care that all parties are
maintained in the full enjoyment, the fitting exercise of
their constitutional rights.—(Hear, hear.) It is
a simple case before us. Is there, or is there not,
scheme, produced and promulgated under the consti•
tution that was granted to Canada, which scheme affects
the honour and grievously tarnishes the credit of the
Crown of England?—(Hear, hear.) Is there, or 1s
there not, announced, on the credit of the Ministers,:
Canada, a plan which is hostile to the interests of those
whom it concerns? The honour of the Crown should,
.c
be justly dealt by.—(Hear, hear.) Here, then, case,
which a
which I think it would be well that the House should be
acquainted with. It is one with which I myself have
b -en but recently acquainted—even so lately as
within
the last hour. It is the case of Colonel Chisholm.
(Hear, hear.) Ido not know whether the House is ac-
quainted with it, but it appears to me to be a very in-
teresting one. Colonel Chisholm is one of those gallant
gentlemen—he is one of those possessing the high qua"
lines which the ;light lion. Gentleman has so justly
praised. He had arrested in the unhappy rebellion a
well-known traitor—F. Malcolm, for whose arrest a
reward of 2501 had been offered. It so happened that
,
Colonel Chishulrn, 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 bad
changed ; he was not so prosperous as he bad been
ten or twelve years ago. Probably his fortunes
had been affected by those economical exPeriaits
which Lord Elgin, your great authority, declares have
in no slight degree contributed to the disaffection of
Canada,—(Cheers) Colonel Chisholm, however, bear-
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 2501.; and this be asked for without
interest, not like the rebels, who always made a clew;
with interest.—(Laughter and cheers). To this request
a letter was sent in answer to Sir Alan M•Nsb, 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'lsTab that his Excellency
had considered the petition of Colonel Chisholm, request'
ing to be paid the reward of 2501. for aprehending tee
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, calicot
now be entertained."—(Hear.) That was the answer of
the Governor-General, who was preparing lists of claims
t
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 d.ssolve the political knot that unites the
two Canadac. I remember that the scheme was devised
by eminent statesmen, to %ahem I give credit for vaster
knowledge, and who have bestowed a larger consideration
on the subject, than myself. I think that the combin. a;
tion of the °amides, and the qualities of the populatioe.
of Upper Canada will ultimately remedy the incon_ve
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 Pori.
lation, and consequently increased energies of ITIWe'
Canada, the remedy for political grievances will be found,a_
that very conviction imposes on us the consideration that
it is of the utmost imp alance that as public men
should avoid permitting any party to triumph overt the
g
other. It is po.sible that, supported by a majoriy
the Hous of Commons, the party now dominantnL
Upper Canada for a brief space might reward ancient
service, and treat loyal men in a manner similar to that
that
in which Colonel Chisholm has been treated by
Governor. General whom you have so much laucle