THE PETITION OF MR. ROEBUCK. (Hansard, 17 January 1838)

§ Mr. Grote
presented a petition from J. A. Roebuck, praying that he might be heard at the bar in defence of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, and in opposition to the measure of "impolicy and injustice" which Government meant to introduce with regard to that country. The petition also contained resolutions of the House of Assembly, appointing Mr. Roebuck agent. He was persuaded the House would see the reason and justice of granting the prayer of this petition. When the Act of 1791 was passed, establishing the constitution of Canada, he found an entry on their journals of the application of Mr. Adam Limburner, as agent for Quebec, to be heard by himself or counsel against certain clauses of the Act. This application was agreed to, as well as that contained in the petitions of Mr. James Finn and Mr. Alexander Ellice, merchants trading to Quebec, to the same effect. 160 He trusted that the House would see that the precedent to which he had refrred was precisely in point, both as to the character in which the individual claimed to be heard and as to the subject to be discussed, which related to the identical province that was affected by the Bill which was to be introduced by the present Government. He hoped, also, that the House would recollect that in the arguments of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) the main stress of his allegations rested on the demonstration that the House of Assembly had been deficient in the qualities requisite for performing its duty and failed in its obligations both to the mother country and the colony. That was one of the two points which the noble Lord undertook to establish in the course of his very long speech. In the few remarks which he had addressed to the House in answer to that speech, he stated his opinion that the House of Assembly had been hardly dealt with in regard to its defence, because there was no Gentleman present who either understood the full details of their conduct, or was capable of meeting, without notice, any specific charges which might be urged against them. The general importance of the affairs of the colony, in a matter bearing so hardly and closely on a large body of persons in these provinces, would, he trusted, make the House sensible that there was the strongest necessity for giving the fullest opportunity of hearing the case of the Assembly of Lower Canada as fully and fairly stated on the one side as it had been amply detailed on the other. He did think, that when there was a gentleman in this country armed with authority, as agent, by the House of Assembly, and fully competent, from his knowledge of all the details and circumstances, to answer the charges which had been urged, the House would not be acting in a spirit of fair and equitable justice if they were to refuse to hear him at the bar; particularly when to hear the petitioner at the bar was as much in consonance with the old established custom of the House as with a regard to the strict dictates of justice. He submitted that if the House were to decline to hear their agent, it would have an appearance of rigour and injustice towards the House of Assembly, which it was not in the wish of any Gentleman at either side to evince. With the permission of the Speaker, he should bring up the 161 petition, and then, if the House agreed to its prayer, he should move that a day be named on which Mr. Roebuck should be heard.

§ Mr. Wakley
said, that, as it appeared to him that there would not be the slightest objection to hear a detail of the grievances of which the Assembly complained, he thought they should now at once determine when Mr. Roebuck should be heard. The principle of the Bill would be decided on the second reading; and it was, therefore, important that the agent of the Assembly should be heard on Monday, for which that stage was fixed.

§ Mr. Warburton
begged to remind the House that in the precedent which had been quoted, the complaint was against certain clauses of the Act, and counsel might, therefore, without unfairness, be heard, as it was intended in that case they should be, on bringing up the report. But here he apprehended that the opposition to be given was intended against the principle of the proposed measure, and the proper course, therefore, was to have the petitioner heard at the bar before the second reading, in accordance with all established precedents.

§ Lord J. Russell
observed, that without wishing to give any decisive opinion as to the prayer of the petition, he thought it ought to be printed, and taken into consideration on another day. His hon. Friend had introduced this subject, no doubt, from necessity at the end of the evening. He thought, however, that the House should be allowed time to consider the precedents on the case, and both whether the petitioner should be heard, and if so, in what character. As to whether he were to be considered agent for the colonies—[Mr. Grote: He has been appointed by the Assembly.] He did not then wish to give an opinion on that point. There were instructions sent by the Secretary of State in this country for the introduction of a Bill by which the House of Assembly, with the assent of the Legislative Council and the Governor might appoint an agent. No such Bill, however, was passed. If the House should be of opinion that Mr. Roebuck should be heard, he had, of course, no objection that he should make his statement before the second reading of the Bill; but they ought not now to determine either the 162 question whether he should be heard, or in what capacity he should be allowed to appear.

§ Mr. Grote
stated, that all he desired was, that the Bill should not be advanced to the stage of the second reading before the question as to the admission of Mr. Roebuck to be heard was decided. He should, therefore, give notice that he meant to call the attention of the House on Monday to that subject before the second reading of the Bill.

§ Mr. Warburton
Mr. Roebuck had been acknowledged as agent by. Lord Gosford, and was paid by the House of Assembly.

§ Lord J. Russell
had not the least objection to the intended motion.

§ Sir R. Peel
thought, the capacity in which Mr. Roebuck should be heard was quite a subordinate question compared to this, as to whether he should be heard on the part of the Assembly of the province. His own impression was, considering the extraordinary nature of the suspension proposed, which was justified, he thought, by necessity, that they ought not to debar the parties who were to suffer this penalty from making any representations they might think essential. Therefore, reserving his opinion as to the subjects of the defence, he was persuaded that, while they proceeded with as much deliberation as was necessary for the enforcement of the proposed measures, they ought not to shut out any statements on the part of the colonists which they might deem necessary to be submitted.