The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-01-19 00:00:00

ing them independence on the principle that there eould be no
advantage in ruling over discontented subjects. If they were,
indeed, to act upon this principle, all the glory of England
would be annihilated. (Cheers.) That great influence which
she exerted owing to the magnitude of her colonies and the
greatness of her marine would be destroyed, and England must
be content, acting upon philosophical principles—(a laugh)—
to descend from a first-rate rank in the scale of nations, to be-
come a subordinate fifth-rate power. (Cheers.) Suppose that
doctrine could be safely applied to an island, still could it be
safely applied to Canada with reference to other parts of that
continent bordering upon it ! There certainly was dissatisfac-
tion in Canada, but not of such a nature as to induce them to
think that they would not yet be satisfied under the control of
this country. Indeed, all he had heard from the hon. gentle-
man (Mr. Grote) was nothing but expressions of regret at the
exclusion from office of a conservative government. (Cheers,
and a laugh.) The hon. member for Kilkenny, it was evident,
indulged in similar feelings, and not merely on grounds of
economy; and certain he was, that both of them must regret
that factious combination by which he (Sir R. Peel) was
driven from office (Loud cheering and Laughter.) The
honourable member for Kilkenny declared that he bad no doubt
but that if Lord Aberdeen had remained in office there would
have been no insurrection in Canada. (Cheers, and a laugh).
From this sprung two corrolaries—first, that nothing could he
so factious as the opposition which drove Lord Aberdeen from
office (loud cheering from the opposition benches;) and secondly,
that Lord Aberdeen's prudence and wisdom were such, that if he
had remained in office the present question would never have
arisen. (Hear, hear.) If, then, he (Lord Aberdeen) had been
excluded by a most factious opposition, and if the present ques-
tion would not have arisen if he had remained in office, he
would only ask, would it not be just to give him another trial ?
(Tremendous cheering and laughter.) Was it bee rose certain
persons had flown to arms that they were theref,a-e to give up
all connexion with the Canadas ? Instead of ihing this, they
should rather resort to those councils which, if persevered in,
would have prevented those occurrences altogether. The hon.
member for the city (Mr. Grote) might, perhaps, say that the
hon. member for Kilkenny was indiscreet in the admissions he
made after reading the extracts from Lord Aberdeen's letter,
and that no inference should' be drawn from what he said ; but
the hon. member for the city himself deeply lamented the re-
tirement of Sir G. Murray and Sir J. Kempt. " If," said he,
" Sir G. Murray bad remained, and if his principles had been
suffered to predominate, the financial questions would have
been easily settled." The chief questions in dispute were those
of feeling and fie:ince, and it appeared from what had fallen
from the hon. member for Kilkenny that Lord Aberdeen would
have settled the one, while the hon. member for the city was
equally sanguine that Sir George Murray would have settled
the other. (Loud cheers and laughter.) Was not all this a
proof that it was a factious opposition which excluded himself
and his friends--honest ministers as they were admitted to be—
from office ?—(much cheering)—and was it not a reason for
them not to despair, since they had been succeeded by men so
very unwise? Was it not a reason for them to hope to see those
men restored to power who would have settled these questions
without creating a revolt ? Even if the Canadians had applied for
a separation from the mother country, were they prepared to say
that on the first expression of a wish to that effect this country
should comply ? Were they not to look to the consequences
which might follow it they were left to govern themselves?
Suppose they were to try the question as relating to the Isle of
Wight. Suppose the inhabitants of that island were to say,—
" We are dissatisfied with the control of England"—and be it
remarked that philosophical principles, if good for millions,
were also good for smaller numbers—" we are anxious to separate
from you, and try a small republic within sight of Portsmouth.
We do not like your taxes, and would rather govern ourselves—
there are many precedents for such things, for amongst the
small Italian states are several republics." Suppose the
Isle of Man were to ask similarly to constitute themselves
into a small republic. Even if the principle were just as
applicable to sm ill communities as to large, might not the hon.
member say to them, " You are necessary to our security, being
so very near to Portsmouth, and our own security will not per-
mit us to let you constitute yourselkes into an independent
state." ( Hear, hear.) Why surely it would be their duty
similarly to consider with respect to Canada, the consequences
to the colonies in its neighbourhood. Surely they should con-
sider that our own British American colonies inightalso become
separated; or, if not, that their interests would be so far affect-
ed that they might feel themselves called upon by their obliga-
tions to other parts of the empire to contest for the maintenance
of their rule over Canada. If they were to acquiesce in the in-
dependence of Lower Canada, what would they do with respect
to the navigation of the St. Lawrence? (Hear, hear.) Sup-
pose Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were to say, " We made
settlements here on the faith that Lower Canada was to remain
a British province. For seventy years they have remained
so. You have given them a form of government which is not
satisfactory, but still we object to having it created an in-
dependent
state, commanding the river St. Lawrence, in
the centre of colonies which require the navigation of that
river." Were not the British inhabitants to be considered?
If Canada were erected into an independent state, with power
to make peace or war, what answer could be given to the
other colonies? It was, in short, perfectly clear that the case
of Canada could not be considered as an abstract question—it
could not be separated from the case of the North American
colonies generally. Its physical position was such, that they
could not concede its independence, without being at the same
time prepared to make similar concessions to others. For
those double reasons he thought it was the grossest folly and
:absurdity for England to give way to such proceedings as had
taken place in Canada. He thought it necessary, therefore, to
agree to the address, for the maintenance of the honour of the
crown, and the interests of Great Britain. He also thought it
necessary, in order that they might not permit revolt to triumph,
nor suffer the British flag to be lowered by the attempts of Mr.
Papineau. (Loud cheers.) At the same time, however, that
he gave his cordial assent to the address, he could not approve
of the course which her Majesty's government had pursued.
(Hear, hear.) He supported the address because he thought
this country had acted liberally and justly towards Canada. It
certainly was impossible, on looking over the correspondence,
not to admit that the Canadians had just grounds for complaint;
but how could any government be maintained if, on the very
first complaint, the parties aggrieved were to have an immediate
recourse to arms? ( Hear, hear.) He would not affect to say
that during the war Canada had not been neglected by govern-
meut • but in recent years he could not conceive a case in which
a mother country could have shown more consideration for her
colony than this country had done for Canada. (Hear,-hear.)
But all discussion on this point was concluded by the passage in
the resolution of the House of Assembly, that the report of the
committee of 1828 was an imperishable monument of British
liberality. (Hear, hear.) Parliament had gone beyond the
report of that committee, and in every case in which it had not
been acted upon
_i the impediment lay with Canada itself.
( Hear, hear.) He agreed indeed with the hon. member for
Kilkenny, that the main responsibility in this case rested with
those who had involved these men in a hopeless insurrection.
There was always something in the certainty of success which,
whatever might be the feeling of justification, still found sonic
palliation for involving a quiet and rural population in the
miseries of a revolution. But in this case, when there existed
so much loyal and British feeling, when they saw in Upper
Canada, which the hon. gentleman represented as disaffected,
that she had subdued by her native energies all attempts at in-
surrection, be must say that there was gross ignorance on the !
part of those who had been engaged in the government of this
colony; and when he heard the hon. genileinan condemn those
who had incited others to insurrection, he looked to the pas-
sages contained in an address of the hor. member for Kilkenny,
in 1831, in reference to the re-elections in Canada. In that
address the bon. gentleman told the Canadians of the triumph I
which they would obtain by the re-election of the "sixteen"
members of the House of Assembly, of the effect which it.must
have on Canadian affairs; and that the result must terminate
in the release from the baneful influence of the mother country,
and of a small but despicable faction—" that the proceedings
which had taken place between the years 1772 and 1792 ought
not to be forgotteb, &c." That was the language, in the year
1834, addressed by the hon. gentleman to the people of Upper
Canada. So grossly did he miscalculate the feelings of the peo-
ple of Upper Canada, that they viewed with disgust and indig-
nation this communication—there were none of the inhabitants
.who did not regard it with abhorrence—they abhorred the possi-
bility of its being supposed to be in any way their act or deed.
To suppose that that people of Canada approved of the prin-
ciple of the honourable member for London, that they were
rife for revolt,—to suppose that they desired a dissolution of the
existing connexion, would be to pour down the indignation of
that people upon the British Parliament. And who was the
correspondent of the hon. gentleman the member for Kilkenny ?
'To whom had he addressed this inflammatory language, ad-
vising, the people of Upper Canada tobear in mind the. struggles
they had made in former years ? It was addressed to that
M•Kenzie who made an unsuccessful attempt on the loyalty of
the people of that province during the absence of the British
troops. But might not this man quote the authority of the hon.
gentleman, and say, " Visit nut this delinquency upon me, but
upon your member or representative of a metropolitan county,
for he must have an enlarged knowledge and views of British
interests ? 1 have been betrayed by the advice which I have
received from the representative of Middlesex, and in appor-
tioning the punishment to which I am subject for my misdeed,
remember his own emphatic words, that the real responsibility
in the case of this revolt rests not with the executive agent, but
with those who gave the advice, and offered suggestions which
were disparaging to my own country, and destructive to the in-
terests of the British nation." (The right hon. baronet sat
down amidst loud cheers.)
Mr. LEADER brii.fly protested against the conduct and pro-
posed proceedings of government. He deprecated the precipi-
tancy with which they acted in this affair, and moved, in order
to afford more time for its consideration, that the debate should
be adjourned until to-morrow
Mr. BAINES seconded the motion.

After some discussion the house divided on the question of
adjourning the debate, mil-en there appeared for the adjourn-
ment, 28; against it, 188; majority, 160. The address was
then agreed to.

LorciJoHN RussELL then gave notice of his intention to
bring a bill for the temporary government of Canada, and pro-
posed to have it read a first time to-morrow (Wednesday), and
a second time on Monday. The house then adjourned.