The Sun.
London, England, 1835-05-16 00:00:00

CANADA.

Mr. ROEBUCK was sorry that he must, upon this occa-
sion, charge the Right Hon. Gentleman with a breach of
those engagements and promises which he made to the Canada
agents when they were in this country. There were two dis-
tinct things which he wished to state to the House. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had promised that the Bill should not
be repealed, and that the Governor of Canada should not pur-
sue the unconstitutional course it seemed he had adopted.
Some days after the interview with the Right lion. Gentleman
he transmitted a despatch to Lord Aylmer, directing him to
obtain 31,000/. for the payment of the arrear of the salaries
due to the colonial officers. If that money had been taken
from the military chest this Government would never recover
that sum again. This was a matter of complaint with himself
and with the people of Canada, and they also complained that
they had not been dealt with in that fair and open manner
on the part of the Right Hon. Gentleman to which they were en-
titled. Lord Aylmer had acted in a straightforward and manly
way when he said that the Act of Parliament should be repealed,
but the Right Hon. Gentleman had not pursued an open course,
for he tried to persuade the Canadian delegates to forego the
preceedings of the Committee of that House. If it was ne-
cessary to dip into the military chest to pay the Canadian of-
ficers, why did not the Right Hon. Gentleinan at once say
so? Why did he write the despatch alluded to se-,en days
after his communications with the two delegates from Ca
nada ? Why did he do what he had promised not to do ?
Why did the Right Hon. Gentleman deceive him as well as
the two delegates? He would ask the Right Hon. Gentle-
man how he accounted for this most extraordinary proceeding?
This was one of the circumstances which made him ( Mr. Roe-
buck) mo•.e for a copy of the despatch in question, and it
appeared that in it an order was given that the money should
be paid out the colonial funds. If that should turn out to
be the caie, be would advise them to bring an action-at-law
against Lord Aylmer, the moment his Lordship arrived in this
country, to recover the 31,000/. If he found that sum in any
of the estimates submitted to that House b should move that
it should not be granted ; and if the Right Hon. Gentleman
should move for an Act of Indemnity, he ( Mr. Roebtiel)
would oppose any such motion.—( Hear.) The question
meant to ask was, whether Lord Aylmer was authorised to
pay the money in question out of the military chest or colonial
funds ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER couldrot
but comi_lqin of the inconvenience of asking, without notice, ,
such questions on going into a Gimmittee of Supply. It was
certainly open for the Hon. Gentleman to put such questions,
but he ought to be cautious how he brought them forward,
since a subject, particularly like the present one, involving
great public and private considerations, was not lightly to be
disposed of. If he had told the Hon. Gentleman to postpone
his questions, as he would not answer them until the necessary
documents were before the House, he would have been doing
nothing more than what was right. But as the Hon. Gentle-
man had thought proper to charge him (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) with a violation not only of private honour, but of
official duty, he hoped the House would indulge him for a few
moments, sibubust cot red into e7planntions. not for the pur-
pose of leading to a protracted debate, but for the purpose o:
meeting indignantly the charges the Hon. Member for Bath
had mode against his private honour and public conduct.
The facts of the cr.:,:e were these :—lt was true that he saw
the two deputies from Canada, and had a conversation with
them ; but he begged to state that he did so with the know-
ledge and by the express request of the Canada Committee.
There was not the slightest concealment, in the conversation.
of the course he meant to pursue. He told the delegates that
he had but lately taken office, and that it was under circum-
stances most painful to him, because it was in consequence of
a separation on political opinion between him and a Noble In-
dividual whom he should never cease to respect. He thought
fit, however, to sacrifice his private feelings to his public duty.
In the Committee that sat upon the affairs of Canada, at the
close of its proceedings, lie asked the Committee whether they
thought it expedient that he should see the Canadian delegates
or not ? The Committee stated to him that they thought it ex-
pedient that he should see those individuals, and communicate
with them. He did so accordingly, and he told them that he
met them with the most perfect frankness, and without the
slightest suspicion of any unfairness on any side. He
would soon show how that frankness and absence of sus-
picion were repaid. He met the delegates, and there was
no• one else present except the Honourable Member for
Bath. So much did he expect that all was to be fair
dealing that he asked no friend to accompany him, and be
present on the occasion. Thinking the parties incapable
of misrepresentation or deceit, he did not hesitate to
meet them alone. What he said on that occasion was
this—he told the delegates that he bad but lately come
into office, and that he did not possess a full knowledge of all
the circumstances of the case. He asked for no fair trial—
that was a phrase of more recent origin, and was not the one
used by him. The phrase used by him was, he told them
that they called upon him in the middle of the session to de-
cide upon a great question respecting this country and her
North American colonies, and he asked for time to consider it.
He would put it to the House if it was inconsistent with discre-
tion—if any discreet man might not make such a statement?
--(Hear, hear.) As be met them with a fair spirit he thought
it but reasonable that a like spirit should be accorded to him.
They then went into a discussion on the subject, and his
words were—but really it was most painful to him to be called
upon to justify expressions which were used when he trusted
to the Hon Member to protect him from any imputations that
might be afterwards inferred from them—he told them that
the communications he made were of a private and confiden-
tial nature—that if they led to any amicable result he should
be most gratified, but that if they did not, the delegates should
not consider them as official, or of any weight. The conver-
sation was carried on partly in French and partly in English.
Now, he would ask, was it fair that a conversation of this kind
—of which no regular minute was taken—should be made an
official matter, and be laid before the Assembly of Lower Ca-
nada in an official form, merely for the purpose of raising up
charges against him ?—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman was a
party present at the conversation; he had heard the facts from
him on the 9th of March, and the Hon. Member abstained,
from that time to this, coming forward on the subject. On the
present occasion, however, the Honourable Gentleman, under
colour of asking a question, charged him with having violated
his honour and his principles as a public man, as well as every
other obligation imposed on a private or public individual.
Was that fair ? And the Hon. Gentleman made those
charges without proper notice, and contrary to his pledges.
(Hear.) It was true that, in reply to the Hon. Gentle-
man's questions at the conversation alluded to, he (the Chan.
cellor of the Exchequer) said that there were two courses
before him which he might pursue, but that, for the pre-
sent, he was not disposed to adopt either of them. The one
course was to persevere with the bill of his Noble Friend
(Lord Stanley), the effect of which would be to break
through the agreement between this country and Canada,
and allow this country the right of disposing of the funds
of that colony. The other course was that adopted by
Lord Dalhousie, to direct to take for public uses out of
the Canadian revenues those sums which were unappro-
priated. With respect to the first course, he told the dele-
gates that he had not sufficient information to enable him to
say that he thought recourse should be had to such a strong
measure. He told the Hon. Member and the deputies,
that in declaring to them that he was not prepared to
take that course he made the statement in reference to the
position in which they stood, and to his want of information
on the subject, but he did not say that he was precluded
from taking that course if he should think it necessary.
With respect to the other question, viz., using the funds as
Lord Dalhousie had done, he said that that was stigmatized
by the Committee and not approved of by him. All he said,
therefore, was, that he was not prepared then to take either
of those two courses. What he had stated, and what he had
done, on the 9th of March, he repeated, was that he informed
the Gentleman of the deputation that he was not prepared to
press Lord Stanley's Bill ; and the impression on his mind
was, that he also said that concessions might be made to Ca-
nada, but that they ought to be made with great caution.
H. e said, however, that perhaps at some future time, a Bill
like that of his Noble Friend might be necessary. When he
represented that all the public servants in Canada had not re-
ceived their salaries for two years, the Hon. Gentleman said
that the Canadian Assembly would pass a supply Bill, and
would leave the question open between the government of
that colony and the mother country. Under that impression
he and the deputation parted, and he told them that under
those circumstances it was not intentien to follow up Lord

Stanley's Bilk, or the measures adopted by Lord Dalhousie.
He stated, moreover, that if the public officers in that colony
or any of them should be in such a state of destitution or
distress as not to be able to meet their engagements (by any
wrong doing of their own,) power should be given to make
advances to pay them, not in the manner adopted by
Lord Dalhousie, nor in the mode proposed by Lord
Stanley's Bill, but by granting the money, to be repaid
when the Canaqiau Legislature should appropriate the reve-
nues of the colony. He thought that he had now given a tri-
umphant answer to the charges brought against him by the
Hon. Gentleman. The steps he had since taken did not In
any way violate his pledges, if pledges he had given. But
suppose he had broken his pledges with the Hon. Member, it
would be very easy to have the whole affair brought before the
House of Commons, and to have the documents relating to it
laid on the table. The money in question had not been paid
out of the colonial funds, and the Hon. Member knew that
fact well when he put the question. The question was asked
at a time, and under such circumstances, that it was necessary
to answer it ; at another time, and on a different occasion, such
a question might be dealt with as an unfair proceeding. It
might be treated as a betrayal of a private communication—
which the Hon. Member himself allowed was private and con-
fidential. Even the two deputies who laid the documents, or
minutes they took of the communication before the Legisla-
tive Assembly, said, in doing so, that the communication
made to them was confidential.—(Hear.) He thought that
he had not in the course of his observations said more than was
necessary. He had been accused of practising deceit—( Hear,
from Mr. Roebuck)—of having taken an unfair part; and the
Hon. Member had contrasted his own manly way of dealing
with the tortuous course pursued by him (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer). It in repelling the accusation brought against
him, he had stated all the facts of the case, the Hon. Gentle-
man could not attribute any blame to him. The Hon. Gen-
tleman brought it all upon himself. Even if the charges were
true, the Hon. Member stood, on the avowal of the two depu
ties themselves, liable to be accused of divulging a confidential
communication. He considered that the Hon. Member, by
making the present charge before that House, had broken the
confidence that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had
reposed in him. If political success were to be achieved by
the violation of private and confidential communications, the
Hon. Member might endeavour to attain it by that mode, but
no political success obtained by such means would he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) ever aspire to. In times of
excitement such success was easily obtained, but he would
never seek to arrive at it by the betrayal of the high obliga-
tions that men of honour were bound by.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said the Right Hon. Gentleman accused
him of having betrayed a private communication. He dis-
tinctly denied the charge. So far from being a party to di-
vulging a confidential conversation, he was then in possession
of an apology from the delegates of Lower Canada, for their
taking the extraordinary steps they were driven to by the con-
duct of the Right Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear.) The apology
was directed to him from their having divulged a conversation
in which he had taken a pat t. The delegates sent to him a
minute they bad made of the conversation, and he returned it
to them, with this statement, that as far as he had heard and
could judge the minute was correct, but he said to them that
no use ought to be made of it.—( Hear, hear.) Now he would
appeal to the Right Hon. Gentleman if he had not too quickly
accused him of divulging a private conversation, before the
Right Hon. Gentleman knew the facts. The conversation
was divulged in this way the delegates laid it before the Le-
gislative Assembly of Lower Canada ; it was of course pub-
lished, and it came to him in the American newspapers. It
became common to him and every body else, and when it was
so common, had he not a right to speak of it ?—( Hear.)
having given :he Right Hon. Gentleman notice of the ques•
tions, he had of course put them. The conversation was before
the House, and he told the Right Hon. Gentleman how he
meant to introduce the subject. The Right Hon. Gentleman
said, very well, and that he was glad it should be so intro
duced.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
this conversation was on the 9th of March.

Mr. ROEBUCK—Yes, and then I stated to the Right
Hon. Gentleman the form of the questions I meant to put.
The Right Hon. Gentleman denied having broken any pledge
made to the Canadian delegates. Fin would say most so-
lemnly that Im Lelieved the breach of pledge complained
was committed by the Right Hon. Gentleman, for the Right
Hon. Gentleman promised he would not do what he had
done, except in the last extremity.—( Hear, hear.) That ex-
tremity was—if the House of Assembly refused the pa\ ment
of the ofri2ers' salaries. They had not refused, and the House
of Assembly had no opportunity of a fair trial. With respect
to Lord Dalhousie, what lie had done was to appropriate the
money in the military chest, and a portion of the revenues of
Lower Canada, which were under the controul of the King,
and not under that of the Legislative Assembly.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The Hon.
Member is in error. It is true that Lord Dalhousie made use
cf the military chest, but he paid what he had taken out of the
colonial revenues.

Mr. ROEBUCK—Lord Dalhousie paid it out of the reve-
nues springing from the Royal Acts, and such money Was not
under the controul of the Legislative Assembly. The pre-
sent Governor did exactly what Lord Dalhousie bad done;
he paid the officers of the Howe of Assembly out of the
money not under the controul of the Legislative Assembly of
Lower Canada. So that was one breach of the agreement
that such a course should not be resorted to. If he brought
this matter as a charge against the Right Hon. Gentleman he
should have begun with a statement to that effect. Instead of
he asked the Right Hon. Gentleman whether he had
done so and su, aiAd 1Z!,:;711. !!-?::, Gentleman's answer was
" Yes."

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—Ideny it.
Mr. ROEBUCK—As to those high considerations which
Lind men of honour, alluded to by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man, they were as strong and as stringent in his bosom as in
that of the Right Hon. Gentleman, however fluent the Right
Hon. Gentleman might be in expressing them. He begged
to tell the Right Hon. (.lentleman that he (Mr. Roebuck) was
not one of those who, under the guise of power, would craftily
mislead and deceive individuals by public or confidential com-
munications.—( Hear. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied that
tho Hon. Member was at liberty to make the use he had
done of a confidential communication. The Hon. Member
was not justified in becoming a party to the wrong doings of
others.

Mr. HUME considered that the Right Hon. Gentleman
took up the matter too warmly. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had very properly pointed out the two courses that might be
pursued, that of Lord Dalhousie, and that contemplated by
Lord Stanley's Bill. He would ask, however, what it was
that the Right Hon. Gentleman had really done ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I have
already stated it.
Mr. HUME—Would the Right Hon. Gentleman say what
Lord Dalhousie did, and what Lord Aylmer now did with re-
spect to paying the money referred to?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—When
the despatch already asked for is before the House, the Hon.
Member will see what has been done.

Mr. HUME said the present discussion was one of the
greatest importance to the country, and it was necessary to
know whether the Governor of Canada had appropriated the
money without any directions. This subject was of the
greatest importance, particularly when the state of Canada
was considered. The charge against the Hon. Member for
Bath was extremely improper, as there was no violation of
confidence on his part. When the delegates left the Right
lion. Gentleman, in order to justify themselves, they thought
it necessary to note down the private conversation that had
taken place. They communicated that to the House of
Assembly, so that there could be no violation of confidence or
misrepresentation on the part of the Hon. Member for Bath.
Without going further into the matter, he (Mr. Hume)
wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman upon what autho-
rity Lord Aylmer paid the money alluded to, and how that
payment differed from the course which Lord Dalhousie had
previously taken? There was very great misconception
abroad respecting the matter, and if it could be removed by
a simple explanation, so much the better.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the explanation which he had to give was a very simple one.
Lord Dalhousie had paid certain sums out of tl►e unappro-
priated revenues of Canada, and the course which his Lord-
ship had taken was greatly disapproved of by the Committee
of 1828. Now, it was said that he (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had acted contrary to the opinion of this Com-
mittee, and not conformably to the recommendations which
they had given ; but this he begged leave to say was not the
fact, for he had, he assured the House, acted under their ad-
vice, and in accordance with their recommendation. On the 11th
of March he gave directions that those officers of the Govern-
ment to whom an arrear of two years was due should receive
one year's salary, and this was done in the full confidence that
the advance would be repaid by the November following, at all
events out of the extraordinary resources of England—of' the
country. He did no more in doing this than what the House
of Commons would sanction, and, therefore, he stated on the
9th of March only that which he said now. Under the cir-
cumstances in which Canada stood at present, he submitted
to the House whether it would not be better to pass on to the
real business of the night then to continue a discussion which
was so unprofitable.
Mr. HUME could not help saying that he saw no difference
whatever between the two payments.
Mr. LABOUCHERE must express the astonishment
which he felt at finding that two gentlemen whom he so highly
respected, as the two delegates alluded to, could have been
concerned in such a transaction as that of divulging the con-
fidential conversation which had passed between them and his
Right Hon. Friend. He could not help saying, that in hill
opinion, they were not justified in what they had done.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether it was the intention
of the Government to bring forward an estimate, during the
present Session, for making good out of the public money of
this country the sum which had been applied by them in
Lower Canada?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied,
that they did not mean to call for a vote of any such estimate
at present, because they felt that when the House of Assembly
was in possession of the real facts of the case, it would not he-
sitate to make good the necessary amount.
Mr. WALTER put a question to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the purport of which we did not hear, but, at the
request of the Right Hon. Gentleman, he consented to post-
pone it Until Monday.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY-MISCELLANEOUS

ESTIMATES.

On the first resolution being put, that 22,700/. should be
granted to his Majesty, to defray the allowances and expenses
of the Revising. Barristers under the Reform Bill,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he wished to take this opportunity to express a hope that when
the Bill for amending the Registration Act should be brought

forward, a provision would be made to enable the Government
to pay the revising barristers in some mode different from that
of a vote in a Committee of Supply. This was very desirable,
inasmuch as the revising barristers were often put to great ex-
pense in the discharge of their duties, which, according to the
present mode of paying them, was not refunded till a long time
afterwards.

Mr. JERVIS thought that something should be done to
lessen the charge which the country now sustained under the
registration system. The charge was now much more than
adequate to the duties performed.
Mr. HUME begged to suggest whether, instead of em-
ploying 60 or 70 revising barristers, differing materially in
the degrees of their qualifications for the duties they had
to perform, it would not be better to employ five or six
able and intelligent men to go through the country and do
all the business.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped,
as his Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment was not present, the Hon. Gentleman would not in-
troduce a discussion on this subject. He begged, in the ab-
sence of his Noble Friend, to postpone the consideration of
the Registration Bill till this day week.
The Resolution was then agreed to.
The next Resolution proposed was, that the sum of 130,000/.
should be panted to his Majesty, to defray the charges of the
civil contingencies.
Mr. HUME asked a question respecting the expense of
surveys made by order of the Government for the erection of
a palace for the residence of our Ambassador at Constantinople.
Mr. F. BARING was understood to say that there was
no intention to ask for any vote this year respecting those

surveys.
Mr. HUME observed an item of 4,0001. paid to Sir George
Shee : he wished to know what services that gentleman had
rendered to entitle him to this sum.

Mr. F. BARING said that Sir George Shee had been
appointed to an embassy, and after preparing his outfit, his
appointment was rescinded on the dissolution of Lord Mel-
bourne's Cabinet ; this sum was to defray the expenses he had
been put to on that occasion, and had no reference whatever
to any salary.
Mr. HUME said there was another item of 1,2131., for
legal fees allowed on the appointments of Envoy Extraordi-
nary, &c. It appeared to him a great absurdity that the Go-
vernment should pay fees to their own servants ; some better
system ought to be adopted.
Mr. F. BARING hoped that in the estimates of the next
year there would be no such charge ; for he admitted that the
system was perfectly absurd, although it was true the sum
came back again to the public.
Mr. HUME noticed the subject because it involved a ques-
tion of not less a sum than 295,0001. He admitted that the
fees did come back again to the public, but not until a reduc-
tion of about fifty per cent had been made from their amount.
He would recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
submit the question to a searching Committee of this House ;
because he ( Mr. Hume) knew there was a reluctance on the
part of the Government to interfere with these fees, inasmuch
as they in many instances were paid to high officers undei the
Crown. He (Mr. Hume) was understood to revert again to the
charge incurred by the suspending of Sir G. Shee's appoint-
ment, and to observe that this was one of the consequences of
the experiment lately made by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir
R. Peel) to carry on the Government of the country against
the wishes of the people. As the days of common sense were
now coming, he hoped the present Government would fol-
low the example set them by their "opponents, and not suffer
themselves to be surrounded and impeded by men in office
adverse to their own principles. He wished the Noble Lord
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs were present that he might
have asked him whether he was going on in the old track, or
whether he had determined that this country should be re-
presented in foreign courts by persons entertaining feelings
corresponding with the feelings of the Government at home ?
The Hon. Gentleman was then understood to express his
entire approval of the appointment of Lord Heytesbury to the
Governor -Generalship of India having been rescinded. He
thought it a wise step, and hoped it would be adopted in
other instances.

Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY thought that the expense
incurred by the displacing of Sir George Shoe would be found
to be the smallest expense that the late experiment of the Right

Hon. Baronet had occasioned to the country. He now give
notice to his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
quor, that he should move for a return of all the expenses that
had been incurred in corsequence of the recent changes of
the Government.

Dr. BO W RING knew from personal experience that at
this moment a great number of individuals, who were repre-
senting England in foreign countries, did not represent the
reform principles of this country. Our representatives abroad
ought to appear to the eyes of strangers, as the representa.
tivEs of the people appeared to the eyes of their constituents
here—that was, as persons appointed not only to carry out
their own views of reform in this country, but to bring those
views into practical operation elsewhere. He rejoiced that
the Government had lately set aside an individual, because
that individual did not represent their principles ; and he
hoped the Administration, to whom he wished to give every
sort of efficiency, would be worthily represented in every other
Court in Europe.
Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE was understood to say,
that although the Whig Government did not, on a former
occasion, remove our foreign ambassadors immediately on
coming into office, yet it proceeded gradually in making
changes, so that, hen the late Government succeeded them,
our foreign ambassadors were almost all connected with the
Whigs.
Mr. COBBETT objected to the vote. He bad not had
to examine it earcl'ally, 1-;ut had scert en;:ugli to know
that one-fiftieth of the proposed amount would be sufficient,
because it was money taken from the pockets of the people to
enrich, the Aristocracy, their families and dependants.
After a desultory conversation the vote was agreed to.
ARMY ESTIMATES.

Lord HOWICK in bringing the Army Estimates under
the consideration of the House, made a few remarks across
the table which were not heard in the gallery, and pro-
posed that the sum of 109,5581. 16s. be voted for defray-
ing the expenses of the Volunteer Yeomanry Corps for the
ensuing year.
Mr. HUME said, that as he had always opposed this grant,
he saw no reason for his abstaining from resisting it on the
present occasion. He should, therefore, take the sense of the
House on the vote. He proposed that the sum intended to
be granted, should be reduced to 30,000/. This reduction
he effected by taking off, first the sum of 48,6501., the
amount of expenses on assembling for permanent service,which
diminished the estimate to 60,0001.; and as a considerable
part of the year had now elapsed, he wished that the
pay should be continued to these corps for six months only,
thereby reducing the vote to the sum which he had mentioned,
30,000/.
After a few words from Mr. Cobbett, Mr. Scholefield, Mr.
Ward, Sir Charles D'Albiac, Mr. Esteourt, and others, the
Committee divided,—
For the amendment......
Against it...
Majority -60
The resolution was then agreed to ; the House resumed,
and the Report was ordered to be received on Monday.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL.

The Order of the Day having been read for taking into
further consideration the Report of the Imprisonment for
Debt Bill,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, although he deprecated
the taking of further evidence on the subject, moved that the
Bill be referred to the consideration of a Select Committee.
Mr. FRE SHFIE LD observed that the Insolvent Debtors'
Court was not a permanent Court, and that, unless revived by
Act of' Parliament, it would expire in the Session of next
year. He trusted that in that case care would be taken to
give the judges of that Court the compensation to which they
would be entitled.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that although he
could not make any pledge on the subject, there could be no
doubt that if the Court were abolished, the judges would be
properly compensated.
Mr. CARRUTHERS, and another HON. MEMBER, whose name
we were unable to learn urged the necessity of hearing further
evidence, and stated various objections to which the Bill was
at present liable.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL concurred with his Hon.
and Learned Friend the Attorney- General in thinking that it
would be quite unnecessary to have any further evidence.
Mr. HAWES. defended the Bill, and stated that the opi-
nions of both wholesale and retail dealers in the Borough,
which he had the honour to represent, were now as favourable
to the measure as they had formerly been unfavourable.
The motion was agreed to, and a select committee appointed.