§ Mr. Roebuckreferred to his Motion on the paper for "A Copy of a Dispatch from the right hon. Thomas Spring Rice to Lord Aylmer, authorising him to pay the officers of the 1135 Civil Government of Canada certain monies, not appropriated to that purpose by the Legislature of Canada," and said, he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer founded upon it. That question referred to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman when he held the office of Secretary for the Colonies, just after the retirement, of Lord Stanley. He was sorry that he must, upon this occasion, charge the right hon. Gentleman with a bleach of those engagements and promises which he made to the Canada agents when they were in this country. The gist of the complaint was, that the right hon. Gentleman had been guilty of a breach of faith in sending out instructions to Lord Aylmer to pay the sum of 31,000l. to certain officers of the Government in Canada, after having promised to him (Mr. Roebuck) and to two deputies from Lower Canada, that he would not do so, but would wait to see what steps were taken by the Canadian Legislature on the subject of the Civil List. The reason he urged for this course was, that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished for a fair trial, having only just entered upon the arduous duties of his office. The undertaking on the part of the right hon. Gentleman was entered into by him on one Sunday, and on the next Sunday the right hon. Gentleman had sent off a dispatch to Lord Aylmer, in direct contravention of his own engagement. This, he contended, was not acting in a straightforward, manly, or even honest manner; and it could not be justified by any plea of the urgent necessity of the case. He complained that he and the two delegates had been deceived and imposed upon, and that if Lord Aylmer had paid the money out of the Colonial funds he was liable to an action; if, on the other hand, he had paid it out of the military chest, and it came before the House in the Committee of Supply, he (Mr. Roebuck) would strenuously oppose the grant. He concluded by asking the question, whether the right hon. Gentleman had authorised Lord Aylmer to pay 31,000l. either out of the military chest or out of the funds of the colony?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not sorry that he had not interfered with the hon. Gentleman in the course he had thought proper to pursue. It was a question affecting his personal honour as well as his conduct as a public man, and therefore he was naturally anxious to give it a 1136 direct and immediate reply. He, however, protested against the great inconvenience of having questions of importance, personal and public, thus brought forward without notice. It was an irregularity which, if adopted generally, must prevent justice being done to any subject, and altogether impede the public business. The question the hon. Member had introduced was one of those which, on grounds personal and public, ought not to be lightly disposed of at a casual discussion; and if without personal and public inconvenience he could have remained silent, he should have been well entitled to decline answering the question until the documents which the hon. Member himself had moved for, and which it was to be presumed were of great importance to the consideration of the subject, had been laid upon the Table. The hon. and learned Gentleman had charged him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) with a violation of private honour—with a violation of official duty; and therefore he trusted the House would indulge him with its attention for a very few moments, whilst he offered a few observations, observations not made with a view to raise any debate upon a subject which, in its present shape, could not lead to any practical result, but for the purpose of indignantly refuting and repudiating the charges which the hon. Member had made against his private honour and public character. The facts of the case in question were very simple, and he felt considerable surprise that the hon. Gentleman had not stated and urged these charges when, on a previous occasion, he had adverted to the proceedings, an occasion upon which he thought he had fully answered the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman, however, had not done so, but had chosen for his own purposes, under a notice for papers, to bring forward those charges on the present occasion which, by anticipation, he had already answered. If the hon. Gentleman would turn to the debate which took place on the occasion of his presentation of a petition on the subject of Canadian affairs, he would find that he, voluntarily and uncalled-for by him, went through the whole facts of the case, upon which the hon. Member became entitled to a reply, of which right he availed himself; and if there had been that neglect of public duty, that abandonment of private and honourable engagement, it was then open to the hon. Gentleman to 1137 have made the attack, provided he had felt that in truth he was justly exposed to it. It was true that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) saw the two deputies that came to this country from Lower Canada; he did so with the knowledge and at the request of the members of the Committee then sitting upon Canadian affairs; there was no concealment whatever of the part he had taken. He had then only been recently appointed to the Colonial Office, under circumstances to him most painful, for they involved between himself and a noble individual, whom he should ever regard with respect and friendship, a separation on public grounds. Meeting that Committee, therefore, nearly at the close of their inquiry, he had thought it right, under the circumstances in which he was then placed, to put a question to them as to whether or not it would be expedient that he should see the Canadian deputation; and in answer it was stated to him most distinctly by the Committee, that it was expedient that he should see and communicate with the individuals composing that deputation. He accordingly met the deputation without reserve and without suspicion, and with a candour and frankness on his part, unwilling that a moment should be lost; and he met them without any other individual being present, except the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He did not seek any friend to accompany him on that occasion, because he thought and hoped he was dealing with individuals who were incapable of misrepresentation. He told the deputies that having just come into office, he was naturally not fully acquainted with the particulars of their case; but it was not the fact that he asked them for a fair trial. That phrase was of more recent origin than the interview in question; and he was satisfied that he did not use it. But he addressed them in language to this effect:—"I am called upon in the midst of a session to decide this mighty question, on which perhaps depends the connexion between Great Britain and her North American colonies. I wish for time to decide upon the course I shall take." Such was his language, and he put it to the House to say, whether there was any thing in it unfit for a discreet man to have uttered. The answer was in a fair spirit; for it was acknowledged that it was but reasonable to allow him time. The discussion was then entered upon, being 1138 carried on partly in French and partly in English, he observing at the outset that he considered the interview as private and confidential, but that if the result was an amicable understanding he should be glad of it. He told them that he had the greatest confidence in them, or he should have requested a friend, naming particularly his hon. Friend, the Member for Taunton, to be present. Would the House believe, that after this a regular minute of this confidential conversation was made, that he never saw it, that it contained statements not consistent with the facts, that it was laid before the House of Assembly of Canada, in an official shape, for the purpose of bringing a charge against him? The hon. and learned Member was a party to the whole proceeding.—[Mr. Roebuck: "I did not communicate the conversation to the House of Assembly."]—But the hon. Member was present at the whole of that conversation; and yet, knowing what he therefore did of its nature, and notwithstanding the statement he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made on the 9th of March, the hon. Member had thought proper to single him out for attack, and impeach his honour, under cover of asking a question. This he did without notice, and contrary to the pledge he gave upon the occasion in question. But the hon. Member's conduct was all of a piece; for, on a former occasion, the hon. Member made a charge, against the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, upon unreported evidence, and he now brought forward a charge against him, upon the import of a private and confidential communication. He would explain to the House what he had really said on the occasion in question, and he trusted the House would bear with him while he did so. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Member had stated, that in reply to a question, he had informed the hon. Member that only two courses were before him, and that he was not disposed to take either. The one course was the persevering in the Bill of his noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, the effect of which would have been to break an engagement entered into with Canada, by a former Act of Parliament, and thereby allow this country the right to appropriate the revenues of the Civil List of Canada, and the second course was, to direct the payment of the salaries of the Colonial officers, then two years in arrear, 1139 out of the sums unappropriated by the Canadian Legislature, in the same manner as the Earl of Dalhousie had directed some years ago. With regard to the first course open to him, he was not prepared, from the state of his information, to have recourse to a measure so strong as the violation of an agreement, and the setting aside the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and he declared to the Deputies, that in reference to the position in which he stood, and in the absence of further information, he could not take that course. At the same time he observed that he should not consider himself precluded from doing so, if he should eventually think it a fair course, but he would not assent to it except at the last moment. On the second point—namely, ordering the payment, as Lord Dalhousie had done, he censured it in the presence of the Deputies, and had not since adopted it. What he had done, he had stated in his observations to the House, on the 9th of March last, to which he should now refer. 'He told the gentlemen composing the deputation, Messrs. Morein and Viger, that he was not prepared to proceed with Lord Stanley's Bill, and he felt, however it might be right to make concessions to Canada, yet he was of opinion that great caution in the proceeding was required, and the hon. Gentleman must recollect that he told him he would not say that it might not be expedient, at some future time, to have such a Bill; at that period he only asked for time. He stated this to the gentlemen whom he had mentioned, and who, though not officially recognized as agents from Canada, were deputed by the Assembly, and had much influence in its affairs. At the time the report was made, there were two years' supplies due; and he intimated that, if the Legislative Assembly would pass an unconditional Supply Bill for those years, he would go earnestly to work, and enter into the whole question, with the view of devising such measures, and preparing such instructions, as he thought might meet the necessity of the case. He told those gentlemen what he proposed, and they said they thought it would be satisfactory to the Legislative Assembly of Canada.* It was under that impression, that he and the deputation parted. He had previously told them
* Hansard (third series) vol. xxvi. p 690.1140 also, that he would not have recourse to the plan heretofore adopted by Lord Dalhousie. The course which he had taken, however, had been (as he had stated on the 9th of March last) this—"Two years' income were due to the Government officers throughout Canada: those individuals, high and low, had been deprived of all payments during that period. Their distress was in many instances most urgent; many of the public servants were under the necessity of raising money on disadvantageous terms, and some were thus subject to extreme pressure and distress. The Canadian money was in the hands of the Receiver-General, and there was the utmost confidence entertained that in November, at the meeting of the Assembly, a Bill would be passed for the appropriation of that money. Parliament not being sitting at the time, it was thought advisable to give directions that if there were officers of the Government in a state requiring relief, and having two years' arrears then due, there being every confidence that the money would be repaid in the following month of November, that an advance should be made, not out of any Canadian funds, but out of the extraordinary resources of this country, in order to meet their necessities." * He thought this afforded a most triumphant answer to the charge of the breach of an agreement, or the abandonment of any pledge given to Messrs. Morein and Viger. The course he had pursued was not in violation of any pledge or agreement. On the 9th of March, the hon. and learned Member for Bath might have reproached him with a violation of an agreement, as well as he could now, but he then chose to withhold the attack, and now he made it without notice, without evidence, and, in short, in the absence of everything which constituted the elements of full and fair inquiry, and attacked him under most disadvantageous circumstances, when none of the documents which could explain the transaction, were before the House. The hon. Gentleman had asked whether the payments had been made out of Colonial funds. His answer was, that they were not made out of Colonial funds, and that fact was well known to the hon. Member at the time he put the question; but the hon. Member made the inquiry, in order to raise an unfair discussion, at a* Hansard, (third series) vol. xxvi. p. 693.1141 period when every well wisher to the two countries would desire to avoid such a discussion. The hon. Gentleman had put him in a position in which he could not, consistently with his own feelings of honour and of public duty, refuse to give the hon. Gentleman an answer; when, under any other than a state of such compulsion, he should have said merely that no question could at the present time be more improper, more unfair, or ill-advised. Could the hon. Gentleman find an authority which could support him in the betrayal and misrepresentation of a private conversation, which the hon. Gentleman himself acknowledged to be private, and which was stated to be private and confidential, and that it was so declared by him in the very document which the Canadian Deputies laid before the Assembly, of which they were distinguished members. He cared not if every word he uttered were known, as far as himself was concerned. His only wish for considering it private was, lest improperly divulging it, it should occasion mischief. Was the making it known done for the purpose of mischief. What good end could it answer? The hon. Gentleman had been told that every document he desired was open to his inspection, and if he had wished an honest and fair conclusion to be come to, he might have brought such documents as he thought fit before the House, and thus have had a foundation for his charge. If the hon. Member's now raising this discussion, implied a singular political conscience, as regarded the future interests of Canada, his oblivion of private obligations implied a peculiar personal conscience as respected his own character. He should regret extremely if the strength of his feelings had, on this occasion, impelled him to say more than was fit and necessary in his own vindication. But it must be remembered, that the hon. Gentleman had accused him of having deceived him, of not having taken an honest, open, manly part; and the hon. Member contrasted (he hoped the contrast would be understood by the House) his own open, manly conduct, with the tortuous course the hon. Member imputed to him. The hon. Member need not much complain, therefore, if charged in the face of his colleagues, the Representatives of the people, with having deceived him and others in his official capacity—he repelled an accusation so unjust with some warmth, 1142 and by stating to the House all the facts of the case. If the hon. Gentleman had been successful, he should not have envied him his advantage, for if political success was only to be attained by such means, others might pursue it, he would not. He believed, however, that no permanent success was to be obtained, although temporary exultation sometimes might be won, by the betrayal of those high obligations which bound men of honour. In strictness he might have objected to the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, but he had waived the strict rules of the House to discharge the duty of vindicating himself from an imputation as unjust as it was harsh.
§ Mr. Roebucksaid, that he had been accused by the right hon. Gentleman with the betrayal of a private and confidential communication. He most solemnly denied the imputation, for so far from being a party to divulging that private communication, he had now in his possession an apology from the delegates of Lower Canada to him for having taken a step which they believed they were driven to, by the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. For the divulging it an apology had been made to him (Mr. Roebuck). The minute of the conversation had been sent by the deputation to him at a time when he was so dangerously ill as to be obliged to leave the country and go abroad, and he returned it with these observations—that the document, so far as he could say, contained a correct statement of what had taken place at the interview with the right hon. Gentleman, but that no possible use ought to be made, or could be made, of it. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and ask how he came so quickly to accuse him of divulging it? That document had been laid before the House of Assembly by others—it was published in all the Canadian newspapers, and was brought over in them to him (Mr. Roebuck) in common with the rest of the whole world, and when thus made matter of common information and publicity, he had every right to speak of that which all the world knew. But the right hon. Gentleman asked why he had not made the statement before. Why, the way he put the matter was by asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he had done so and so. Having given the right hon. Gentleman notice of the questions, he had of course put them. 1143 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 introduced. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: That conversation was on the 9th of March.] Yes, and then I stated to the right hon. Gentleman the form of the questions I meant to put. He begged to repeat that the conversation which took place before him and the delegates, was first published in the Canadian Assembly, that it afterwards appeared in a printed form, and could the right hon. Gentleman accuse him of having divulged the conversation, when it appeared in all the North American newspapers? The right hon. Gentleman denied having broken any pledge made to the Canadian delegates. He would say most solemnly, that he believed the breach of the pledge complained of, 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. That extremity was, if the House of Assembly refused the payment of the officers' salaries. They had not refused; and the House of Assembly had no opportunity of a fair trial. With respect to Lord Dalhousie, what he had done was to appropriate the money in the military chest, and a portion of the revenues of Lower Canada, which were under the control of the King, and not under that of the Legislative Assembly.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in his premises. It was true the term "military chest" might have been used, but there was a distinction in the nature of the funds designated by that term. The fact was, that Lord Dalhousie had made his payments out of the national revenues belonging to the Canadas, while he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made them by advances out of British funds, to be repaid when the House of Assembly had done that which was confidently expected from them.
§ Mr. Roebucksaid, that was precisely the point upon which he was at issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He contended that Lord Dalhousie paid the sums out of monies under the control of Government, but for which the Government was answerable to Parliament, and that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had done 1144 precisely the same thing. He had taken monies not under the control of the House of Assembly, contrary to the agreement, and that was the breach of which he complained. Much as the right hon. Gentleman had said of the obligation, morally and politically, to preserve engagements inviolate—solemn as had been the right hon. Gentleman's appeal—he felt that obligation quite as strongly as the right hon. Gentleman. But if the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to adopt that course which he had condemned, except in case of the last extremity, he had broken his pledge. When he brought forward this charge—he would not say charge, because he asked the question—and if he had made a charge, he should have commenced by the solemn assertion that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted that course. On the contrary, he had inquired from the right hon. Gentleman if such was the case. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: I deny it.] That was the point at issue between them. In conclusion, he hoped the House would believe that the solemn obligations of honour were by him felt as stringent and as strong as by the right hon. Gentleman who had expatiated on them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the hon. Member would bring bring forward his charge as he now stated it, when he had the documents necessary to its decision before the House, he should be prepared to show him and the House, that the appropriation formerly made by Lord Dalhousie, and that made by him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) were quite different in their nature and character. He should have great pleasure, if the hon. Member would move for those papers at the conclusion of the evening, in consenting to their production; but he hoped that in the present state of public business, the House would see that nothing could be more injudicious than to sanction a course of the present description—a course which, without those documents, could lead to no result. The hon. Member had justified himself from the imputation of being a party to divulging the confidential communication, but he had no right to have used that document on the present occasion.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that two questions had been put to the right hon. Gentleman, both of which he had answered in the negative, denying that he had done either 1145 of the two things imputed to him. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would state to the House what he really had done in this matter. First, let the hon. Gentleman state what precisely had been the course pursued by Lord Dalhousie, and then what had recently been done by Lord Aylmer, in pursuance of the right hon. Gentleman's directions, for otherwise he (Mr. Hume) and the House could not understand the question upon which his hon. Friend, the Member for Bath, and the right hon. Gentleman were at issue.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the hon. Member for Middlesex would find the difference in the two cases much better from the documents when brought forward, than by any answer that at present could be given.
§ Mr. Humewould ask hon. Gentlemen if any one of them, even after this long discussion, knew what the right hon. Gentleman had really done? The hon. Member for Bath said he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had done one thing, and the right hon. Gentleman said he had done another. 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. The subject was of the deepest interest 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 hon. 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. The accusation of the right hon. Gentleman was, that his (Mr. Hume's) hon. Friend had betrayed a confidential conversation. Now this was a serious charge to be brought against any individual; but the question was, had it any foundation in fact? Finding that Lower Canada was in a state of great excitement, the delegates on their return felt it their duty to lay the minutes of what had passed between them and the right hon. Gentleman before the House of Assembly; and because the House of Assembly thought fit to have those minutes 1146 published, the whole blame of the matter was cast upon his hon. Friend. But was this fair, or was it just, to lay at the door of one party the wrong done by another? The fact was, that the charge against the right hon. Gentleman had long been before the whole world; and that being the case, where was the objection to its being mentioned now? It was true that the subject might have been postponed; but, without going further into the matter, he (Mr. Hume) wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman upon what authority 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 Exchequersaid that his explanation should be very plain and simple, for it should consist in quoting what it was he addressed to the House on this subject on the 9th of March last. The right hon. Gentleman then read the following quotation.—"It would be in the recollection of the House, that Lord Dalhousie directed certain public expenses to be paid out of Canadian revenues, unsanctioned by any Legislative authority. That proceeding was disapproved of by the Committee of 1828, and it was alleged, that he had since acted contrary to the opinion expressed in that Report. He begged to say, that he had done no such thing. In what he did he acted under the advice, and upon the responsibility of, all his Colleagues. Two years' income were due to the Government officers throughout Canada: those individuals, high and low, had been deprived of all payments during that period. Their distress was, in many cases, most urgent: many of the public servants were under the necessity of raising money on disadvantageous terms, and some were thus subject to extreme pressure and distress. The Canadian money was in the hands of the Receiver-General, and there was the utmost confidence entertained that, in November, at the meeting of the Assembly, a Bill would be passed for the appropriation of that money. Parliament not being sitting at the time, it was thought advisable to give directions, that if there were officers of the Government in a state requiring relief, and having two years' arrears then due, there being 1147 every confidence that the money would be repaid in the following month of November, that an advance should be made not out of any Canadian funds, but out of the extraordinary resources of this country, in order to meet their necessities. In doing this, he trusted he did no more than the House of Commons would be ready to sanction."* That was his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) statement on the 9th of March. The only suggestion he had to make to hon. Gentlemen was, whether, taking all circumstances into account, and in the absence of having read the documents now on the Table, it would not be better to proceed at once to public business, and not carry on this discussion further.
§ Mr. Laboucheremust 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 confidential conversation which had passed between them and his right hon. Friend. He could not help saying that, in his opinion, they were not justified in what they had done.
§ Mr. Humeasked, whether it was the intention of Government to ask for any vote in order to make good this money; because, if so, that would afford an opportunity for discussing the whole matter?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that there was no vote in the Estimates for such a purpose; nor did he think it necessary, because he felt every confidence, that when the whole of the facts were perfectly made known to the House of Assembly, they would instantly agree to a vote to refund the money.
§ Conversation dropped.
§ The House went into a Committee of,