HC Deb 07 March 1838 vol 41 cc571-684
Mr. Leader

wished to offer a few observations on the subject, and he should occupy the attention of the House only for a few minutes, as he was incapable, from illness, of making a speech of any length. In the consideration of the motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) the real question, which was the great difficulty in which the government of the colonies was involved, and the unfitness of the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary for the office which he held, had been put on one side, in order that the debate might become a mere party matter, and that the question might in reality be not whether the colonies were well or ill governed, or whether the noble Lord had well performed the duties imposed upon him, but whether the hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Treasury Benches should remain in office, or whether they should not give way to those hon. Gentlemen who were now on the opposite side of the House. Now this being the case, he thought it much better that the former question should be determined first before the latter should be brought under consideration, but he thought it was quite right that a Minister who had not been out of office for a quarter of a century should answer or attempt to answer the hon. Member for Leeds. It was amusing to see the error into which the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had fallen as to the mode in which the hon. Baronet had intended to bring forward this motion. The right hon. Gentleman evidently thought that the hon. Baronet had intended to make a violent attack upon the Government, on the subject of the affairs of Canada, and he had, therefore, come down fully prepared to defend the Government on that point, but not to defend its policy with regard to other colonies and other matters. It was certainly matter of surprise to him (Mr. Leader) to see the noble Lord take credit for the manner in which the affairs of Canada had been governed; and it appeared to him that it required the long experience of the noble Lord—that species of experience which was acquired from a continuance in office during a quarter of a century—and something of the boldness acquired by it, to make such a statement as that made by the noble Lord, for he had himself had a share in the uniform misgovernment of the Canadian affairs. The noble Lord was pleased to taunt the hon. Member for Leeds with failure in the statement which he had made, but if there had been any failure it had been on the part of the noble Lord himself, who had not by the force of any argument of his, or by the statement of any facts, impugned any one position taken up by the hon. Member. It would be, however, for the country to judge whether the case made out by the hon. Member was such as to merit attention, and to deserve that the course which had been adopted should be taken, or whether the noble Lord, in the defence which he had set up, was justified in calling the attack which was made on the Ministry, ungenerous, unconstitutional, unhandsome, and, above all, unjust. It appeared to him to be a very strange charge to bring against the motion, that it was unjust, as it was a charge brought by a public man against a Minister of the Crown, not on account of his having acted fairly by the trust imposed in him, but by his having acted negligently in administering the system which was adopted, whatever it might be. Could there be anything ungenerous in that. If there was, he was at a loss to know how any Minister could be held responsible to that House. The Ministers would have a complete sinecure if they were to govern the matters under their control negligently, and were then to be screened from any statement made by any hon. Gentleman on the ground of the charge being ungenerous and unjust. As to its being unconstitutional to bring forward such a charge, he would not weary the House by enlarging upon a subject on which every one who had considered the matter was well aware there were precedents for the course adopted by the hon. Baronet, and some, too, which were recent. But whether or not any precedents were in existence, the case was one of so much importance that he thought the hon. Baronet was clearly justified in bringing forward his charge, in order to show the difficulties in which the colonial empire of this country was placed, and in proving, from the acts of the Ministers themselves, whether of omission or commission, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, was not the fittest man in the country, or rather was the most unfit man who could be selected, to grapple with the difficulties which at present existed in reference to almost all our colonial possessions. The noble Lord (Palmerston) had said that he was surprised at the quarter from which this attack came; that he should not have been astonished if the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, or the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had attacked the colonial policy of the Government; but for charges to be brought against the Government by a Member on the same side of the House with themselves, who had acted with them, and who professed to be more liberal than themselves, was a matter which was most singular. Now, it appeared to him that the hon. Member for Leeds, and those who usually acted with him, were precisely the persons who were most called on to attack the Government when they considered they should be attacked; because they had for some time trusted the Government, they had supported it when they could, and they had believed its liberal professions, but now when they found themselves deceived they were imperatively called on to say, that they no longer had in the Government that confidence which they had hitherto reposed in them. The noble Lord had referred to a meeting which took place in the month of October last at Bodmin, and had tried to fix on the hon. Member for Leeds and on him (Mr. Leader) a charge of inconsistency, for having then said something in favour of the Government, and for having now brought forward the present charge. In the whole of that part of the statement of the noble Lord there was something which appeared very much as if it came from the Foreign-office, for there was a great deal of diplomatic suppression of facts. The noble Lord, after having attempted to prove his case as against the hon. Baronet, by way of raising a laugh at his expense, said, that the hon. Member for Westminster returned thanks on behalf of her Majesty's Ministers. He was sorry to trouble the House with a matter so really personal, but as the noble Lord had thought fit to introduce the subject, he could not well pass it over without taking some notice of it, and without endeavouring, at least, to show that his conduct on the occasion referred to, and his conduct now, did not render him open to such a charge as that of inconsistency, and he must add, that the noble Lord had very much misquoted what had really occurred at the time in question. The real truth was, that the chairman of the meeting proposed, without any previous communication to him, "Her Majesty's Ministers, so long as they studied the interests of the people;" and he said, that he would couple with this toast that which he believed might be fairly coupled with it, namely, "The Reformers of Westminster, that being the city in which the Ministers held their meetings." He had thought himself called upon, on the toast having been drunk, to return thanks for it on behalf of the Reformers of Westminster; and besides, when he recollected that at the last election several of her Majesty's Ministers had done him the honour to vote for him, he thought that there would be something ungracious in refusing to perform that service for them—it would be casting them off at the commencement of a new reign, before any opportunity had been afforded them of exhibiting the course which they proposed to adopt; and therefore it was that he had said at once at the meeting, that he was delighted to return thanks on behalf of the Reformers of Westminster; but that, as to her Majesty's Ministers, he should pursue the same course of conduct that he had hitherto done, and that when he found that to support the Government was against his principles, he should sacrifice the Ministers in order that he might not in any way compromise his own feelings. If the noble Lord had not very much misquoted what had taken place, he would ask, whether anything had been shown to the House which would justify the allegation that, on that occasion, he had praised Ministers? But even supposing that he had praised them, that he had then declared his entire approbation of their conduct, there had been certain occurrences since that time which would amply justify a change in his opinions with regard to the Government. He would ask, whether the House had forgotten the declaration of the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, at the commencement of the Session, that further reform was unnecessary, and his declaration also in favour of the preponderance of the power of the landed interest? Had they forgotten the manner in which the Government had brought forward the civil list, and the way in which they had hurried through it, granting a more extravagant allowance than any ever proposed by the Tories? And last, though not least, had they forgotten what occurred recently on the question of the ballot? Did they not know that the majority of those who sat behind the Treasury benches, and who cheered the Members of the Administration, had no confidence in the Government, and only continued to vote with them because they thought that they were somewhat better than the Gentlemen opposite would be if they were in the same situation?—he was reminded that there was also the suspension of the Canadian constitution, of itself sufficient to justify his withdrawing his confidence and his support from a Ministry who had advocated such a measure. The noble Lord, in referring to the meeting, apparently wished to bring a charge of inconsistency against the Radicals. Certainly what had been said did not convey any charge in his mind, and such a charge appeared to him to come but strangely from a Member of the Administration. Then the noble Lord said, that he was much surprised that the noble Secretary for the Colonies should have been selected for such an attack, and it certainly appeared to him that there was something to justify that surprise. The noble Lord might very well be surprised that the foreign department had not been attacked; for there were many matters connected with its administration which were not only in themselves highly objectionable, but which gave great dissatisfaction to the country, and the noble Lord, therefore, might well feel somewhat astonished. However, the opportunity was not entirely lost, and some hon. Gentleman who took a great interest in the Foreign-office might, perhaps, give the noble Lord an opportunity of vindicating his conduct. Then the noble Lord, in defending his noble colleague, did not attempt to refute any of the statements made by the hon. Member for Leeds in bringing forward the motion, but said, that the noble Colonial Secretary was a man of great acquirements, of exceedingly amiable disposition, of high character, and for whom he had the greatest possible regard. Now this might be a good defence ad misericordiam; but it was no answer whatever to the charge which had been brought. Then it had been said, how unjust for the hon. Member for Leeds to bring forward this motion, and to attack the noble Colonial Secretary for what had occurred before he had had anything to do with the colonies. It was all very well for the case to be put in this way; but the hon. Member for Leeds did not charge Lord Glenelg because the system was bad, or with having brought any evils on the colonies before he came into office; all he said was—and it was not answered, because it was unanswerable—that Lord Glenelg had not administered with decision, with firmness, or with activity, that colonial system, good or bad, which he was called on to administer by virtue of his office. Then, last of all, the noble Lord said, "Consider what will be the result of this resolution if you succeed in your motion; the country will have the great misfortune of losing our services, and there will be the terrible evil of the Tories coming into power." He must admit that he was not much alarmed by the prospect; and it was his firm belief that there was not much difference between the present Ministry and any Tory Administration which might succeed them, and he really thought that the country would not lose by the change, and he would give his reasons for thinking so. At present there was a Whig Government acting on Tory principles. Whatever might be said he maintained that they were acting on Tory principles, and what was more important still, they were controlled by a powerful opposition. Now if the Tories were in power what would be the state of things? There would be a Tory Government acting on Tory principles, and there would be a powerful liberal opposition to control them, and he believed the country would be in as good a position under such an administration as it was at present. He did not wish to say, however, that he should like to see the country in the position which he had suggested, but the prospect, nevertheless, was not so bad as the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) wished to make it, in his anxiety to prevent the House from agreeing to the motion of the hon. Member for Leeds. He had a few words to say on the subject of the amendment which had been proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool. It appeared that the noble Lord was also induced by personal motives to abstain from supporting the motion of the hon. Baronet; for, in fact, his amendment would have the same effect as the motion, by throwing blame on the Government for their administration of colonial affairs, and consequently, of course, to blame the noble Lord, the Colonial Secretary. But it seemed that such was the personal friendship between the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, and the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, that the former thought it better that the whole subject of the colonial government should be pressed upon, and that the affairs of the colonies generally should be declared to have been negligently and badly administered, rather than his noble Friend should be subjected to any pain on account of any censure pronounced by this House. The noble Lord might be very well satisfied with this arrangement, but that it did not appear to him to be the way in which public men should view public matters, and however painful it might be, personal friendship should yield to public duty. At the same time, however, it was not for him to dictate to the noble Lord either the course which he should adopt, or the way in which his feelings, whether on public or private subjects, should be governed or guided. It was impossible, however, and he supposed the noble Lord was aware of the fact, that he or any hon. Gentleman on that side of the House could vote for the amendment. He entirely concurred in its general purport, which was to censure Ministers for having badly administered colonial affairs, but he could not agree with the preamble of it, which contained a slur upon the unfortunate Canadians, and branded them in very harsh terms, when, by a series of acts of misgovernment, and of vacillation and imbecility on the part of the Government, they had been at last driven to a state of open revolt. He was ready to admit, that their conduct had been rash and imprudent; but they had been deluded, perhaps, and he could not but remember that if they had succeeded, as the Americans had succeeded, they would, like the Americans, have been held up to the admiration of the world as patriots. He could not, therefore, consent to brand them with harsh and ignominious epithets because they had failed. He was sorry that the revolt had taken place; but whatever might be the result of the motion or of the amendment, one good at least would have been effected by the debate, and that was that the attention of the country would have been called to the subject of our vast colonial empire, to consider the difficulties which surrounded its government, and to induce the people to insist that the affairs of the colonial department should be better administered in future. If the House would look calmly and dispassionately at the subject, without reference to any party feeling, they would see that at no distant period the country would be grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds for having called their attention to a matter which, though important, was not at present looked at with much interest.

Mr. Hobhouse

was understood to say that he trusted that the House would extend its Indulgence to him while he addressed some observations to it. He could not vote for either the original motion or the amendment. The substantive matter of the motion, as well as the amendment, was directed against the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies—a man who, for several years, had devoted all his exertions and talents to the public service. It had been said an attack would he made on the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department; but there was a good reason why this course was not taken. The head of the latter department was in that House; while the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office was not there to defend himself, but it was supposed that his defence must be left to the subordinate members of the department. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, however, had at once come forward to the defence of his noble colleague, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared disposed to censure that noble Lord for doing so, he (Mr. Hobhouse) felt disposed to retaliate the charge against them for bringing forward accusations in the present shape against one whom hey knew could not be present to defend himself. They had been told, that there was no material difference whether the Treasury benches were occupied by hon. Gentlemen opposite or by those who at present filled them. There appeared, however, to him a most material difference between the measures, the spirit, and policy which governed the actions of Gentlemen on that, and hon. Members on the other, side of the House. It might be that they were agreed on some things which were of comparatively minor importance; but on all great questions there was a wide ground of distinction between them. It might be said, that many on his side of the House objected to any further immediate change in the constitution of Parliament; but he would ask had they ever shown themselves to be the supporters and advocates of a system of misgovernment in Ireland? Had they ever endeavoured to counteract the progress of civil and religious liberty either in this country or Ireland. He was not surprised that his hon. Friend, the Member for Westminster, had avoided the constitutional part of the question; and there might have been a better reason for his silence than the fear of tiring the House. It had been affirmed that Ministers backed by Parliament, were first guilty of an infringement of the constitution, in overruling the right of the Canadians to control their supplies; and the analogy of the British constitution had been confidently appealed to as an authority. Now, it could not be denied that the control over the purse in this country was retained by the Commons not merely to prevent maladministration of the finances, but for the purpose of supporting public liberty. In the best times of our history it had been so applied. But if hon. Gentlemen would take the benefit of the analogy, they must also submit to its inconveniences. Admitting what was very questionable, that a parity of reasoning could be applied to the different conditions of a colony and a mother country, the rights of the former could not, at any rate, exceed those of the latter. Now, what was the extent of our right? It was employed to influence the other branches of our own Legislature, to win advantages from the Crown and the Lords. In like manner the Canadian right must be restricted as a means of influencing the operations of the other branches of their own legislature, those of the governor and Legislative Council. But the Canadians had acted in a widely different manner. The provincial legislature was restrained in express terms by the act of 1791 from changing itself. The condition of changing the legislative council before the grant of supplies, was, therefore, used against a separate and distinct Parliament, that of our own country, not against different branches of a concurrent authority, as sanctioned by English usage. He hoped Gentlemen would not forget when they declaimed against the exercise of a power towards Canada which in our own case they would not permit, that the parity of reasoning was against them, and that the Canadians were the first to transgress constitutional rights. He differed entirely from the spirit, measures, and policy of the Gentlemen opposite, nor could he see the force of the objections urged last night by the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool. It had been alleged that Ministers were not prompt in sending troops. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in power, he doubted not their readiness to draw the sword. They had shown such a disposition much too often, as was proved by the history of their disastrous sway. But for his own part, he admired forbearance, and viewed needless bloodshed with horror. The hon. Member who had spoken last in yesterday's debate had plainly shown that the first demand for troops was in September last, and had they been at once dispatched, they must have been landed on the island of Anticosti. But he would draw the attention of the noble Lord to the war of American independence. Soldiers were planted by order of General Gates about Boston, and a squadron of ships commanded the town after the new duties were imposed. And what was the consequence? Violent disputes occurred between the Governor and Assembly, and at length a collision between the soldiers and citizens having broken out, it was deemed expedient to remove the military power from the town. Thus a too hasty display of force created the evils which it was meant to prevent. He might also add, that it afforded a pretext to the patriots against the Government. As to the charge of unsteady and fluctuating counsels, it was unfortunate for the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the meetings and disturbances occurred on the arrival in Canada, of the resolutions of last year, which were at least sufficiently explicit. And yet they were told, that the rebellion was caused by their refusal to speak out manfully and distinctly declare what they would grant, and what they would withhold. For his own part he thought the collision could not have been longer avoided, and he could not but praise the moderation which was exercised so long. All means were, in his opinion, to be preferred to force, and it was well to wait till the latest moment. He had hoped at the commencement of this Session that party heats and contentions would yield to the public good. If that House were to be the theatre of acrimonious disputes, let them be reserved for a better occasion than when the integrity of the empire was threatened. He foresaw nothing but danger from distracted councils. Amendments had been introduced into the bill for suspending the constitution of Canada at the instigation of a right hon. Baronet. He was independent of Government, and approved that concession. He thought the benefit of unanimity, or as near an approach to it as possible, would give weight to their councils, and ought not to be despised. But when Gentlemen opposite made a bad use of concession, and hoped to obtrude themselves into power, he was glad to see them resisted. The civil war was for the present at an end in Canada, but the seeds of discontent, perhaps, remained. It was because he thought the address of the noble Lord would give heart and hope to the rebels, by flattering them with the prospect of schism, that he should oppose it. He would, in conclusion, recite for the benefit of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, what was said by an able writer of better men than themselves, of the first William Pitt and of Lord Camden: "Their declarations gave spirit and argument to the colonies, and while, perhaps, they meant no more than the ruin of a Minister, they, in effect, divided one-half of the empire from the other."

Mr. Warburton

regretted many of the observations that had fallen from his hon. Friends, the Members for Leeds and Westminster. He could not give his support to the original motion of his hon. Friend, and still less to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord opposite. He regretted that his hon. Friend, in the censure he had passed on the general system of colonial government, had pursued such a course as to mix up with it matters which were nothing more nor less than party politics. He regretted, that his hon. Friend had dwelt altogether on the alleged defects of an individual, instead of directing his argument against the system. When Mr. Burke wished to call the attention of Parliament to his scheme of financial reform, he did not commence by criminating any particular individual, or by mixing up party politics with his plan of reform; he pointed out the defects of the existing system, and endeavoured to induce that House to adopt an improved system. He agreed that there were many glaring defects in the administration of several of our principal colonies, but if he wished to lead the House to adopt an improved plan of government, and to abandon a system which was open to such well-founded attacks, he would not commence with criminating a Minister in order to induce a large party in that House to vote with him. He, therefore, could not agree in the course taken by his hon. Friend, who generally acted with those with whom he voted, namely, what was called the Radical party, who should not have brought forward the subject, inviting, as it did, an attack on the system, as if it had been a party motion. On this ground he should feel it to be his duty to vote against the motion of his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had also ascribed to him the opinion that this country ought to have no colonies at all, and ought to get rid of her colonies; on the contrary, he had repeatedly dwelt on the advantages that would accrue to this country from converting the waste lands in the colonies into cultivated tracts by means of our surplus population, and which might be allowed to send their raw produce to this country, and receive in exchange manufactured goods; by this means mutual advantage would be derived to both mother country and colonies. He had, however, always entertained the opinion that it was impossible, when the colonies grew in strength and became powerful, to treat them as children, but that their government must be left, as much as possible, to themselves. With respect to the amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, he felt bound to observe that he would not give it his support. In the first part of the resolution of the noble Lord, he found a very close approximation to the resolutions introduced to the House by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department. All that was affirmed in the latter resolution condemnatory of the Canadians, was contained in the amendment of the noble Lord opposite. The only difference between them was, that the noble Lord found fault with the manner in which these resolutions were carried out. How, then, could he who had resisted these resolutions, who had said that the Canadians had not been treated in a way in which colonists should be treated when they came to a state of maturity, support the amendment of the noble Lord? It was on these grounds, that he felt called upon to oppose the original motion, and also the amendment.

Mr. Litton

would not have presumed to trespass on the attention of the House if it had not been for the assertion made by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who opened the debate on behalf of the Government, and by the hon. Member for Marylebone, with respect to the state of Ireland. He thought that as an Irish Member, he should not be doing his duty if he did not protest against that statement, and if he suffered it to pass uncontradicted, and to go forth to Englishmen. It had been stated by this noble Lord and this hon. Gentleman—first, that Ireland was now in a tranquil state, and next, that that tranquillity was owing to the present Government, and would be likely to be destroyed by the coming in of a Conservative Government. He wholly denied the state of Ireland deserved the epithet of tranquil—he wholly denied it was in a state to justify that description. On the contrary, he thought wherever the law was sought to be enforced, it had been met with resistance and violence, and that it was only where combination and force had been yielded to by compulsion, that the districts in Ireland were tranquil. He admitted there was a certain portion of Ireland where the rights of the landlord, and rights of the clergy, and the rights of the voter, to exercise their just privileges, had been successfully put down; he admitted, that fears and terror, and threats had had the effect of preventing the landlord from exercising his fair prerogative over his tenant, of preventing the clergyman from insisting on his due rights, and of preventing the voter from exercising the fair privilege of his elective franchise—where that had been successful, and where the fear and terror of injury to life and property had prevented the exercise of their just rights. If that were to be called tranquillity he admitted that those districts were tranquil. But he did assert with a confidence which an intimate knowledge of the fact enabled him to assume that wheresoever the landlord in the southern and western parts of Ireland sought to exercise his rights as between himself and his tenant—where for one tenant he presumed to substitute another—that both the life and property of the landlord and of the substituted tenant were made the subject of attack. He asserted that where the clergy insisted on their rights they were met by attacks, by bloodshed, and assassination; and he also asserted there were many cases where the voters, exercising their fair privilege of voting, had been the subject of animadversion, of threat, of terror, of annoyan e, and of actual injury. If that were so, could the country in which those things existed be called tranquil? Was it to be said that Ireland was tranquil, when, if a man but exercised his vote, as was done by Mr. Guinnes, one of the first and most liberal merchants of Dublin—a gentleman who had ever supported liberal principles —who supported the Catholic claims—and who was at one time looked to as the candidate on the liberal interest; was it to be said, that when he exercised his fair right of voting against the sitting Members for Dublin, his property was to be attacked in open day, and a combination to be entered into to deprive him of his business? And yet this had been so. He should certainly not enter upon the subject, which to a certain extent might be called a collateral one, into minute facts; but it was perfectly well known that if terror and threat were yielded to, there was peace. But if the rights of property were insisted upon, there was nothing but threats and terror with loss of property and loss of life. It had been said, that the present Government of Ireland had pursued a policy tending to tranquillise that unhappy country. To that proposition also he gave a direct contradiction. Their partial conduct had brought on them the greatest possible obloquy. They were considered to be in the power, and under the direction of, one set of men, or rather of one man of strong political bias, so that all they did appeared to be done under his direction. There was, consequently, not protection for life and property of one particular class of her Majesty's subjects in that country, and he attributed to the vacillating way in which the affairs of that country were administered, and to the fact of the Government of that country yielding to the dictation of one man, and the want of power in itself to take any bold step, the evils which Ireland laboured under. It was asked, would the substitution of a Conservative Government remedy those evils? It was brought in upon this debate as one of the elements of the case, to induce Members on both sides of the House to refuse their support to the noble Lord's amendment, because, however deserving of censure her Majesty's Ministers might be, a vote of censure being passed upon them might shake their Government, and cause a Conservative Government to be substituted in Ireland in lieu of them. He believed it would be for the benefit of Ireland that the Government of that country should be changed. What benefit had the Government of Ireland conferred upon the 99–100ths of the people of Ireland? Political aspirants had obtained places—posts of honour and profit conferred—but had the condition of the lower classes been improved? Had they been in any way benefited by the present Government? On the contrary, had they not been brought into the arena of political dispute? Had not their small earnings been lessened to supply the exigencies of those, who, for their own selfish purposes had made them their tools and slaves? A Conservative Government would confer great benefits upon Ireland. A Conservative Government would disdain to be dictated to by any set of men; but would do justice to all classes of her Majesty's subjects. And he thought that it would be fortunate for the country if the result of the present motion was to substitute for the present Ministry, a faithful, bold, and manly Government in Ireland.

Mr. Dunlop

would not follow the hon. Gentleman into the debate on the state of Ireland, which had nothing to do with the subject before the House. The House was already pledged by many divisions to the general policy of Government, and he did not think that they would at once transfer their confidence to a Government which would pursue a directly opposite course to that which they now approved of. In reference to Canada, at the period of the outbreak, it was well known that up to that period no cause had existed to justify Government in sending out more troops. A noble Lord had last night said that care should have been taken to provide such a number of regular troops as to render unnecessary the employment of the militia and volunteers; but the very circumstances of the employment of these militia and volunteers showed that Government considered, that the maintenance of the constitution and of the laws of the land were best intrusted to the deeply-rooted feeling of a people who knew that the constitution under which they lived was the constitution best calculated to promote their happiness and prosperity. It was the great principle of the present Government that the strength of the Throne was most firmly based in the affections of the people, and it was because he wished to retain in office a Ministry holding such principles that he must oppose both the motion of the hon. Baronet and the amendment of the noble Lord.

Sir F. Trench

entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, relative to the propriety of employing volunteers in putting down a revolt or insurrection. That was always much better effected by the regular troops. Allusion had been made in the course of the debate to the state of Ireland, and he could not help expressing surprise at what had fallen from the noble Secretary for the Foreign Department, who was pleased in a sneering manner to ask, admitting a Conservative Government could settle the affairs of Canada, what could they do with Ireland? The only inference to be drawn from that question was, that the noble Lord, his colleagues, and those under whose orders they acted, had put Ireland in such a situation that none could govern but themselves—a circumstance more condemnatory of their policy, and carrying more censure upon their administration of affairs, than any which had yet been mentioned. If Ireland were in a situation difficult to be governed, it was entirely owing to the system which had been pursued or sanctioned by the Government. The law had not been impartially administered, and violence of every sort was openly encouraged. What proof had they given of their capacity for governing? What a shame, for instance, it was, that they had selected for a high office a person who in that very House had ventured to make a speech encouraging the Catholics of Ireland to assassinate the Protestant ecclesiastics in Ireland. It was the Queen's Attorney-General who had made such a speech.

The Speaker

Does the hon. Member really mean to impute any such motives as those to any hon. Member of this House?

Sir F. Trench

said, he had not imputed such motives to the hon. and learned Gentleman. What he said was, that the tendency of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was to encourage the Catholics of Ireland to assassinate the Protestant clergymen; for what said the hon. and learned Gentleman in the speech to which he alluded? He talked of having lately visited Ireland, where he found a generous and hospitable people; and then he reverted to Scotland, where, as he said, the people wore long swords and knew how to use them; and went on to say, that the murder of Archbishop Sharpe had not been considered a murder, because he was a dignified prelate of a church hostile to the feelings and habits of the people. The people of Ireland were a high-minded and enthusiastic but ignorant race, and living as they did under a religious dis- pensation which taught them that their priest could give them absolution for any offence they might commit, they might easily be misled. Ireland was said to be in a state of tranquillity and good order, whereas, The Hue and Cry of the 24th of last month contained a list of not fewer than twenty-one murders which had been committed in that peaceful and orderly country.

Mr. Dillon Browne

would not follow the discursive speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, which, if the House had seen in print, they might suppose that the Hue and Cry had fallen into their hands instead of a report on a colonial debate; but he claimed the attention of the House for a few moments to state the reasons which induced him to vote on the present occasion, and to separate himself on that night from those with whom he was in the habit of acting; he would not vote for the amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, nor for the original motion of his hon. Friend, for however, they might differ in terms, they were substantially the same—they both had one object, at least they would have one tendency, to dissolve the present administration; this he was unwilling to do during the present state of parties; for though he was not particularly attached to the present Government, he was unwilling that it should be removed until it could be replaced by one of more liberal opinions, and more purely representing the wishes of the people. He did not consider that the motion before the House alluded solely to the colonies, after the declaration of the noble Lord, stating that on its fate depended the existence of the Ministry. It had assumed quite a different complexion. He could not express his decided disapprobation of our whole colonial policy, he must confess he was not sufficiently informed upon the vast and important matters involving such a range of territory, but, with respect to Canada, he had carefully examined its history since 1791—he had perused the different debates relating to it in that and the other House of Parliament—he had read the different petitions presented from that country—he had patiently, although with a feeble judgment, endeavoured to probe the causes of complaint—and he must declare that the conduct pursued by the parent country with respect to that colony was unjust and indefensible. The conduct of her Majesty's Government was particularly improvident and despotic. In the last Session of Parliament they adopted resolutions which, instead of allaying the excitement, quickened the fires of disaffection, and matured that revolution which terminated in disastrous consequences. And, in this Session of Parliament, they acted in a manner repugnant to public liberty, and established a dangerous precedent in suspending the constitution of the country, when they could have restored order by the exercise of the ordinary powers of the Crown. However, whatever might have been his opinions with respect to Canada, he would not support the motion of the hon. Baronet. Under any view under which he considered it, it met his decided disapprobation. As a censure upon an individual who belonged to a party who were, in a body, responsible for his acts, he could not, with any degree of generosity, support it. It was un-English, at least it ought to be so, to punish the weaker party, and grant an immunity to the stronger, for it should be considered he was only a Member of a Cabinet, the aggregate of whose opinions directed the whole councils of the state. Neither could he vote for his motion if its object was to unseat her Majesty's Ministry. If a better or more Radical Administration could be found, he would grant him his most cordial support; but, under the existing constitution of the Commons, he considered that if the hon. Member succeeded, he would be placed in a most ludicrous position; for, supposing they were dispossessed of office, and the Tories had succeeded them, what should be, considering the political opinions of the hon. Baronet, his next effort? Why, to try to turn the Tories out again. Now, he would ask, was this wise—was it prudent—was it common sense? He heard such conduct aptly illustrated elsewhere:— I hear a lion in the lobby roar; Pray, Mr. Speaker, shall I bar the door? Or rather shall I let the lion in, That we may try to turn him out again. But perhaps they could not dislodge the lion. The moral influence of the country would do so in time, but what mischief might not be effected. That party, if once admitted, possessed dexterity and wiles sufficient, by the exercise of those seductive means, to which it was plain from the history of this country, British legisla- tors have not been insensible, to procure what is now called, in Parliamentary parlance, a good working majority; and with a majority in this House, and a powerful one in the next, might they not creep into the constitution of the country, and perhaps crush altogether the machinery of reform? The Tories of the present day were the Tories of the olden time—though they did not possess the power, they inherited all the craft of their ancestors—though the world of Conservatism no longer gave birth to the strength of the oak, the poisonous weed would be ever indigenous of its soil. He disapproved of the present Ministry, but he was not so possessed of the mania of political knight errantry as not to wish to remain in a bad position rather than be driven back into a worse.

Mr. Tancred

said, he should oppose both the motion and the amendment. He could not but think the motion against Lord Glenelg a most invidious proceeding, distinguished as he was in the highest degree alike for his mental and moral character. He contended that, even if the Government had erred in its policy towards the Canadas, it had erred from the beneficent intention of doing good. He must say, that there had been a fundamental error committed in our original policy towards that province; and that was, in permitting them to retain their own laws and their own language. The consequence had been, that the French Canadians had remained a distinct nation. They had remained stationary, whilst the settlers of British race had been constantly progressing. He believed, that it was on that very account that the French Canadians wished for separation. They found themselves out-stripped by the settlers of British descent, and therefore they wished to deprive their British brethren of that ascendancy to which they were entitled from their superiority of mind and energy. The French Canadians were described by every person who had had communication with them, as a race of men singularly kind and courteous; but they were also described by all travellers with the same unanimity, as a race of men so lamentably ignorant and prejudiced that their very religion had degenerated into the grossest superstition. He was informed upon good authority, that it was not on account of any attachment which they felt to an elective council that they were disaffected to this country, but because they wished to have their country restored to its former situation as a French colony. It was impossible to deny, that there had been gross abuses in the government of our colonies, and especially that of the Canadas. Even the noble Member for North Lancashire had admitted, that the seeds of discontent had been planted in the Canadas by former Governments; and unfortunately those seeds had fructified to a most deplorable extent. Up to the year 1828, as was proved by the evidence of Mr. Ellice, and other most unimpeachable witnesses, those discontents had continued unredressed; but since that time a very different course had been pursued by the different administrations which had directed the affairs of this country; our conduct towards the Canadas had been parental, and the abuses of which they complained had in all instances been partially, and in most instances had been entirely, removed. The object of the French Canadians in striving to obtain an elective Legislative Council, was not so much to obtain a mere speculative object as to obtain a complete command over both the deliberative assemblies of the province. As the right of suffrage on which the House of Assembly was elected was territorial, and as the land of Canada was principally in the possession of the French Canadians, they fancied that if they could get both chambers elected upon the same right of suffrage, they would be enabled to continue ad libitum the ascendancy in both chambers which they enjoyed at present in the House of Assembly. The census of 1831, showed the proportion existing at present between the English and French population of Canada. The English settlers were certainly the minority, but they possessed all the energy and all the capital of the province. They insisted, as they could not get into the House of Assembly, that they should have influence in the other chamber, the Legislative Council, if not by election, at least by nomination. The French Canadians, however, insisted that the Legislative Council, as the House of Assembly, should be elective. This was resisted by the Government at home; and the consequence was, that the House of Assembly, in which the French Canadians were predominant, refused the supplies. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had said, that the vacillation and irresolution of her Majesty's Ministers were proved by the fact, that on the 6th of last March, Lord Glenelg had offered to Lord Gosford additional troops to intimidate the disaffected in Lower Canada, and that on the 27th of the same month, he had, in another despatch, refused to send them. Now, on a careful perusal of the papers laid upon the table, he could not find that any suggestion had been made to the Government at home by the military authorities of Canada that there was a want of troops in the colony to support the authority of her Majesty. The suggestion of sending troops out to Canada was the suggestion of the Government at home, not of Lord Gosford; and if it afterwards appeared that that suggestion was unnecessary, there was no blame to Lord Glenelg for having subsequently refused to act upon it. But it had been said, that the irresolution of Lord Glenelg at home had given confidence to the discontented in Canada. That, however, could not have been the case, inasmuch as that irresolution, if they pleased so to call it, had never been known to the public until Lord Glenelg's despatches were recently published. He contended, that during the late commotions it had been of powerful avail to us in the United States of America, that we had displayed such an abstinence from all measures of force, and had shown such a spirit of concession to the colonists. Under these circumstances he could not assert that any evil had arisen from the policy pursued by Lord Glenelg. On the contrary, he considered it to have been humane, wise, and successful, and he should therefore vote both against the original motion and the amendment of the noble Lord.

Mr. Rich

contended, that the question which was at the bottom of the noble Lord's (Lord Sandon's) motion, and which was the real question at issue on the present occasion, was the substitution of a Tory for a Reform Government. Let the noble Lord declare what was the ground of his cut-and-dry amendment. The matter for their consideration was not the trumpery question of Canada—trumpery, because it had already been settled. Let not the noble Lord then open his masked battery under such a question as that. He would ask what principle prompted the motion; he would not say that its object was a dirty, mercenary, scramble for office. Suppose the hon. Gentlemen opposite accepted office, could they proceed a step without dissolving the Parliament, and when it was dissolved, how would they secure a majority? They calculated on the feuds and divisions which they expected would exist amongst the Liberal party. He believed that they reckoned without their host. He could assure them that the Tory principle expired in 1830. The Tory Government had been allowed a full opportunity to reform the abuses of which the people complained. There had been sixteen years of peace, and did they employ the time in effecting any of the numerous improvements that were demanded? In the year 1830 Toryism was in the highest state of perfection to which it could rise in this country. But what was the condition of the country itself? Was it not bordering on anarchy? Fires were raging in the rural districts; the lives and property of the King's subjects were in hourly peril; in short, there was a general prevalence of outrages that wore all the features of concentrated conspiracy, ripening into revolt. Hunt was then preaching sedition from the Rotunda, and Cobbett was exciting by his addresses, the lower class of agriculturists to open violence. The streets of the metropolis even were disturbed, and discontent was so great that one of the bravest hearts in this country advised the King not to appear in the streets of his capital six months after his accession. Such was the state of the country under the Tories. Contrast these events with what occurred some years after a contrary principle had been in operation. When her present Majesty went through the late ordeal, which the late King was counselled to avoid, was there any cry of disloyalty—was there the slightest obstruction? No; her gracious Majesty, attended on that occasion by her Ministers, was followed by the acclamations of the people, who, in every possible way, manifested their extreme delight at her appearing amongst them. How was this great change brought about? Was it by magic?—was it not by the Government acting on the important principle o, conceding to the just demands of the people? But if such was the state o England, what was the state of Ireland? When the hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office there existed a certain associa- tion, which had arisen out of the grievances and the insults under which that country suffered, and which bid defiance to the law, and which no power of the Government, not then supported by public opinion, was able to put down. The repeal cry was then first raised, and a line of demarcation and exclusion, which was marked down by the bad policy of our ancestors, and had been preserved by the late Tory Administration, provoked a retaliation threatening nothing short of the dismemberment of the empire. The present state of Ireland he need not describe. He would next ask, what was the situation of our foreign affairs? About the period of the formation of the Reform Ministry, a distinguished Member of this House, now in another place, said that nothing short of a miracle could save the country from a war within six months. That miracle, however, was performed by a Government acting on the great principles of reform, retrenchment, and peace. As regarded the colonies, property was of 20 per cent less value in 1830 than it was at the present moment. The country now exhibited loyalty, obedience, and unanimity. He would ask, whether the state of England at present could be for an instant compared with its state in the year he had mentioned? This change had been wrought in the course of the seven years during which the Reform Government had existed. He had not forgotten, that for a short interval in that time the Tories held the reins of power, but they only succeeded in showing themselves incompetent to hold them to any useful purpose. He believed that that irruption of the Tories would not have taken place had it not been for the absence of the right hon. Baronet, who was in Rome. The right hon. Baronet had obtained a high reputation for the influence he exercised over his supporters, by which he succeeded in subduing their blind impetuosity, but it appeared that he was now disposed to risk the fame he had in this way acquired. He was not able to withstand the entreaties of his party any longer. The hon. Gentleman behind him insisted on pushing him forward—on launching him on a very troubled sea of experimental politics. The last elections had returned a majority to the House to defend the principles of Reform, but unhappily that majority was not sufficiently strong to put an end to the hopes of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side. The consequence was, that great eagerness was evinced by those hon. Gentlemen to obtain that which, when obtained, they would not be able to defend. They complained of the existence of agitation; but if they took office they must dissolve Parliament, and thus themselves would agitate the country from one end of it to the other. They seemed disposed to tag together any Administration that would bear the name, and then to trust to good luck, to the election, and to any occurrences that might divide the Liberal party in that House. He begged to remind them, that the Liberal party had been quite as much divided before as they were now; but when the question was whether they would have a Reform or a Tory Administration, they united for Reform, and carried the election with great spirit. If it were not for the evil consequences which might follow, he would almost wish to see the hon. Gentlemen once more in office, in order to prove to them how utterly incapable they were of maintaining their position. There had been taunts thrown out on the other side of the House on account of the divisions said to exist amongst the supporters of the Ministers; but what would be the complexion of the party the right hon. Baronet would have to lead? What would he do with the hon. Member for Oxford, who the other night presented a petition for the repeal of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Act. Then there was the Recorder of Dublin, who would move for the repeal of the Act for establishing a system of national education in Ireland, because it sanctioned, as the right hon. the Recorder said, the mutilation of the Scriptures—an act which was introduced by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley). There was still behind the Poor-law Bill. How would the right hon. Baronet keep down the exuberant feelings of a number of persons who exclaimed against that measure at the elections as the most tyrannical and despotic law that ever disgraced a Christian country? How were those hon. Gentlemen to be disposed of who were returned on a pledge that they would support the repeal of the Poor-law Act? While all these differences were taking place in the Cabinet of the right hon. Baronet, what would become of the Canadian question? The party, the official party, which the Tory Administra- tion patronised would, of course, triumph in the return of the old principle. He attributed these consequences to the right hon. Baronet's acceptance of office, because it was not possible, seeing what were the materials at his command, that he could take office without a resumption of the old course of policy. It was to be remembered, the voice of Ireland had declared itself as four to one in favour of the present Government. For the last two years, Ireland had enjoyed some repose; but let the present amendment be carried, and they dashed the cup of hope for ever from her lips, and they drove the people of Ireland mad; their's, he was sure, would not be the madness that rushed into sudden outrage and violent rebellion, but it would be the sullen madness of revengeful feeling, arising from wrongs unredressed and rights withheld, and which might at length seek its ruin in separation, and in its own destruction also consummate that of England. In spite of all the obstacles that were opposed to them, there would be found in that House a faithful band of Reformers, who would resist the union now projected, and would prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite from being led away by that evil influence which was now bringing mischief upon themselves, and that was sure eventually to be most mischievous to Ireland. It might, however, happen, that upon that side of the House there were some who were more fond of their own crotchets than of what was truly and practically good; but such he hoped would learn a lesson that night from the example that was about to be afforded to them by Reformers as sincere and at least as disinterested as themselves, and that the result would be, that when those hon. Members reflected on the course they had pursued they never again would intentionally injure a cause which they professed to support. The coming division, he was happy to think, would show to the country what was at the bottom of the hearts of the Conservatives—that they preached moderation, and that they practised agitation. They would show themselves to the world as men who, without having any rational hope of the retention of office, were yet ready to drive the country into a series of dissolutions and of constant changes of Government; for the Conservatives could not, and they dare not deny, that by carrying this amendment they would involve in it a dissolution of that House. Nor could the motley majority (by which the amendment might be carried) from the hottest Orangeman down to the coolest waverer, doubt that the object of the Conservatives was to resist reform, to defy Ireland, and to govern England and her dependent millions in that spirit of policy over which the ghost of Old Sarum and the weathercock of Westminster should preside.

Mr. Praed

said, that the hon. Member had commenced his speech with the oft-told tale, that he would trespass very shortly upon the attention of the House—as to how the hon. Gentleman had kept his word he would leave to the sense of the House to determine. In the wide and discursive range which the hon. Member had taken he had referred to many subjects. He had quoted from the speeches of Mr. Hunt, and had talked of the King's visit to the City, and of the visit of the right hon. Baronet to Rome; and, furthermore, the hon. Gentleman had touched upon every topic connected with the foreign and domestic policy of the country for the last seven years. The hon. Gentleman had commenced his speech by an allusion to what had taken place in the former part of the debate, and he had characterised the amendment of his noble Friend as "a cut-and-dry" amendment. With a very lavish exercise of his powers the hon. Gentleman poured out upon this point a flood of ridicule. Why, then, was there anything very extraordinary that upon a question, notice of which had been for a considerable time before the House—upon a question which had been much canvassed and considered, and which had excited considerable attention—was it indeed to say extraordinary, that upon a question of this kind his noble Friend should have thought fit to prepare an amendment calculated to meet the views which he entertained with respect to the course that ought to be taken on that occasion? For his part, he entertained so much toleration for "cut-and-dry" amendments that he was ready to go the dangerous length of extending that toleration to "cut-and-dry" speeches. He was anxious to avail himself of the present opportunity to state his reasons for the course which he intended to take on the present occasion. When he first saw the motion of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, as it stood on the paper, he certainly felt, that however he might differ from the views of the hon. Baronet, there was nothing in the terms of the motion from which he could dissent. He came down to the House expecting to find, that there might be much from which he should differ in the speech with which the hon. Baronet would introduce the motion. However, he was willing to admit, that he agreed in much of the speech of the hon. Baronet, who had shown much research and much valuable information with respect to the state of our colonies, and had stated nothing with which it was necessary to cavil. The noble Lord (Lord Palmerston)had asked was it fair for the hon. Baronet to go over the state of all our colonies, to describe all the evils that existed throughout them, and to charge the existence of all those evils upon the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department? But this was not a fair view of the course taken by the hon. Baronet, for he had gone over the state of these colonies, not to charge the existence of the present evils on the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but, having shown the importance of those interests, to call the attention of the House to the necessity that those interests should not be intrusted to the hands of a Minister whose incapacity on other grounds had been fully proved. The hon. Member for Bridport had accused the hon. Member for Leeds with making an attack upon the colonial system generally the groundwork of an attack upon an individual; but that was not the case. The hon. Baronet had said, that the system was bad, but that what he had at present to do with was the danger of continuing the administration of these important interests in incapable hands. He did not ask the House to change the system, but to remove the Minister, and if afterwards the system called for change, that change might be made; but the object of the hon. Baronet's motion was the removal of the Minister. He wished now to state that though the hon. Baronet had been found fault with for having referred to other colonies besides Canada, yet the answer which had been given by the noble Lord opposite had not been so conclusive as he seemed to consider it. With respect, for example, to New South Wales. Though the state of that colony required alteration, and though there was every reason to expect that some measure would be proposed with respect to that colony, yet a pen had not been put to paper with a view to that object. He was prepared to state that a bill had been some time ago offered for this purpose to the Colonial-office, and one of the individuals by whom the bill was prepared was a Member of that House, and it was not until the day before this motion was to come forward that an answer had been sent from the Colonial-office stating that this bill was approved of. Now he thought that this was a point, in respect to this colony, on which the Colonial Minister was very much to blame. He did not feel such strong objection to the motion of the hon. Baronet, on the ground of personality, as did some hon. Members, in whose opinion he was in the habit of placing confidence. The motion was not, in fact, so much directed against the conduct of a particular individual as against the incapacity of an entire political party. When the motion against Lord Sandwich was made by Mr. Fox there was no complaint of personality. The Lord Morpeth of that day, called it by its right name—an attack on the administration. He did not say anything about personal motives; but in the present case, the motion being directed against Lord Glenelg, and not against the Cabinet, he thought the fairest mode—that which would put the case upon its true footing—would be to vote for the amendment of his noble Friend, the Member of Liverpool. Another ground he had for supporting the amendment was, that it was more explanatory than the original motion; it stated to the House fully the grounds on which he felt disposed to censure the policy of the Colonial Government; and it did not leave any misapprehension with the House or the country, nor exclude any individual who deserved to be inculpated. It was really surprising and most amusing to note the many remarks and conjectures which had been indulged in as to the object of the noble Lord who moved the amendment. They were told, for instance, that the Conservatives wished, with the assistance of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, to dispossess the noble Lord opposite and his colleagues of office. But the hon. Member for Bridport had fully answered that charge. He told them that there was that in the preamble of the amendment for which he could not vote. Did he suppose that they were blind to that circumstance? If he saw that it was impossible for him to vote for the preamble were not those who framed it equally clear-sighted? If their object had been, as was imputed, to catch the votes of Gentlemen opposite, would it not have been easy to smooth away the difficulty complained of by the hon. Member for Bridport? Instead of talking of putting down rebellion, could they not have talked of conciliating the colony? could they not, in fact, by a few smooth-sounding expressions, have caught those votes which, by the manner in which they had framed their amendment they had wilfully thrown off from their division? But their desire was not by any artifice to catch a stray vote from the other side, but to earn the support of those with whom they were always in the habit of acting in concert. He had been not a little surprised to hear the arguments by which some Gentlemen opposite had at former periods attempted to palliate the Canadian revolt supported last evening by a Member of her Majesty's Government. He thought that by this time the Canadian rebellion was admitted on all hands to have been totally unjustifiable, and had not the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last night—whose cue now was, not to attack the Radicals but the Conservatives—drawn largely upon the stores of history for facts to justify all the atrocities of Canadian rebellion? He neither agreed with the Radicals nor with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last night—he did not think that by any party who held the reins of power had Canada been misgoverned to an extent to justify rebellion. What were the complaints of the Canadians? Did they complain of rights wrested from them—of laws trampled on? No, their complaint was of benefits not sufficiently numerous, and of promises held out of future advantages not sufficiently performed. This made a wide difference in the cause of discontent. And up to a very late period the supporters of the Canadians in this country held language very different to that now adopted. M. Papineau was not then, as now, cited as an authority. He could cite an authority at least as good—he meant Mr. Roebuck. He would first premise that it was admitted on all hands that up to 1828 the policy pursued by this country towards Canada had been one of conciliation. Mr. Roebuck dates it 1822, but even that left but a very short period for the gross misgovernment alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In 1823 Mr. Roebuck, who was not then the pensioned advocate of the Canadian Assembly, but an independent individual, expressed his opinion of our Canadian policy in a pamphlet on the subject of an union between the two provinces. He said— The wisdom of a government is marked by the happiness of its subjects. Where, in the place of tyranny, there is an equal distribution of law—where, in the place of poverty, plenty equally diffused—the people cannot be said to be unhappy, nor the government oppressive. Such is the present situation of Canada.

Mr. Roebuck

proceeded to discuss the situation of Canada previous to its connexion with this country; he says— When, by the fortune of war, and by the political schemes of Europe, this province became subject to England, its situation could not entitle it to be the envied country it now is. Groaning beneath the iron scourge of military despotism, and the no less rigorous, though less palpable, dominion of the church, she seemed doomed for ever to the oppressive burthens of bigotry and rapine. From this state England rescued us; broke these bonds asunder, and annihilated, at once and for ever, this system of oppression; for the lawless dominion of a military commander she gave us the mild and regular administration of her own laws, and for the capricious dictates of the grand monarque, her own unrivalled Constitution. He would read one more passage from the pamphlet of Mr. Roebuck, which would bring that gentleman's opinion of our Canadian policy down to the period at which he was writing. He said— A glance at our history for some years past will enable us better to understand our present situation. By it we shall see the generosity of England towards us; how each act of beneficence rose one above the other, showing at once the noble spirit of the mother country, and the high estimation in which she held those distant colonies. He agreed with Mr. Roebuck. He thought no Government had been very bad, but he thought that the Whigs had been guilty of gross misgovernment. In his judgment, the evils of which Canada complained were of much more recent date than was usually supposed. He thought they were dated from no more distant period than that which had been alluded to in the course of this debate, and he thought that the crisis by which they had been followed might have been foreseen much earlier than it had been by the colonial administration. He agreed with the hon. Baronet who addressed the House at a late period last evening, that it was unfair to impute all the evils of Canada to the misgovernment of Lord Glenelg. He believed that before that noble Lord's administration commenced, the designs of the disaffected had become so matured that nothing could prevent a crisis. It was impossible to refer to the evidence and proceedings of the Committee without being of that opinion; but that was the ground of complaint. The crisis being inevitable, why take no steps to meet it? Why was rebellion, long foreknown, allowed to break out without any means being provided to quell it? They had heard a great deal of the individual irresponsibility of Lord Glenelg; but was he not responsible for the conduct of his servant? What was the conduct which his Governor (Lord Gosford) exhibited? Every one of his letters afforded proofs of the justice of the charges contained in the amendment. Lord Gosford went out to Canada with the knowledge that the Home Government was prepared to sanction alterations to a considerable extent in the constitution of the Legislative Council. The state of the Legislative Council was the principal grievance of the Canadians, and the remedy hoped for was a re-modelling of that Council. The attempt might have failed—he believed it would have failed; but why was not the attempt made? Lord Gosford writes on the 8th March—"I send the names of such as I think qualified for seats in the Legislative Council." And three months afterwards he complains of the difficulty of finding names. If he found such difficulty in getting names he could not be said to have contributed much to the radiance of that gem which the noble Lord pointed to as the brightest in his policy. Lord Gosford proceeded to write that "He apprehended nothing in the shape of a general commotion—no disorder;" although he knew that at the time the constitution of the colony was about to be virtually suspended, and that the designs of the disaffected were about to be ratified by the election of their warmest partisans and advocates. Lord Gosford proceeded, on the 25th of March, to use a suggestion which he (Mr. Praed) wondered did not convey to the mind of the noble Secretary some idea of the dangerous state of the colony. He said:—"The taking of money from the public chest is so strongly disapproved of, that even the most loyal cannot refrain from expressing their disapprobation." Here was evidence of the disapproval even of the loyal, and still no remedy was applied. On the 10th of June Lord Gosford spoke of the organisation going on, and intimated that he began to think there was a necessity for prompt measures. What were the prompt measures he contemplated? Increasing his forces—getting out more soldiers? No such thing. His prompt measure was the issuing of a proclamation. That was the only measure he thought necessary, and five days afterwards he writes to Sir Colin Campbell requesting one regiment. Surely this sending for troops was some symptom of disaffection; and still, on the 4th of July, his Lordship thought there were no grounds for serious apprehension, as from information he had received he had reason to think his proclamation had proved effectual, for since that time two meetings had taken place, and passed off quietly. However, very shortly after came a demonstration which he thought ought to have made Lord Gosford alter his opinion. This was the address of the Colonial Assembly, not of a meeting like the mob meetings of this country, but of the organised representatives of the people addressing the representative of the Government. They proceeded to complain of the unconstitutional measures suggested by the Royal Commissioners and told Lord Gosford that the connection with the mother country must for the future depend upon physical force. Lord Glenelg considered such conduct particularly satisfactory, So much for vacillation. Then as to the sending of troops. Lord Glenelg says he did not send troops because Lord Gosford did not ask for them, and that he thought it would not be prudent at that time to make any demonstration, lest it might give an excuse to the framers of the disturbances. What was the opinion of Lord Gosford as to the propriety of making a demonstration? Some time after, when he became alarmed, he suggested to the Home Government that it would be desirable to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and establish martial law, saying, at the same time, that he need not put it in force, as the knowledge that he had the power would prevent the necessity for its exercise. According to this reasoning, the presence of a sufficient number of bayonets in Canada would have prevented the shedding of a single drop of blood. He had heard an argument used that night which astounded him exceedingly. The hon. Member for Rochester said that Government had acted wisely in refusing to send troops to Canada, as that the presence of the military in Boston had lost us America. There had been a small force in Lower Canada. Perhaps the hon. Member thought that it had caused the insurrection, Perhaps he thought that as Our force was great because it was so small, 'Twould have been greater were it none at all. Another fault he had to find with the Colonial Government was the manner in which its intentions were communicated to the Canadians. Was it right for Lord Gosford, with a knowledge that Government had no intention of granting an Elective Legislative Council, to use language of this nature— There are still graver matters which have been made the grounds of petition to his Majesty, and respecting which the Commissioners are not precluded from entering into an inquiry. But it would be painful to speak here of dissensions between the two Legislative bodies whom I address, or to recapitulate the faults which have been found with the Constitution of either body by the other. Was not that a vague instruction of an intention to open the Legislative Council? Whether Lord Gosford had used this language for the purpose of deception or conciliation no man could have deemed it right. It was for those reasons he condemned the conduct of the Colonial Administration—for this reason he would vote for the amendment of his noble Friend. He did not pretend to be blind to the probable consequences of this motion; but, at the same time, he denied that the object of its framers was such as had been asserted. The Conservatives were told that they were so drunk with recent victories that they wished now to go farther, and turn Ministers from their places. They wished no such thing. But they were called on to express an opinion on this subject, and they had only one of three courses to adopt. One was to give a direct negative to the proposition of the hon. Baronet opposite—this, holding the opinions they did, they could not do; the second was to vote a direct affirmative, which, although he agreed with every word contained in the resolution, would not sufficiently express his opinion of the conduct of the Colonial Government, and the third was to move an amendment like the present, putting their views into so distinct a form that it would be impossible to mistake them. And as he had heard so many threats and vaunts he would tell the House the course the Government would he obliged to take. They had been dared to reject the motion of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, and to take the sense of the House on the amendment. They would do no such thing. They would move that the words of the resolution should stand, and on that take a division. What would be the consequence? The Radicals, because they disputed the preamble of the amendment, would be compelled by the tactics of the Ministers to vote for it. The Conservatives had been taunted with seeking to catch the votes of the Radicals: but let the division be scrutinised, and it would soon be seen on which side the—he would not say disgraceful—but artful coalition was courted.

Sir George Grey

wished, before he entered into the topics which had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, to make one allusion to that motion, which had given occasion to the debate, and to the amendment of his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool. The motion of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, was almost forgotten, though the noble Lord had taken the hon. Baronet under his patronage, and without, of course, any previous concert, or any design to win the hon. Baronet's support. The hon. Member for Aylesbury declared that he was willing to vote for the motion, wholly uncalled for, unjust and ungenerous as it was; and only refrained from doing so because he preferred the amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool. He thought that he should do gross injustice to Lord Glenelg, under whom be had now the honour and the satisfaction of serving for the three last years, if he followed the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, through the long course of his rambles all over the globe to find materials for attacking Lord Glenelg. The hon. Baronet had not only travelled over the whole globe, he had given several notices of his intended motion, as so many advertisements for the collection of grievances from all quarters to help him in making out his case, and assist him in impugning the conduct of Lord Glenelg. The hon. Baronet's signal failure afforded ample testimony that that conduct, arraigned as it was by an Opposition, formidable in numbers and in talent, and not over-scrupulous in their modes of attack, was such as to enable his noble Friend to treat all these imputations with scorn. On every point connected with the colonial policy of the Administration, he (Sir George Grey) would be willing to meet the hon. Baronet or the noble Lord, or both, on any motion they might choose to bring forward, whenever they pleased. He should be happy to give them every explanation on every point of colonial policy of which they disapproved. What had been the conduct of hon. Members opposite? They felt the weakness of the case which the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, had made out, and, by way of assisting him, had raked up a story about private individuals doing the duty of his noble Friend, the Colonial Secretary. He thought he had a right to demand the authority which could be brought forward by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, to prove the truth of the assertion, that within these few days a draft of a Bill had been sent in to Lord Glenelg connected with the constitution of New South Wales by a gentleman who was utterly unconnected with that colony, and that Lord Glenelg had neglected the duty which devolved upon him, and suffered it to be performed by a gentleman utterly unconnected with the colony. This had been asserted by the hon. Member for Aylesbury in aid of the catalogue of offences charged by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, against his noble Friend. He utterly denied the truth of this statement. Very many similar statements had been made on various occasions, and, for anything he knew, the statement in question might have appeared in The Morning Post of that day. He did not wish to refer to the daily channels of calumny; he made it, in fact, an invariable rule to abstain from noticing them; but when such a charge was made by an hon. Member of that House in his place, he was hound to give it the most unequivocal denial. If this was all the assistance which the hon. Member for Aylesbury could bring to the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, he did not think the hon. Baronet owed much gratitude to his new ally. He would only say with reference to this subject, that looking at the colony of New South Wales, he would be fully prepared on a more fitting occasion, and when the House was disposed to attend to that remote colony, to show that the very great improvements that had been made in the Government of that colony had originated since the period of 1831, when Lord Ripon assumed the seals of the Colonial-office, and that the greatest possible improvements had been made with regard to emigration, with regard to the treatment of convicts, to education, and other important subjects, since his noble Friend (Lord Glenelg) had held the seals of office. Upon this subject he should be prepared on a fitting occasion to meet any charge that should be brought before the House. He would come, then, to the main question before the House, the motion of the hon. Baronet, an amendment to which he must say was brought forward without any justification. It had been alleged, indeed, by the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, that it was brought forward under a painful necessity. He thought that the noble Lord was embarrassed in bringing it forward, not so much from the pain he felt in bringing it forward, as from the difficulty which the noble Lord felt in tacking his amendment to the motion and speech of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds. The noble Lord had said, truly, that he did not expect such a speech from the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds. He had seen the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, and the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Newark, all, in anticipation of the motion and speech of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, loaded with papers relative to the affairs of Canada, and when the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, concluding his speech with merely a passing allusion to Canada, and making a series of comments on the conduct of the Colonial Government when their party was in office, which was likely to excite rather unpleasant recollections, astonishment and disappointment were depicted in the countenances of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it was some time before the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, could gather courage to rise and move his cut-and-dry amendment. As to the time at which this motion was brought forward, he agreed with his right hon. Friend, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, in thinking it a most extraordinary proceeding—after the affairs of Canada had been so often before the House—after her Majesty's Government had detailed their policy, and that policy had been approved of—and after the House, by a large majority, and as a mark of the greatest confidence, had placed extraordinary powers in their hands,—that an amendment should be made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, tending to remove that Government from office, and to claim for themselves that confidence which was implied in the exercise of those powers which the House had already confided to the present Government. It was not enough to say that on that occasion unanimity was so desirable that the House agreed, as the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had said, to repose in her Majesty's Government a generous confidence. The real fact was, as stated by his right hon. Friend, the political horizon was then dark and clouded, and a heavy responsibility would have rested on right hon. Gentlemen opposite before the Canada Bill had passed that House, and before the insurrection had been so quietly suppressed in Canada as it now appeared to be, if they had come forward at the time, and said that Government ought not to be intrusted with those powers. While the result of the insurrection was uncertain, the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite hardly liked to say, "You have been a vacillating Ministry, unfit to govern, and we will take your places." That would have been a manly course of proceeding. But it appeared to him that it was not a Parliamentary course for hon. Gentlemen opposite to adopt the policy of the present Government, to concur in the address to the Throne, to pledge the House to take effective measures to remedy the evils that existed in Canada, to wait till they had the full details of the scheme which the Goverment intended to propose, and without in the slightest degree attempting to call in question the conduct of Government, with a view to their removal from office. The hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had prudently waited till the insurrection was at an end, and then they proposed a vote of censure to remove the Administration. This course must have been forced, he was sure, on the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel), because, pending the discussions on the Canada Bill, the right hon. Baronet had been invited to express his opinion of the policy pursued by the Government, and he declined. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, stated that he would not interfere with the responsibility attached to those measures; but now the right hon. Baronet felt a pressure, perhaps, from the other right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke (Sir J. Graham), who had but lately taken his seat, animated by the speech which he had delivered to the Conservative electors of Cumberland—a speech, the talent of which he must admire, however little he could give the right hon. Baronet credit for candour and generosity. The right hon. Baronet, who had not been present at the debates on a former occasion, was anxious, doubtless, to express his opinion upon the conduct of Government, and doubly anxious to have an opportunity of evincing, that he possessed talents for exercising the authority of the Colonial-office. He would ask, what was the object of this cut-and-dry amendment, the fruit of a month's notice? Looking at it with respect to Canada, he would ask, what was it good for? The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, and the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had addressed themselves to a party on that (the Ministerial) side of the House; but another hon. Gentleman opposite said, that he did not wish to conciliate any party on that side of the House, or rather that he did not want that party to vote with him; but the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, said to some Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, "You have voted, piece by piece, against the Canadian policy of the present Government, and now, when I ask you to condemn that policy wholesale, you cannot refuse your votes." But he begged hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House to recollect that the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, called upon the House to censure the conciliatory policy, and not the coercive policy, of the present Government. The present Government had adopted coercive measures only when conciliation failed. They had adopted these from a sense of duty, and a conviction of their necessity. They had adopted it at the hazard of losing some of their friends. Why did the noble Lord censure? It was not that they had adopted coercion after conciliation failed. It was because in 1834 they did not support the Bill brought in by the noble Lord himself. It was because that Bill was not then adopted. The noble Lord made a direct charge against the present Government because they did not adopt the repeal of the Act passed in 1831. He was prepared to prove, he was ready to contend, that the repeal of that Act, at the time, would be a gross violation of the constitutional privileges of the House of Assembly, and of those rights and benefits, the granting of which had so recently received the sanction of the British Parliament. With reference to his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool, he would say another word before he proceeded further. His noble Friend, who thought he acted with perfect consistency on this occasion, accused them (Ministers) of doing that which he blamed Sir George Murray for not doing in 1830. Sir George Murray missed on that occasion the golden opportunity of introducing a conciliatory policy into the two provinces. That course had been recommended by the Committee appointed in 1828, of which his noble Friend (Lord Sandon) was a member, and yet he would now censure the Government for taking that course which he already censured Sir George Murray for not having taken. This, he must say, was not consistent in his noble Friend, but was grossly inconsistent. The Committee of 1828 recommended the surrender of the revenues of the Crown. The report of that Committee, which would have produced a satisfactory adjustment of all the difficulties that existed, and the distrusts that were engendered, was thwarted by neglect on the part of the Government of which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was a member, and of which Sir G. Murray was a minister, to adopt a conciliatory policy, as the Committee recommended. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, being a member of the Committee, and feeling the importance of delay and hesitation in adopting that policy which alone could inspire any reasonable hope of settling the differences that existed, endeavoured to hasten Sir George Murray, in the execution of the recommendation of the Committee. How, then, could the noble Lord now come forward and say that if the present Government did that which he censured Sir George Murray for not doing, he (Lord Sandon) would not only censure them, but he would actually be the person to move their rejection from office. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, said, that from the period of the abandonment of the Bill for the repeal of the Act of 1834, he dated the commencement of the imbecility and irresolution of the Government. To this remark he (Sir G. Grey) begged to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, stated, that from the period of the abandonment of the Bill of which he gave notice in 1834—namely, a bill to restore to the Lords of the Treasury, the right to appropriate the revenues granted to the House of Assembly, the noble Lord dated the commencement of that imbecility and irresolution of which he complained. The House must remember that in the winter of 1834, the Government of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) came into office. It was made a matter of boast, and justly, for he did not wish to detract from any man's merits, that Lord Aberdeen, during the five months that he was in office, gave a very painful and careful attention to the affairs of Canada; and a few days before that noble Earl left office he actually sent instructions to the Governor General which contained a full development of the policy which the then Government was prepared to adopt with regard to Lower Canada. The Earl of Aberdeen had the advantage of knowing the course which was pursued by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and as these instructions were placed on record for the information of the present Government, he had no hesitation in saying, that they contained opinions which did great credit to the judgment, ability, and penetration, of the noble Earl. In these instructions it was stated, that the course of policy proposed by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, was a course of policy which could not be advantageously pursued. It was the deliberate judgment of the colonial minister (the Earl of Aberdeen) that such a course of policy ought not to be pursued, and that they could only hope for an amicable adjustment of the differences that existed from a general surrender not only of the revenues before mentioned, but of the whole of the revenues of the Crown, casual and territorial, in return for a moderate civil list; such a civil list as Lord Ripon proposed—namely, 5,900l., with, in addition, a small sum for contingencies. This was the very policy pursued by the present Government. They had cordially adopted the instructions which Lord Aberdeen had prepared for Lord Amherst, which in spirit, and substance, had been sent to Lord Gosford with respect to the surrender of the revenues of the Crown. He must, therefore, leave the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, to settle this question of colo- nial policy between them, and their new ally the hon. Member for Leeds. He hoped they would settle it before they went into one or the other of the lobbies together, and that the House would take care that in settling it they did not violate the compact entered into with the Canadian House of Assembly. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, had last night read a passage from one of the papers that had been laid on the table of the House, but if the noble Lord had read the whole of the passage, it would be found to establish the opinions for which he was then contending. He would ask, was it right thus to lead the House to suppose, by omitting part of a statement, that it bore a different meaning from its real, consistently supporting a cut and dry amendment by cut and dry extracts? The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, talked of the unanimous opinion of the Commissioners about the repeal of the Act being a most objectionable mode of meeting the existing difficulties, but that opinion was not worded in the vague and undefined terms which might be supposed from the speech of the noble Lord. He (Sir G. Grey) would take the liberty of reading an extract from the report of the Commissioners of 1836. There was certainly something in that report which would seem to countenance the opinions of the noble Lord with respect to the repeal of the 14th George 3rd, but then the recommendation was to suspend, not to repeal, the Act. The Commissioners went on to say:— So great, indeed, will be the powers remaining to the Assembly, that doubts have been suggested whether the alteration of the 1st and 2nd William 4th, c. 23, though it may abate the immediate difficulties of the province, will be of any permanent avail. In this point of view it is observed, that the Assembly may continue its war upon the coordinate branches of the legislature with more violence than ever; that the resumption of the duties under the 14th George 3rd, c. 88, will only restore the government to the same position in which it maintained an unsuccessful conflict with the Assembly in former years; and therefore that it would be better at once to advance a step further, and suspend the Constitutional Act of 1791, for a limited number of years. However startling the proposal, it is said that many arguments may be adduced in its support; that not only it will be more decisive, but that, being more evidently based on the difficulty of working the free institutions of Great Britain, in a country disturbed by the jealousies of a divided population, the proceeding would be less offensive to the other colonies of Great Britain, than a mode of action from which it might be inferred that in other cases equally a refractory assembly would be deemed liable to a curtailment of privileges. We cannot, however, undertake to recommend such a plan. Independently of the general objections to any course which would be not merely unpopular, but utterly unconceived by the community at large before its adoption; of which, therefore, neither the advantages nor the defects have been exposed by the light of public discussion, nor the extent of probable opposition to it indicated, we shrink from the measure on a view of its own merits. These were the opinions of the Commissioners, and it would be seen that they admitted such a course would be beset with doubts and difficulties. They also admitted that it would only serve to relieve the colonial government front the immediate pressure, and was a course which should not be resorted to unless warranted by the greatest necessity. He would now request the attention of the House to the opinion of Sir George Gipps, which had great weight with the Government, and which, perhaps, would also be listened to attentively by the noble Lord (Stanley). The passage was as follows:— I join in the main recommendation of the report, namely, that, as an immediate measure, recourse must be had to a suspension or alteration of the 1st and 2nd William 4th, c. 23; and I do so because, while I think the demands of the Assembly cannot be complied with, I know no way by which the means of paying the public servants and of carrying on the government can be procured, except by the resumption of the revenues of the 14th George the 3rd, unless, indeed, the Imperial Parliament should be disposed to furnish the money, which I think very improbable, or that it be determined at once to suspend the Constitutional Act of 1791. This latter course is one which I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of advising, though in some respects I think it would be hardly more objectionable than the suspension of the Act of William the 4th, whilst it would unquestionably be more efficacious. I am, indeed, very far from regarding the resumption of the revenues of the 14th George the 3rd as a safe, easy, or efficacious, measure; and it is only with the greatest reluctance that I can contemplate a course of proceeding which will take from the representatives of the people their now acknowledged privilege of disposing of all moneys raised within the province by taxation. The Assembly, by the suspension of the Act 1 and 2 William the 4th, will be deprived, it is true, of a portion of its power, but it will still remain in possession of ample means of thwarting the Government, and these means we may expect to see it exert with an unscrupulous hostility. The suspension of this Act is, moreover, the measure which they expect; for they had due notice of it in 1834; and for which they, to a certain extent, are prepared. The Assembly, even when deprived of the revenues of the 14th George the 3rd, will retain its control over funds nearly twice as great as those in the hands of the executive; and although the House may not have power to dispose of them at its discretion, it will at any rate be able to lock them up, especially to prevent the application of them to any purpose favourable to the Government, or to the interests of the British party. It may also refuse to pass bills required by the commercial interests, such, for instance, as bills for the renewal of the charters of the Quebec and Montreal banks, both of which will expire in July, 1837. When I consider, therefore, the bitter hostility, or rather fury, with which the Assembly will be animated against the British Government and against British interests, the invectives which, under the direction of its practised leaders, it will pour forth against England, the power it will possess of spreading disaffection within the province, and inviting interference from without, I am at a loss to imagine how the Government can be carried on with advantage, and I cannot help fearing that we shall ultimately be driven to abandon the country with all the shame of failure upon us, or to maintain it at a cost infinitely beyond its value. Such was the opinion of Sir George Gipps. Now, as between the noble Member for North Lancashire and the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, how could matters be adjusted? Surely, the hon. Baronet would not vote for such a measure as the Bill of the noble Lord, which he thought the only measure for the adjustment of the Canadian question. That Bill would have been rejected even by the Committee which the noble Lord himself nominated. There seemed to be a great difference of opinion even amongst Gentlemen opposite, as to the manner in which the Canadas were to be governed, and it would be desirable to know before the House went to a division—it would be requisite in deciding the votes—to ascertain what was the course of policy proposed to be acted upon with respect to Canada in place of that pursued by the present Government. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had, with his characteristic chivalry of disposition, avowed himself ready, not only to follow up the principles of the despatch which the hon. Member for Tynemouth had told them produced such a sensation in the colony, but, not satisfied with this, he would repeal the 14th of George the 3rd. That would not, however, please the noble Lord's Friends. Would the noble Lord then turn to their opinions, and recommend the policy sanctioned by Lord Aberdeen and adopted by the present Government, and surrender the whole of the casual and territorial revenues of the Crown upon the grant of a moderate civil list? He might say a great deal with regard to various points raised in the instructions of Lord Aberdeen to Lord Amherst. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, stated, on what he called the best authority, that he knew that Lord Amherst would have been absent only two months on his mission; that in that short space Canada would have been pacified, and all the differences settled; and the noble Lord further stated, that Lord Amherst was instructed to adjust those differences, and not to inquire into them. The distinction thus attempted to be drawn was a fallacy which had been before exposed in the House—a fallacy which, however often it had been exposed, was still repeated by hon. Members on the other side of the House. Lord Amherst went out to exercise the powers which an executive governor could exercise without having those powers enlarged by Parliament—he went out to redress those grievances merely which he could redress in his executive capacity; but Lord Gosford, a general governor, had the same power, and he went out with almost the same instructions as were prepared for Lord Amherst, those instructions having been urged upon Lord Gosford with the full force with which they had been urged upon Lord Amherst. But Lord Gosford was instructed to give a decided refusal to allow of the change in the Legislative Council which was demanded by the House of Assembly, and was it on this ground that the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, was prepared to vote with those hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who had quarrelled with the Government because they refused to make this change? The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, charged the Government with delay in nominating the Legislative Council. The noble Lord ought to know that it was impossible to nominate legislative councillors without a mandamus from the Crown. The reason of the delay in filling up the latter was that, as the appointments were for life, the most scrupulous care should be observed before they were made. These circumstances he would not enter further into, as they had been already explained by the hon. Member for Tynemouth. It was impossible in the state of things in Canada at that time to select councillors who would secure the confidence at the same time of the people and the Government; and unless these ends were attained the nominations would be of no use. The people would not be satisfied with men of Liberal opinions, nor of even ultra-Liberals, who did not go with them the entire way. When the noble Lord read a passage from a dispatch of Lord Gosford on this subject, he asked the noble Lord if he had read the whole dispatch, as, from the construction given to it, it was evident that the noble Lord knew nothing of it. The next passage shewed that, according to Lord Gosford, this delay was attributable to circumstances over which Lord Glenelg had no control. The moment this part of the dispatch was read, the noble Lord (Lord Sandon) became sensible that it exonerated Lord Glenelg from all blame on this account. There was another point to which he wished to advert. A complaint had been brought against Government on the ground that there was not a sufficient number of troops in Canada, and this charge had been repeated over and over again, notwithstanding the testimony to the contrary of an illustrious Duke in the other House—notwithstanding that the result had satisfactorily proved, that there was a sufficient number of troops—and not with standing the testimony of a person connected with the province, a most distinguished officer, Sir John Colborne, who for the last two years had commanded the troops in the province. Why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite bring forward the charge that the province was not sufficiently defended before the insurrection took place? They then heard nothing of the insufficiency of the number of troops. ["Mr. Roebuck said so!"] He was somewhat surprised to find that Mr. Roebuck had become an authority with Gentlemen opposite. From the numerous conversations in which hon. Gentlemen in this House, and some out of it, who were connected with Canada, took part, it appeared to be the opinion universally entertained, shared in by Sir Colin Campbell, and every military officer, as well as by Lord Gosford, that there was a sufficient number of troops. Yet they were now told by those who were enlightened, no doubt by the result which had taken place, that they (the Government) ought to have foreseen exactly the effect of the resolutions, and to have increased the troops to such an extent as to prevent the possibility of the insurrection of the Lower Canadians, spread over a large extent of territory, and comprising 450,000 persons. [Sir J. Graham: Were not two regiments to have been sent?] Yes, and two regiments more than the usual establishment did actually arrive before the outbreak took place. By the authority of Lord Glenelg, Sir Colin Campbell was instructed to supply from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward's Island, any number of men who might be required; and accordingly, not in the winter season, as the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) stated last night, upon what authority he knew not, 2,000 men were conveyed in her Majesty's ships to the St. Lawrence, and a third regiment arrived in July, so as to be available for the public service. At that time Sir Colin Campbell wrote to Lord Gosford on the same subject, upon which the ignorant and deficient Colonial Secretary had instructed the governor of New Brunswick so long ago as March, 1837; and these letters must have actually crossed on their way. But it was contended, that it would be desirable to have foreseen the circumstances which have occurred, and to provide so large a military force as would be sufficient, not merely to put down but to prevent insurrection, although there was nothing to justify great military display during the last summer. It might have been most mischievous to bring about such a state of things as would justify this language on the part of the House of Assembly—"According to the solemn assurance of your own governor, you state your unwillingness to take the money from the public chest, which you assert to be necessary to carry on the duties of government: while, during our deliberations on this subject, we see your troops surrounding our House of Assembly in order to control our deliberations, and to establish a military despotism under the semblance of a free representation." The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) maintained that there should be no violation of the constitutional privileges of the House of Assembly, and yet he advocated a doctrine which would render the government independent of it, and which would hold the country by military occupation, through means of a sufficient number of troops within the province to prevent the expression of public opinion. For of what avail was public opinion when the slightest step taken to express it was to be suppressed by military force? The Government was now about to send out a considerable force, although the insurrection was put down. The Ministers did not think it safe to trust to the ordinary establishment, however much they relied on the patriotic zeal and the loyal attachment of a large proportion of the inhabitants; but in sending out a large military force they were not guilty of the mockery of respecting the constitutional privileges of the House of Assembly, in name, while it was evident they completely overruled its decisions. Their policy was clear, definite, and distinct. It was a policy which the advocates of liberal opinions and the supporters of the Government must admit to be such as not to have called for the censure of his noble Friend on the ground of coercion, but which showed that the Ministers were slow to adopt a coercive course, and that they really wished to respect the constitutional privileges of the House of Assembly, and the safety alike of the interests of the province and those of the mother country. But, from the tone of some of the speeches which had been made, it might be doubted whether their policy was actually calculated to conciliate. Let him remind the House that at the period when the present Government came into office, none of our North American colonies were free from disturbance, disaffection, and dissatisfaction. He did not intend to say that open revolt had taken place in any of them, but controversies had been going on which were brought to a settlement through the instrumentality of his noble Friend, the Colonial Secretary, who was said to be so blind to his duty, so deficient in activity, but who applied, with sedulousness and ability, to this difficult undertaking; and he rejoiced to say, that with one exception, that of Lower Canada, his noble Friend's efforts had been crowned with the most gratifying success. As a personal attack had been made on his noble Friend he felt justified in adverting to some particular points upon which his conduct must meet with an acquittal. In New Brunswick, for several years before Lord Glenelg took the administration of the affairs of our colonies, a controversy had been going on which, as it respected revenue, was precisely similar to that which agitated our other North American colonies. It was a controversy in which he had no hesitation in admitting the home Government was wrong, and the colonists were right; for, although a new era was introduced by Lord Ripon, he did not go the full length of dealing frankly and unreservedly with the demands which were put forward. There was always something kept back in the concessions with regard to revenue, which fully justified and caused a distrust of the intentions of the imperial Government. In the beginning of the year 1836 an address of the House of Assembly of New Brunswick being agreed to, for the surrender of a reasonable civil list, three gentlemen were deputed by the House of Assembly in order personally to come to a satisfactory adjustment of differences which had so long been the cause of most harassing vexation. These gentlemen came into communication with Lord Glenelg, who diligently applied himself to the subject of their demands. He held several personal communications with the persons so selected by the House of Assembly, and looked at the question in all its bearings. He stated his views, heard their opinions, and finally brought about the adoption of a settlement which was quite satisfactory, not by concessions of every demand which was made, but by granting such, as upon full consideration of the whole case, mutual concession and ample deliberation, he was satisfied ought not to be any longer withheld. They waved all unconstitutional demands when it was pointed out that they could not in safety be granted, and that their constitutional rights were restored, not with a niggardly hand, but in a liberal and confiding spirit. And how were these proceedings now described? Why, he presumed that his noble Friend (Lord Sandon) alluded to the conduct of the Colonial Secretary with respect to all our North American colonies when he designated it as being vacillating and showing want of proper energy. Those gentlemen to whom he had alluded, having accomplished the object of their mission in the summer of 1836, returned in October, and just as they were leaving this country, the following letter was addressed by them to Lord Glenelg:— London, October, 1836. My Lord,—After the highly satisfactory conclusion of our negotiations with your Lordship, it would be ungrateful in us not to record, on behalf of the loyal people of New Brunswick, our sincere and hearty thanks to our most gracious Sovereign for that paternal solicitude for their welfare so clearly mani- fested by the personal interest which his Majesty has been pleased to take in the important matters of the address which we have had the honour to present. We would also, on the same behalf, convey our most grateful acknowledgments to his Majesty's Government in general, for the liberal and enlightened policy which has characterised their decisions upon the various subjects which we have had the honour to bring to their notice, and to your Lordship in particular, for the attention and consideration which your Lordship has invariably bestowed upon our representations. If the principles involved in your Lordship's recent instructions to the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick be carried out in practice according to their obvious spirit and intent, we have good reason to hope that ere long their beneficial effects will be seen in the general diffusion of contentment and prosperity throughout the province, in the rapid development of our resources, and in our stronger and more inseparable attachment to the land and government of our fathers. That these cheering anticipations may be fully realised, and that his Majesty's devoted subjects in New Brunswick may ever gratefully remember under whose auspices and instrumentality their destiny has been improved, is the heartfelt desire of, My Lord, yours, &c., (Signed) "WILLIAM CRANE. L. A. WILMOT. To the Lord Glenelg, &., &c. The conduct, then, of his noble Friend, acting on the part of her Majesty's Government, with respect to the great questions which were at that time agitated, led to the complete settlement of those differences which were left untouched by the able men who were endued with so much wisdom, forethought, and judgment, and who previously filled the office now occupied by his noble Friend. These eminent persons had failed in attaining so desirable an object, not from wilful abuse of their duties, but through that neglect and want of attention now so readily charged upon the present Colonial Secretary. In December, 1836, certain resolutions were passed in New Brunswick, and transmitted to this country. They were agreed to without a dissentient voice, and were equally satisfactory and complimentary to the acts of the Government. December 26, 1836. Resolved, That this House entertain a high sense of the attention shown by the Right Honourable Lord Glenelg, his Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, to the deputation during the progress of the negotiations carried on by them with his Lordship on the subject of their mission. December 28, 1836. Resolved, unanimously, as the opinion of this committee, That the dispatches of the Right Honourable Lord Glenelg, containing the determination of his Majesty's Government with respect to the various important matters brought under its consideration last Session, in an address presented by a deputation from this House, should afford the House the most entire satisfaction, and that the requisite measures be taken as speedily as possible by the House, in order that the views of his Majesty's Government, so far as may depend upon the House, may be carried into full and complete effect. Resolved unanimously, as the opinion of this committee, That the House should entertain a deep sense of the high obligations they owe to his Majesty's Government for the promptness with which the representations contained in the address were attended to; the solicitude expressed for a satisfactory settlement of the various matters brought under their consideration; and the results produced by the negotiation carried on between his Majesty's principal Secretary of State for the Colonies and the deputation; and that a Select Committee should be appointed by the House to have such, their sentiments, laid at the foot of the Throne. These resolutions were undoubtedly most gratifying to the noble Lord, highly complimentary to the Government of which he was a member, and to the department of which he was the head. But his noble Friend did not wish to blazon forth his merits in this respect. He did not present himself to Parliament as the adjuster of differences which other secretaries had left unredressed, though his noble Friend adopted means of adjustment strictly in accordance with the principles of the constitution, conciliating the good will, winning the affections, and warming the ardent loyalty of the people to the Sovereign, and strengthening their attachment to the mother country. He must trouble the House with another resolution, which was short, and which could not be said to have originated in a mere hasty ebullition of feeling on the return of the deputies, but which proved that months afterwards the same feelings—and personal feelings—towards the Colonial Secretary still pervaded the minds of the colonists. The resolution which he was now about to read was dated in July, 1837, after all matters had been satisfactorily arranged, after all shadows of dispute between the executive government and the House of Assembly were at an end, when they had time to examine the instructions of Lord Glenelg, in accordance with the wishes which he had recommended for their adoption. This resolution might, by the request which it contained, provoke a smile from some hon. Gentlemen opposite; but as its purport was unknown, except to the members of her Majesty's Government, he felt bound to lay it before the House. House of Assembly, July 21, 1837. Whereas, the inhabitants of this royal province are deeply grateful to the Right Honourable Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, for the liberal and enlightened policy which, under our most gracious Sovereign, has characterised his Lordship's decisions on the important question recently brought under his notice by the House: and whereas this House is desirous that a personal, as well as a political, remembrance of that noble Lord should be perpetuated in this province; therefore resolved, that an humble address be presented to his excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, praying that his excellency would communicate with his Lordship, and on behalf of this House request that his Lordship would be pleased to allow his full-length portrait to be taken and sent to this province, to be placed in the Assembly-room; and further, that this House will make provision for the same. CHARLES P. WELMORE, Clerk. The last part of the resolution would not, he was sure, be acceptable to the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He must pause to congratulate the House on the prospect of the unbounded satisfaction which would be felt by the loyal inhabitants of this province (and they have certainly given ample proof of their loyalty within the last two months) if the motion of his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool, be transmitted to the colony, accompanied with the statement that he or some of his friends were to replace his noble Friend, Lord Glenelg, as Secretary for the Colonies. And as the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, poured out imprecations of all sorts against the Government, and ended his imprecations by a prayer for the disgrace and defeat of her Majesty's troops in defending our North American possessions, and as he was now still more to be congratulated, as one who had put himself forward as the asserter of the safety and security of the colonies, and as a man preeminently anxious to cement and maintain our colonial connexions, by means directly the reverse of those pointed out in the resolutions of the colonists themselves, he had no doubt that the country would soon hear of a motion for immediately substituting a full-length portrait of the hon. Baronet (if it could be taken), in the position in which he made his appearance on the floor of the House last night, when he delivered his cut and dry speech, which was conceived in a total ignorance of the proceedings published in the Canadian newspapers, and when he would lead the House to suppose that his motion contained a position which was universally admitted. He now came to the charge that her Majesty's Government had departed from what was called a vigorous course of policy, and that during a period of some years they endeavoured to conciliate the Assembly to the more general question involved in the vote to which the House was about to come. If the hon. Member for Leeds meant to express a want of confidence in Ministers, it would have been more liberal and fair to propose a direct motion to that effect. If he had taken that course, the House would not have heard of the "reluctance" with which the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, came forward, and the "painful necessity" which was imposed on him, of moving an amendment, and which must have been aggravated by the necessity of opposing the hon. Baronet, who was far from regarding the amendment as one to be naturally expected to follow from the course which he took. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, spoke under great coercion. He not only could not help being influenced by the pressure from behind; but he was made the victim of a motion brought forward by the ultra-Radical Baronet. But looking to the course which had been pursued, he must in his conscience say, that it was the domestic and not the colonial policy of the Government to which hon. Gentlemen opposite were opposed. And that being their real object, it was not many, it was not generous, it was not the usual Parliamentary course—though he did not complain of it, because he rejoiced to see his political opponents in a false position—that those who had opposed every important measure of our domestic policy sanctioned by the approval, during the two last years, of the unanimous voice of those who sit on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and that they who had frequently placed him in an unpleasant predicament, and would have rendered him suspicious of his own acts, if he had not had the approval of his conscience, by giving their support to the measures of the Government on colonial government, should endeavour to remove the Administration because of its management of domestic affairs; not because they wished the colonial policy was different, but because they wished to see the government of Ireland placed in other hands. [Cheers.] He was glad to hear the noble Lord, and his hon. Friend (Sir T. Acland), from whom none but honest cheers could come, confess that this was a question as to the government of Ireland, and that the motion of his noble Friend (Lord Sanden) was not made because Lord Glenelg's conduct was "vacillating and ambiguous," it being clear that he had adopted a straightforward and consistent course of policy, which had been successful with respect to every one of our colonial possessions, Lower Canada alone excepted. Why, it was impossible to get the hon. Gentlemen opposite to admit the plainest proposition. He had pointed out, he thought, several discrepancies between the speech of the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, and that of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. The noble Lord represented a very large place, which had a closer connexion with the colonies than almost any other city in the empire. He knew that the noble Lord possessed opportunities of acquiring information, which from his habits of industry he did not neglect, and he had no doubt that his noble Friend spoke his honest conviction, when he stated that every one of our colonial possessions, except Lower Canada, was in a prosperous state; and that the policy of Lord Glenelg did not, as far as all our other possessions were concerned, afford the slightest ground for cavil. It was not fair, then, that the same policy having been observed towards Lower Canada, which was completely successful in New Brunswick, and other places, and had failed from causes which had existed for several years, but were altogether unconnected with the present Government—it was not, he repeated, worthy of the high character and station of many noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite to bring forward, under such circumstances, a motion condemning our colonial, when their real detestation and hatred was directed against our domestic, policy. There were many new Members in that House, but there were others, who, having been in the last Parliament, must remember the skill, the ability, and the candour, displayed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, in this House, during the short period when he conducted the administration of this country. He was one of those who admired the talent with which he covered his retreat when driven by a succession of defeats from the post which he had occupied. But if a new Government were now formed, would the right hon. Baronet be equally supreme in it as he was in that of 1835? He did not presume to say that the right hon. Baronet then exercised all the functions of administration, but he certainly monopolised all its debating powers. In the future cabinet, instead of being a dictator, he would only be one of a triumvirate. He would be associated with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), and the right hon. Member for Pembroke (Sir James Graham), who had dwelt, in his speeches at Cumberland and elsewhere, on the close alliance which existed between them and the right hon. Baronet. [Lord Stanley: "Compact alliance.") The noble Lord preferred the expression so often quoted as having been used by the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary, in order, he supposed, to disarm him of his argument by implying that it was his intention to give a disinterested support to the Government of the right hon. Baronet at least for a period of three years. He believed however, that the noble Lord would be included in the cabinet of the right hon. Baronet, and they had a right to know before they came to a vote, for what office he was intended. But if this was thought an unreasonable request, he would at once waive it as unnecessary. It was clear that the noble Lord must fill the office of one of the Secretaries of State—was it the wish of the House that he should displace his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), and as Secretary for the Home Department, have the superintendence of the affairs of Ireland; or if he was to succeed his other noble Friend (Lord Palmerston), was it thought that his temper, moderation, and abstinence from all irritating topics, would peculiarly qualify him for the conduct of those delicate negotiations which might arise out of questions pending between this country and the United States, or was the noble Lord to return to the Colonial Department and resume that system of vigour which had been so fully explained in his speech last night, to which he clung with the fondness of a parent, but which had been repudiated by the Government of the right hon. Baronet, with the impartiality of disinterested judges. The right hon. Baronet, if deprived of his supporters, might form a Government acceptable to the majority of this House, but he firmly believed, that in the Government which would succeed that of his noble and hon. Friends, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, might be the head, but the noble Lord would be the presiding and pervading genius.

Mr. Gladstone

said, his hon. Friend, the Under Secretary for the Colonies had found it convenient in the course of his ingenious and powerful speech to devote one portion of it to travelling very far from the limits of the question. And although he must admit, that his hon. Friend had not evaded the argument of colonial policy, but had grappled with it in the best manner in which it could be met, yet he had reserved for his climax an appeal to those general principles of party which was generally sufficient to raise a feeling in favour of the side whence it came, and to disguise the weakness of the case they had to present. His hon. Friend seemed to have thought that he had made out a triumphant case as far as New Brunswick was concerned; and most triumphant it certainly was, inasmuch as that colony had not been touched upon in the last disturbances, except incidentally. He must say, that he had been astonished at some of his hon. Friend's observations. His hon. Friend had adverted to the compulsion under which the Members of the Opposition had felt themselves of joining in the motion of the hon. Baronet, but he would assert, that the whole course of it lay in the misconduct of the Government. It was his deliberate opinion that his conscience would not be acquitted if he suffered the conduct of Ministers with respect to Canada to go on unnoticed, or if he rescinded his opinion on that subject. Much had been said as to the motion having been left until so long a time after the discussion about Canada, but in his opinion there was no point connected with it more defensible than the time at which it was brought forward. What would the hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite have said if it had been introduced at the very time that rebellion was going on? Had that been the case, those sitting on the Opposition side of the House would have been told, that they wished to profit by public confusion, regardless of public peace and of the sacrifice of human life, impelled by an eagerness for office which no circumstances could restrain. Loud as had been the cheers which his hon. Friend had received during the course of his excellent speech that night, still louder would have been the cheers to greet him whilst he had urged those arguments to the House. His hon. Friend had designated the Opposition as powerful in numbers, and not scrupulous in their conduct. But let him tell the hon. Baronet, if their scruples had been less, their numbers would have been greater. He admitted, that it would have been most unworthy of them, and most dishonourable conduct, if, disagreeing as they did with many hon. Members opposite on the question of maintaining in Canada British authority with a firm hand, they had sought, by a dishonourable combination, to enter into an alliance with the hon. Baronet who had brought forward this motion, whose views he was sure were held conscientiously, but which were radically different, and totally irrreconcilable with theirs. If they had combined with the hon. Baronet in the expression of their common sentiments because they both agreed in the terms of the motion, it would have been, on their part, most dishonourable conduct; but it would have been a course not without precedent, for there might be found to it an exact and faithful analogy in the conduct of the noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury benches, when they adopted those measures by which they had achieved the displacement of the former Government, and the possession of office for themselves. He did not deal in vague and general charges that would not bear analysis, for he had only to substitute the Irish church in the place of Canada to make the cases parallel. There were on the Ministerial side two parties who held different views upon the Irish Church. The Opposition were called its injudicious Friends; but there were many on the Ministerial benches who did not scruple to avow their decided hostility to its existence. Resolutions were then framed between the former parties, studiously worded so that all points of difference might be avoided, and in them the welfare of the Irish church was not put forward, for if it had been, the Ministerial Members would not have gained a majority or obtained possession of office. It was open to the Opposition to pursue a course analogous to this. They and the Mover of the present motion both con- curred in disapproving of Lord Glenelg's conduct with respect to his Canadian policy, and if they had expressed their disapprobation in the same terms, he put it to the hon. Gentlemen opposite what would have been the result? He would then proceed to state the specific, though not all the charges more immediately bearing on the conduct of the administration, on which he was contented to rest his vote of to-night. The amendment of the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, referred to the irresolution and delay manifest in Lord Glenelg's conduct as Colonial Secretary of State. Now, the first instance which appeared to him a matter of complaint was annulling the appointment of Lord Amherst, and sending out Lord Gosford. It was the greatest injustice to his noble Friend, Lord Aberdeen, to whom at length, he rejoiced to say, tardy justice had been done by his hon. Friend, the Under Secretary of the Colonies. He had not, however, forgotten that the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, had made a most unwarrantable attack on his noble Friend, and described him as holding principles that were hostile to the welfare of the human race. It would have been more in consistency with the records which his noble Friend had left in his department, if the noble Lord had not inflicted this attack. Lord Amherst was not to have been sent out for the purpose of inquiry, but of preparing some definitive arrangement, on which arrangement his commission was to terminate. An hon. Gentleman who had spoken last night had said that he did not understand the object of Lord Amherst's mission, and how he was to act; but he (Mr. Gladstone) could tell him that it was to make a final settlement of the disputes in Canada. But what was the course adopted by the present Government? They had the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ready (to use a phrase much employed in the recent debates) "to run out" to the colonies; there was no reason why they should not have acted on that plan, and upon the policy of his noble Friend, Lord Aberdeen. But what did they do? Why, they sent out a commission of inquiry, which only opened old questions, made no advances, brought forward no fresh matter, and which after two years has left us in a worse position than before, aggravated as the case is now by the additional exasperation which so protracted a delay has necessarily occasioned. So much for the Commission of Lord Gosford. But he complained not only of the evil effects of that Commission, and of its manifest impolicy, but he complained also of its very appointment; and for this reason—because it was obviously and powerfully calculated to serve the party interests of the noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He suspected that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew pretty well, that, if the settlement recommended by him of the affairs of Canada had been for one moment adopted, it would have operated as an active dissolvent of that compact alliance which had been recently formed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House; and he had a right to intimate his belief that the Ministers, seeing the impossibility of dealing with the Canada question in a way that should please the allies, by whose assistance they obtained office, determined to throw overboard Lord Amherst and the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to disregard all that had been said or done on the subject before their accession to office, in order that, by re-instituting the whole matter from the very commencement, they might postpone the evil day when they would be obliged to announce what measures they really intended to adopt. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite asserted, that it was unfair and un-Parliamentary for any Gentleman on the Opposition side of the House to propose a vote of censure on the Canadian policy of the Government, after it had been adopted by the Members of the Opposition. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by stating, the policy of Government had been adopted by those who were opposed to the Government? Undoubtedly the hon. Gentlemen who sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House concurred with the Government in voting an address to the Queen, expressing their anxiety to aid and support her Majesty in putting down rebellion. The Opposition also concurred with the Government in the necessity of making a temporary provision for the Government of Lower Canada. But did the Opposition concur in the bill for that purpose, as it was first proposed by her Majesty's Ministers; or did not rather her Majesty's Ministers concur in the measure as it was subsequently altered by the Opposition? As far as he could understand the nature of that bill, there never was a measure which left that House more materially restricted, or more entirely changed, he might say, than did the measure which was brought in by the Government. The hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke of the policy of the Government, as if the Canadian question was settled. What, let him ask, had been gained with regard to Lower Canada, except a postponement of the difficulty for a short time? But the Government was so accustomed to deal with questions on this temporising principle, and so habituated to invent pleas and devices for delay, that, if they could only contrive to stave off an evil for a certain period, they called that which was only a postponement a settlement; and even the acute mind of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke could not discriminate between a settlement and a procrastination. He, therefore, censured the Government for instituting, in the first instance, a commission of inquiry calculated to open the whole question, and thereby to create great delay, instead of proceeding to act when the question was ripe for action; and, in the next place, he charged them with having adopted that measure at a period and in a manner likely to serve the interests of party, as its tendency was to injure the interests of the empire. Two years were disposed of by that measure. He now came to the resolutions of 1837, which, in reference to the question of time, had scarcely yet been touched upon in the course of these discussions. Those resolutions were introduced at the commencement of the month of March, and an impartial observer might naturally inquire, how it was, that those resolutions had failed of being realised in the shape of some legislative measure during the Session. Though introduced early in March, they did not pass through that House until the 28th of April. Why, he asked, were seven or eight weeks allowed to elapse between the proposition and the adoption of those resolutions? The noble Lord opposite was never backward to discuss questions de die in diem when that suited the purposes of the Government: but still those resolutions were allowed to remain seven weeks in that House, and, after their adoption, no steps were taken to introduce a bill founded on them, which might have passed in about one-seventh part of the time. But looking mainly, as he did, to the conduct of affairs in Lower Canada, he would take leave to repeat what he had before submitted to the House with respect to that part of the case. He stated, that there were two circumstances most deeply to be deplored—first, the suspension of the constitutional rights of the people of Canada; and secondly, the outbreaking of a rebellion, now happily at an end; and he had argued, that neither of those circumstances ought to have occurred if her Majesty's Government had been faithful in the discharge of their trust. He had stated his conviction, that the suspension of the constitution needed not to have occurred, if the Ministers had chosen to act on the advice of their own Commissioners. The hon. Gentlemen opposite did not attempt to deny that, whatever difference of opinion might exist on other points among the three Commissioners, they were nevertheless agreed on one single point—that the act of 1831 should be suspended. Why, then, did not the Ministers act upon the suggestion of the three Commissioners? The hon. Gentleman who spoke last night, and who belonged to the Commission, (Sir G. Grey) said, that he had wished for the adoption of more decisive measures; but that now he did not think the conduct of the Government had any assignable effect in producing the crisis in Canada. He could not reconcile the hon. Gentleman's speech with his reports. The hon. Gentleman had recommended the suspension of an act conferring rights and privileges of the first importance on the Canadian Assembly, and yet he now came forward and represented that it made no difference whether or not that recommendation was adopted. He would take the liberty of calling the hon. Gentleman as a witness of the evils produced by delay on the part of the Government of the country. In a pamphlet, which he believed he was not wrong in ascribing to the hon. Gentleman, he said, with respect to the Canadian resolutions, that any suspension of them, or any faltering on the part of the Government, was calculated to produce the greatest mischief. This statement was made on the 10th of April last year; and in the course of the correspondence no mention was made of the King's illness, as a cause of delay, until the 13th of June. Yet, be it remembered, that no legislative measure founded on those resolutions was brought in during that year. It had been objected against the Opposition, that they had not predicted the necessity of sending out an armed force together with the resolutions to Canada. Why, they had, in fact, only acted on the principle on which they were bound to act, for they were bound to assume that the Government would not neglect what was its first duty—the preservation of the tranquillity of the colony, and the maintenance of the Queen's authority therein. The hon. Gentleman had taken occasion to rebuke the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, for precipitancy and rashness, with reference to the advice given by that noble Lord on colonial affairs. The noble Lord recommended last year that the act of 1831 should be repealed; and it would baffle the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman to show how, if that advice had been taken, any necessity could have arisen for the subsequent suspension of the constitution. The noble Lord, therefore, could not be charged with a desire to interfere unwarrantably with popular rights; but it was the feebleness and vacillation of the Ministers, which, shrouded under the popular terms of concession and conciliation, had at last forced upon the House the necessity of making a greater invasion upon constitutional rights than would have been requisite if the Government had only been wise and prudent in time. He would now advert to the rebellion. It appeared to him that that rebellion never could have occurred if ordinary vigilance and diligence had been used by the Government. It was not his intention to cast any censure on Lord Gosford. He did not pronounce any opinion whether that noble Lord was liable or not to blame, but he wished to remind the House, that on the 6th of October Lord Glenelg wrote to Lord Gosford, stating "that he would take an early opportunity of addressing him more at length on the present position of affairs in the province than he was able to do by the present opportunity." Now, what better opportunity could Lord Glenelg have had than that for explaining the intentions of the Government? The Canada resolutions had been passed some months before, and Ministers had had time to deliberate upon their effect; and yet the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department postponed and procrastinated the transmission of directions to Lord Gosford. The noble Lord, however, promised that directions should be sent out by the earliest opportunity. How was that promise redeemed? The next letter addressed to Lord Gosford, with the exception of one dated the 18th of November, 1837, and which related to a particular point of the case, conveyed the intimation of the Government's acceptance of that nobleman's resignation. In that letter, which was dated the 27th of November, 1837, Lord Glenelg stated, that Lord Gosford had "acted throughout with the utmost temper, discretion, and good faith." By that opinion, then, the Government was bound, and it was for the House to say what confidence could be placed in a Government expressing such a judgment, when it appeared from the correspondence that the authority of the law had been set at nought in Canada, and that treasonable practices had been pursued, not only without prevention, but without notice on the part of the Canadian Executive. It was to Sir John Colborne that the Government was first indebted for a notice of these proceedings. Even on the first of October, 1837, a public meeting was held in the country of the Two Mountains, and it was resolved that justices of the peace should be elected to supersede the magistrates appointed by the Executive. Was the law put in force against the parties guilty of those acts? No! How then could the Government justify this remissness? He would make one single observation with reference to the terms "want of foresight" in the amendment. He conceived that a remarkable proof of the want of foresight was afforded by the fact, that on the 13th of October Lord Gosford stated, "that with the religion, law, and the loyalty of the great bulk of the population opposed to them, the party now fomenting sedition and treason, although they may, if not checked, create local and temporary confusion, are not likely to meet with the success which, from the boldness of their proceedings, they seem to anticipate;" and on the 6th of November, only one short week afterwards, he wrote, that "in many of the counties in the district of Montreal a very large proportion of the rural population are in such a state that it is difficult to say o what lengths they may not be urged o go." This, then, appeared to be the first time when the eyes of Lord Gosford were opened. He wished, therefore, to ask the Government what justification they could find for such want of foresight, and what excuse they could plead for not enforcing the law in Lower Canada? He apprehended that the first duty of an Executive was to maintain the authority of the law, and to provide, that life and property should be safe, for without such security all the other objects of society would be nugatory and impracticable. He knew he might be told, that there were peculiar circumstances which sometimes prevented the governors of colonies from being able to check the outbreak of disorders. When no overt acts of illegality were committed, such a justification might be pleaded; but in the present case the illegal proceedings were overt, because they were essentially public, for Lord Gosford said in one of his letters that "large bodies of the seditious are openly drilled in military tactics every Sunday, in and near the city of Montreal." The Government were fond of saying that Lord Gosford had a sufficiency of troops at his disposal. Why, then, were not these treasonable manifestations suppressed? There could be no doubt that the Executive in Canada had failed in the great duty of maintaining the peace of the province. It was true that the rebellion was crushed; but that result had only been attained by a great sacrifice of human life. It must not be forgotten that hundreds had fallen victims in the strife; and sorrow and solitude reigned in many a cottage. Why, he asked, had not such scenes been prevented by the rigid enforcement of the law? To this plain and simple question he believed it was not in the power of the Government to give a satisfactory answer, and he, therefore, thought the House was bound to adhere to the amendment moved by the noble Lord (Sandon), unless it should be thought desirable that Ministerial responsibility should be nothing but a mere name, and that misgovernment to any extent might be perpetuated with impunity.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

concluded, that as the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken charged the Government with forbearance, and a reluctance to have recourse to force, the system according to which he would govern Canada was one of coercion. There was always a great satisfaction in rising after the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), for however widely he might differ in opinion from the Government, not one word escaped from his lips calculated to give pain, or to infuse into the debate any needless asperity. But with respect to the speech to which it now became his painful duty to refer—[Loud Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, though they had listened to the attack, did not seem disposed to afford a hearing for the defence. If they were not inclined to hear him, their approbation could not be of much value, while their censure would be of no value whatever. He had once been much struck by the concluding passage of a panegyric passed on a great statesman. It was in these words:—"He lost no friends." He recommended to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) to ponder on this eulogium. Before adverting to the speech of the noble Lord he would first say one word on the motion before the house. He was glad to perceive, that whatever blame hon. Gentlemen opposite were pleased to charge upon the Government, however much they were opposed to the policy which had been pursued, and however much they were disposed to condemn the political conduct of his hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, not one word had been said against the personal character of Lord Glenelg during the whole discussion. That, to him, was certainly a gratifying circumstance. It was the Government, not his noble Friend, that was attacked, and not one word had been spoken reflecting on the personal character of his noble Friend. The task of his noble Friend was undoubtedly a difficult one, but his acts were the acts of the Government, and it was the Government which was to be condemned. He would refer next to the charge which had been made against him by the noble Lord opposite, the Member for North Lancashire. His friendship for the noble Lord commenced when the noble Lord was sent over to Ireland as the chief Secretary for the Irish Administration, and had the noble Lord the satisfaction of knowing, that while he filled that office he created no excitement, provoked no opposition, but that, on the contrary, he had attached to himself and to the Government the favour and support of those around him? But he would join issue with the noble Lord on the distinct charge which the noble Lord had brought against him. The noble Lord had opened his battery by the modest assertion that from the period of his secession from office were to be dated the difficulties of the Canadian question. The noble Lord said, that the ambiguity and irresolution with which he charged the Government in their administration of the affairs of Canada, dated from the time when he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had had a communication with the Canadian Deputies. Such was the charge brought against him by the noble Lord. He confessed he was wholly at a loss to conceive why he should have been selected by the noble Lord as his first victim upon this occasion. Perhaps it was the circumstance of his having been for a long time in habits of intimacy and friendship with the noble Lord. On a former occasion it was true, he had been the subject of attack from the noble Lord; but that he reconciled to himself by the circumstance that the subject to which the discussion referred belonged particularly to his department. But why on the present occasion he was singled out for the rancour of the noble Lord, he repeated he was wholly at a loss to understand. The noble Lord was not, he believed, altogether embarked in the same boat with Mr. Roebuck; but, nevertheless, the noble Lord had contended, that though he was not to blame on the grounds stated by that gentleman, he had not expressed himself with sufficient distinctness in the interview he had with the Canadian delegates. "Why did you," observed the noble Lord, "allow the delegates to leave you without stating at once to them your opinions on the subject of elective councils." Now, to judge of the whole of the case, he had but to ask the House to judge of the noble Lord's accusation under this head. He had accepted office but a very few days antecedent to the interview, and not having the happy knack possessed by the noble Lord of jumping to a conclusion without considering the premises—not having those same powers of immediate decision which so unfortunately for himself marked the career of the noble Lord—he had not the daring presumption to turn round to the delegates and tell them, on his own responsibility, that the question of an elective council was absolutely decided. Had he done so, though he might have established a claim to the support of the noble Lord, he should have deservedly lost ground in the estimation of every man of common sense in the country. Instead of doing this, he told the deputies that he had but just received the seals of office, and that he would deliberate on the point before coming to any decision respecting it. "But then," said the noble Lord, "you did deliberate, and the result of your deliberation was, that at the end of five months," being the precise period of his remaining in office, you did frame a despatch which you proposed to send out, but which despatch you have never thought proper to produce in any shape." In that paragraph, too, was to be found, if he might so term it, the second charge of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, with much injustice, had endeavoured to draw a contrast between his conduct when leaving office, and what the noble Lord had termed his reserve and caution when quitting the seals of office. "I gave you," said the noble Lord, "not only my private papers, but my private secretary, who was intrusted with all my views and sentiments respecting the Canadian question." All this was perfectly true, nor could anything in his opinion be more natural, for, at the time all this occurred, he believed, that though he and the noble Lord differed upon one point, they differed upon that one point only, and that in every other matter of politics, they entertained but one and the same opinion. For proof of this he might mention that, during his continuance in office as Secretary for the Colonies, there was not one single paper of importance, which in any way concerned the noble Lord, which was not transmitted to him for his opinion and advice. But, although he had stated, that there was only a difference on one point between the noble Lord and the Government of which he had been a Member, at the time the noble Lord retired from office, yet time had shown that there was a much wider political difference betwixt them than he could have at first supposed. But as regarded the particular dispatch to which allusion had been made, he begged to tell the noble Lord, that, under no circumstances whatever, even though it had been the noble Lord himself who succeeded him, could he have left it in the Colonial-office after him. That dispatch was to have been an act of the Cabinet, but had not been submitted to them at the period the Ministry was dissolved, and he believed it was quite contrary to practice to leave in the office, upon the occasion of a dissolution of Ministry, a document intended for the cabinet, but which had not received their approbation, the fear being that, by so doing, the successor in the office might be misled with respect to the opinions of the retiring Government. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen might cheer, but let them hear out before they had done. On delivering up the seals of office to his Sovereign, he had the honour of stating to his Majesty, that every paper or communication which had passed through the Colonial-office was at his command, and that if he was so ordered, he was prepared to hand them over either to the Duke of Wellington or Lord Aberdeen. This he was not asked to do. [Cheers.] If those cheers were from the supporters of the new Government which was about to be formed, he wished them to reflect what the rules were which ought to guide honourable men in the discharge of their political duties. The noble Lord had said, that the dispatch had never been sent to Canada. That was true; but a little delay was not always a bad thing, and his hon. Friend (Sir C. Grey), who had been one of the Canadian commissioners, had proved pretty satisfactorily that, if some dispatches, written by the noble Lord, had never been sent to Canada, the Canadians would have been no worse off. One dispatch, written by the noble Lord with his usual heat and carelessness for the feelings of others, and displaying all his vehemence of temper, bore so hardly on the feelings of the Canadian Assembly, and shocked those feelings so much, that that which, if said in milder terms, might have been listened to, and have produced the best results, was, in fact, the parent of the celebrated ninety-two resolutions. It might not have been worse for Canada, it might not have been worse for the noble Lord's reputation for calmness, temper, and discretion, if a little delay had taken place before that dispatch was sent off; and it might have been no worse for his character as a statesman if he had taken advantage of some of the opportunities which had occurred to make amends to the Canadians for the irritating terms in which that dispatch was couched. But this the noble Lord had not done, and he begged to recal to the recollection of the House the terms in which the noble Lord had last night spoken of the Canadians. Speaking of the French population of Canada, the noble Lord said, that they were a people of ignorance the most profound, of prejudices the most inveterate, and of vanity the most egregious. Now, when a man could utter such language, could make use of such phrases, calculated to exasperate and wound the feelings of a whole people, even if true, and when those phrases were used by the noble Lord in his place in Parliament—when such language was directed against the Canadians by him who had been, and might again be, Secretary for the Colonies, it exhibited such a want of prudence, such a want of temper, on the part of that individual, that he could feel no surprise at the bitterness of the attack which the noble Lord had made upon him. The attack on him was as nothing compared with such an attack on a whole people. The Government was charged by the noble Lord with not knowing its own mind, with vacillation in its opinions and intentions; and it was argued that, as the Government wanted stedfastness of purpose, it ought to be dismissed, and those who brought forward the charge appointed in its place. Now, although he did not leave the Canadian dispatch behind him on his retirement from the Colonial-office, the noble Lord had left behind him all his papers, and he would let the House see whether there were no ground for a charge of want of resolution, a want of steadfastness of purpose against the noble Lord himself. The noble Lord came into the Colonial-office unexpectedly, and without any preparation; but he at once undertook to bring forward a most important measure, from which any man of less energy and decision would have shrunk. The noble Lord with ability, he would admit, which could not be surpassed, but which might run too fast, prepared and brought forward a measure for the abolition of slavery in the West Indies. Now the point in dispute was, the comparative steadfastness of purpose of the noble Lord and of the present Government. But how was that quality displayed by the noble Lord? He first came forward, after he had mastered all the details of the subject, and proposed that a sum of 15,000,000l. should be lent to the planters to induce them to relinquish their property in their slaves. In the course of a few days, however, the noble Lord, in defiance of that constancy of purpose which he now argued was the test of the fitness of all colonial ministers for office, departed from this proposition; and for the loan to the planters of fifteen millions substituted a donation of twenty. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was far from saying that the noble Lord was to blame for making that alteration in his plan; but he did say, that if his noble Friend (Lord Glenelg) were justly chargeable with not knowing his own mind, at least he had a precedent in the conduct of the noble Lord. Again, the noble Lord charged the present Government with want of firmness of purpose. Where was the noble Lord's firmness of purpose when, after baying declared that it was necessary at once to legislate satisfactorily and completely for the emancipation of the slaves, and having brought in an act for that purpose, he had been compelled to introduce a supplementary act on the subject. [No, no! from Lord Stanley.] His noble Friend should have every facility in answering any observations on the subject. If the noble Lord wished to inflict upon him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) any of that severe punishment which he was so skilful in administering, the recollection of their ancient friendship would not allow him to deny the noble Lord any opportunity of enjoying that pleasure. Now, he would ask the noble Lord, he would ask the House, and he would with the utmost confidence ask the public, if the noble Lord knew that his conduct had been objectionable at the time he had stated, with reference to the whole of his intercourse with the Canadian delegates, why the noble Lord did not, three years ago, make that conduct the subject of public accusation, instead of postponing it until the present moment. In the name of common justice, independently of all considerations of personal attachment, what right had the noble Lord, having abstained from doing so at the time, now to begin and load him with charges in reference to those circumstances? For himself, he would say, that the conduct he had pursued on the occasion just alluded to he would repeat under similar circumstances. He might have too much confidence in his own opinion in reference to the case; but that conduct, under similar circumstances, he would repeat. He begged pardon of the House for having allowed himself to be so long diverted from the question before it; but he felt that some vindication of himself from the charges which had been brought against him by the noble Lord was necessary to his own character. The practical proposition on which the House was now called upon to determine was, whether or not there should be a change of government. However the hon. Member for Newark might have thought proper to treat the subject, that was the practical issue. But would not that House, and would not the country have blamed the Government, and justly blamed it too, if Ministers had not distinctly stated that the dismissal or retention of office by the Government was the issue to be tried? But hon. Gentlemen opposite said, that the course they had adopted had been forced upon them; but he really believed that they would not have made their present motion but for the result of some divisions which had lately taken place in that House. On those two occasions Gentlemen opposite had found themselves in a majority, and that was the reason for the course they were now pursuing. The noble Lord, the Member for the county of Northampton, had rushed forward, like a young knight, to the aid of those who were thirsting for office, and had well earned his spurs. He congratulated the Gentlemen opposite on those divisions, although he did not think the consequences would flow from them which they seemed to anticipate. He did not charge them with a wish for political power personally; but there might be a struggle for party though not for personal power. But as to the majorities to which he had just alluded, he would ask how often the Tories when in power had been beaten on divisions? He did not allude to the short and brilliant course of the right hon. Baronet opposite, when he endeavoured, though unsuccessfully, to make a stand against the general opinion of the country—he alluded to the good old times of Lord Liverpool's administration. He would state a few of the defeats of the Tories at that period. Did they recollect how they were beaten on the Queen's trial? Did they recollect how they were beaten on the question of the property-tax? Did they recollect how they were beaten on the question of the salt-tax? Did they recollect how they were beaten on the question of the Postmasters-General? Did they recollect how they were beaten on the question of the Lords of the Admiralty? Did they recollect how they were beaten on the question of the reduction of the public expenditure? Did they recollect how they were beaten on the question of improvements in the criminal law, introduced by the late Sir James Mackintosh? On all those questions the Tories had been beaten by majorities; and he could go through a much longer list of beatings which they had sustained; and yet they had retained office. He stated this in order to warn young Members against indulging too fondly in hopes raised by two or three divisions against a Government. What had he and his Friends been invariably fighting for? For reduction of the public expenditure; for the amendment of the criminal law; and for the diminution of patronage. He would fearlessly say to the sensible and clear-judging people of England, "Will you select the administration by which you are to be governed from the men who have maintained and affirmed those three great principles of policy, or from the men who had opposed and negatived them?" He would refer the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, who had so strongly expressed his disapprobation of the conduct of the present Government, and who brought forward a motion which went to dismiss them to a witness in their favour whose authority he knew the hon. Baronet would not dispute. He would call the attention of the House and the hon. Baronet to a speech made no longer ago than in July last, on the hustings, to a large and independent body of electors. In that speech the speaker expressed himself in the following terms:—"First, I supported the English Municipal Reform Bill, the first, the greatest, and the most important measure of the Melbourne administration—the most meritorious achievement of the late Parliament in the cause of good Government. I likewise supported the reduction of the stamp duty on newspapers, a measure which though not yet so complete as I could have wished it, yet entitles its authors to the gratitude of the people as being the means of obtaining the greatest of all possible benefits, the diffusion of sound knowledge and useful information. Nor would I forget the English Tithe Commutation Bill, and the Bill for the registration of births and marriages, the beneficial results of the last session. Nor will I overlook as titles to our gratitude the unavailing efforts of the Liberal party to do justice to Ireland. Nor must I omit as deserving of praise the excellent measure for the abolition of church-rates, which I trust and predict will be the valuable fruit of some future session. I supported the Government plan for extending the period of the payment of rates, which, if carried, would have considerably augmented the town constituencies. The blues (Tories) would have spent more in one year than the Whigs have done in seven. I am prepared to support Lord Melbourne's administration in its legislative and administrative reforms." Now, these were the statements of the hon. Member for Leeds himself no longer ago than in July last. The hon. Baronet afterwards characterised the existing Government as "the most enlightened and well-intentioned Government that this country had ever had." But the hon. Gentleman's policy now was this: "Let the Radicals separate themselves from the Ministry, and go over to the ranks of the opposition." "If the Tories move a resolution expressing want of confidence in the Whig Ministry, let the Radicals vote for it," that was to say, "let the Radicals join the Tories to turn out the Whigs." A Tory Government might anticipate what would befal them by the tender mercies which the Radicals showed to the Whigs. But it should be remembered, that in the formation of a new Ministry there was another party to the contract, the people: and they might depend upon it that the administration which the right hon. Baronet would bring in was one which would find no favour in the sight of the people. He believed the present Ministry represented the opinions of what were called the moderate and liberal part of the country. If they had the majority of the 10l. constituency with them, then of course he was right in his opinion; but if the majority of that constituency was composed of Conservatives, the party on the Opposition benches did not need the support of the Radicals. His object was to defend the position which the Government had taken. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last had complained of the position of the opposition; Why, then, did they not avoid it? Why did they not bring forward a substantive motion themselves? They had the power of doing so, and it was their own fault that they were forced into action by the hon. Baronet and his Friends.

Lord Stanley

hoped the House would forgive him if he intruded for a moment to offer a very few words in the way of explanation. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was mistaken: he was sure the House must perceive, that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in asserting that the charge which he had made against the right hon. Gentleman was, that with his administration of colonial affairs had commenced the difficulties of Canada. So far from saying so, he (Lord Stanley) distinctly stated, in answer to the noble Lord (Palmerston) who sat opposite, and to his right hon. Friend, whom he did not then see in his place, that the difficulties and embarrassments of Canada were of much longer standing; but that the course of hesitation, and the uncertainty of policy which the Government thought fit to pursue with respect to that province, did undoubtedly commence with the administration of colonial affairs by the right hon. Gentleman; and with the misunderstanding into which (as he expressly stated unintentionally on the part of the right hon. Gentleman) Mr. Roebuck, the representative of the Canadian House of Assembly, was led by his personal interview with the right hon. Gentleman, with respect to the intentions entertained by the Government in reference to Canada. He distinctly vindicated the right hon. Gentleman from the charge which had again been brought against him by Mr. Roebuck, of extraordinary interference in the pecuniary affairs of the province; and the charge which he did convey (not, as he thought, uncalled for) he had endeavoured to convey in terms as little calculated as he was able to use, of giving offence either to the private feelings, or to the public character of the right hon. Gentleman. He regretted, unfeignedly, that they appeared to have made an impression so deep and bitter upon the right hon. Gentleman's mind. He would not comment upon the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman had replied to the charge; and he still hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, when two or three days—["Order, order!] He was about to say, that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, upon two or three days' more calm reflection, and upon looking back to the terms in which the charge was conveyed, and had been replied to, would see that, at all events, he was not to be charged with bitterness. He should sincerely rejoice if, upon further consideration, and cooler reflection, the right hon. Gentleman should be induced to give a wider scope to those kindly feelings which he possessed, than in the excitement of the present debate he had appeared disposed to do. One word more. Whenever he had an opportunity afforded to him of meeting the other question, he should be most ready, most willing to undertake the vindication of the government of Lord Grey.

Viscount Howick

hoped, before the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) proceeded to address the House, that he might be allowed to say one word in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Gladstone) with respect to the speech made by him in 1835. The hon. Member for Newark had accused him of having, in that speech, charged Lord Aberdeen with being an enemy to the human race. Now, what really passed? In the debate upon the Address, in opening the Parliament in 1835, at a time when neither the House nor he had an opportunity of knowing what policy Lord Aberdeen would pursue with respect to Canada, and the other colonies, he stated, as one reason for not placing confidence in the government of which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was the head, that it was unwise in the critical state in which the affairs of Canada then stood, to place the government of the colonies in the hands of a nobleman who entertained opinions, he had no doubt conscientiously, but which, in his opinion, were opposed to the progress of improvement, and to the general welfare of society. In making that statement, he only expressed the sentiment which all on that (the Ministerial) side of the House entertained of what were commonly called high Tory opinions. But he was happy, now that he had been some time in office, and now that he knew what Lord Aberdeen's conduct really was, to have an opportunity afforded to him of stating, that he thought Lord Aberdeen, in the dispatches written by him during his brief tenure of the office of colonial secretary, manifested a spirit of liberality which reflected upon him the very highest degree of credit. He should be sorry if the opportunity had not been afforded to him of making that declaration, although he did not think that in the debate of 1835, he had said any thing that could be personally offensive to the noble Lord, or that went beyond fair polical hostility.

Sir R. Peel

I heartily rejoice that I gave to the noble Lord who has just sat down the opportunity of explaining a charge which was supposed to have been brought by him against my noble Friend—of expresssing his approbation of the conduct of Lord Aberdeen as Colonial Minister of this country, and of paying to him a tribute of praise, which I believe to be as justly deserved on the part of my noble Friend, as, I must say, it was creditable on the part of the noble Lord who paid it. I was surprised at the sensitive and irritable feelings which were displayed by the right hon. Gentleman who had but recently closed his address to the House. I should have thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, responsible for his public conduct, having filled the situation of Colonial Secretary, would have been content to vindicate himself from an imputation brought forward by my noble Friend (Lord Stanley); and brought forward, I must say, in no unkind or unfair spirit. I certainly think it an extraordinary principle for the right hon. Gentleman to lay down, that because his public conduct has been questioned in fair argument, he, therefore, has a right to attribute to him who questioned it a departure from those friendly feelings which had theretofore subsisted between the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord. I was surprised at the retaliation of the right hon. Gentleman. His conduct was fairly open to be questioned by my noble Friend. How was it possible to express an opinion upon the colonial policy of the Government, and to attribute the evils which we now assign to that policy, without subjecting the right hon. Gentleman's conduct to comment, and in some respects to animadversion. But let me ask the right hon. Gentleman, was it perfectly decorous in him to charge my noble Friend with misconduct in the colonial department, when he was himself a member of the same Government with my noble Friend. Your doctrine now is, that the whole of the Government is responsible for the act of any particular member of it. If that doctrine be well founded, with what decency do you, who were the colleagues of my noble Friend, attribute to him improper conduct in his administration of the duties of the colonial department. With what decency can you charge my noble Friend with improper conduct, when you, according to your own showing, shared in the responsibility of every thing he did. Who was it that after experience of his conduct in Ireland—who was it that called my noble Friend to administer the affairs of the colonial department at the very moment when the most important measure ever connected with that department was about to be submitted to Parliament. And do you quarrel now with my noble Friend upon the subject of the colonies? Did you then feel all the evils which you now profess to feel as arising from his promptitude and decision. If you had such a feeling in your mind, why did you not at once declare that you would not share in his responsibility. Why do you now come forward complaining of despatches which you say ought not to have been sent out, and to the sending out of which you attribute all the evils that have arisen in Canada? Would it not have been more becoming in you to have refused your sanction to the sending out of those dispatches in the first instance than now, after the lapse of four years, to bring forward that act of my noble Friend as a matter of complaint when your own conduct is impugned? Was it upon the subject of Irish policy or of colonial policy that your union with my noble Friend terminated? Was it not on account of his steady and consistent adherence to principles which he declared he would never cease to follow? And when he left your Government, did you not all, una voce, admit that your chief pride and ornament had left you? Did you not all feel that you had lost him who had rescued you from a hundred difficulties, with which, but for his powerful aid you were unable to cope? Did you not all feel that you had lost the most powerful support of your government. I pay you the compliment of believing that you felt all this, because I know you said it. I know it was said by you that, upon public as well as upon personal grounds, you more deeply regretted your separation in public life from my noble Friend than any event that could possibly occur to you. Coming, now, to the more immediate subject of debate, I may state, that I shall proceed at once, without one word of unnecessary preliminary preface, to a consideration of the real questions at issue upon this occasion. They are two-fold; first the amendment we have proposed; second, the policy which that amendment calls in question. I make no apology for this amendment. This amendment is consistent with every opinion that I have given upon the subject of your colonial policy. That this amendment surprises you is no matter of astonishment to me; because it is an amendment utterly at variance with every principle upon which you have acted in public life. It is an amendment which partakes not of the character of ambiguity, dilatoriness, or irresolution. It is an amendment which contains the sentiments we avow—an amendment that in plain, direct, straightforward terms, arraigns the policy you have pursued. It asks for no confederacy with those to whose opinions we are opposed. It makes no truckling compromise with opposite principles, for the purpose of swelling the numbers of a division. It seeks to found upon it no compact, nor compact alliance. On the contrary, it declares the determination of the Conservative party in this House. It declares their determination to support the Crown and to maintain the authority of the Crown. It expresses satisfaction at the success of her Majesty's arms; but at the same time, consistently with that expression of satisfaction at the success of her Majesty's arms—consistently with that expression of a determination to uphold the authority of the Crown, it expresses in direct terms a want of confidence in the Government upon the subject of Canadian policy. And you cannot account for this! You fancy that it can only proceed from some pressure from behind. You are so uncharitable as to judge of us by yourselves. Knowing that in your own case the prevailing influence has been the pressure from behind, you suppose that no other persons can act, unless impelled by the same power. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, says, that fusion and coalition are the ultimate objects of the amendment. Although I repudiate altogether any concurrence in the motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth), although an amendment has been moved which that hon. Baronet cannot support—although it must be well known that the hon. Baronet would disclaim concert with me, as much as I should disclaim concert with him on account of the extreme opinions which we entertain, yet, in spite of all this, the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) cannot discover an assignable motive for this amendment, unless it be intended as the forerunner of a coalition between the hon. Baronet and myself. The amendment is objected to on various grounds. First, you say that we have concealed our feelings; that hitherto we have approved of your policy. Is that the fact? Did we approve of your policy during the discussion on the Canada Bill? Did I did not distinctly declare that I thought it was to the weak and vacillating conduct of the Ministry that the revolt in Canada has been mainly attributable? When I concurred in your address, and gave my sanction to your Bill, can it be said with truth that I approved of your policy? Did I not expressly declare, in the words of the amendment, that, although I would enable the Crown to vindicate its authority—although I cordially rejoiced in the success of her Majesty's arms,—yet, that it was to the irresolute, vacillating, and dilatory conduct of the Government that I attributed all the evils that had arisen in Canada? The hon. Gentleman, the under-Secretary fo the Colonies (Sir George Grey) asks how i was possible for us to concur in the address voted to her Majesty, and why, if we entertained the sentiments we now express, we did not then move an amendment condemnatory of the Government? I will tell the hon. Gentleman why it was, that we did not. It was because the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) expressly invited us to concur in the address, saying that he did not mean, at that moment, to agitate the question of whether the Government were to blame or not. And this is the return that we meet with. This is what the noble Lord said, "The question which I wish to propose this evening to the House is whether they are prepared to maintain the authority of the Crown in Lower Canada, and not whether her Majesty's Ministers are to blame." And then the noble Lord went on to say, "If at any future time any hon. Member shall think fit to bring the question before the House, I shall be prepared to maintain that we, her Majesty's Ministers, are in no respects deserving of censure for the course we have adopted; but the only question for consideration tonight is, what course we ought to adopt for the maintenance of the authority of the Crown in the revolted provinces of Canada." We trusted the noble Lord, we trusted to the noble Lord, who told us not then to make it a party question. Yes, you told us that the first duty of the House of Commons was to rally round the Throne, and to maintain the authority of the Crown; you told us that to quell rebellion there should be an expression of unanimity on the part of the House; you told us that if we swelled the amount of your majority at that time, we should have an after opportunity, if we thought fit, of impugning the conduct of the Government. We believed you. We assented to your address; we moved no amendment, and now comes forward the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and asks us how we can reconcile it with our sense of duty to censure the Government now, after having concurred with it upon the address moved immediately upon the reassembling of Parliament after the Christmas recess? The Vice-President of the Board of Trade, too, has made this charge upon us. "Sir," says the right hon. Gentleman, "whilst the issue of the rebellion was uncertain—when it was unknown whether the efforts of the revolt were effectually quelled, you indicated no opposition to the Government; you kept yourselves entirely in the back ground, and by your silence seemed to give assent to all that had been done; but now, when every thing is settled, you come forward to censure the Government." Why, to be sure, if ever there was an exhibition of greater fairness in a party, it was to be found in the very course which the right hon. Gentleman pointed out as being so extraordinary. When we heard of the defeat of the British arms—when the public mind in England was agitated—when the issue was uncertain—we did not come forward to create an undue prejudice against the Government by bringing its conduct under immediate consideration. "But now," says the right hon. Gentleman, "now you are prepared to do so." Did I shrink, when the Canada Bill was under consideration, from submitting to the House those amendments to that measure which I thought to be necessary? Did I show that want of political courage imputed to me by the right hon. Gentleman, of evading all mention of disturbing the Government while the issue was uncertain? Has the right hon. Gentleman so soon forgotten what passed in the discussion upon the Canada Bill? Did I not give notice whilst that Bill was under consideration that, as there were parts of it to which I decidedly objected, I meant to move amendments upon which I should take the sense of the House? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman considered those amendments light and insignificant, and therefore had allowed them to escape his recollection. But the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) did not so consider them; for the noble Lord told me, that if I persisted in moving those amendments, and if I declared that I proposed them, not from a mere desire to rectify some of the details of the Bill, but because I dissented from the general Canadian policy of the Government, it would become a matter of grave consideration with the Government whether they would not immediately retire from office. Was not that distinctly intimated to me by the noble Lord? And was I able to give the noble Lord any consolatory assurance? Was I enabled to use one single gratifying expression in the answer I returned to the noble Lord? Did I not, after the express invitation of the noble Lord, distinctly state, that I adhered to every opinion I had previously expressed on the subject of the Canadian policy of the Government—that my objections were not objections of detail, but objections of principle, and had I not the satisfaction, after all, of finding the noble Lord adopt my amendment. Therefore, I do not consider myself liable to the charge, either of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, that we are now bringing forward an amendment which is inconsistent with our support of the first address to the Throne upon the subject; nor do I think myself liable to the charge of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, that when the issue of events was uncertain, I abstained from pressing such amendments to the Canada Bill as I thought material, after I was told that the pressing of them might endanger the existence of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman preferred another charge specifically against me. He asked me how it was possible for me to concur in a condemnation of the Government, seeing that I had been connected with an Administration which had mainly aggravated the difficulties of managing the affairs of Canada. The right hon. Gentleman contended, that the Government which had existed previously to 1828, when the Canada Committee was appointed, was the Government mainly chargeable with delinquency in respect of Canada. That being the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, and being his opinion, I suppose the opinion of the Government also, I own it does somewhat surprise me, that the present Administration, when they came into power, showed no indisposition whatever to unite with some of those who had belonged to other Administrations existing previous to 1828, and who, of course, must be held responsible for any unwise or injurious measures that might have been adopted towards Canada. When the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Labouchere), and the hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Sir George Grey), were dealing out so largely their invectives against Administrations which existed previously to 1828, they should have looked to their right hand and to their left, and remembered how many of their present colleagues were just as much chargeable with misconduct towards Canada as any of those who sit on this side of the House. The noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, was connected with every Government that existed from the year 1800—I do not know when—down to the year 1827, and I see many Gentlemen upon the Ministerial benches who were connected with previous Governments in the same way. Why, then, if you objected so much to the colonial policy of the Administration which existed prior to 1828, why did you not mark your disapproval of it by refusing to enter into any kind of coalition with those who had in any way been parties to it? Was not Mr. Grant, the present Lord Glenelg, a member of the Government previous to 1828? But when you first came into office, what course did you pursue? Did you not take for your colonial secretary Lord Ripon, who had been connected with every government from the time of Lord Liverpool down to 1828. The very man whom you appointed minister for colonial affairs had been connected with that Government up to the year 1827. And what did you do with Mr. Wilmot Horton? He was the representative of the Colonial Department during the seven years preceding 1828. What course did you pursue with respect to him? Why, you absolutely appointed him Chief Governor of Ceylon—you selected him who had been representative of the Colonial-office in this House from the year 1822 to the year 1828, during the time of these enormities of our Government, to fill one of the highest stations in the colonies you had it in your power to bestow. Was it possible that you could condemn that policy when one of the very men who administered it from the year 1822 to 1828 was appointed Colonial Secretary; and another of his friends was appointed a chief governor of Ceylon? But the right hon. Gentleman mistakes the point at issue; and so does every one on his side of the House. We do not deny the great difficulty attending the administration of affairs in Canada. There were great difficulties, some arising perhaps from neglect on the part of former Administrations, but the greater part inseparable from the state of society in Canada: inseparable from the fact, that a great mass of the population was of one religion, while those possessed of wealth, intelligence, energy, and education, belonged to another; this being aggravated by other evils peculiar to Canadian society. But what is the charge against her Majesty's Government? It is not a denial that they had difficulties to contend with, but the charge we prefer against them is this—that the revolt in Canada—the necessity of putting down that revolt by force of arms—the necessity of extreme severity by the suspension of constitutional rights—might have been averted if ordinary foresight and ordinary vigilance had been exercised. And I do conscientiously believe that proof showing to demonstration the truth of that charge can be adduced from the papers which are now lying before me. While admitting the difficulties with which you had to contend, as well as former administrations, arising from the state of society in Canada, I feel perfectly confident if I had to argue this question before twelve men who were entire masters of these documents that I should obtain a verdict of guilty against you, and an affirmation of the charge that there have been vacillation, irresolution, and want of foresight, in your policy sufficient to account for the revolt that broke out in Canada. Again, you say that the charge brought against you is, that your course has been conciliatory. That is not my charge against you. It is not that it has been a conciliatory course; but that you have shown your disposition to conciliate at a wrong time; that your policy has been characterised by inactivity at one moment, and by superfluous and uncalled-for activity at another. I will proceed to show the contrast between your policy and that which was pursued by Lord Aberdeen, whose was not a policy employing force, not a policy of uncalled for and misplaced rigour, but a policy with which I challenge you to the proof that yours will not suffer in the comparison. When Lord Aberdeen entered office in 1835, he proceeded at once to the consideration of the affairs of Canada. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a dispatch prepared by my noble Friend, Lord Aberdeen, and having done so, I think it but fair that he should produce that dispatch. He has no right to show that there existed any inconsistency between me and my noble Friend, from the contents of a dispatch remaining in the Colonial-office, when that dispatch was not before Parliament. I am placed in a disadvantageous position with respect to my noble Friend by a dispatch being quoted which is not before the House, and the right hon. Gentleman deals in an unfair manner towards me, unless he mean to produce a copy of the dispatch from which he has quoted. But, Sir, this I say with respect to that dispatch, that my noble Friend in 1835 was prepared to make an immediate settlement of every important disputed question in Canada, reserving for future inquiry matters of subordinate detail. But you, the Ministers, allowed two years to pass away after my noble Friend was prepared to settle all the points in dispute before you brought forward your resolutions which were the result of the commission which you issued. And those resolutions did not propose the settlement of any single litigated point which two years before Lord Aberdeen had not given Lord Amherst ample powers to settle. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to contradict that statement. The only difference between your resolutions and the course proposed to be pursued by Lord Aberdeen is this—that you proposed to take money from the Canadians without their consent; whereas Lord Aberdeen did not propose any such thing. Lord Aberdeen gave full and positive instructions to Lord Amherst upon all the points involved in Canadian affairs; he gave positive instructions with respect to the Legislative Council, to the Tenures' Act, to the Trade Act, to the pending financial question, and, in short, to every point that demanded the attention of the Government. He told Lord Amherst that his duty was to remove all grounds of complaint still unredressed, and to apply efficacious remedies to every existing grievance. This he was to accomplish effectually. But, says the right hon. Gentleman, Lord Aberdeen proposed to give up the territorial and casual revenues to the House of Assembly. It is true Lord Aberdeen did propose to do so, but upon express conditions, and the revenues were not to be given up till the conditions were fulfilled. Instead of entering upon an indefinite inquiry into the state of Canada, at a time when the minds of men were inflamed, and wanted not a fresh inquiry, but a redress of grievances, the course taken by my noble Friend was to send out a single commissioner with instructions, not couched in equivocal language, admitting of doubt, and raising questions as to the intentions of those who prepared them; but my noble Friend said to Lord Amherst—"Go forth to Canada—tell them that the whole of the territorial and casual revenues shall be given up, but upon these express conditions: first, that a civil list for the payment of the salaries of civil officers shall be granted; secondly, that the salaries of the judges shall be provided for; thirdly, that funds shall be provided to meet casual expenses; and fourthly, that every payment for which the faith of the government was pledged shall be promptly provided for." These were the conditions; and Lord Amherst was told, that if the House of Assembly rejected them, they would then be in the wrong, and it would become the duty of the imperial Government to consider what steps ought afterwards to be taken. My noble Friend said to the Canadians, "I am willing to listen to any proposal for an amicable settlement respecting the constitution of the Legislative Council;" but did my noble Friend palter with them in a double sense? No. He said distinctly, that the constitution of the colonial government shall be so far respected that the Legislative Council shall not be an elective council, and that the Executive Council shall not be responsible to the House of Assembly. So that my noble Friend distinctly stated, on every point, what was the course the Government intended to pursue, and what were the terms offered to the Canadian assembly; but certainly, in case of Lord Amherst's failure, my noble Friend reserved to himself the opportunity of considering what course it would be proper for him, in that event, to adopt. Now, what is the course which her Majesty's Government has adopted? They first appointed commissioners to go forth to Canada and institute inquiries, after every subject of inquiry had been exhausted, and after evidence had been obtained which more overburdened than instructed them. With the Canadians panting for something effectual to be done, you send out three gentlemen as Commissioners, after all the inquiries of 1833 and 1834, for the purpose of inquiring anew. Here lying before me, is the report of those Commissioners; and I will say (although I am not desirous of saying anything in the absence of the right hon. Baronet, (Sir Charles Grey) which I would not say in his presence—but if ever any document was calculated to throw ridicule upon a government commission, upon those who were in chief authority, and to excite and inflame discontent, it is the report of these Commis- sioners, who were so selected that it was almost certain they would differ, and the expectation of whose difference of opinion has been realised by the event. Of this every man may satisfy himself who reads this report. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Grey) be present, would he allow me to refresh his memory with some of his own expressions with respect to this commission. The Commissioners were instructed, among other things, to make a report in reference to the Executive Council, and they accordingly make a report which the right hon. Gentleman signs. But the moment he signed that report, he attached a remonstrance against it; and another of the three Commissioners also attached a remonstrance against his own report, and then the chief Commissioner comes in, and His decision more embroils the fray. The Commissioners made a report on the Executive Council, which was signed by Lord Gosford, Sir George Gipps, and Sir Charles Grey. The very next paper is one bearing the signature of Sir Charles Edward Grey only, and contains what is called a statement of his difference of opinion upon the third report of the Commissioners, and the hon. Gentleman thus expresses himself:—My principal objection to the present report is, that having in the 12th, 14th, 16th, and 17th paragraphs shown very forcibly and truly that an Executive Council, removable at the will of the Assembly, would be incompatible with the subordination of the province to the empire, we recommend measures in the 30th, 32d, 34th, 35th, 36th, and 38th paragraphs, which, taken in conjunction with the recommendation of the majority of the Commissioners in the first report, would create the institution we have decried." Just conceive the Commissioners thus divided in opinion on a question on which the wishes of the people were fully made up. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite sent out three Commissioners to make a report on the propriety of granting an Elective Legislative Council; and in their general report they say, in paragraphs 12, 14, 16, and 17, that they have insuperable objections to making the Executive Council elective; and yet, in paragraphs 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, and 38, they admit that it seems desirable: and this they said with the view of throwing oil over the troubled waters of discontent. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite undertake to say, that if the propositions of my noble Friend, Lord Aberdeen, had been adopted in 1835, that they would not have had an entirely different effect? Was it the same thing, that they were adopted two years afterwards? Are two years nothing in the history of a discontented people? [Cheers.] If hon. Gentlemen mean by their cheers to remind me of Ireland, and refer to the experience which they have had of the effects of delay with respect to that country, do they consider delay is not a condemnation of the Government as to Canada? You point a most harmless sarcasm at me, but through my sides you inflict a fatal wound upon yourselves? If in Ireland the state of discontent has been aggravated by delay, what will you say of the Government delay with respect to Canada? Upon this point I will commence with the authority of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last night, and who then said that delay was of no consequence. What, however, did the hon. Gentleman say in his published report? He said, "I cannot express as I could wish the importance which ought to be attached to a prompt use of the opportunity which is presented by the address of the Assembly to his Majesty." This was written in 1836, a year after Lord Aberdeen had been out of office; but what further said the hon. Gentleman? "If it," that is, the opportunity, "be missed, the Government will go rapidly down the stream; if it be rightly—by which I mean temperately but firmly—used, I see nothing in Canadian affairs which, with skill and forbearance, is not capable of adjustment." I have the authority, then, of the hon. Gentleman that the differences were capable of adjustment, and that the colony was not in so bad a state that it might not be brought safely out of its troubles. I rely on no statement of my own, I trust only to the evidence of your own Commissioners, of your own officers; and by that evidence, as I told you, I will show that on your delay I rightly charge the revolt which has broken out in Canada. I have shown here, from the evidence of one of your own Commissioners, who in his speech of last night absolved you from all blame, that he was of opinion, in March, 1836, that he hoped for a satisfactory adjustment, and that he then "saw nothing in Canadian affairs which, with skill and forbearance, was not capable of adjustment;" and yet the same hon. Gentleman asked last night, with an air of triumph, whether, if the propositions sent out to Lord Amherst had been produced to the Assembly, they would not have been rejected. What right had the hon. Gentleman to peak with so much certainty of the fate of propositions which have never been made to the Assembly? The intentions of Lord Aberdeen were but the opinions adopted last year by the Government, and embodied in the resolutions then proposed to the House; the Commissioners suggested nothing more than was contained in the instructions sent out by Lord Aberdeen, to Lord Amherst, with this exception, that Lord Aberdeen had said that what was to be done should be accomplished only on the Assembly agreeing to discharge the arrears due to the civil authorities and the judges, and enabling those officers to perform their functions. On the granting of these supplies, the Colonial-office was willing to consider fair proposals; and if after his noble Friend's propositions had been laid before the Legislative Assembly, offering to give the Members a control over the public revenues, on condition of a proper provision being made for the civil List, and for the due payment of the salaries of the judges and of the civil officers—if after that the Assembly had rejected the offer, his noble Friend would have come to Parliament for assistance; he would have stated, that the offer had been made and that it had been rejected—that Government had no other source on which to depend for the payment of the salaries of the judicial and other functionaries than on the produce of the Crown revenues. The Parliament would have acted upon this, and would have granted a sum within its control, and the conduct of the Government would have prevented an outbreak. I can show, Sir, that the exact contrary course has been pursued—that the hopes held out of an amicable settlement have been defeated in consequence of the unlucky accidents and the conduct of the Government and of their officers, notwithstanding that it had been distinctly stated that there was every reasonable prospect of an amicable adjustment. In one place Lord Glenelg at-attached the utmost importance to the preservation of strict secrecy as to the instructions given to the Commissioners, and said that the strict preservation of this si- lence was essential to the success of their mission, but observed that he could not too earnestly enjoin their great circumspection in this respect; that no indiscreet word should pass, or reference be made to them, but that even in the questions proposed to a witness, and in the very manner and tone in which they were put, this habitual caution should be preserved. Allow me to ask how these instructions were to be accomplished? What was the particular look which the Commissioner was to put on, when a person was under examination to prevent him from having any suspicion of the Commissioner's opinions or instructions. Lord Glenelg said, that this silence was most essential to the success of the mission—that great circumspection was to be used, and that this habitual caution was to be preserved—and finished by saying that this course was of the utmost importance for the prevention of jealousies, and to keep alive the goodwill of the Canadians. The Commissioners went out; and Lord Gosford opened the Legislative Assembly in a speech which was well calculated to raise false hopes on behalf of the Canadians. He had not read his instructions to the Assembly; and though his speech was so worded, and was so equivocal, that to an unpractised eye it left the whole matter open, yet in the instructions it was the manifest intention of Government that the Legislative Council should not be rendered elective. If I wanted an instance of misleading I could not select a more flagrant one. Lord Gosford, indeed, stated in round terms that the constitution would be supported by the Government, which was willing, however, to sanction such reforms as did not militate against the integrity of the institutions of the country. No man could doubt that he would have declared against an Elective Council; but instead of so doing his Lordship said, that if the Assembly desired an Elective Council they might express their opinions on the subject to the Government, and thus the Assembly was left without the means of ascertaining the intentions of the Government, though it was evident to those versed in the perusal of dispatches that there was to be no Elective Council. You allowed, however, Lord Gosford to go to Canada, and when he got there he delivered a speech to the Assembly, in which it was left extremely doubtful whether the Canadians were to have a Legislative Council or not, or whether even the question was perfectly open for consideration. And what was the result? The Canadian Assembly voted an address to the Governor, not precisely agreeing with the former hope of adjustment. I wish to establish one or two of these points of policy as a specimen of what might easily be extended to ten or twelve others, and to entreat the particular attention of this House to them, that they may hear what answer the noble Lord can make to them. After the first speech of Lord Gosford, all hope of adjustment and accommodation was at an end. Sir George Gipps said, "I did not think that we were ever at liberty to publish the instructions, and even if we had done so, no good effect could have been produced. We were so far successful that there was every reasonable prospect that on the 9th of the last month the arrears of the last three years and the supplies for the current year would have been granted." It is one of your own Commissioners who says this, as if the first speech of Lord Gosford had had so much effect on the Assembly as to induce them to grant the arrears of the supplies for three years. Then what afterwards took place? These instructions, which Lord Gosford had withheld, stating the importance of their being kept secret, were published in extenso by Sir F. B. Head in Upper Canada. And what was the consequence? "We had," said Sir George Gipps, "the most complete assurance that on the 9th of March, 1836, the determination to grant supplies for three years was adopted and approved of at a meeting of the persons of the greatest influence in the Assembly, the question being to come on, on the 9th, when on that day, however, the dispatches, which had been published in Upper Canada, reached Quebec, and the course of proceeding was at once changed. The question of arrears was at once set aside, supplies for six months were granted, and now the majority of thirty-four or thirty-five was once more reduced to the old minority of eight, though the question of supply had been carried by thirty-five against forty-seven." Now what does this show? That in the first communication made by Lord Gosford the minority in the Assembly was thirty-five to forty-seven. Sir Charles Grey and Sir George Gipps said, that in a private meeting of the leaders of the Assembly it was determined to grant three years' arrears of supplies; your instructions are then published, and your minority is reduced from thirty-five to eight, and all hopes of accomplishing the end so much desired are thus lost, in consequence of the misconduct of your own officer. Then what said Lord Gosford? He gave the same account of the matter. Eve y hope which had been entertained failed, and whose fault was it—what was the cause of this—the publication of the instructions occurred? Lord Glenelg communicated the dispatches to Sir F. Head, and although in Lower Canada he had forbidden their publication, he said nothing on that subject with regard to Upper Canada—he gave no command that there should be any caution exercised in their publication, but on the contrary, he told Sir F. Head that he must lay the substance of the dispatches before the Assembly in Upper Canada. It was conceived necessary that the two colonies, being closely connected, the Assembly of Upper Canada should be made acquainted with the intentions of the Government, and so by this course every hope of an amicable settlement was destroyed. Is not this a case, then, in which, from want of foresight, and from irresolute conduct on the part of the Ministers, a great evil has arisen? You well knew the state in which the country was; there was a disaffected and dissatisfied body then ready to take advantage of every blunder or false step which you might make; and was it not, therefore, the more imperatively your duty to take care that you did not give an opportunity to them to improve their position against you, in consequence of your apparent negligence? You pursued the same course with reference to the Executive Government. You deluded them there, too, with false hopes. I am not charging you with any want of conciliation; but that it was through your vacillations and your blunders, that the reasonable hopes which had been entertained of an amicable adjustment were taken away. Then again you gave the dissatisfied parties a great advantage over you, on account of your exciting hopes for the improvement of the Executive Council. Now that is the only other point to which I will refer, the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire having already alluded to the Legislative Council. Now, how stood the Executive Council? When you proposed resolutions last year, one of the conditions on which yo gained the assistance of public men was, that you would make some improvements in the constitution of the Executive Council. The privileges and favours, and acts of grace, by granting which you were disposed to reconcile men for the loss of their constitutional privileges, was the very same improvement which you had before promised in the same terms in which your resolutions were couched. A future improvement was promised with respect to them; but would any man for one moment doubt, that at the same time that you made the communication you should have been ready with your act of grace. Can any man doubt that the country being in the state in which it was, the people being divided, and each party seeking to take advantage of any laches which the Government might make, that it was the duty of the Government to deprive them of the opportunity of saying "You have made promises which you have not performed; you did not do as you declared you would; but you have made some vain excuse for your neglect?" In 1836, what said the Committee with regard to the Executive Council? I want to show you the conduct of your own officers, for there can be nothing more singular than their conduct. On the 14th of March, 1836, Sir G. Gipps said, and I request the House to pay attention to what was his evident feeling on the subject—"As the governor, in his speech, on the 27th of October, 1835, declared the constitution of the Executive Council to be vicious, and promised some alteration, I think we may be expected by this time to have adopted some settled opinion with respect to the alteration which it is proposed shall be made." Why, here is the opinion of your own Commissioner, who thinks that some alteration having been promised in the Executive Council, by the governor, in the month of October, 1835, every one would be struck with the idea that, six months having elapsed, sufficient time had been allowed for the Government to make up their minds. In 1837, it appears, matters have got into such a state that the Government is obliged to take fresh means, and they again promise some improvement in the Executive Council, and then Lord Gosford writes that there is no further excuse for procrastination; but still when the time comes, nothing is done on the subject of the Executive Council. You knew the state in which the colony was, but in spite of that, you lay resolutions on the Table of the House of Commons. You knew the position of the colony then as well as you did when Lord Gosford made his last speech, and why not say that the difficulties were insuperable, or why not at first take the course which you were afterwards compelled to take? Why not say to Lord Gosford, "We are unable to make a selection, we have implicit confidence in you, and we tell you beforehand, we leave it to you to make the selection, and therefore, exercise the utmost vigilance, and make that selection which appears to be the best." Here we have another instance, and it is the last to which I shall refer, of the failure of the hope of an amicable settlement being come to, and in this case it proceeded from your not having fulfilled the promises which you made. I have thought it best to go into these minute cases, because, if I had dealt in declamation, the noble Lord would have said that I rested my case on general statements of charges without having cited any specific case, or without having drawn the attention of the House to any positive instance in which false hopes had been raised and had not then been realised. I have endeavoured to show a few instances in reference to the conduct of Government respecting the Executive Council, and also in respect of the instructions forwarded to Sir F. Head, and that it was in consequence of your own acts in those instances that the difficulties arose. I will not go into the question with respect to the military force, but it appears to me that there is proof that three years ago there were parties in Canada who were influenced by different feelings in politics and sufficient warning should have been deemed to be given by that circumstance alone to have induced the Government to see the necessity of having a sufficient force in the colony to meet the advances of either party without one party being called upon to contend with the other. It was not merely your duty to suppress the revolt when it should take place, but you should also have been prepared to meet it with your own power, and without the necessity of calling on either party to defend the colony by means of its voluntary aid. On these grounds it is, that I feel justified in giving my support to the resolution of the noble Lord, with a view to ex- pressing my opinion on your conduct with reference to Canada. I am not forced to bring the motion forward in consequence of any pressure from without; but because an hon. Gentleman gave notice that he should call the attention of the House to the colonial policy, and I wished to know in what position I and the party with which I have the honour to act are placed in reference to that motion. At the same time, as I said before, I shall make no apology to the House. But this is a perfectly novel proposition, that the motion should not be agreed to, because there is a chance of displacing the Government by it. There is no defence urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who state they shall oppose both the original motion and the amendments of the Canadian policy of the Government. You have not a word to say in vindication of the charge of vacillation and irresolution brought against the Government. Every hon. Gentleman on the other side, who is not connected with the Government, who has addressed the House in the course of the present debate, has abandoned this point, and has admitted that the conduct of the colonial department has been characterised by vacillation, irresolution, and want of foresight. The first hon. Member who addressed the House last night after the noble Lord the Secretay for Foreign Affairs, was the hon. Member for Marylebone, who said—I took his words down at the time—"I think that the Canadian policy of the Government is exceedingly bad," although the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, who spoke immediately before the hon. Gentleman, had said that the Canadian policy of the Government was the first and brightest gem in the course of policy pursued by the present Government. The hon. Gentleman was followed by other hon. Members on the same side, who declined voting for the amendment; but, at the same time, every one of these hon. Gentlemen said, that he could not approve of the conduct of Government as regarded the affairs of Canada; but all joined in a general chorus against the amendment, because they said they thought, if it were successful. we should succeed to office. Was this a sufficient reason for withholding assent to the proposition before the House? The right hon. Gentleman, however, had been searching for grounds of consolation for a beaten government. The right hon. Gentleman read an amusing piece of writing as to the degree of beating which a government could receive consistently with its continuance in office. The right hon. Gentleman looked back under the infliction of the stripes received last week—for, out of the five divisions which took place last week, the government were beaten upon four of them—for some consolation to the number of defeats sustained by former administrations. I will apply, said the right hon. Gentleman, to the records of past beatings to see what degree a government can sustain, and continue to exist. The right hon. Gentleman quoted several occasions where former Governments had continued after being defeated, and quoted the instance of the salt-tax and other measures, when, he said, the Tory Government were severely beaten. I could, however, in addition to the cases quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, mention other instances of men remaining in office after repeated beatings. Notwithstanding the conduct of all that have preceded us, notwithstanding all the cases quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, and notwithstanding, what I never doubted, his tenacity of life under the infliction of a severe beating—tenacity, however, which I admit is produced by the same motive which influenced myself while in office, namely, a sense of duty to those with whom I acted—I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his tenacity of life, could hardly survive, if beaten under the present circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman asked, how can we persevere in our amendment, seeing we are incapable to form a government, in case we should drive the present Administration from office. But I trust that we are to come to a division on the Colonial policy of the Government, not on our power to form an administration. I have not to consider, at the present moment, what Government could be formed. I have only to look to what the honour of the Conservative party demands, for the purpose of vindicating their heretofore expressed opinions as to the misconduct and weakness of the Government in its Canadian policy. The hon. Baronet brings forward a motion on the subject, and what would the right hon. Gentleman have me do? Would he have me absent myself from the House altogether? Not to appear here and avow my opinion, as long as I have a seat in the House, would be a course of proceeding to which I shall never assent. I might be compelled to give my vote on any particular question from a sense of duty, or a question might be put in such a way, that I could give no opinion either on the one side or the other; but this I never would consent to, namely, to refuse to appear here, and abstain from expressing my opinion on any particular line of policy. This is what I have never done, and it is what I never will consent to. But would the right hon. Gentleman have us to move the previous question I Alas! you have so damaged the previous question, that, for some time to come, no Gentleman will like to be seen in its company. After the exhibition you made of the previous question last week, you can hardly wish for the renewal of it; and what would you say to me if I proposed it, for the purpose of shielding and protecting you? I cannot vote for the motion of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, as I think the motion is unjust in its nature. If a Minister of the Crown had committed, in his particular department of the Government, some act of gross neglect or malversation, or some act for which he was singly responsible, it would be perfectly right that the House of Commons should signify to the Crown its reasons for demanding the removal of the Minister from the councils of the Sovereign. In this instance, however, the charge against Lord Glenelg involves an attack on the whole course and policy of the colonial government. But, according to the motion of the hon. Gentleman, his object would apparently be attained by the removal of Lord Glenelg from the colonial department, and the substitution of himself, or any other liberal politician in the place of that noble Lord. This, however, will not satisfy me, for you will only relieve all the rest of the Government from any responsibility by making the sacrifice of one individual Minister, whom you will replace by another individual. The hon. Gentleman said that his object was to visit the whole Government with censure. Why, then, does the hon. Gentleman propose to remove one Minister with the view of punishing the whole? Why not regard the colonial policy of the Government, not as the act of one Minister, but of the whole Cabinet, and call on the House to express an opinion on it? The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs made a proposition which would have removed some of the difficulties they now experienced—the noble Lord might have pur- sued a course which, after the panegyric he passed on his noble Friend the Colonial Secretary, appeared to be the natural course, the noble Lord might have moved a counter-resolution implying the approbation of the House for the colonial policy of the Government. The hon. Baronet gave the noble Lord such a fair opportunity that I cannot understand how flesh and blood could hear an attached friend assailed in the way in which the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary was attacked without coming forward to his rescue with such a proposition, and I cannot help feeling that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department will still adopt this suggestion, as he adopted my amendments to the Canada Bill. If the noble Lord opposite will propose the counter-resolution approving of the colonial policy of the Government, I will venture to promise on the part of my noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool, that my noble Friend will waive his resolution, and will consent to fight the battle upon this point of the resolution alone. The hon. Baronet proposed, "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, respectfully expressing the opinion of this House that, in the present critical state of many of her Majesty's foreign possessions in various parts of the world; it is essential to the well-being of her Majesty's colonial empire, and of the many and important domestic interests which depend on the prosperity of the colonies, that the colonial Minister should be a person in whose diligence, forethought, judgment, activity, and firmness this House and the public may be able to place reliance." That hon. Members mean to negative a resolution which sets forth such an extraordinary collection of qualities in an individual, is not surprising. But it is rather hard on the part of the noble Lords and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to give a direct negative to the proposition that another Minister of the Crown—their colleagues in office—should be a man of diligence, forethought, judgment, activity, and firmness. I certainly cannot agree to the hon. Baronet's motion, but I trust that a distinct vote of approbation of the Canadian policy of the Government will be proposed, upon which the sense of the House can be taken. For the resolution of the hon. Baronet, another might be proposed which might run thus:—"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, respectfully expressing the opinion of this House that, in the present critical state of many of her Majesty's foreign possessions in various parts of the world, it is essential to the well-being of her Majesty's colonial empire, and of the many and important domestic interests which depend on the prosperity of the colonies, that the Colonial Minister should be a person in whose diligence, forethought, judgment, activity, and firmness this House and the public may be able to place reliance; and seeing that the noble Lord at the head of the colonial department does embody in himself these various qualities of diligence, forethought, judgment, activity, and firmness, this House is of opinion that the administration of the affairs of the colonies of this country should continue to be committed to the noble Lord." That is the amendment which I suggest, and if it is taken up by the noble Lord, we will withdraw the proposition which we have made, and divide on the noble Lord's resolution. And observe, the noble Lord has a recent and powerful precedent in favour of such a course. When hon. Gentlemen in opposition attacked the Spanish policy of Mr. Canning, Mr. Canning did not content himself with a mere rejection of the resolution; he moved no previous question; he proposed no direct negative; but he moved a counter resolution, expressing the entire confidence of the House in the line of policy which had been attacked. This is the most recent example of the sort, and its adoption by the noble Lord on the present occasion will remove every difficulty. The proceeding of the noble Lord has considerably amused me; for after loudly panegyrising the noble Lord in another House—to whose great talents and high character I bear willing testimony—after having gone over the terraqueous globe, for evidences in favour of that noble Lord, the noble Lord opposite assumed this bold attitude of defiance: he said, "I will move no previous question; I will leave the previous question as a shelter for others; I will"—I thought the noble Lord had been going to propose a resolution of perpetual confidence in Lord Glenelg—but, said the noble Lord, "I will meet the motion with a flat negative." Surely noble and hon. Members will not let the occasion pass over without some faint testimony of approbation of the unhappy victim singled out by the hon. Baronet. Sir, I repeat I cannot vote for the motion of the hon. Baronet, because I think it unjust; but at the same time I cannot vote to negative the motion, because this latter course might be considered as an implied approbation of the Canadian policy of Ministers. But this being the case, will the noble Lord tell me what course it is which he would have advised us, who entertain strong opinions on the subject, to pursue, or what pretence of a charge there is against us for having embodied our own opinions in resolutions directly charging the Government as the cause of the evils which have taken place in Canada. Sir, I do not know what the result of this motion may be: but this I know, that the course which has been adopted by the other side of the House on this debate, of appealing to the political partialities of friends, instead of relying on the justice of the cause, instead of showing that the charges are unfounded, convince me that it is entirely impossible for us—the terms being adhered to in which the resolution was mooted—to meet it in any other way than by a distinct declaration of our opinions. At the same time, it is equally for the honour of the party with which I am connected, that whatever may be the result of the amendment, it should be so framed as to express the feeling on one point of even those Gentlemen who, while they differ from us as to the Government principles of colonial policy, cannot refuse, at least, to approve of our sentiment of exultation at the success of her Majesty's arms, and the restoration of tranquillity in Canada. Of this I am sure, that we should have been charged by you with weakness, and timidity, if we had adopted an evasive course, and that we should have been degraded and dishonoured if, when we found ourselves compelled to approach a discussion on the Canadian policy of the Government, we had shrunk from declaring that we reprobated the system which had been pursued, and that, manfully adhering to the opinions which we have always expressed, while we are determined to support the authority of the Crown, we will visit with our censure those who we think were the real authors of the revolt, and who have contributed to undermine the power, and weaken the resources of this great empire.

Lord John Russell

spoke to the following effect:—Rejoiced as I am, Sir, that we have now a direct vote of censure on the conduct of the Government pro- posed on the opposite side of the House, yet I cannot forbear, more especially after the declaration of the right hon. Baronet, in the commencement of his speech—I cannot forbear noticing in what a singular manner and at what an extraordinary time, this proposition has been brought forward. Sir, we, at great length, discussed the affairs of Canada a few weeks back—we went on with a bill on the subject, containing provisions of great importance respecting the government of Canada, and we passed enactments by which extraordinary dictatorial powers are conferred upon the person who should be elected governor of that province. In the course of that debate arose the question as to the instructions to be given to the governor, and on that point especially we called on hon. Gentlemen opposite if they wished to condemn the Government, to take that opportunity of doing so; but then, the right hon. Gentleman expressly stated that he had no intention of moving any such condemnation. The noble Lord says, and truly, that he meant no condemnation as to the instructions; but does any one imagine that the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of a great party in the House, would for a moment say, that he would not interfere with the policy of Government respecting Canada—that he left it to the Ministers to carry into effect the measure about to be undertaken—that he left it to them to invest, under that measure; an individual of almost despotic powers—if, at the same time, he felt that the policy of those Ministers on that subject called for condemnation—if he thought them incapable of carrying that measure into operation. Sir, had he, the right hon. Gentleman, acted in such a manner, having all the time an intention to move or concur in a vote of censure upon Government, in reference to that part of their policy—I say, Sir, that the right hon. Baronet would have been eminently guilty of duplicity towards the House, and towards us who sit here. But the fact is, that the right hon. Baronet had no such intention. The intention of the right hon. Baronet was evidently that this power, vast and unusual as it was, should be confided to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and to the Governor nominated for Canada under the responsibility of the present administration. The hon. Member for Leeds has come forward with a motion specifically pointing out the noble Secretary for the Colonies. Now, if the hon. Baronet were the representative of a considerable party in this House—if he came forward as the chief (as the noble Lord opposite had ironically described him to be) of a party prepared to take on themselves the Government of the country, there might be something in the motion. But what is the motion which the hon. Baronet brought forward? His motion, on his own showing, rests on grounds merely special to himself. He travelled over all the colonies in the habitable and in the uninhabitable parts of the globe, and entered into an inquiry as to their general condition, and as to the policy pursued by the various administrations by which they had been governed. What said my noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool? Did he go through any of those subjects? No, he left the whole of them untouched. He took no notice of the miserable condition of the aborigines of New Zealand, or of those miserable disputes between the Caffres and the Hottentots, or of the disturbed state of the Mauritius, which proves to be in a state of perfect tranquillity. He took no notice of the present or probable condition of the apprentices in the West-India islands, but he fixed at once on this subject of Canada, and said, "It is true, this notice has reference, I imagine, to Canadian affairs, but here is an opportunity of censuring her Majesty's Ministers; the occasion is too good to be lost, and those who are eager for a vote of disapprobation of the Government should know that now is the time to move it, and let the vote be carried on the subject of the Canadian government." I must say, that in my opinion, the conduct of the hon. Gentlemen who allowed the resolutions to go by with no intimation that they intended to make such a motion as this was most extraordinary. I cannot but entertain the belief, which I think must also be entertained by most others, that the proper time for the motion, if it was intended, was, not indeed on that day of the Session when the Address was moved, or when the bill relating to Canada was first brought under discussion, but that bill should not have been allowed finally to pass without some notice that it was the intention of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to bring forward this motion. That they did not do so, I fully attribute to what the right hon. Gentleman says, is not a "compact alli- ance," but it is, perhaps, a compact union. It is, perhaps, a union of Gentlemen, many of them differing in prudence and temper from the right hon. Baronet, but who have proved themselves at the present time to have a mastery over his councils. I have observed the party opposite during some years under different circumstances, of adversity and prosperity, and it certainly has appeared to me that in their latter days, the observation has peculiarly applied to them which was made of old, that "parties are like serpents, and are moved by their tails." [Cheers.] I understand those cheers; but I do not think that the remark is so applicable to the small party that has been so much referred to, as it is at the present moment to those who are as strong in numbers as any similar party that ever existed in this House. The course of the right hon. Baronet during the progress of the Canadian bill, I should have thought would have been this: that he would have proposed amendments to the bill, and said, "Those amendments may be rejected by the Government, but I must propose them, even though the consequences be that the Government should be obliged to resign office." Such is the conduct I should have expected from the right hon. Baronet; but this conduct after the bill has been disposed of, and when no notice of his intention has been given—for him to propose a general vote of censure against the Government merely because the hon. Member for Leeds, has submitted a motion which has certainly met with very little support from either side of the House—such a proceeding I must say, is as unlike any of the former conduct of the right hon. Baronet as it is unlike any conduct that I have ever seen on the part of Gentlemen in Opposition. With respect to the charge that has been made in relation to the affairs of Canada, it appears to me that there never was a time when a charge of this nature, the foundation of a motion of censure by the House of Commons, brought forward for the purpose of removing a Ministry, was made on a ground so slight; and I will take, in the first place, a precedent to show under what circumstances a person of a very great name, and connected with a great party, brought forward a similar question. The period of which I am speaking was at the end of the American war. Lord J. Cavendish, on the 8th of March, 1782, brought forward these resolutions:—"1. That it appears to this House that the money voted for the army, navy, and ordnance, and the debts already incurred, and laid before this House, since the year 1775, exceed the sum of one hundred millions. 2. That during the above period we have lost the thirteen colonies of America, which anciently belonged to the Crown of Great Britain (except the posts of New York, Charlestown, and Savannah) the newly-acquired colony of Florida, many of our valuable West India and other islands, and those that remain are in the most imminent danger. 3. That Great Britain is at present engaged in an expensive war with America, France, Spain, and Holland, without a single ally. 4. That the chief cause of all these misfortunes has been the want of foresight and ability in his Majesty's Ministers." Now, if we go through these resolutions, what do we find to be the facts on which they were founded, and how do they contrast with the present case? First, a permanent expenditure had been fixed on the country to the extent of perhaps half a million, and no success attended the resistance to revolt. Secondly, neither the counsels of her Majesty's Ministers nor the force of arms had preserved to this country her colonies. Thirdly, this country was not in a state of peace with all the great powers of Europe and the world. Having here, then, results, precisely the opposite of those of the Canadian revolt, to which the American war has been improperly compared, how can the House now come to a resolution of censure on the ground of a want of foresight and ability in her Majesty's Ministers? What is the case of the hon. Gentlemen opposite? That the rebellion has been successful? No. That there has not been a successful resistance made to it? No. That we have made any improper concessions to the revolters of Canada? By no means. Their case is, and it has not been made out by any one document that they have quoted, that by some different course of conduct the revolt would have been prevented. This being, in its very nature, a case which it is impossible to prove, can we be expected to prove an absolute negative? How can we be expected to show that, within the whole circle of human conduct, there might not, by possibility, have been a course adopted, the effect of which would have been to prevent the revolt? But do say, looking at what has been the conduct of former governments with respect to Canada—looking at the whole court of our Canadian policy—looking to a difficulties in which we were placed by the conduct of those former governments, a conduct we have pursued is not fairly chargeable with want of foresight, is not chargeable with want of resolution, and not chargeable with any failure on an common principles on which our conduct should be judged. Let me now refer to the constitution of Canada as established in 1791. My opinion is, that that constitution, as it was put in action for a few years after its creation, established two antagonist bodies, which it ought to hay been evident, would, one day or other, be sure to come into collision. It was impossible to expect that such a constitution would, for any long period of time, work successfully. One reason was, that it gave a Representative Assembly, and the other that it established a Legislative Council with power to impose laws in the country which were abhorrent to the feelings of every one in the colony. The result was collision between the two assemblies, and the wonder would have been, if, instead such a collision having arisen, harmony had for any long period been observed. But with respect to the conduct of man of the hon. Gentlemen whom I see opposite as participators in that business. The right hon. Baronet says, that there are some hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who were connected with Earl Grey's Government who are in part responsible for the conduct which was pursued towards Canada previous to 1830. That is not the question. The question is, whether a charge was brought and vote of censure passed on such conduct. We, I think, might have ground enough to move a vote of censure even before 1830, for what was the resolution of the Committee of 1828?—"Your Committee cannot close their observations on this branch of their inquiry without calling the attention of the House to the important circumstance, that in the progress of these disputes the local Government has though it necessary, through a long series of years, to have recourse to a measure (which nothing but the most extreme necessity could justify) of annually appropriating by its own authority, large sums of the money of the province, amounting to no less a sum than 140,000l., without the consent of the representatives of the people, under whose control the appropriation of these sums is placed by the constitution. Your Committee cannot but express their deep regret that such a state of things should have been allowed to exist for so many years in a British colony without any communication or reference having been made to Parliament on the subject." If it had been wished at that time to pass a resolution of censure—if it had been an object with those with whom I act to bring forward every matter of colonial misgovernment—I say to the right hon. Gentleman who then occupied the office I have now the honour to hold, that we should have been more justified than he and the hon. Gentlemen with whom he acts in taking such a course. We might have asked how you came to take that large sum of money without bringing the subject before Parliament, or applying to it for its authority? Did misgovernment cease in 1828? The Committee in 1828 came to a report for which the people of Canada expressed themselves gratified. Did then the Government which was formed by the Duke of Wellington act immediately on that report? Did the Colonial Secretary immediately bring in a Bill which was founded upon that report? I believe that the whole of the year 1829 was allowed to pass away—at least I do not know that they introduced a Bill then—they allowed the Session, in fact, to pass without introducing a Bill to carry into effect that report, which has been said by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and which was truly said by him, gave the best chance, at that the very best moment, for conciliation. So much, then, for "the dilatory conduct;" that special charge which has been imputed to my noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies. I should like to know who, then, has been guilty of delay—who it was that allowed a whole year to pass away without doing anything connected with that report, of such vital importance to the colony? But what happened in the next year? I believe that in that same year there came strong representations from Sir James Kempt, declaring that matters ought to be immediately settled. In May, 1830, nothing had been done. My right hon. Friend then submitted resolutions to the House declaring, amongst other things, that judges ought not to be members of the Executive Council. The motion on that occasion was seconded by my noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool. My noble Friend used very strong terms on that occasion. My noble Friend said, with regard to the want of good Government in that colony, "He was afraid, however, that the unwise course pursued for ten years by a former administration had contrived to raise up a little faction of official personages in the council, who had too often succeeded in representing themselves as the real English party in the colony, and who resisted the wishes and shackled the judgments even of the Governor when directed to the reform of abuses, of which they were the authors, and by which they profited.* Those were the strong terms in which that noble Lord then spoke of the Government of the colony. He seconded a motion then for immediate measures being taken. Who opposed that motion? The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth. The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and I think the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke, and certainly the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, voted in the minority for the carrying of the resolutions; and now the noble Lord, having failed in his object in coming forward upon a former occasion, accuses us because of that delay which promoted the existing discontents, and actually turns round and joins the right hon. Gentleman who was the original cause of the delay. The noble Lord goes over to the right hon. Baronet and throws upon us the blame, which he much more fairly, and much more naturally, ought to attach to the neglect of the report of 1828. But then the right hon. Gentleman says, that there was a time when great and decisive measures would have been taken by the Administration—by the Administration of which he was the head. There came a time, at the end of the year 1834, when at length decisive remedies were to be applied, when all evils were to be redressed and all grievances to be removed, and the colonies to be placed in a state of perfect harmony and tranquillity. But what assurance have we that this would have been the case? He tells us, that the dispatch signed in the Colonial-office would have produced such tranquillity and such har- *See Hansard, vol. xxiv. (New Series) p. 1099. mony. That is a matter of speculation; and I entirely differ from the right hon. Gentleman, if his account of that despatch be correct, that it would remedy the complaints of the Canadians with respect to the disposal of the funds, or the absolutive negative upon the election of the Legislative Council. At that time, owing to the former neglect experienced by the colony, the demand had gained strength for an elective Legislative Council. With respect to the civil list, in autumn 1835 Lord Gosford had, upon a settlement of the civil list, offered to give to the Assembly that which Lord Aberdeen had proposed, and in the same manner. They would not be satisfied with that, however, because they believed that there was no intention to yield to their plan of having an elective Legislative Council. What were the instructions of Lord Aberdeen with regard to that plan? To meet it with a direct negative. What, then, would have been the answer of the House of Assembly at that time, if we can speak with certainty of what might have occurred in such a contingency from what has passed?—"It is true that you make us a proposal with respect to the revenues, but then you refuse to make the Legislative Council elective: we therefore refuse the supplies. That is the conduct which they have pursued since, because they thought the present Government opposed to an elective Legislative Council; and therefore they would not grant the supplies; and if they then had met with a direct negative to their demand, that would have followed in 1835, which has since occurred in 1837—a direct refusal of the supplies, and then there would have been at that time a stoppage of the constitution in Canada, which has occurred in the year 1837. The right hon. Gentleman has, in my opinion, no reason whatever to suppose, that the instructions of Lord Aberdeen would have produced any thing like the harmony which he has ventured to assure us of. But if it were necessary to accompany, as he says, the refusal of making the Legislative Council elective, by sending a large armed force in 1837, to Canada, then in like manner ought the instructions of Lord Aberdeen to have been so accompanied. Why, the right hon. Gentleman says, that for three years the whole colony has been in a ferment, and full of disturbance. If that then, were the case, he ought, as much as ourselves, meaning to take a line which he supposed might probably lead to revolt, fully as much as we did last year, to have sent a force to meet whatever might have chanced to occur. But the question then was to come before the Assembly, whether or not they would have granted the supplies? My argument, my belief is, that those supplies would not have been given without an elective Legislative Council having been conceded; and then, if the supplies were not granted, it would be impossible for any government to proceed without coming to one of two resolutions—either to carry on the Government by means of the Imperial Parliament, without granting an elective Legislative Council, or granting to them an elective Legislative Council, and yielding to their other demands. The right hon. Gentleman would take the first of these alternatives. The right hon. Gentleman has complained much of certain parts of the instructions to the Commissioners with respect to the Executive Council, and the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire with respect to the instructions concerning the Legislative Council. My opinion is, with the experience I have had, although I was of the opinion entertained by the hon. Member for Tynemouth some time ago, that unless you had placed in the Legislative Council, and in the Executive Council too, persons who were devoted to the party of Monsieur Papineau and others, the leaders of that party would not have been conciliated. In Lower Canada that, then, was the difficulty of the situation in which affairs were placed. Lord Glenelg, under the advice of Lord Gosford, placed in the Executive Council persons of French extraction and of liberal opinions; but who, not being supporters of M. Papineau, it was declared at various meetings in Canada, that sufficient had not been done, and they regarded that very act rather as an insult offered to themselves than as a concession made to them. If matters, then, in Canada had arrived to that state that the people who were led by M. Papineau and others were not to be satisfied unless we placed on the one hand their followers in the Executive Council, and made the Legislative Council elective, and, on the other hand, abandoned the British party to the intolerance of that other party, to whom the supreme command was given, I say, then, in answer to what the right hon. Baronet has said, that, whatever step we could or ought to have taken, we must have come to the same position at which we have now arrived—the stop of all constitutional authority, which has occurred. But we do think, and we are blamed for that supposition, that although the Canadian Assembly would not have granted our demand, and although there were meetings in various parts, and much discontent in the province, yet we did believe, that the Canadians would not have thought of resorting to the force of arms, or of raising the standard of revolt. Persons of judgment and of candour were impressed with that opinion, and led us into that belief. Those well acquainted with Canada and with Nova Scotia, and military men competent to form a judgment upon those questions, came to that conclusion. It was on the knowledge, or rather on the opinions, of such men, that the Duke of Wellington formed his judgment on this subject, and which the noble Lord last night in vain attempted to quibble and fritter away. But the plain meaning of those expressions is not to be so quibbled and frittered away, and it would remain an acquittal of the Government in the noble Duke's opinion for not having had a greater military force present in Canada. But there is another authority, the authority of a person who, by the other side of the House, must be considered of some weight, that of Mr. Roebuck. That Gentleman declared in, I believe, his speech at the bar of the House of Lords, or, at all events, in one of his speeches he had declared, that when the resolutions of that House arrived in Canada, the leaders of the people met, and as they thought they had not a sufficient force to resist the power of this empire, they determined not to resist it by force of arms. I am inclined to believe, while this is true, that their conduct was such that, although they did not intend to break into immediate rebellion, it would tend to produce intimidation, and was such as was almost sure to lead to conflicts with the troops employed by her Majesty in the province. As it has been thought proper to take this debate upon the affairs of Canada, I have addressed myself to the affairs of Canada, and to those objections which have been made to the policy we have pursued. The main defence, after All, is, that in a case of very great difficulty, although revolt has occurred, in the first place it was not general but partial, and it was partial because much has been done to remedy the grievances of the people. The subsidiary defence is, that that revolt has been put down by the force of her Majesty's arms in the province. That there are other difficulties—that there still remain great difficulties in combining the elements that exist in that country into a free and harmonious constitution, I undoubtedly admit. But these are difficulties which were not overcome by the administration of Mr. Pitt in 1791—they were not overcome by the administration of Lord Liverpool in 1825—they were not overcome by the administration of the Duke of Wellington in 1828; and I know not whether they were likely to be overcome, but I believe they were not, by the administration formed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, in 1834. The presumption, therefore, that things might have been better, or that there are passages in some of the despatches which do not altogether tally with what hon. Gentlemen opposite think the proper style to be used on the particular occasions, are, I must confess, trifling grounds upon which to call for the censure of the House. I must own, for my part, knowing, as every one does know, that a certain portion of the measures of Government depend on the decisions of the Cabinet, and that another portion must depend upon the particular measures taken by the Minister who has the charge of the department—I feel far more comfortable in reflecting that Lord Glenelg is my colleague than I did when my noble Friend, the Member for North Lancashire, was at the head of the colonial department. I must confess, that when my noble Friend (Lord Stanley) was at the head of that department, concurring as I did in his measures, and willing, as far as was possible, to assent to anything which he proposed; yet, when I remember that such terms and phrases were used by my noble Friend in the business of his department with reference to popular assemblies, and more especially when I remember, that, with regard to an assembly which represented the people, my noble Friend used the complimentary terms of charging them with egregious vanity—when I remember that these terms were used in my noble Friend's department, and when I remember likewise my having had the misfortune to differ from my noble Friend on many questions of Irish policy—thinking, as is now notorious to the world, that my noble Friend's measures with regard to his Irish policy tended to inflame and to exasperate the people. I always had a sort of hope, not indeed without some misgivings, that my noble Friend and colleague, who had produced so little good in Ireland, might be more fortunate in the government of colonies, and my continued hope was, that I might not suffer the responsibility of consequences flowing from his measures in the colonies, similar to those which had occurred in Ireland. That I differed from my noble Friend in respect of the affairs of Ireland has become notorious to the world, and there is no reason, from any conduct which he has pursued towards me any more than towards any of his former colleagues, which should induce me now to suppress my opinion with respect to his policy in the affairs of this great empire. I had hoped certainly that those differences were confined to the subject of the Irish Church. I had hoped, that, having arisen from the opinions early conceived by my noble Friend with respect to that church, those differences were not such as to affect the general principles of administration. But I own, from what I have seen since—I do own that I think my noble Friend's leaving that party with which he was at first connected, and joining that to which he is now attached, justifies me in saying, that by birth and family, my noble Friend naturally belonged to the great Whig and Liberal party of this country; but that, when he came to take an active part in political affairs, the peculiar tendencies of his principles and of his disposition, led him naturally and inevitably into the ranks of those with whom he is now associated. I will say a few words with regard to the effect of the motion before the House, although the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth seemed to say, that this is not a fair argument to be used in this discussion. The argument has ever been used in the debates of the House of Commons with regard to motions of this kind; and with regard to motions of this very kind I will mention some of the general principles laid down by an authority, which is, perhaps, not enough respected by me, but which will be highly respected by hon. Gentlemen opposite—I mean Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt said, that although he did not dispute the right of the House to address his Majesty for the dismissal of his Ministers, yet nothing could be more mischievous than Parliament interfering with censures which would render the continuance of Ministers in office impossible, unless that interference were justified by an extraordinary state of affairs. He did not dispute the right of the House, but he contended, that the exercise of that right ought to be governed by sound discretion, and a regard for the public interest; and the House must take into its consideration the question of the public expediency, and the public safety. These opinions I conceive to be sound, with respect to the motion before the House—a motion which is, in effect, a motion for the removal of Ministers. It is perfectly justifiable if a necessity has arisen; but there ought to be some strong ground existing in the state of the public affairs to require such a motion. Without entering into any general question of policy, which has not been entered into in the course of this debate, I will ask, what are those extraordinary circumstances which have made this motion necessary? Are we engaged in a destructive and calamitous war? Have we lost fleets and armies? Have we been deprived of any of her Majesty's dominions? Is civil war raging in the country? Are our domestic prospects of so unfortunate a character, or is the United Kingdom distracted by any species of civil disturbance? On looking at all these circumstances, there is nothing extraordinary in our taking credit for being enabled to say, that tranquillity and peace exist with foreign powers, that there is nothing calamitous in the state of public affairs, and that it would be a most extraordinary and unusual step for the House of Commons to interfere without the certain prospect of some immediate good, of some great public advantage, some security and strength for an important constitutional principle to follow from the dismissal of the present administration. One of the questions which is necessary to be discussed is, whether there exist the immediate means of forming a stronger and a better administration. Are there, I would ask, the means of forming an administration which shall command a great majority in this House of Parliament? Have hon. Gentlemen opposite the means of commanding a majority in this House? or, if they should revert to what I must term the rash experiment of a general election, are they at all certain that any ministry which might come into office would enter upon their functions with any hope of carrying on the general affairs of the country with so powerful a majority in their favour as to enable them to crush an opposition to their course of policy? I believe you can give no answer to that question; and that if the present administration should be displaced by the vote of to-night, no administration could come into office with a hope of carrying on the Government during a period of three years, with success, as the present Ministry has done. Then, if hon. Gentlemen opposite have no prospect of forming an administration with any chance of permanence, and if there is no immediate calamity to call for the intervention of the House, or any immediate benefit to be obtained by it, I am bound to say, that they are proceeding upon some subtle doctrines of philosophy, analogous to what is termed in logic, the media scientia, foretelling events which would have occurred if certain hypothetical premises had been realised, which is an uncertain and dangerous ground for the removal of one ministry while there is no reasonable prospect of the formation of another, I have but one word to add to the form in which the question presents itself. The hon. Baronet the member for Leeds, after due preparation and notice of a call of the House, has moved a vote of censure against one individual Secretary of State. If the hon. Baronet should think proper to insist upon pressing that motion to a division, I think I am bound to take whatever course I may think most proper to give a direct negative to it. Nothing which the hon. Baronet has said, and nothing which the noble Lord opposite has said, will prevent me from doing what I conceive to be my duty to a colleague. At the same time, however, I put it to the hon. Baronet whether, as he must perceive that he has not succeeded in obtaining any great extent of support from the House for his motion, it would not be advisable to abstain from forcing a vote upon it, in order that, having withdrawn it, hon. Gentlemen opposite might not have any pretence for saying, that their amendment had not been met. I therefore feet bound, not necessarily putting aside the motion of the hon. Baronet, to request, on the part of my colleagues, that nothing may be allowed to prevent the House from coming to-night to a division between the two great parties in this House.

Sir William Molesworth

would certainly give his assent to the proposition of the noble Lord. He would withdraw his motion in favour of the amendment; but at the same time he begged to state, that he could neither vote for nor against the noble Lord's amendment: he could not vote against it, because it censured the conduct of Government in respect to the affairs of Canada; and he could not vote for it, because it censured, he thought harshly and unfairly, persons whose cause he had endeavoured to support in this House.

Original motion withdrawn.

Amendment put as a substantive motion, and on it the House divided:Ayes 287; Noes 316:—Majority 29.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir Thomas Burr, Higford
Acland, T. D. Burrell, Sir C.
A'Court, Captain Burroughes, H. N.
Adare, Viscount Calcraft, J. H.
Alexander, Viscount Campbell, Sir H.
Alford Viscount Canning, Sir S.
Alsager, Captain Cantilupe, Viscount
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Castlereagh, Viscount
Ashley, Lord Chandos, Marquess of
Ashley, hon. H. Chaplin, Colonel
Attwood, W. Chapman, A.
Attwood, M. Chisholm, A. W.
Bagge, W. Christopher, R. A.
Bagot, hon. W. Chute, W. L. W.
Bailey, J. jun. Clive, hon. R. H.
Baillie, Colonel Codrington, C. W.
Baker, E. Cole, hon. A.
Baring, hon. F. T. Cole, Viscount
Baring, hon. W. B. Colquhoun, J. C.
Barneby, J. Compton, H. C.
Barrington, Viscount Conolly, E.
Bateman, J. Coote, Sir C. H.
Bateson, Sir R. Copeland, Alderman
Bell, M. Corry, hon. H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Courtenay, P.
Bethel, R. Crewe, Sir G.
Blackburne, I. Cripps, J.
Blackstone, W. S. Dalrymple, Sir A.
Blair, J. Damer, hon. D.
Blennerhassett, A. Darby, G.
Boldero, H. G. Darlington, Earl of
Bolling, W. Davenport, J.
Borthwick, P. De Horsey, S. H.
Bradshaw, J. Dick, Q.
Bramston, T. W. D'Israeli, B.
Broadley, H. Dottin, A. R.
Broadwood, H. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Brownrigg, S. Douro, Marquess of
Bruce, Lord E. Dowdeswell, W.
Bruges, W. H. L. Duffield, T.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Duncombe, hon. W.
Duncombe, hon. A. Hughes, W. B.
Dungannon, Viscount Hurt, F.
East, J. B. Ingestrie, Viscount
Eastnor, Viscount Inglis, Sir R. H.
Eaton, R. J. Irton, S.
Egerton, William T. Irving, J.
Egerton, Sir P. Jackson, Sergeant
Egerton, Lord F. James, Sir W. C.
Elliot, Lord Jenkins, R.
Ellis, J. Jermyn, Earl
Estcourt, T. G. B. Johnstone, H.
Estcourt, T. H. I. Jones, J.
Farnham, E. B. Jones, W.
Farrand, R. Jones, T.
Fielden, W. Kemble, H.
Fellowes, Edward Kerrison, Sir E.
Filmer, Sir E. Kirk, P.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Knatchbull, Sir E.
Fleming, John Knight, H. G.
Foley, E. T. Knightley, Sir C.
Follett, Sir W. Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Forbes, W. Law, hon. C. E.
Forester, hon. G. Lefroy, right hon. T.
Freshfield, J. W. Lewis, W.
Gaskell, Jas. Milnes Liddell, hon. H. T.
Gibson, T. Lincoln, Earl of
Gladstone, W. E. Litton, E.
Glynne, Sir S. R. Lockhart, A. M.
Goddard, A. Logan, H.
Godson, R. Lowther, J. H.
Gordon, hon. Captain Lucas, E.
Gore, O. J. R. Lygon, hon. General
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Mackenzie, T.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Mackenzie, W. F.
Granby, Marquess Mackinnon, W. A.
Grant, hon. Colonel Maclean D.,
Greene, T. Mahon, Viscount
Grimsditch, T. Maidstone, Viscount
Grimston, Viscount Manners, Lord C.
Grimston, hon. E. Marsland, T.
Hale, R. B. Marton, G.
Halford, H. Master, T. W. C.
Halse, J. Maunsell, T. P.
Harcourt, G. G. Maxwell, H.
Harcourt, G. S. Meynell, Captain
Hardinge, Sir H. Miles, P. W. S.
Hawkes, T. Miles, William
Hayes, Sir E. Miller, W. H.
Heathcote, Sir W. Milnes, R. M.
Henniker, Lord Moneypenny, T. G.
Herbert, hon. S. Mordaunt, Sir J.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Morgan, C.
Hill, Sir R. Neeld, J.
Hillsborough, Earl of Neeld, John
Hinde, John H. Nicholl, John
Hodgson, F. Norreys, Lord
Hodgson, R. Northland, Viscount
Hogg, J. W. O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.
Holmes, hon. A'Court Ossulston, Lord
Holmes, W. Packe, C. W.
Hope, G. W. Pakington, J. S.
Hope, hon. James Palmer, R.
Hope, H. T. Palmer, G.
Hotham, Lord Parker, M.
Houldsworth T. Parker, R. T.
Houstoun, G. Parker, T. A. W.
Howard, hon. W. Patten, J. W.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Smyth, Sir G. H.
Peel, J. Somerset, Lord G.
Pemberton, T. Spry, Sir S. T.
Perceval, Colonel Stanley, E.
Perceval, hon. G. J. Stanley, Lord
Peyton, H. Stewart, J.
Pigot, R. Stuart, H.
Planta, right hon. J. Sturt, H. C.
Plumptre, J. P. Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.
Polhill, F. Teignmouth, Lord
Pollen, Sir John W. Thompson, Alderman
Powell, Colonel Thornhill, G.
Powerscourt, Visct. Tollemache, F.
Praed, W. M. Trench, Sir F.
Price, R. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Pringle, A. Vere, Sir C. B.
Pusey, P. Verner, Colonel
Reid, Sir John R. Villiers, Viscount
Richards, R. Vivian, J. E.
Rickford, W. Welby, G. E.
Rolleston, L. Whitmore, T. C.
Rose, rt. hon. Sir G. Wilberforce, W.
Round, C. G. Wilbraham, hon. B.
Round, J. Williams, R.
Rushbrooke, Colonel Williams, T. P.
Rushout, G. Wodehouse, E.
St. Paul, H. Wood, Col. T.
Sanderson, R. Wood, T.
Sandon, Viscount Wyndham, W.
Scarlett, hon. J. Y. Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.
Scarlett, hon. R. Wynn, Sir W.
Shaw, right hon. F. York, hon. E. T.
Sheppard, T. Young, J.
Shirley, E. J. Young, Sir W.
Sibthorp, Colonel TELLERS.
Sinclair, Sir G. Baring, H. B.
Smith, A. Fremantle, Sir T.
List of the NOES.
Acheson, Viscount Blackett, C.
Adam, Admiral Blake, M. J.
Aglionby, H. A. Blake, W. J.
Aglionby, Major Blewitt, R. J.
Ainsworth, P. Blunt, Sir C.
Alston, R. Bodkin, J. J.
Andover, Viscount Bowes, J.
Anson, hon. Colonel Brabazon, Lord
Anson, Sir G. Brabazon, Sir W.
Archbold, R. Bridgman, H.
Attwood, T. Briscoe, J. I.
Baines, E. Brocklehurst, J.
Ball, N. Brodie, W. B.
Baring, F. T. Brotherton, J.
Barnard, E. G. Browne, R. D.
Barron, H. W. Bryan, G.
Barry, G. S. Buller, C.
Beamish, F. B. Buller, E.
Belfast, Earl Bulwer, E. L.
Bellew, R. M. Busfield, W.
Benett, J. Butler, hon. Colonel
Bentinck, Lord W. Byng, G.
Berkeley, hon. H. Byng, right hon. G. S.
Berkeley, hon. G. Callaghan, D.
Berkeley, hon. C. Campbell, Sir J.
Bernal, R. Campbell, W. F.
Bewes, T. Carnac, Sir James
Cave, Robert Otway Gibson, James
Cavendish, hon. C. Gillon, W. D.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Gordon, R.
Cayley, E. S. Goring, H. D.
Chalmers, P. Grattan, J.
Chester, H. Grattan, H.
Chetwynd, Major Greenaway, C.
Chichester, J. P. Grey, Sir C. E.
Childers, J. W. Grey, Sir G.
Clay, W. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Clayton, Sir W. Guest, Josiah
Clements, Viscount Hall, B.
Clive, E. B. Hallyburton, Lord D.
Codrington, Admiral Handley, H.
Collier, J. Harland, W. C.
Collins, W. Harvey, D. W.
Colquhoun, Sir J. Hastie, A.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Hawes, B.
Craig, W. G. Hawkins, J. H.
Crawford, W. Hayter, W. G.
Crompton, S. Heathcoat, J.
Currie, R. Heathcote, G. J.
Curry, W. Heneage, E.
Dalmeny, Lord Hindley, C.
Dashwood, G. H. Hobhouse, Sir John
Davies, Colonel Hobhouse, T. B.
Denison, W. J. Hodges, T. L.
Dennistoun, J. Hollond, R.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. Horsman, E.
Divett, E. Hoskins, K.
Duckworth, S. Howard, F. J.
Duff, J. Howard, P. H.
Duke, Sir J. Howard, R.
Duncan, Visct. Howick, Viscount
Duncombe, Thomas Hume, J.
Dundas, C. W. D. Humphery John
Dundas, F. (Orkney) Hurst, R. H.
Dundas, hon. J. C. Hutton, R.
Dundas, hon. T. Jephson, C. D. O.
Dundas, Captain James, W.
Dunlop, J. Jervis, Swynfin
Easthope, J. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Ebrington, Viscount Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Elliot, hon. John E. Lambton, H.
Ellice, Captain A. Langdale, hon. C.
Ellice rt. hon. E. Langton, W. G.
Ellice, E. Lefevre, C. S.
Etwall, R. Lemon, Sir C.
Euston, Earl of Lennox, Lord G.
Evans, Sir De L. Lenox, Lord A.
Evans, G. Leveson, Lord
Evans, W. Lister, E. C.
Fazakerley, J. N. Loch, J.
Fenton, J. Long, W.
Ferguson, Sir R. Lushington, Dr.
Ferguson, Sir R. A. Lushington, C.
Ferguson, Robert Lynch, A. H.
Fergusson, rt. hon. C. Macleod, R.
Finch, F. Macnamara, Major
Fitzalan, Lord Mactaggart, J.
Fitzgibbon, hon. Col. Maher, J.
Fitzpatrick, J. Mahony, P.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Marshall, W.
Fitzsimon, N. Marsland, H.
Fleetwood, Peter Martin, J.
Fort, J. Maule, hon. F.
French, Fitz Maule, W. H.
Melgund, Viscount Smith, John A.
Mildmay, P. St. J. Smith, hon. R.
Milton, Viscount Smith, R. V.
Morpeth, Viscount Somers, J. P.
Morris, D. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Murray, rt. hon. J. A. Spiers, A.
Muskett, G. A. Spencer, hon. F.
Nagle, Sir R. Standish, C.
O'Brien, C. Stanley, M.
O'Brien, W. S. Stanley, W. O.
O'Callaghan, hon. C. Stansfield, W. R. C.
O'Connell, Dan. Staunton, Sir G.
O'Connell, John Stewart, J.
O'Connell, M. J. Stuart, Lord J.
O'Connell, M. Stuart, V.
O'Coner, Don Strangways, hon. J.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Strickland, Sir G.
Ord, W. Strutt, E.
Paget, Lord A. Style, Sir C.
Paget, Frederick Surrey, Earl of
Palmer, C. F. Talbot, C. R. M.
Palmerston, Viscount Talbot, J. H.
Parker, J. Tancred, H. W.
Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H. Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.
Parrott, J. Thornley, Thomas
Pattison, J. Townley, R. G.
Pease, J. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Pechell, Captain Turner, E.
Pendarves, E. W. W. Turner, W.
Philipps, Sir R. Verney, Sir H.
Philips, M. Vigors, N. A.
Philips, G. R. Villiers, C. P.
Pinney, W. Vivian, M.
Ponsonby, C. F. A. C. Vivian, J. H.
Ponsonby, hon. J. Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.
Poulter, J. S. Wakley, T.
Power, J. Walker, C. A.
Power, J. Walker, R.
Price, Sir R. Wallace, R.
Protheroe, E. Warburton, H.
Pryme, G. Ward, H. G.
Ramsbottom, J. Wemyss, J. E.
Redington, T. N. Westenra, hon. H. R.
Rice, Edward R. Westenra, hon. J. C.
Rice, rt. hon. T. S. White, A.
Rich, H. White, H.
Rippon, C. White, S.
Roche, E. B. Wilbraham, G.
Roche, W. Wilde, Sergeant
Roche, D. Williams, W.
Rolfe, Sir R. Williams, W. A.
Rumbold, C. E. Wilshere, W. A.
Rundle, J. Winnington, T. E.
Russell, Lord J. Winnington, H. J.
Russell, Lord Wood, C.
Russell, Lord C. Wood, Sir M.
Salwey, Colonel Wood, G. W.
Sanford, E. A. Worsley, Lord
Scholefield, Joshua Woulfe, Sergeant
Scrope, G. P. Wrightson, W. B.
Seale, Colonel Wyse, T.
Seymour, Lord Yates, J. A.
Sharpe, General
Sheil, R. L. TELLERS.
Shelburne, Lord Stanley, E. J.
Slaney, R. A. Steuart, R.
PAIRED OFF.—Not Official
Archdall, M. Cooper, E.
Bailey, J. Kelley, F.
Clive, Viscount Rae, Sir W.
Cresswell, W. Tyrell, Sir J.
Cartwright, T. Pollock, Sir F.
Chapman, M. L. Martin, P.
Potter, R. Talfourd. T. N.
Jervis, J. Edwards, Colonel
Erle, W. Heron, Sir R
Hector, C. Phillpotts, J.

The following Members were absent from illness and other causes, without having paired:—

Bainbridge, Mr. Ker, D.
Bannerman Mr. Lowther, Viscount
Barnes, Sir E. Lowther, hon. H.
Blakemore R. Moreton, hon. A.
Burdett, Sir F. Owen, Sir J.
Conyngham, Lord A. Pryse Pryse, Mr.
Dugdale, W. S. Ramsey, Lord
Fielden, Mr. Stormont Viscount
Fox, L. G. Vernon, G. H.
Heathcote, Sir G. Wall C. B.
Ingham, Mr. Wilkins, Mr.
Johnson, General Wilmot, Sir E.

The following Members, who usually support Government, excepting on the Canada question, declined voting:—

Grote, G. Leader, J. J. Molesworth, Sir W
Present 316 287
Tellers 2 2
Pairs 11 11
Absent 9 15
Declined Voting 3
Speaker 1
Vacant (Rutland county) 1
Total Liberals 343 315
Total Tories 315

Back to