The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-06-04 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—TnunspAy

A motion brought forward by Mr. Jervis, with a vew
of obtaining for the executor compensation for the losses
sustained by Robert William Powell, an uncompensated
American loyalist, in consequence of his adherence to his
allegiance, arcs negatived without a division.
Mr. F. KELLY then moved for leave to bring in a bill
to provide en appeal in criminal cases. Tile hon. and
learned gentleman dwelt strongly upon the anomaly that
in civil cases an appeal was alowcd, while in criminal
cases, which involved loss of 1,10 itself, there was no ap-
peal whatever from the decision of a single judge and jury.

The plan he suggested was to assimilate the rractice in
civil cases by giving the prisoner on his conviction power
to move for a rule to show cause why the verdict should
not be aside and a new trial had, or why a verdict of " not
guilty" should not be entered in the room of the verdict
of " guilty." He would also give power to move to arrest
sentence by bill of exceptions or writ of error; but, as a
guard against frivolous objections, he would leave it in
the discretion of the judge to pass and execute sentence
where he thought proper to do so, taking it for granted
that where the grounds of such arrest were not frivolous
the judge would respite the sentence.
Mr. GODSON seconded the motion.
Sir J. GRAHAM would not resist the motion for bring-
ing in the b:11, but its policy was so far doubtful as to call
upon the house to be very cautious in deciding upon its
adoption.
Leave was given to bring in the hill.
In reply to a question from Sir W. JAMrS, Sir J. GRA-
ium said that Government had not the slightest intention
of not proceeding with the Poor-law Amendment Bill
during the present session.
On the motion of Sir J. Graham a select committee was
appointed to consider the report of the commission for in-
quiring into the execution of the contracts for certain
union workhouses in Ireland.

On the motion for bringing up the report of the com-
mittee of supply,
Mr. ROEBUCK proceeded to bring under the considera-
tion of the house the state of the government of Canada,
and charged Lord Sydenham and his council with seek-
ing, by a fraudulent division of the counties in that colo-
ny, to obtain a representation favourable to their own
views and wishes, rather than a fair representation of the
people. The lion. and learned gentleman contended that
there had been for some time no responsible Government
in Canada, and that one could not be formed upon the
principle acted upon by the present Governor and his
predecessor.
Lord STANLEY defended Sir Charles Metcalfe, who
could act no otherwise than reject a proposition that he

. .
should resign the whole patronage of the Crown into the
hands of the Executive Council. The responsible govern-
ment sought for in Canada was that the whole functions
of the Government should be vested in the representative
body,which was so utterly incompatible with the monarchy
that it could not he entertained. What he understood by
a responsible colonial government was a government
through a representative assembly by the heads of depart-
ments, responsible to the Governor-General, who was
responsible to the Government at home. He could not
understand by the term " responsible government," that
the Governor should be merely the instrument of the ex-
ecutive acting for the dominant party in the province.
Sir C. Metcalfe refused to be such an instrument, and
also refused to sacrifice the prerogatives of the Crown at
the mere demand of the Executive Council, and the only
error he had committed was in privately discussing the
matter with the parties—thus affording them an opportu-
nity for misrepresentation, which ultimately compelled
him to reply publicly to them in self-defence. The noble
lord concluded an able speech by an intimation that Canada
must not expect at one and the same time to erect herself
into an independent republic, and retain all the advantages
she at present derived from her connection with the mo-
ther country.
Mr. HOME vouched for the correctness of the state-
ments made by Mr. Roebuck.

Mr. C. BULLER vindicated at considerable length, the
conduct of Sir C. Metcalfe.
Lord J. RUSSELL was of opinion that the subject was
prematurely brought under the consideration of the house,
and defended the course pursued by Lord Sydenham and
Sir C. Metcalfe.
After a few observations from Mr. TRELAWNEY,
Sir R. PEEL said that he felt it unnecessary to say any-
thing on the question before the house, after the able
speech of Lord Stanley, in every word f which he con-
curred ; but he could not reconcile it to his feelings to
allow the debate to close without bearing his testimony to
the character and conduct of that distinguished man Sir
C. Metcalfe, who was entitled to the entire confidence
and fullest support of the Government, although he was
personally unknown to any one of its members.
The report of supply was then brought up, and the
house adjourned soon after.