Commons Sitting of 21 April 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Marriages and Registration Act Amendment; Turnpike Roads' Continuance Bill.

PRIVILEGE.
Lord John Russellrose to bring forward a motion relating to the privileges of that House. A report had been made to the House from the select Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill, stating that parts of the evidence, and parts of the documents produced before that Committee, had been published in The True Sun newspaper. Had the publication been one of an ordinary nature, he conceived there would have been no difficulty in proceeding according to the ordinary forms and privileges of the House, and, without entering into any details on the subject, to direct at once, as in the case of the proprietor of The Dublin Evening Mail, brought before the House on the 31st of May, 1832, that the party offending be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms. But, in consequence of the declaration of the hon. Member for Southwark, who was instrumental in procuring

171
the publication of the proceedings of the Committee in The True Sun newspaper, he could only suppose that the hon. Gentleman, by taking part in the proceedings, and by avowing it, wished to bring under the consideration of the House the question of privilege—whether it were a privilege of the House or not, and whether, being a privilege of the House, it ought to be maintained. It was in consequence of the part that the hon. Member for Southwark had taken, that he felt it necessary, instead of proceeding in the ordinary course— seeing that a Member of the House wished to bring the matter under the consideration of the House—that they should come to some resolution that should embody the sense of the House on the subject. The resolution, that he should have the honour to move, stated not only that according to the undoubted privilege of the House no such publication could be permitted, but it stated likewise, that for the due protection of the public interest, no such publication ought to take place cither by a member of the Committee, or by any other person. And he was ready to say, that he placed that resolution upon the ground not only of the ascertained and undoubted privilege of the House, but likewise upon the ground that those privileges were for the protection of the public interest. He would state two or three cases in illustration of that assertion. In the first place, he would mention a case which occurred with respect to an inquiry relating to the affairs of Canada before a select Committee of that House, and in which, though he was not a Member of it, but as he understood, various documents were produced for the information of the Committee. At the close of the Committee, it was resolved, that those documents should not be presented to the House. Another case, which he thought illustrative of that now before the House, occurred in the instance of the finance Committee, of which also he was not a member, but before which the Duke of Wellington was examined as a witness. The noble Duke's evidence, which was extended to a very considerable length, related to the means of the military defence of our colonies and dependencies. The noble Duke might be very willing to give that evidence to the Committee—it might be of great importance to the Committee to enable them to make up their minds with respect to the question before them— but, at the same time, it might be very inexpedient that the particulars of that evi-
172
dence, or the statement of the Duke of Wellington with respect to the particular means of defending particular parts of our possessions, should be reported generally to the House, and thereby made public to all the world. There was one other case of a very different sort to which he would just call the attention of the House. It was the case of a Committee of which he was a member, namely, the Committee which sat to consider the subject of the renewal of the bank charter. Before that Committee some of the witnesses, and Mr. Rothschild in particular, stated, in support of the various opinions they gave, transactions of a strictly private kind. Mr. Rothschild, for instance, mentioned several private transactions of his with respect to the transmission of bullion, and also much of his affairs of a private kind with certain merchants in London and Paris. These were matters which Mr. Rothschild said, he had no hesitation to state for the information of the Committee, but, being of a private character, he did not wish them to he reported to the House. What he submitted to the House then was this—not only that it was not expedient in such cases that such evidence should be reported to the House, but that if it were decided, that all evidence taken before a Committee should be published, Committees would thereby be debarred from receiving evidence useful for the public interests, and prevented from obtaining information upon which their ultimate opinion might be formed. In the case of the Canada Committee, for instance, secret despatches were produced by the Secretary for the Colonies, which tended much to govern the decision of the Committee, but which could not have been produced if they must necessarily have been made public. So also in the case of the finance Committee. A military commander, like the Duke of Wellington, might hesitate to state facts with respect to the military defences of any part of our colonies, or any part of our possessions, if next day the whole of those facts were to appear in the public journals. In like manner, an individual like Mr. Rothschild might hesitate to state matters relating to his private affairs, if he knew the moment he stated them that they would be sure to appear in the newspapers of the following day. He wished not to debar the public from this information, but to preserve to Committees of the House the means of obtaining such information. It was upon

173
that ground, therefore, and for the public interest, that he wished to preserve the privileges of that House, which, as he was always ready to admit and acknowledge, ought only to be preserved and maintained upon the ground of their being favourable to the public interest. He would not allude any further to the resolution which he intended to propose; but he would say one word with respect to the amendment of which the hon. Member for Southwark had given notice, and which was to this effect—that the Committee upon the Poor-law Amendment Act, be directed to report the evidence taken before them from day to day. Now, he ventured to submit to the House, that the question he brought forward was one seriously affecting the privileges of the House, upon which they ought to come to a decision one way or the other— either that the privilege of the House should be maintained, or, if its maintenance did not tend to the public interest, that it should be abandoned. His objection to the hon. Member's amendment was this, that it did not deal with the question of privilege in any way, but tended only to put it aside, and to deal alone with the question of the expediency of the Committee being henceforward directed to report from day to day. It might, no doubt, be argued that the Committee ought to report from day to day, and, on the other hand, it might be contended that the rule they had hitherto adopted of reporting from time to time was the better one to observe. These were matters of convenience; and it was at any time competent to the Committee, if it thought proper, to ask leave to report from day to day. It was, also, competent to the House if it thought fit to instruct the Committee to report from day to day. But that, he repeated, was a mere matter of convenience, and had no relation whatever to the question of privilege. If the House agreed with him, that this privilege of preventing the publication of proceedings before Committees under certain circumstances tended to the public interest, he hoped they would vote with him in maintaining it. If, on the other hand, the House thought that the privilege did not tend in any way to the public interest, and that the publication of the proceedings ought to be allowed either to a member of the Committee, or to any other person, then, of course, they
174
would negative his resolution; bat be submitted that they could not enter into a debate on the amendment, which (related to a totally different question, and had no relation whatever to the privileges of the House. With these observations, he begged to move the following resolution:—"That according to the undoubted privileges of this House, and for the due protection of the public interests, the evidence taken by any select Committee of this House, and documents presented to such Committee, and which have not been reported to this House, ought not to be published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person."
Mr. Harveysaid, that the noble Lord had greatly mistaken the motive which bad induced him to suggest an amendment, when he supposed that it was to evade the operation of a principle. Quite the reverse. If it were, as the noble Lord bad contended, the undoubted and the universally acknowledged privilege of that House to prohibit the publication of evidence taken before Select Committees, whence the necessity of the resolution now moved? Apparently it was Parliamentary law as palpable as that they were legislators. If that law had been violated, there was a penalty for it; and whoever had incurred the penalty ought to be exposed to it, and be made to bear it. He was quite willing to do so if he had violated the law. Therefore, let it not be understood that be moved this amendment for the paltry purpose of evading a principle. He denied the terms of the motion when it was stated that the suppression of evidence was the privilege of that House, and at the same time, the interest of the public. It asserted two distinct propositions—first, that the House had privileges; secondly, that it had privileges apart from the interests of the public. He denied, that that House had any privilege apart from the interests of the public. Every privilege that the House possessed it possessed solely for the good of the public. But he did not understand exactly what was meant by the term "Privileges of the House." "Privilege," as he conceived, meant something that was conferred—something that some enjoyed, and from which others were excluded. It implied, therefore, the power of conferring. Now, it was impossible for Parliament to have any privilege conferred upon it; because its Members being the representatives of the people, were in themselves the people, and inasmuch as that they were the

175
origin of all power, so was it clear that they could confer no privileges upon themselves. But the noble Lord connected the privilege with the interests of the public. He confessed it was a matter of great regret as well as of surprise to him that a Government professing popular principles and a respect for popular rights should have thought it discreet, through the leader, of that House, for the first time to assert a great principle, under the pretence of protecting the rights of the people, at the very moment when those rights appeared to be placed in the greatest peril. If the noble Lord were proposing to the House that the Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Act should cease to be a Select Committee, and be converted into a Secret Committee, the precedents to which he had alluded would, be abundantly in point. The very fact of there being two distinct classes of Committees, public and secret, implied that there might be circumstances, rare but strong in themselves, to make it incumbent on the House to enforce the distinction. He (Mr. Harvey) could fully understand that, when the Duke of Wellington was examined before a Committee as to what the military defence of the country or the colonies should be, that that inquiry might take place under circumstances and at a time when the slightest publicity of the evidence obtained from such a quarter would be to strengthen the enemies of the country and prejudice the public interest. But the Committee before which the noble Duke was examined was not a public but a Secret Committee—secret under the highest guarantee that honour could invoke. The same observation applied to the Finance Committee, before which a great part of the proceedings were carried on by [symbols known only to a few. But if the noble Lord had inundated the House with precedents of that kind, if he had brought forward an ocean of cases, not like those he had quoted, but of another kind, where this right was clearly asserted, and its utility made manifest, he should take no heed of them; because he was ready to maintain that the Poor-law inquiry was an inquiry peculiar to itself. Who were the parties composing the Committee? On the one hand there was all the property of the country, in every variety and form, aggregated to support a measure peculiarly framed for its interest and protection. Who were the other party? All that was pitiable and miserable in the land, sunken
176
alike by ignorance and extreme poverty. The law that had been passed affected this latter class of persons in a degree which he would not trust himself to state, but which had been told in the Committee, and of which something yet remained to be said. Therefore, he regretted that the noble Lord had seized an occasion on which the rights and interests of the unfortunate were the peculiar objects of the inquiry before the Committee. If all other Committees of the House had been Secret Committees, he maintained that this Poor-law Committee ought for the first time to be an open and public Committee. See how it worked. Who were now before it? There was before that Committee, day by day, one of the most active and vigilant bodies of men—the authors, framers, and executioners of the Act; there were the Poor-law Commissioners—there were the Poor-law Commissioners' assistants—there was the whole establishment of Somerset-house— There was the active and intelligent Secretary—all sitting day by day; and beyond these the Committee had every resource it could require for the purpose of effecting its object. The Commissioners and their assistants sat there day by day taking minutes of what passed, and adapting the inquiry and the evidence they produced upon it to what they had heard stated. What was the condition of the other class—the unprotected and oppressed millions? Evidence was given before the Committee, affecting not only their little fortunes, but every thing that belonged to their character and history — The names of men were brought before the Committee, of whom it was said that so far from being prejudiced by the operation of the Poor-law Bill, they had been greatly benefitted by it, and were in a state of perfect contentment. There were 123 men whose names had been so brought forward? How were they to know what had been stated of them? How were they to know any thing of the proceedings in which their interests were so deeply affected, except by frequent and repeated publications? It was a mockery to say that the poor man might consult the printed reports of that House.—What time had the man who, to earn eight or nine shillings a week, was compelled to work from sunrise to sunset—what time had that man to wade through printed reports of many thousands of pages?—Looking, indeed, at the sad testimonies of emaciated forms which had appeared before the Committee,

177
he much doubted whether many of them would be sufficiently strong to bear home such bulky volumes, even if they ever had the means of getting them into their possession, or time to peruse them. How then was the working man, far away from places of public resort, and chained to the soil upon which he dragged out a miserable being, to become acquainted with what took place except through the newspapers? It was to be observed that there was no imputation that the reports published in the present instance had been garbled. The only imputation was, that they had been published some short time before the Committee of the House thought fit to authorise their publication. It was the more necessary that immediate publicity should be given to these proceedings, looking at the disparity of members upon the Committee who were the advocates of the law, and those who contended for substantial alterations. Of this latter number there were only four in a Committee of twenty-two. The right of giving immediate publicity to the proceedings of all the law courts in the kingdom, from the highest to the lowest, was ceded in every instance, often whilst most important questions—questions affecting the life or death of a fellow being— were pending. Why, then, should the right be refused in Committee of the House of Commons? The noble Lord had not uttered a syllable to show that the publication of which he complained had had any pernicious effect. On the other hand, he (Mr. Harvey) contended that the effect of the present motion, if carried, would be most injurious and unjust to the poor throughout the country. In his opinion, the Committee, as at present constituted, could not lead to any good. To be efficient, it should be an ambulatory Committee, holding its sittings in the work-houses of the great unions, and taking evidence upon the spot from all persons interested or concerned. He knew that parties whose interests were deeply affected by the Poor-Law Amendment Bill were actually afraid to come up to be examined before the Committee, because there prevailed such a spirit among those who were benefited by that measure, and who were endeavouring either to bolster up their rents, or to obtain the means of paying their rents, by squeezing the utmost that was possible out of the labour of the people. There were exceptions; and he mentioned it to the great credit of the clergy, that more than one clergyman had been examined, who
178
had given their evidence with a fairnes and frankness which reflected honour upon them as Christians and men. But these instances were rare, and it was utterly impossible that the object of the inquiry could be effected unless some mode were pursued by which the practical working of the Bill could be more efficiently examined. But as his Majesty's Ministers had negatived the proposition which he had made, that the Committee should be ambulatory, the only alternative was to publish from day to day what was passing before that Committee in Westminster. But it was said, "You will have the evidence from time to time." No such report had been published since the holidays, although the Committee had been sitting six days, and it would be impossible to give that evidence in less form than in six large sheets of The Times newspaper. Who was to read such a mass of print? and how was such an accumulation of matter to find its way into the quiet hamlets of the country? In what way were the agricultural labourers to be put in possession of it? Every question that had been put and every answer that had been given in the Committee bore most peculiarly on the humble fortunes of those people. Besides, how could they expect a poor man to pay so large a portion of his earnings for such a mass of printed matter? It was in evidence that those whom they were wont to call their country's pride, could not earn sufficient bread upon which to subsist. One man stated that he had not had more than three pennyworth of bacon a-week for himself, wife, and children, for the space of three months; and when he applied for relief he was told, that until he sold all his implements of trade he could not be relieved; and this man was actually compelled to sell his saw in order to entitle himself to assistance. Were these the men to buy the broad sheet of the Times or True Sun? The evidence ought to be published in a cheap form, and as Ministers had no objection to commissions, let them appoint Commissioners to disseminate these publications, in order that the people might know in what way that inquiry was carried on in which they were so deeply concerned. As far as he himself was concerned, if he had violated the rules or privileges of the House he ought to be subject to the penalties of that violation; but he begged to say that if he was to be interdicted continuing the publication of this evidence he should decline altogether

179
to be a Member of the Committee. He could not sit down without making one observation—namely, that this was not the only proceeding which had been taken in that House which had a personal origin, and a personal application to himself. Was this the first time, he should like to know, of a publication of this sort, but of which no notice whatever had been taken? It was hypocrisy to talk of it. What real means of protection had the House against publicity? There might be a hundred people in the Committee-room taking private notes; what was to prevent their dispersing them in the provinces? Hon. Members, too, might write letters, and make copious extracts from the evidence; in fact, they might be doing anything but that which was honest. He charged this Committee with a breach of that principle for which they seemed so sedulously alive, and that in a way which invoked reprehension; because, if the people were not allowed to be present, what right had the Poor-law Commissioners to be there? He pledged himself the very next day the Committee sat, if the Commissioners should be present, to move that they should be excluded. To allow the Commissioners to be present taking notes, and sending letters into the country, in order to get up evidence, at the same time that others were prevented publishing the evidence, was not merely a mockery of justice, but was an insult to the people of England. If those who were the guardians of the people's interests were to be interdicted from any intercourse with those who were effected by the inquiry, what right had any individual to have the slightest conversation, directly or indirectly, with any party on the other side? It was said there was a difference between publishing the evidence in the newspapers and writing confidential letters about it, but he did not understand this affected secrecy. Either the public had or they had not a right to know what passed before the Committee; and if they had not, then any communication, however secret, was a violation of the law, and ought to be treated criminally. He hated all evasion. He was now contending for the utmost publicity in a case in which unprotected and uncommiserated millions were concerned; and unless that publicity were given fairly, honestly, and fully, he would at once denounce the inquiry to be altogether fallacious, and one which would terminate in utter disappointment. He begged to tell the noble Lord that he should proceed in
180
the discharge of what he deemed to be his duty in publishing the evidence. He heeded not any penalties they could inflict, whether they consisted in sending him to take up his quarters in Newgate, or in expulsion from the House. He would brave both if necessary; he was determined to have the principle decided, whether the public had or had not a right to know what was passing before a Committee of the House of Commons upon an inquiry affecting the lives and happiness of millions of the industrious classes. He would now conclude by moving the amendment of which he had given notice; at the same time he was not anxious to press it now, if the noble Lord would say, that he was prepared to support the amendment as a substantive motion, because he had no desire to evade a discussion on the grounds of the noble Lord's abstract proposition; but if he (Mr. Harvey) could not secure that, he should feel himself compelled to pursue the course which he was now taking, with a view to effect an object which he felt it to be his bounden duty, by all means, if possible, to obtain. The hon. Gentleman then moved, by way of amendment, "That the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the administration of relief to the poor, under the orders and regulations of the Commissioners appointed under the provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act, be instructed to report the evidence taken before them from day to day to the House.
Mr. Wakleyseconded the amendment.
Mr. Smith O'Brienwas anxious, that the greatest facilities should be afforded to the publication of the proceedings before the Select Committees of that House; for it appeared to him, that the value of an inquiry by a Committee, would be extremely deteriorated, as regarded the effect it would produce on the public mind, by the circumstance of the evidence not being communicated to the public from time to time, especially when the subject of the inquiry was calculated to excite a public interest. He considered, that the proceedings of this Committee were such as it was peculiarly incumbent on the House to make public, as the question was one of the greatest interest to the whole community. It had been his intention, if no other amendment had been moved, to have proposed as an amendment a resolution to the effect, that it was expedient that the publication of evidence taken before Select Committees, not being Secret Committees, should be permitted. But the hon. Member for South-

181
wark having already moved an amendment, he had DO alternative but that of giving it his support.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that having intimated an opinion that he should move an amendment almost similar in terms to that suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, he felt it his duty to trespass for a few moments upon the attention of the House. The resolution of the noble Lord appeared to him to be totally unnecessary. He remembered, that in the case of General Darling, which was before a Select Committee, the majority of that Committee licensed (as far as they could do) the publication of the evidence. The minority appealed to the Speaker of that day, and he gave it as his opinion, that there was no such thing known to the law as the publication of any evidence or discussions of matters undecided by that House; and, certainly, they all knew that it was a breach of privilege to publish even what was, at the present moment, going on in the House. Yet it was a breach of privilege which took place every day, and all of them would regret exceedingly in their turn, if that breach of privilege did not take place. It was therefore difficult to deal with the Motion itself, while it was also difficult to negative any vote of the kind, if the opinion to which he had referred, was correct; because, certainly, cases might arise, such as the noble Lord had adverted to, when it might be improper to apply the general rule of publication to such excepted cases. But he was of opinion, that those excepted cases might be very well left to the discretion of the Committee itself. He was, however, strongly of opinion, that publication, as a general rule, would be highly beneficial. He did not think the hon. Member had accurately stated the rule as to the publication of proceedings in a court of law pending a trial, because the judges had latterly been in the practice of prohibiting such publication. He thought the judges were wrong; and that the prohibition did no mischief. It was a modern power assumed by them. In the year 1794, when there was a great conspiracy to get rid of the Reformers, a trial took place which lasted eight days. The evidence, during the first three or four days, was published, which led to the discovery of facts with regard to the character of certain witnesses that tended materially to serve the cause of the accused. He thought, with respect to proceedings in courts of justice, it was favourable to have the evi-
182
dence published; but he was quite convinced it was so, with respect to Committees of that House, where persons did not speak under the sanction of the oath, and where the utmost latitude was given, both as to the questions asked and the answers given. In reference to the evidence of the Committee on the Poor-law Amendment Bill, he conceived that there was every ground for affording to it the utmost publicity. The House, perhaps, might recollect, that he himself voted against that measure in all its stages; he had, however, since, become convinced that he was exceedingly wrong in having taken that course. He believed, that if time were given for it to be worked out, it was calculated to do great good. The hon. Member for Southwark appeared to him to be assuming too much, when he called himself, by way of distinction, the friend of the poor man. He thought, that every supporter of the Poor-law Bill had as good a right to be considered the friend and protector of the poor man as the hon. Member. Indeed, he considered this was just the case in which every publicity ought to be given, so as not to afford the slightest pretence for any one, to say, "Oh! you are getting up an ex parte case; I won't be a party to the delusion; I will throw up my brief." He did not mean to say, that the hon. Member for Southwark was not actuated by the purest motives, but the pretence he had described might be made, and he believed would be made, with a view to exasperate the public mind. It had been said, that this was a packed Committee. But was that true? He believed there was no Member on that Committee, who would either cause improper evidence to be given, or proper evidence to be suppressed. The Poor-law Bill was not a party measure, but was supported by Gentlemen on both sides of the House; and none had ever yet shrunk from the avowal, that they gave it their support; therefore, it was just that kind of measure which the House itself was concerned in having the fairest, fullest, most ample, and most unobjectionable investigation with respect to it. On Monday, the question of a Poor-law for Ireland would be discussed, and he should be pleased to have all the evidence he could from the Committee now sitting. It would enable the House to do their duty more efficiently, when a system of Poor-laws for a country which had hitherto no experience of the kind, was the subject of discussion. The

183
Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark, if not adopted by the House, was one which ought to be taken up by the Committee, to afford the country information upon a question which had already been the subject of so much misrepresentation. It had been made a topic at elections. They all knew what had recently occurred at Warwick. It was the principal war-cry of one Gentleman who went to Warwick avowedly to sustain the principles of a party, the leaders of which party had actually supported the Bill in this House. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary that the public should have an accurate knowledge on that subject. Let the advocates of the New Poor-law challenge investigation, let them take a lofty stand upon this —that the more there was of inquiry, the more there was of investigation, the more would the truth appear; and if the truth were against them, let them at once repeal or modify the law; but if the truth were with them, then the measure, no matter how distorted and misrepresented in its progress, in its ultimate results would, and must be, triumphant.
Sir James Grahamwas glad that he had given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, for although he did not think that this was exactly the proper time for discussing the Poor-law Amendment Bill, yet he rejoiced that he had given the hon. and learned Member the opportunity of making a declaration so honourable to himself, that although, perhaps, at this particular juncture, and at the earliest stage of the experiment of the amended Poor-law, that measure had not been altogether properly administered, and although the hon. and learned Member had opposed that measure in all its stages, yet he had now gallantly and publicly come forward and avowed, that even during the short time he had witnessed its workings, he believed it to be a most beneficial measure. He thought that such an avowal from that hon. and learned Member would be most advantageous to the country, and he therefore greatly rejoiced that he had given way to that hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman entertaining that opinion, said, that it was a measure that would bear investigation; but, on the other hand, it would be admitted that that investigation for the purpose of eliciting truth, must be conducted upon principles of the utmost fairness and safety. The question then arose, what was the safe and fair principle? The hon. and learned
184
Gentleman thought, it ought to be left to the discretion of the Committee. Upon that point he differed in opinion from him. The Committees were guided by the established usage of Parliament; therefore, whenever a departure from that usage was made, it should be by the House itself. Some confusion seemed to have arisen between a secret and a select Committee. He knew of no distinction except this: that while in a select Committee all the Members of the House had a right to be present during the investigation, though those only appointed by the House had voices, in a secret Committee no Member was allowed to be present who was not a member of the Committee. But with regard to the public, both Committees stood upon precisely the same grounds; and any publication of proceedings that took place before either, without the sufferance of the House itself, was decidedly a breach of the privileges of the House. It was said, that the resolution of the noble Lord was unnecessary: and if he were called upon to answer that question categorically, he should say he thought it was unnecessary; still he thought a declaratory resolution was highly expedient; he should therefore cordially support the proposition of the noble Lord. He could not conceive anything more cruel than to publish, day by day, evidence taken before a Committee deeply affecting the private character of individuals, and to which there was no opportunity of furnishing an immediate reply. It had been said, that in the courts of law the proceedings of part of a trial were allowed to be published where the case stood over to the following day. This, however, was by no means uniformly the case, for the court often forbade the publication of proceedings until the whole case was gone through. But' even if this was not the case, he did not think that it should be binding on that House. It should be recollected, that the evidence taken before courts was given in conformity with the strictest rules of evidence; whereas, indirect, ex parte, and hearsay evidence was taken before select Committees, and leading questions were put, and the examination was carried on in every manner calculated to bear on the subject. The Committees also broke up at ten minutes to four o'clock, in the middle of the examination of a witness. Now the evidence might contain the strongest accusations against private persons, and yet they would go forth uncontradicted until the next time the Committee met, for the

185
cross-examination would be prevented at the time the evidence was given. It would he too much, therefore, to allow such evidence to go forth, regardless as to its truth or to its bearing on the real merits of the case. The hon. Member said, that he would have the evidence in such parcels as were best calculated to give the best information. This was the view the majority of the Committee took of the matter when they supported the motion that the evidence should not be reported to the House day by day, but from time to time; for instance, when the whole evidence relative to any particular union had been given on both sides. This was the wish and intention of the Committee, and they adopted this course for the purpose of disabusing the public mind, as to the statements that had gone forward on the subject of the new Poor-law, and also before the evidence assumed that bulky shape which deterred many persons from reading reports of Committees. They had pursued this course in the reports they had laid on the table of the House, of the evidence taken before them. He did not think that the hon. Member for Kilkenny was aware of what had taken place before the Committee, he inferred this from the tenor of the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Committee had been most anxious to prevent an appeal to the House on this subject, but it was forced on them. There had been a great difference of opinion before the Committee, but he hoped that there had been nothing of personal anger or hostility. He believed that the hon. Member for Southwark had stated to the House that he was the proprietor of The True Sun newspaper, which published from day to day part of the evidence taken before the Committee. The chairman of the Committee called the attention of the hon. Member for Southwark to the subject, but the publication of the evidence still went on. The hon. Gentleman was then in-formed by the highest authority, namely, the Speaker, that such publication of the evidence taken before the Committee was an undoubted breach of the privileges of that House. The hon. Gentleman was then told by the chairman of the Committee that if he persisted in the publication of the evidence day by day, that it would be necessary to call the attention of the House to the subject; but the hon. Member stated, that he had taken a view of what he considered to be his duty, and he should persist in
186
following that course which a sense of duty dictated. With this feeling the hon. Member published not the whole of the evidence given each day, but only extracts from it; and he (Sir J. Graham) must be permitted to say that they were not fair extracts, for many very important parts of the evidence were entirely omitted. Documents were also published which had been submitted to the Committee, and respecting which, doubts were entertained whether it was expedient to receive them or not as evidence. He had himself proposed that the question should be reserved for future consideration, as to whether the documents should be received or not as evidence. This was done because doubts were entertained whether the documents in question should be placed on the minutes of the Committee. The Committee adopted this resolution; but within forty-eight hours of their coming to the determination that the documents should be reserved for further consideration, which was carried against the proposition of the hon. Member that they should at once be received as evidence, the documents appeared in The True Sun newspaper. Thus the hon. Member, by the power he possessed, superseded and overruled the opinion of the Committee, which had not determined whether any portion of the evidence or documents laid before it should be printed and published. The hon. Member, in the course which he had adopted that night, had endeavoured to raise two questions entirely distinct the one from the other. He could conceive under the circumstances of the Poor-law inquiry, great anxiety prevailed as to the nature of the evidence, as well as to the importance of the subject, and that the publication of the evidence was anxiously looked for. If the hon. Member was dissatisfied with the decision of the Committee, a motion for the publication of the evidence day by day should have been made in the House, and thus the matter would not be left to the discretion of a Committee. The House would then state whether, under the circumstances of the case, it was expedient to report the evidence day by day. If such a proposition were made, he should certainly endeavour to induce the House not to consent to it. He could well conceive that a Member might entertain such an opinion, and desire to have the evidence printed from day to day; but still, a Member entertaining this opinion, might think that the privileges of the House should be

187
maintained. The one question then, was, whether that House would assert its privileges, and, asserting them, would maintain them, however painful to enforce them in the unpleasant manner that the indiscretion of any party might render necessary. The other question, which was entirely distinct from this, was whether a publication of the evidence of this Committee from day to-day should or should not be allowed. With respect to the former question, if a majority of the House should decide not only that their privileges should exist, but that they would exert them, it would then remain to be seen what course should be pursued with respect to an hon. Member, who stated that he would not bow to the authority of the House itself. If they consulted their own dignity, and, what was mare important, the cause of truth, the House must take care that in carrying on this inquiry, the evidence was published impartially and fairly. There had been expressed various doubts and threats, but they were too vague to be realised. The House, therefore, should at once come to the determination as to whether or not it would maintain its privileges. The question they had then to determine was, not whether the Poor-law Committee should be called upon to report the evidence taken before it from day to day, but the great question which Should not be blinked, was, whether the evidence taken before a select Committee, and the documents laid before it, should be published by any member of the Committee against the decision of that Committee, and against the orders of the House.
Mr. Harvey Mr. Harvey, in explanation, said, that so far from saying that he was prepared to withstand the authority of the House, he distinctly stated that it was not likely that a Member of that House would oppose himself to the authority of the body of which he was a Member. He also said, that he should not be deterred by any threats of being sent to Newgate, or of expulsion, from pursuing that course which a sense of fluty dictated to him. The right hon. Gentleman said, that it was something like a breach of the privileges of the House to publish documents in a state of abeyance before a Committee. The fact was this, Mr. Hawley, one of the assistant Poor-law Commissioners, was allowed, the day after he gave his evidence, to read it over for the purpose of correction, and also that he should produce a document for insertion in it, Now, instead of producing
188
the single document that he had read to the Committee, he produced a second paper, which he stated was essential to the inquiry. He was asked whether these documents had been read to the Committee. He replied that one of them had been read, and the other was a return which be thought it was necessary should be put in. On looking over this document, the right hon. Baronet wished to have it withdrawn; but on his (Mr. D. W. Harvey) seeing the paper, he was at once convinced of the importance of it and proposed that the two documents should be printed. The right hon. Baronet proposed that the second document should be printed for the use of the Committee only, and the Committee divided, for the motion 11, against it 5.
Sir James Grahamshould be sorry to be guilty of any want of courtesy to the hon. Member; but he could not help observing, that he considered truth to be of more importance than courtesy. It was true, that in the first instance he proposed that the document should be printed for the use of the Committee only; but on a moment's reflection he withdrew his motion, as he anticipated something like the course that had now been pursued.
Mr. Humewas accustomed to look upon the privileges of that House as framed for a wise and salutary purpose, and for the public benefit. With respect, however, to the rules adopted as to the publication of their proceedings, he must say, that one of the rules which was adopted at the commencement of each Session against the publication of the debates and proceedings of that House was of a most objectionable nature, and he had taken many opportunities of expressing his opposition to it. The motion of the noble Lord was, "That according to the undoubted privileges of this House, and for the due protection of the public interest, the evidence taken by any Select Committee of this House, and documents presented to such Committee, and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any Member of such Committee, or by any other person." He considered this resolution to be objectionable on many grounds. He would put it to the House, whether it was not inconsistent to provide accommodation for individuals to commit a breach of their privileges, and to allow them facilities to take notes to report the proceedings of the House. At any inquiry at the bar of the House the evidence would be taken, and published from day to day.

189
It had been the custom for strangers to be present during their proceedings, and during his time he had never heard of their being turned out. He also never recollected a period when it bad been treated as a breach of privilege to publish the evidence taken at the bar of the House. He wished to know whether the House would allow these proceedings to be published from day to day, while the publication of the evidence taken before a Select Committee, to which the House delegated its entire powers, stated that the evidence given before it should not be published. Before anything could be published by the House, it was necessary that there should be the fiat of the House, and the Speaker, but still the publication of the proceedings, without that sanction, was not regard-ed as a breach of privilege. No reason had been given against the publication of evidence taken before a Committee, unless it was, that evidence affecting private character might be given before it. But in examination of witnesses at the bar, the inquiry was often postponed in the middle of an examination or of a cross-examination. Again, the right hon. Gentleman must know, that although the Committees nominally adjourned when the Speaker took the Chair, that in reality the invariable custom was to complete the examination of a wit-ness, although it might last half an hour or an hour after four o'clock; the only check on this practice was, that no division in a Committee could take place after the Speaker took the Chair, and therefore if an occasion to do so arose, the Committee adjourned. He did not see any reason why a distinction should be drawn between the proceedings of the Committee of the House, and a Select Committee up stairs. He was of opinion, that in any case, except Committees of Secrecy, they should allow of the publication of the evidence. He was a Member of the Finance Committee, and he recollected the evidence given by the Duke of Wellington on the subject of the military expenses of the colonies, and he regretted that that evidence had been kept secret. If it had been published he was sure that it would have prevented the expenditure of two millions in Canada on the canals there. He had moved that the evidence taken before the Poor-law Committee should be reported from day to day, and he regretted that that motion had not been carried, for he feared that it would be considered an attempt to suppress the evidence taken before it, Although he
190
took a different view of this Bill from the hon. Member for Southwark, he still thought that it was only just that there should be the fullest inquiry into its operation; and he had no doubt if this was done, and the fullest publicity given to the evidence, much of the misapprehension which prevailed relative to this Bill would be got rid of. If ever there should be an exemption as to the general rule respecting the publication of evidence, it should be in this case.
Mr. Williams Wynnagreed with the right hon. Member for Cumberland, that the two motions were perfectly distinct, and were not in opposition the one to the other. It by no means followed that because they felt that the rules and orders of that House called upon them to support the first motion, that the second question could not be put separately and agreed to. The great point was, that that House should reserve to itself the right to regulate the proceedings of select Committees. The Committees could have no authority that did not emanate directly from the House, and it was only by a special rule that a Committee was enabled to send for a single witness, or call for a single document, for they could not do so until they were empowered to send for persons, papers, and records. In the same manner, it must have permission given it to adjourn from place to place, and to report its evidence from time to time. That power had been granted to the Poor-law Committee, and it was left to their discretion to take what they considered the best division of the evidence for the purpose of reporting it to the House. The Committee were not thereby precluded from reporting the evidence day by day to the House. On the contrary, full power was given them to do so, if they thought fit. The hon. Member appeared to labour under some mistake in supposing that the printing of the evidence taken before Committees, and the printing of that taken at the bar of the House, rested on the same authority; viz. the fiat of the Speaker. The Speaker had the power of authorising the evidence taken before Committees to be printed for the use of the members of the Committees, and of them only; but when an inquiry was conducted at the bar of the House, the Speaker had no power ovér the printing of the evidence. That was a matter entirely at the disposal of the House. He recollected that, during the inquiry into the Walcheren expedition, the late Mr. Yorke regularly exercised the right,

191
which every Member possessed, of clearing the gallery of strangers, in order to prevent the publication of the evidence until the House should think right to order it to be printed. The hon. Member for Middlesex thought it expedient the public should have full information of all the proceedings of that House. He was inclined generally to agree in that opinion, but occasions might occur where it would be judicious to prevent, for a time, the publication of what took place in the House. He, by no means, thought that the hon. and learned Member for Southwark had exercised an improper discretion when he cleared the gallery on a former evening, during a discussion which he apprehended was assuming too much of the appearance of a personal dispute, and in which the characters of two hon. Members were concerned. Doubtless, the hon. and learned Member for Southwark was of opinion that any differences which had arisen might be more easily reconciled when there were no auditors—no strangers present. With respect to the practice pursued by Committees, he might observe that, in many instances, they had very properly determined to report only a summary of the evidence taken before them to the House, and on motions being made that the minutes of evidence should be reported, the House had come to different decisions, according to the circumstances of each case. The general opinion appeared to be, that it was most convenient that the minutes should be published. At the same time, he had not the slightest doubt, that in the present instance, the motion made by the noble Lord was a true and proper assertion of the privileges of the House, and having been made, he should be sorry to see it passed by or evaded. He thought it desirable, that the evidence should be laid upon the table of the House in small divisions, though he would not have the examination and cross-examination of the same witness separately reported. It was impossible to lay down any general rule on this point, but it would be advantageous in his opinion that the rule should be adhered to of reporting the evidence only as the inquiry into each different union was concluded. At present, however, he did not see any sufficient reason, any omission on the. part of the Committee, which called for the interference of the House with that discretion which had hitherto been intrusted to Committees, of reporting from time to time, as to which, generally speaking, they were the best judges. The proper way for the hon.
192
Member for Southwark to have taken the sense of the House as to the particular question involved, would have been to have brought it forward as a substantive motion, and not as an amendment upon a motion which the House could not do otherwise than agree to as an affirmation of their undoubted privileges.
Mr. Warburtonlooked upon the hon. Member's amendment as an altogether erroneous mode of meeting the question. The hon. Member should have come before the House with a substantive motion. There could not be the slightest doubt about what were the powers and privileges of the House as to the publication of evidence, as a general rule; neither could there be the slightest hesitation on the part of the House in affirming, if called upon, that as a general rule, there was and ought to be in the House a power to exclude strangers; but the question was, whether the House was prepared invariably to exert those powers—whether on all occasions, when the House saw any publication of what had taken place in one of its Select Committees, it was prepared to employ all its powers in punishing those who had been guilty of the publication. He had repeatedly seen the proceedings of Committees published without the slightest notice being taken by the House of the circumstance. He remembered, for instance, the case of the Select Committee which took cognizance of certain Members of the House in the Arigna mine affair, the proceedings before which were regularly published, day by day, in The Times, without any interference on the part of the House. He was willing, he would repeat, to affirm the general rule; but he was not prepared to say, that a case might not arise in which it would be a highly expedient and desirable course to publish what took place in the House and its Committees. He could say for himself, that he had occasionally acted as a reporter in that way, and in so doing, he had considered himself to be exercising a sound discretion. His support of the noble Lord's resolution, therefore, by no means involved a condemnation of those persons who sometimes exercised a sound and wholesome discretion in publishing what took place on some occasions; and he should recommend the House to wink at the publication of what took place in Committees in the same way that it shut its eyes to the publication of the proceedings of the House. For his part, he had never been present on any Committee the

193
proceedings of which might not be with perfect safety published to the public.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that as it seemed admitted on all hands, that it was a breach of privilege for the hon. Member to publish the proceedings of a Committee, to proceed with the resolution would be a weak and unmeaning affirmation of what had been the custom of ages. It had been justly observed, that there might be cases in which the publication of the proceedings before a Committee was desirable. It appeared to him that if ever there was a case in which the deviation from a practice of the House was admissible, it was that now in question. Whose interests were attacked in this Committee? Whose interests had to be defended? In both cases those of the poor, the needy, and the helpless. What was the power arrayed before the Committee in support of the new Poor-law? The effective and well-organised power of the Commissioners sitting at Somerset-house. Who assert the rights of the poor in this Committee? Professional aid they had none. As far, however, as his own assistance could avail them, there he would never fail in the duty he owed them. He was bound, however, to state broadly and distinctly, as regarded the manner in which the proceedings before the Committee were conducted, that a spectator would find it utterly impossible to discover what was the bias, in reference to the new Poor-law, of any of the members who composed the Committee, everything was carried on with such entire openness and impartiality, and not the slightest disposition was evinced on the part of any Member to prevent any witness from making the fullest statement in his power, whatever its tendency. Seeing, however, the excited state of the public mind on this subject; the representations, true and false, extensively circulated respecting the operation of the act; it appeared to him that out of regard to the interests of the public at large, and the honour of the House, it was essential that the proceedings before this Committee should be laid before the public in the fullest and most open manner from day to day. If this were not done, he feared that most unfavourable impressions would arise in the public mind: for what would the poorer part of the community say? — "Oh, we see what this Committee is about; they are afraid the truth should transpire, and so they wish to keep the evidence secret till they have trimmed it and cut it down. If they were not afraid,
194
why do they withhold the evidence from us." The right hon. Baronet said, that injustice might be done by publishing the evidence day by day; perhaps, in one point of view, this might, to a certain extent, be the case; but balance the great good arising from the publication of the evidence against the evil of withholding it, and the good would be found greatly to predominate. Indeed, it seemed to him that if the evidence were not so published, the Committee had better at once terminate its labours.
Mr. Wardsaid, there was no doubt it was essential to the character of Select Committees that they should have the power of keeping the evidence taken before them secret, if they thought fit. At the same time, he perfectly concurred in the principle of the amendment, and he should have been ready to vote for it, had it come before them as a substantive motion. He felt, however, that he could not do so in its present shape, without negativing a rule which, it was generally conceded, it was essential to maintain as a general principle. If the hon. Member would only forward his proposition as a substantive motion, it should have his (Mr. Ward's) ready support. He had heard no reason why the rule should be too strictly enforced in this particular instance. It appeared to him to be a very great object that the public mind should be enlightened as to the real working of this measure in reference to the poor; and this object could not be better attained than by the publication of the evidence. He was sure that there was but one spirit among all the Members of the House regarding the welfare of the poorer classes; and that if it should appear that the working of the measure in any respect was injurious to these classes, the House would be perfectly ready to apply a remedy. The true state of the case would be shown in the evidence before this Committee, and for the sake of all parties, it was very desirable that no time should be lost in communicating that evidence to the public.
Mr. T. Duncombedid not rise to protract the discussion, but, on the contrary, to put an end to it altogether, for he rose for the purpose of moving that it be adjourned till that day six months. It appeared to him, that no case had been made out for the interference of the House. There was no doubt, to be sue, that the proprietor of The True Sun newspaper had committed a breach of privilege, but he saw no reason why the House should take notice of the circumstance any

195
more than it took notice of the circumstance that the proceedings before the Longford Election Committee were daily published in The Times. He could conceive no reason why the proprietor of The True Sun, in particular, should be selected for the censure of the House. He begged to move that the further debate on the subject be adjourned till that day six months.
Mr. Roebuckseconded the amendment. As the hon. Member for Southwark had observed, if it had been thought that the proceedings before this Committee should be kept secret, all that was necessary was, to declare it a secret Committee. No practical advantage could possibly arise from affirming in general terms a rule of the House which everybody admitted to he a rule of the House. The only effect of the resolution would be to exhibit the proprietor of The True Sun as a martyr in the people's cause, and the rest of the House as men desirous of grinding the poor.
Lord John Russellbegged to say he had no such object in view as the making a martyr of any hon. Member. His only object was, as it seemed that the privileges of the House had been partially called in question by one of its Members, that the rule of the House should be affirmed, so that there should no longer be a doubt on the subject. It was most desirable that they should come to some clear understanding as to the power of Committees respecting publication of evidence, and he therefore hoped, that before the discussion terminated, Mr. Speaker would state to the House his opinion upon the point.
Mr. Roebuckexplained that he had passed no opinion as to the object of the noble Lord's resolution; what he had spoken of was its effect.
Mr. Robinsonregretted that the hon. Member for Southwark had not made a substantive motion. Had the question come before the House in that shape, he should have supported it, for he considered that if ever there was a case which might be permitted to form an exception to the general rule of the House as to publication of evidence, it was this.
Mr. Richardsconceived that the proper course for the hon. Member for Southwark would have been to have taken the sense of the Committee as to the publication of its proceedings; had the sense of
196
the Committee been adverse to him, he could then have brought the question substantively before the House.
The Speaker: In consequence of the appeal of the noble Lord, and of what has fallen from hon. Members during this discussion, I feel it to be my duty to state under what authority evidence taken before Select Committees is printed. The rule of the House is, that all papers laid before the House shall, under the authority of the Speaker, be printed by the printer of the House; and all papers are published under the authority of the Speaker for the use of its Members generally. The evidence taken before a Select Committee forms an exception to this rule. The practice of printing the evidence taken before Select Committees, for the use of the Members of the respective Committees, is a recent one, the rule having been made in 1814. The practice from that period to 1816 was, that the Chairman of each Committee applied to the Speaker for permission to have the evidence printed by the printer of the House, without which, the printer would not print; and, this being granted, the evidence was accordingly printed, but only on the faith and clear understanding that it was printed for the use only of members of the Committee. If evidence taken before a Committee, were printed otherwise than on these conditions, — if it were printed not for the use of the Committee but for the public, this would clearly be a direct violation of the privileges of the House. And the reason is obvious; for see what would be the consequence if it were not so,— if it had no other foundation; for if the publication were to be extended for the use of the public, it would place the Speaker in a very awkward situation. The Speaker would be put in the position of sanctioning the publication of evidence which had not been communicated to the House; and the Committee would be directing the publication of evidence which it had not the permission of the House to make known. It is obvious, then, that should it become an ascertained fact that any Member of a Committee is in the habit of printing copies of the evidence in order to communicate it to the public, without the authority of the House for so doing, the Speaker must necessarily find himself placed between two alternatives — either to recall his permission to the Committee to print the evidence, or to bring the Member

197
before the House. The Committee has not any power to print without the permission of the Speaker, and that does not go further than to print for the use of the Committee. The Committee, then, has not the power to order any printing, much less to make public any evidence that may be taken before it.
The House divided on the motion for adjourning the debate. Ayes 18; Noes 131; Majority 113.

List of the AYES.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Dennistoun, Alex.

Roche, D.

Elphinstone, H.

Ruthven, E.

Fleming, John

Thompson, Col.

Fitzsimon, C.

Walter, John

Hall, B.

Wason, R.

Hindley, G.

Williams, W.

Hume, J.

Leader, J. T.

TELLEES.

O, Brien, W. S.

Duncombe, T.

O'Connell, D.

Roebuck, J. A.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Gladstone, W. E.

Bailey, J.

Gordon, Robert

Baillie, H. D.

Goring, H. D.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baines, E

Grey, Sir G. Bart.

Balfour, T.

Grote, G.

Bannerman, Alex.

Halse, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Hamilton, Geo. A.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hardy, J.

Bewes, T.

Harvey, D. W.

Biddulph, Robert

Hawkins, J. H.

Blake, M. J.

Hawes, B.

Brodie, William B.

Hay, Sir A. L. Bart.

Brotherton, J.

Heathcote, Gilb.

Brownrigg, S.

Hector, C. J.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Buller, Charles

Howard, P. H.

Bulwer, Edw. L.

Humphery, J.

Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.

Ingam, R.

Chapman, A.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Chichester, A.

Knight, H. G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Lefevre, C. S.

Cole, Viscount

Lemon, Sir C.

Collier, John

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Collins, W.

Lennox, Lord G.

Coote, Sir C. C.

Lister, E. C.

Crawford, W.

Long, W.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Martin, J.

Ebrington, Viscount

Mosley, Sir O. Bart.

Egerton, Sir P.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Ellice, E.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Estcourt, T. H.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Etwall, Ralph

Palmer, G.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Palmerston, Viscount

Ferguson, Sir R. A

Parker, J.

Fergusson, R. C.

Parnell, Sir H.

Forbes, W.

Parrott, Jasper

Forster, C. S.

Parry, Sir L. P.

Fort, J.

Pease, J.

198

Peel, Sir R. Bart.

Stanley, Lord

Pendarves, E. W.

Stewart, John

Perceval, Col.

Stewart, P. M.

Philips, M.

Surrey, Earl of

Phillips, G. R.

Thomson, C. P.

Pinney, W.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Polhill, F.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Potter, R.

Turner, W.

Poulter, J. S.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Villiers, C. P.

Richards, J.

Vivian, J. E.

Richards, R.

Wakley, T.

Rickford, William

Walker, R.

Robinson, G. R.

Warburton, H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ward, H. G.

Ross, Charles

White, S.

Rundle, J.

Wilks, J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Williamson, Sir H.

Russell, Lord J.

Wilson, Henry

Sanford, E. A.

Winnington, H. J.

Scott, J. W.

Wood, Charles

Scrope, G. P.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Seymour, Lord

Wrightson, W.

Sharpe, General

Wynn, rt. hon. C W.

Sinclair, Sir G.

TELLERS.

Smith, B.

Maule, hon. F.

Spry, Sir S.

Stuart, R.

Amendment withdrawn. Original resolution carried.

CANADA.
The Order of the Day having been read for the House to resolve itself, into a Committee on the Canada resolutions,
Mr. Leader, in rising to move the postponement of the further consideration of these resolutions, hoped the Souse would extend to him its indulgence for a few minutes while he stated his reason for doing so. He was convinced it was the wish of his Majesty's Government, as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite, in supporting these resolutions to restore tranquility to Lower Canada. But his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bath had proposed the other night a plan regarding Canada, to which the noble Lord had objected, as not being in conformity with the wishes of the Canadian people, and of which the right hon. Baronet opposite had said, that it was not sanctioned by any constitutional authority. Now as that plan of his learned Friend was highly approved of by many persons out of that House, as well as by many hon. Members within it, all he wished was, that his Majesty's Government should postpone these resolutions, in order to give time to the Canadian people to state whether they agreed with the plan of his hon. and learned Friend or not. It was allowed by the noble Lord himself that the chief object

199
of the resolutions was to prevent the nonpayment of certain official persons. But the question was, whether the rights of a whole people should be postponed to those of a few judges — whether the salaries of a few unpaid officials were to be put in comparison with the constitutional claims of a whole nation. He trusted the noble Lord would not so insult the Canadian people, and for such a purpose. The course the noble Lord was pursuing was in every sense unjustifiable; and he might depend upon it the effect of these resolutions would be not only to exasperate the people of Lower Canada, but also to alarm those of the Upper Province, as well as all their North American colonies. The people of Upper Canada would naturally have the fear of similar resolutions hanging over their heads, in case it should ever become necessary for them to have recourse to a suspension of the supplies. The question was not, therefore, confined to Lower Canada, but affected the whole of our American colonies: and he would once more, and in the most friendly spirit, entreat the noble Lord, if he could not agree to any plan proposed by him, and those who thought with him upon this subject, at least to put off the further consideration of his own until communication with Canada could be made and replied to. He assured the noble Lord that it was as painful to those with whom he acted to oppose the policy of the noble Lord as it was for the noble Lord to be opposed by them. They had ever supported the Government when they could do so conscientiously; but, in the present instance, they felt it to be their imperative duty not to do so. — They had considered that their support of these resolutions would have been a flagrant desertion of their principles, and felt that their only course was to give them the most strenuous opposition. He begged, therefore, to move, as an amendment to the Order of the Day for going into Committee upon them, "that their further consideration be deferred for six months," for the reasons he before had stated.
Mr. Humeseconded the amendment. He entreated the noble Lord to consider what he would do if the people of Lower Canada would not submit to the proposed conditions. Was it likely that what the noble Lord proposed would promote peace in that colony? What confidence could the Canadians have in the good feelings
200
entertained towards them by the British Parliament, if these resolutions were adopted? To secure their allegiance we were bound to secure to them their rights and their property. The evils that must attend any attempt at coercion would be great. He entreated the noble Lord, therefore, to pause, to give time for consideration. He considered the resolution would only lay the ground for increased discontent. He therefore trusted the noble Lord would pause before he adopted resolutions which would take away the rights and property of his Majesty's subjects in Canada.
Sir George Greysaid, after three nights' debate on the same subject it could hardly be expected that they should anew discuss the question. Any discussion that might be necessary could take place in Committee. He would only say, that the Ministers had gravely considered the subject before they submitted the resolutions to the House, and had adopted them with great reluctance. Nothing but an imperative sense of duty had forced them to take such a course; but after they had adopted the measure they would not shrink from carry-it into effect.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, great discontent existed in both Canadas on account of the system of government which prevailed there. It was a system of favouritism. He had learned also that Orange lodges were still in existence in those colonies; and from accounts by the last packet it appeared that, but a short time ago, a number of new members had been sworn in. Much had been said about resolutions which had been passed in Upper Canada, approving of the government of Sir Francis Head. Now, what happened on the last day of the Session, when one-third of the members had left town? A motion was made by the Solicitor-General for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the act relative to the clergy reserves, for the purpose of setting them apart for the benefit of the Protestant Establishment; but it was rejected. He wished to know if that was the policy of the Government at home. Looking at all the circumstances of the case, he thought the Government would be acting wisely in adjourning the further consideration of the resolutions for six months.
Sir George Greysaid, the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny was under a mistake as to the nature of the Bill. Indeed, the information which the hon.

201
and learned Member had received was at utter variance with the fact, as he would convince him if he would take the trouble of conversing with him on the subject.
Mr. P. M. Stewartdenied, that the resolutions would excite a flame in Canada, and hoped there would be no delay in passing them. He hoped the House would instigate the Government to go on. The colony had not a tittle of right to what they demanded. He was convinced that when the case became fully known the small minority which they had on the first division would dwindle down, and even doubted much if the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny would be in it. He admitted that abuses ought to be removed and grievances redressed. It was said that 350,000 Canadians called for the change advocated by the hon. Member for Bath; but he would ask the House also to take into consideration the wishes of 1,200,000 inhabitants of those colonies, who deprecated the measures proposed. He called on the Government and the House to proceed with the resolutions, not for the purpose of raising salaries for the Crown officers, but for restoring peace to the country. The two main resolutions had passed, and the only object now in view was delay.
Mr. Wasonentreated the House to pause and to give the Canadians an opportunity of expressing their opinion on these resolutions before passing them.
Mr. Roebucksaid, after the observations which had been made by several Members he wished to call the attention of the Government to the real state of the case. The noble Lord said there was a difficulty in the way. What was the difficulty? The officers of the Government were not paid. And what did the noble Lord propose? A series of resolutions to take away from the Canadian people their money and their rights. The House was called on to hurry —to allow no delay, because if they did, they said the state of the country would become more dangerous every day. But did the Government think that the resolutions would settle the point at issue? The Government might get the resolutions passed —they might excite people and pay the Government officers for one year, but when that year had revolved, the question would be in precisely the same state. He wished the Government to attend to that point; and if coercion was to take place he would say
202
the Government ought to listen to the advice of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley). If the Government believed coercion good they had not gone far enough —for their resolutions did not coerce but insult. From what had fallen from the noble Lord on a former debate, he understood that the noble Lord had not made up his mind on the plan which he had proposed. That being the case, he wished to know what evil there would be in delay? Why, the noble Lord said, the Government officers remained unpaid. Was that all the evil? And could no other means of paying these officers be found but by voting resolutions —to do what? To do all they could to prevent reconciliation. He had been asked if the House were to adopt the plan which he had proposed, would the Canadians agree to it? In reply to that he would say, if the resolutions were passed, they would not ask for it— the time was gone by, and war declared. The moment those resolutions arrived the people of Canada would declare war, and to prevent that, he conjured the noble Lord to hesitate before he passed such resolutions. But the noble Lord would not take his advice, but the advice of the right hon. Baronet opposite. (Sir Robert Peel) And why did he take that advice. Was it because the right hon. Gentleman had shown that he knew the wishes of the people of this country? Did he know their wishes on the question of Reform —did he know the feelings of the country on the question of Catholic Emancipation, or had he made up his mind on the question of granting Municipal Reform to Ireland? The noble Lord must know that the right hon. Baronet never saw danger when it was at a distance —he saw it like the speck of a cloud above the horizon, as large as a man's hand, but he admitted and felt it only when the tempest and the hurricane were around him. When the danger was distant the right hon. Baronet was totally unaware of it; that was the peculiar characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman, yet the noble Lord would take his advice as to what would satisfy the people of Canada. Did the noble Lord consult him, as to the wishes of the people of England when he introduced the Reform Bill? The right hon. Baronet said that Bill was absurd, as he had said the proposition which he had made for the settlement of the dispute with Canada was absurd;

203
yet the noble Lord did push that measure through the House; it pleased the people of England; and the time came when the right hon. Baronet said, he was Wrong—the people of England required Reform—they required the Reform Bill; they had got it, and he would endeavour to carry it into effect. The same would be the result as regarded Canada. The right hon. Baronet had pronounced ill's plan absurd. Now this alone ought to lead the noble Lord to reflection. The right hon. Baronet would act with Canada as he intended to do with reform. The right hon. Baronet had exhibited —he hoped he might be pardoned the word —considerable ignorance on colonial subjects when he pronounced the plan absurd. It happened that many of our colonies had just such constitutions as he proposed for Canada. There were such in our West-India colonies. The right hon. Baronet came down to the House and spoke as ex cathedra, and yet he was not acquainted with the colonial hornbook. He was like a blind man with a stick, feeling his way, seeking a place whereon to set his foot, and not knowing where he might stumble. The tight hon. Baronet came to that House because of his extraordinary powers and long standing, was considered of great weight; but he would show the little value of his authority. His plan was pronounced absurd, yet he had shown the right hon. Baronet that it was a system which already existed, and was acted upon in many places. If it would appear that his plan would prove palatable to Canada he would ask the noble Lord to pause before he proceeded to a course which would for ever preclude its adoption. If the coercion system were once begun it must be continued. The noble Lord should bite as well as show his teeth. Indeed, the intimidation system had already been begun. Sir Charles Grey, one of the Commissioners, told every one with whom he conversed—had told many Members of the House of Assembly—that England was prepared to send out three or four regiments, and to force the resolutions down the throats of the Canadian people with the bayonet. He had a letter from M. Papineau stating that fact. Were these the persons to send out to pacify the Canadians? He would beg of the noble Lord not to put faith in such men, or follow the advice of the right hon. Baronet. Let the noble Lord delay a little—offer his
204
plan to the Canadians—and see whether it would be accepted. The resolution of 1825 had been referred to, but this resolution had never been carried out. Would the noble Lord give the people the legislative council in accordance with that resolution? If not what would he give? Of what use would be a half-dozen in the legislative council? How would it operate if tried here in the Upper House? Would not the composition of that House be still the same? If the object Was to give the House of Assembly a predominance in the Council, why do it at once, and not palter with a sham reform. Where was the necessity for hurrying these resolutions? Was there not business enough for the Ministry without them? Oh, but they could not do that business: they could not carry measures beneficial to Ireland—what was it that they could carry? Nothing but coercions. Something must be done, and as they could do nothing else, why they carried coercive laws. As they could not carry liberal, they carried illiberal, measures, if it were only to show that they could carry something.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) had proposed a scheme of government for the Canadas, which, of course, that Gentleman deemed the fittest and most proper as well as the wisest that could be adopted. But the hon. and learned Gentleman must allow him to say, that he appeared to him to be a little too irritable for the framer of a constitution. On the present occasion, however, it appeared that all the irritability exhibited by the hon. and learned Gentleman arose from his having expressed an opinion that the hon. and learned Gentleman's scheme was absurd. He should have escaped all the phials of wrath that the hon. and learned Gentleman had poured out Upon him if he had not used the word "absurd" in reference to the famous scheme of government he had propounded. He (Sir R. Peel) was sorry, however, notwithstanding all the hon. and learned Gentleman's indignation, that subsequent reflection only confirmed his first impression with respect to that scheme. His original impression was, as he had stated it to be, that the scheme was absurd — intervening reflection induced him to retain the same opinion. He still thought it absurd. When he said this he intended to speak with no disrespect of the hon.

205
and learned Gentleman himself—he applied the term not to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but to his plan. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of his (Sir R. Peel's) ignorance upon colonial matters, the hon. and learned Gentleman must allow him to say, that he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had only proved his own. He did not profess to be very abundantly versed in colonial affairs. But what was the course that the hon. and learned Gentleman had pursued? Suddenly, and without any previous notice, he came forward with a plan of his own, and, in asking the House to adopt it, proposed at once to change the whole course of policy suggested by the Government, and to postpone the resolutions that had been brought forward, in order that his scheme might go forth to the Canadian people. And, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, addressing himself particularly to him (Sir R. Peel), "You are entirely wrong in supposing that my plan would not be acceptable to the Canadian people: you said, that the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was not necessary —you were wrong; you said that Parliamentary Reform was not required—you were wrong; you say now that the people of Canada will not like my plan—there, again, I tell you, you are wrong." This was the line of argument adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, was it borne out by the fact? Had not the people of Canada passed a resolution declaring that they preferred a different plan? He presumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow, that the people of Canada knew at least what their own views were, even if they did not understand their own interests. He had read an extract from a Canadian resolution, by which it appeared that so far from preferring a legislative council holding office at the pleasure and mere will of the Crown, the people of the Canadas expressed and placed upon record an opinion that the form of council which they preferred was a council elected by the people. What right, then, had he to infer that the plan of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be acceptable to the Canadian people, when he had before him the strongest evidence to the contrary. His impression upon the point was not founded upon surmise; he had before him the declaration of the Canadians that the form of council that they preferred was a council deriving its existence and its authority
206
from them by election. Such were their views; yet the hon. and learned Gentleman told him, that by not agreeing to his plan he (Sir Robert Peel)proved himself utterly and entirely ignorant of all colonial affairs, because, in point of fact, a similar plan already-prevailed in some of the colonial possessions of Great Britain. As he had before stated, he did not profess any intimate knowledge of colonial affairs, nor had he of late inquired much into the colonial system of government; but he was greatly mistaken if he was not right, and the hon. and learned Gentleman wrong, when he stated that the form of government which he proposed already prevailed in some of the colonies. He was very much mistaken if in any one of our colonial possessions such a form of government prevailed. This was the point upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman founded his charge of ignorance. "You contend against my plan," said he, "and call it absurd because it has never been tried or exhibited in any one of our colonies; I tell you, on the other hand, that you are totally ignorant upon the matter, because the plan has been tried and does certainly now prevail in some of the colonies." He had yet to learn in what colony it prevailed, Now, as to the plan itself, what was it that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed? "I object," said he, "to a council appointed for life, and at the will of the Crown, and, therefore, I propose to establish a council of a different description." When the hon and learned Gentleman made that proposition did he in fact propose to establish a legislative council? Just observe the gross fallacy of the proposition — "I object to a council appointed for life and at the will of the Crown, therefore I will have a council established on a different principle." He said, that such a council as that which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed would not be a legislative council. The hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition amounted to this, —that the present legislative council should be abolished and that some other assembly should be substituted in its room. There were Legislative Councils in the other colonies holding office during pleasure, and appointed by the Crown; and, indeed, as far as appointment was concerned, he knew perfectly well that the Legislative Councils of the Canadas were appointed by the Crown; but there was this difference between the Canadas and

207
our other colonial possessions —in the former the Legislative Councils held office for life, in the latter they held office only during pleasure. But the question, at issue between him and the hon. Gentleman was this, "Is there any colony appertaining to the Crown of Great Britain in which there is a House of Assembly deriving its authority from election of the people, in which there is not also a council, however that council may be appointed, which has co-ordinate functions with the House of Assembly?" That was the question; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman did not know that there was no such colony, as the last thing that he (Sir R. Peel) wished was to bandy terms with him, he would not say that he showed his ignorance, but that he had at all events vindicated himself from the charge of ignorance, which the hon. and learned Gentleman had levelled against him. The hon. and learned Gentleman produced a scheme of Government which he (Sir R. Peel) understood to be this —that in Lower Canada there should be a body, which the hon. and learned Gentleman called a council, which should have no legislative power whatever, but which should have the agreeable task of washing up the dirty linen of the provincial legislature, of correcting, in other words, the blunders of the House of Assembly; but to whose labours, in their choice and enviable avocations, the House of Assembly should not be bound to pay the least attention. If that were a correct statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman's plan, he (Sir R. Peel) repeated that the council he would establish would not be a legislative council, but a mere body appointed by the Crown, with the power of humbly suggesting certain amendments that it might happen to think proper in bills that had passed through the House of Assembly. Now, to the opinions or suggestions of such a body, appointed only during pleasure, it appeared to him (Sir R. Peel) exceedingly improbable that the House of Assembly would attach any great weight. He thought it most likely that the same difficulties, arising from offended pride, as regarded the adoption of amendments, would exist between the new council and the House of Assembly, as had already existed between the Legislative Council and that body; and then the governor, as the arbiter between the contending parties, would have to interpose his simple veto.
208
Now, it appeared to him to be a course much more abrupt, and more likely to give offence to an assembly elected by the people, than if there were an intermediate body, composed of persons of as high authority as could be procured in the colony, and to whose decision all the weight should be given that could be derived from their occupying an independent station— it appeared to him that, à priori, the colony would be less likely to reject measures accepted by such a body, than if they came recommended only to them by the assent of a governor sent out to them by the mother country. That was the ground upon which, in the former debate, he had expressed his dissent from the hon. and learned Gentleman, admitting that he had not had time to give to his plan a very mature consideration.
Mr. Grotedid not think, that the right hon. Baronet had been very successful in vindicating himself from the charge brought against him by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. If, indeed, the right hon. Baronet had been successful at all, it was only in artfully concealing the question which the hon. and learned Member for Bath intended to raise, and did raise. As he understood that question, it was this —whether it was politic to maintain a legislative council possessing co-ordinate powers of legislation, and independent of the Governor. The hon. and learned Member for Bath, in alluding to the constitutions of other colonies, pointed out this, which he, (Mr. Grote), believed to be the fact —that there was more than one colonial possession of Great Britain in which there was no legislative council appointed by the Crown. And holding place for life, so as to make it totally independent of the Crown. That was the point for which he (Mr. Grote) contended. When the right hon. Baronet spoke of a legislative council appointed by the Governor, and holding place during the pleasure of the Governor, he must see, as every body else did, that the veto of such a council was, in fact, nothing more nor less than the veto of the Governor under a different name. Such being the case, he approved of the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that the legislative council should be converted into a council of advisers of the Governor, and that to the Governor in council should be given the veto which was essential to the government of every

209
colony of Great Britain. The right hon. Baronet recollected, of course, the history of the American colonies, before their final separation from this country. He believed that there was not in one of those colonies such an institution as a council for life, appointed for life by the crown, and exercising co-ordinate powers of legislation. If there was one instance of the kind, it constituted the exception, not the rule. The right hon. Baronet in vindication of his criticism on the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath said, that the proposition was in itself absurd; and that the veto of the governor would in-fact become totally inapplicable, if there were no intermediate assembly exercising co-ordinate powers with the assembly elected by the people. He differed from the right hon. Baronet upon that point. In his opinion, a veto put upon the wishes of the people of Canada, by a council, composed of persons elected from amongst themselves, but in reality possessing no distinction of property or birth, was infinitely more obnoxious than the veto of the Governor, for whom they could not fail to entertain feelings of deep respect as the representative of the power and majesty of the King. If the right hon. Baronet took the pains to look into the report of the Commissioners, he would see that it was in fact impossible to conduct the government of the Canadas with two Houses of Assembly, constituted on contrary and antagonist principles. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. Leader) that this was the fittest and most proper period to discuss the question of delay, before they arrived at the eighth resolution, which was the penal resolution. Before such a severe resolution as that were passed, he thought that the Canadians ought to be told fairly and distinctly what it was proposed to concede to them. No such communication had yet been made; he, for one, therefore, should vote for the amendment.
The House divided on the original question. Ayes 182; Noes 29; Majority 153.
The House went into Committee.
On Clause 6 being proposed as follows —"That the legal title of the North American Land Company to the land holden by the said Company, by virtue of a grant from his Majesty, under the public seal of the said province, and to
210
the privileges conferred on the said company by the Act for that purpose made in the fourth year of his present Majesty's reign, ought to be maintained inviolate,"
Mr. Roebuckopposed the resolution, and contended that the establishment of the Land Company had been injurious to the Crown lands, and productive of no public good. The Act by which it was created, had been smuggled through the House; it had been made a mere money speculation, and the general interests of the public had been neglected. He demanded, therefore, that no resolution should pass the House affirming the privileges which had been conferred on that company till a Select Committee had investigated the grounds upon which the act for its establishment had been founded, and till it was ascertained whether the powers which the Company possessed had not been exercised injuriously for the crown lands and for the public interest. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an amendment, "That it is the opinion of the Committee, that no resolution shall be come to by the Committee respecting the North American Land Company till an inquiry shall have been instituted into the circumstances under which the land held by that company had been obtained."
Lord Stanleyopposed the amendment, and defended the policy and the proceedings connected with the passing of the act in ques-tion. Before it was adopted by the Government to which he belonged, every possible inquiry was made as to the proper value of the crown lands in Canada, and the opinion of the law officers of the crown taken on the subject. These preliminaries having been settled, all that remained for him to do was to fix the terms upon which the amendment was to be made. The Bill was a long time before the House, and though the hon. and learned Member for Bath might not then have been a paid agent of the colony, yet he was a Member of Parliament; and did he mean to say, that interesting himself as he did in the affairs of Canada, he had not been aware of the progress of that Act through the House? It had gone through the usual course and had received the sanction of Parliament, and there was therefore no ground to question its validity, or to doubt of the fairness of the steps taken in regard to it. That company, however, tended to encourage the settlement of natives of this country in Canada, and

211
the French people of the province wished to exclude the British settlers, and to maintain the population exclusively French. That was the reason of the opposition to the Land Company, for the French Canadians wished to monopolise every advantage and to prevent the settlement of British subjects. If the House would refer to the Report of the Commissioners, the good effect of the establishment of the Land Company would at once be seen. The Commissioners reported that the Land Company had already effected much good in the country. The number of families located in the country districts during that year had been 200, and in the townships 5,000, and the Company provided employment for settlers, and all necessary supplies at a reasonable cost, and did everything to encourage settlements and improvement. The Commissioners stated further, that they did not think the powers of the Company were such as they ought not to possess, or took too much out of the hands of Government. The Land Company had conferred great benefits on the provinces, benefits which the Government could not have conferred. He denied all the charges that had been made against the Company, and upon the short statement he had made to the House, he was willing to rest his case and the case of the Company. He was satisfied, that whatever might be the result, Parliament would never depart from engagements which Parliament had sanctioned, whether right or wrong; but he must repeat his opinion that the bargain entered into with the Company had been eminently successful in promoting the welfare of the colony.
Sir George Greywished to ask the hon. and learned Member for Bath, why he had departed from the demand made by the House of Assembly, that demand being the pure and absolute repeal of the Act of Parliament under which the charter to the Land Company was confirmed? Why did he not adhere to that demand? Was he influenced by finding himself left in a dwindling minority, or was it that he had discovered that there was a sense of honour existing in the British Parliament, which would, by an unanimous vote, negative any proposition to repeal an act upon the faith of which property had been bought and sold, transactions of the most extensive kind had taken place, and British emigrants had proceeded to the
212
provinces in large numbers, and had been located there by that aid which was detailed by the Commissioners, and which was now promoting the tide of emigration to an unparalleled extent. The House having already negatived this demand of the Assembly of Lower Canada, he would ask whether they were by a side wind, and by appointing a Committee of inquiry, to throw doubt upon those titles so acquired, and to imply that a time might come when that charter, which had been granted by the Crown and confirmed by Act of Parliament, might be repealed, and every transaction set loose, and those improvements which had taken place under the British Land Company be retarded, and the tide of emigration checked in the province of Lower Canada? The Government felt bound to adhere to the resolutions they had proposed, and he hoped that by an unanimous, or an almost unanimous vote, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member would be rejected.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that the hon. Baronet had spoken of a dwindling minority; he could refer the hon. Baronet to a dwindling majority. But did the hon. Baronet therefore think that the Irish Municipal Corporation Bill was less deserving of public approbation and support than when it was passed by a majority of eighty? The British Land Company was said to be formed under the sanction of Parliament, and they were told that it would be a disturbance of the rights of all property if they were to go into an inquiry as to the formation of that company. He denied that proposition altogether. This company was of a peculiar nature; and if its charter were rescinded to-morrow, it would not shake the confidence of any one man in Canada as to the validity of his title to his private property. What he wanted to have inquired into were the circumstances under which that company was formed. He was sorry he did not see the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, in the House, because he should like to have asked that noble Lord his opinion as to the propriety of establishing that Land Company, and whether, when he was under-secretary of the colonies, he approved of it or not? The hon. Baronet had spoken very pathetically about checking the tide of emigration, but did he not know that the number of persons emigrating from England to the United States of America was just

213
as great as the number emigrating to Canada? Did they ever hear of the American people selling 100,000 acres of land at eighteen pence an acre? No such thing. The government of America was a frugal and an economical government, and responsible to the people; and what did the Americans do? They sold their land by public auction, and during the last year only they received 4,000,000 l. for the sale of their waste lands. But in Canada the land had been given away, and the hon. Member for Worcester had made a capital speculation.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, the hon. Member for Bath was in the habit of speaking in a most unscrupulous manner. He charged that hon. Member with being guilty of one of two things —either that he knew that the Bill in question was passing through the House, and had neglected to oppose it; or that he did not know of it, and was thereby ignorant of what it was his duty, as a Member of Parliament, to have known. The Bill was brought in on the 24th of March, 1834, was read a second time on the 12th of April, a third time on the 5th of May, and received the royal assent on the 12th of May. It was too late, therefore, for the hon. Member new to say that he had been taken by surprise. The people of Canada also had known that the company was being formed the year before, and yet they never made any objection. In fact, the whole thing was an after-thought. What was the real objection to the British American Land Company? Not that it had not effected great good in Canada —no, it was because it had effected, and was still effecting so much good in that colony; it was because the company were inducing people to emigrate and settle there; and because new towns and villages were thriving and flourishing in that country by its means; and by the blessing of God there would, in a few years, be raised up in those new settlements a population of many hundreds of thousands; it was because the French Canadians would in a short time be deprived of that majority which they now possessed, and of which he was sorry they made so bad a use, that the hon. Member for Bath and his friends in Canada, so much objected to that company. It was said that the company was a monopoly; but he denied that statement. Almost any number of acres of land might now be bought for little more than the price
214
paid by the company to Government, either from individuals or from the Government themselves. Lower Canada possessed many millions of acres of excellent land, situated in a most valuable and fertile country, in a climate, it was true, somewhat severe, but at the same time healthy, and useful for all agricultural purposes, but which would be of no use whatever, unless rendered so by the instrumentality of a great company like that of the British American Land Company. No individual enterprise could have the least effect in those boundless wastes. He was in possession of extracts from publications by disinterested parties, which showed what was the result of the establishment of the Land Company. It was the conversion of a vast extent of waste land, which was useless to the mother country, and to the colony, into a valuable and cultivated and well-peopled district. He complained of the underhand manner in which the hon. and learned Member opposed these resolutions, namely, his stating that it was expedient that they should be postponed till the people of Canada should have had an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon them. He hoped that the House would not be deceived by the argument, and that they would reject the motion.
Mr. Leadersaid, that the hon. Member had brought a serious charge against the hon. and learned Member for Bath, namely, his being ignorant of a private Bill that was going through the House. He begged to ask the hon. Member for Worcester, did he know really and truly every private Bill that was at that moment before the House? It was impossible to know of every private Bill that came before the House. With respect to this particular resolution, he must say he did not want to repeal the Land Company Act. On the contrary, he only wanted an inquiry into the manner in which the Bill passed, how the land had been appropriated, and how the money that was paid for it had been appropriated. He thought it right that an inquiry should be made into the way in which the Act was passed. There were other reasons for inquiry. This company had a large extent of land in Canada, which gave them great power, and they had a right to inquire bow they employed that power, and whether there was anything unconstitutional in the manner in which that power was exercised. This

215
corporation derived its power from an Act of Parliament, and was responsible for the exercise of that power to the House. All they wanted was inquiry.
Mr. Humecould not deny that he had had a knowledge of this Bill; on the contrary, when the Bill was passing, the only complaint he made was, that it was a private Bill to appropriate public property. He considered that a most improper proceeding. Whether the Bill was right or wrong it had now passed into an Act, and the parties who held property under that Act, had a perfect right to be protected in the possession of that property. What he complained of was, that this association had, as he understood, become a political engine. They exercised their power for political purposes, and this was the objection he had to the company. He contended that the land of the company should be sold for the benefit of the colony, and that the produce of the sale ought to be expended in supporting the civil and military establishments of the colony. The manner in which the company's affairs were conducted was hostile to the peace of the colony. The value of the land was day by day declining in consequence of the disturbed state of the country, and these disturbances were, in a great measure, the result of the conduct of the company. Would these resolutions remove the causes of disturbance? On the contrary, the moment they reached Canada, there would be almost the certainty of a civil war; and how could they expect that emigrants should settle, and pay a large price for land, in a country so situated? He objected to affirm these resolutions because in his conscience he believed they would be most prejudicial to the interests of this country and the colony.
Mr. Robinsondenied, that the Land Company had ever used their power for political purposes.
Mr. Wardsaid, that he felt bound to oppose the amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The Land Company was incorporated under the sanction of an Act of Parliament. If there were abuses in its administration, let a substantive motion for inquiry be made, and he would support it.
Mr. Grotefelt also under the necessity of declining to vote for the amendment; but he felt the same difficulty as regarded the resolution. If the title of the company was good, there was no occasion to affirm
216
it again by this resolution. He would vote neither for the resolution nor for the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath.
The Committee divided on the amendment. — Ayes 6; Noes 166. Majority 160.
Resolution agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to set again. We subjoin the Lists of the first division. — See page 209.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Egerton, Sir P.

Ainsworth, P.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Angerstein, J.

Fector, J. M.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bailey, J.

Ferguson, R.

Baillie H. D.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R. C.

Baines E.

Finch, G.

Balfour, T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Bannerman, A.

Fleetwood, Peter H.

Barnard, E. G.

Forbes, W.

Bell, M.

Forster, C. S.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Fort, J.

Bentinck, Lord W

French, F.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Geary, Sir W.

Bernal, R.

Gladstone, T.

Bewes, T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Blackburne, I.

Gordon, R.

Blackstone, W. S.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Boldero, H. G.

Goring, H. D.

Bonham, R. F.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Brodie, W. B.

Hale, R. B.

Brownrigg, S.

Hamilton, G. A.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bruen, Colonel

Hanmer, Sir J.

Bruen, F.

Hawkins, J. H.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Heathcote, J. G.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Heneage, E.

Chalmers, P.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Chandos, Marquess of

Hillsborough, Earl of

Chapman, A.

Hinde, J. H.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Chichester, A.

Hodges, T. L.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hogg, J. W.

Clive E. B.

Hope, J.

Clive, Viscount

Hotham, Lord

Clive, hon. R. H.

Houstoun, G.

Codrington, C. W.

Howard, R.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Howard, P. H.

Cole, Viscount

Hughes, W. H.

Collier, J.

Ingham, R.

Collins, W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cookes, T. H.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Coote, Sir C.

Jones, T.

Corbett T. G.

Kearsley, J. H.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Knatchbull, rt. hon.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Sir E.

Dillwynn, L. W.

Knight, H. G.

Dundas, hon. T.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Dundas, J. D.

Lambton, H.

Eastnor, Viscount

Lefevre, Charles S.

Eaton, R. J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Ebrington, Viscount

Lennox, Lord George

217

Lister, E. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Long, W.

Sanford, E. A.

Lowther, hn. Colonel

Scott, James W.

Lushington, C.

Seymour, Lord

Maclean, D.

Sharpe, General

Mahon, Viscount

Sinclair, Sir G.

Marshall, W.

Smith, V.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Somerset, Lord G.

Martin, J.

Stanley, Lord

Martin, T.

Stanley, W. O.

Maule, hon. F.

Steuart, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Stewart, J.

Mosley, Sir O.

Stewart, P. M.

Mostyn, hon. E.

Strangways, hon. J.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Strutt, E.

Ossulston, Lord

Sturt, H. C.

Parker M,

Surrey, Earl of

Parker, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Parry, Sir L. P.

Taifourd, Sergeant

Pease, J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Pechell, Captain

Thompson, Alderman

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Perceval, Colonel

Turner, W.

Philips, M.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Philips, G. R.

Vesey, hon. T.

Pinney, W.

Wason, R.

Plumptree, J. P.

Welby, G. E.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

White, S.

Pringle, A.

Whitmore, E. C.

Pryme, G.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Wilkins, W.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Williamson, Sir H.

Richards, J.

Winnington, H. J.

Richards, R.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Rickford, W.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Robinson, G. R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

TELLERS.

Ross, C.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Grey, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Blake, M. J.

Potter, R.

Brotherton, J.

Roche, David

Crawford, W. S.

Roebuck, J. A.

Elphinstone, H.

Rundle, J.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Ruthven, E.

Grote, George

Thompson, Colonel

Hall, Benjamin

Tulk, C. A.

Hawes, B.

Villiers, C. P.

Hector, C.J.

Wakley,T.

Holland, Edward

Warburton, H.

Hutt, William

Ward, H. George

Marsland, H.

Wilks, J.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Williams, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, D.

Hume, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Leader, J. T.