HC Deb 07 February 1843 vol 66 cc237-58
Mr. Roebuck

rose to move That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that pardon may be extended to all persons transported from Upper and Lower Canada to our penal colonies, for political offences committed during the late unhappy disturbances in those provinces. He said, that he was aware that the task he was now about to undertake was one of extreme difficulty and delicacy, not because of either the impolicy or the injustice of the measure, but because of the mistakes and prejudices which were very rife on this subject, both out of doors and in doors. It might be said that he was about to ask the House to interfere with the ordinary course of justice; but he trusted he should be able to show them that he was not interfering with the ordinary course of justice, and that on a wide view of our policy it was in the highest degree politic that the measure he recommended should be adopted; and, furthermore, he should be able to make out that nothing but bare justice would be satisfied by the motion he was about to propose. He had staled that he would show the House that his motion would be no interference with the ordinary course of justice; but he should reserve that proposition until he came to explain the circumstances under which those unhappy prisoners left their country. He should show the House at once that justice demanded that they should return to their friends and their homes. Let him, then, entreat the House, if he showed them that so far from its being impolitic it was in the highest degree politic and wise to do that which he now asked for, not to raise any objection to it on the score of its being an interference with the course of justice. Last year, if he had brought forward his motion, he should have been in a very different position from that in which he was now. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, on the first night of this Session, declared he was of opinion that, if Canada were not held by the affections of the inhabitants, our power there could not be maintained by a hostile army. He was glad to hear that expression of opinion from the noble Lord. This declaration of the noble Lord placed him in a different position from that in which he should have been last year. Since then the conduct of those who were acting under the present Government in Canada had placed that country in a position such as it had not been in for many a year; and the people of that country were, he was certain, willing to express to the Government their deep obligation for the justice, however tardy, that had been done them. He was extremely anxious, in every word he uttered, to guard himself against giving the slightest handle to a misconstruction or misconception of anything he might say, so that no words that fell from him by mistake should do injury to the cause he wished to promote. He begged them to believe that he was not there to make imputations, and if perchance he should be in error in any one instance, let it fall on himself, and not injure the cause he was anxious to serve— the cause of hundreds who were now unhappy convicts in a distant hemisphere, far from their homes, and to which they were sent not in the ordinary course of law, but by proceedings which he regarded as highly illegal. Before he proceeded further, he must express how heartily glad he was at observing the conduct the Government was pursuing. He could not mention it without remembering that he had before asked the House of Commons to adopt that very policy which the wisdom of the Government had since deemed it advisable to pursue. But the House of Commons refused to do that which the responsible Ministers of the Crown had found it necessary to do, unless they intended to retain the colony by means of a hostile army. They had given up any such intention, and had found that they must govern in accordance with the feelings of the majority of the inhabitants. During the unhappy disturbances in 1837 and 1838, it happened after the departure of Lord Durham, when there had been an amnesty granted by that noble Lord, that various circumstances concurring led to a second outbreak. And on that second outbreak taking place, an ordinance was passed by which the country was in reality placed under military law. The ordinary tribunals of the country were silenced. The people were no longer tried by their peers, but by a court-martial. He was not mentioning these facts for the purpose of attaching blame, but to show that those people were not sent out of the country by the ordinary process of law, and that the House of Commons, if it should now interfere, could do so with perfect propriety, and without interfering with the ordinary tribunals of the country. They had not been sent away by those safeguards which the ordinary experience of mankind had taught them were necessary for the protection of society, but by an extraordinary tribunal acting under extraordinary circumstances; and now, inasmuch as they were still in a very extraordinary position, he might ask the House to depart from the general rule of conduct, which perhaps was right and proper, not to interfere with the administration of justice, but under the peculiar circumstances to beg the Crown to give to those unhappy persons that mercy which was the peculiar attribute of the Crown, which the Crown could alone award, and which could be awarded now with justice and honour. When the late circumstances took place in Canada, no man could understand the extraordinary situation of that people who did not clearly understand the state of mind which preceded those events. The unhappy circumstance of the condition of the people was this—that, some how or other, he would not now inquire whether correctly or incorrectly, there had got into the mind of the French Canadian population, a notion that the Government of this country had formed an opinion that they were an inferior race, and were possessed of an irreconcileable hatred to the English Crown. Now he did not ask how it was that they had this opinion in their mind, nor did he mean to explain the circumstances which led them to believe that there was a settled determination on the part of the Government to carry out what was termed in a sort of cant phraseology the "Anglification" of the Lower Canadian people. But so it was. They had formed this belief, and it seemed to be justified by extraordinary circumstances (into which he did not inquire), which induced them to think that the Government had formed a settled determination to "Anglicise" their country to to attack their institutions, in fact, even to eradicate their religion; to make them, in short, English in language, in habits, in thoughts, and in feeling—to make their country as if for them it had never been; as if their ancestors had never lived there, as if they had not linked with that country any one of their dearest affections; but as if it had been from the commencement a mere English colony, peopled by individuals of different language, different habits, and different religion from themselves. That was what they called "swamping" the Lower Canadian population. He would not ask whether they were right in believing that to be the intention of Government; but at all events, that was their belief. A time might come, when the description of the acts which had forced them into that belief would become necessary; a time might come when the reprobation which such a determination demanded would fall upon the authors, and when those who devised this scheme of policy would be exposed to the indignation they deserved. When this unhappy scheme of statesmanship should be brought before the proper tribunal, the country would understand the audacity and folly which gave rise to it. He would not ask by whose evidence the plan was made known; but the people of Canada entertained the opinion, that it was the settled determination of the then Government to do what they called "Anglicising" the whole of the Canadian population. This opinion created great despondency there. They were very unhappy, and they felt there was only one alternative for them, namely, either to submit to this scheme of "Anglification," or prepare themselves for a long, severe, and painful struggle with the British Government—a struggle not by arms but by the law; for they felt that the old times of Ireland were about to be re-enacted there, and that the moment was arrived when they must appear either in the character of a free people or a servile race. It was hardly necessary, perhaps, that he should speak upon this subject; but from experience, he challenged any one who knew aught about the people of Canada, aught about the turbulent continent on which they lived—he would challenge any one to refute him, when he asserted, that that country is now as if it were an oasis in the desert; that, as compared with any other portion of the American population, there they would find peace, gentleness, quietness, and patience, in the place of insolent vulgarity; they would find a polished people even among the peasantry, following and pursuing all the means of quiet enjoyment; and who were, if we had any barrier in that country against the overwhelming influence now exercised there, the sole stay for our dominion upon that continent; and the day would come, if the Government should ever again recur to the fatal policy of rendering entirely English that colony, when they would find, so soon as they had rendered it English, that it would become American; and that the very day which made it American, would be the forerunner of our expulsion from the continent. The power of Great Britain in Canada was in the peaceful, quiet, and virtuous disposition of the people of Canada, who were now rendered a loyal people. The curious state of that country when Sir Charles Bagot resorted to the wise policy which he had adopted—the remark able exhibition which the country then showed, was calculated to instruct persons the least capable of paying attention to the changes that had taken place. The moment it was discovered that their compatriots and the leaders of the people were to be raised from their servile condition to the position of subjects under our jurisdiction, equal with any other persons—that instant, from one end of the country to the other, there was a feeling not only of triumph, but almost of piety in their rejoicings. From one end of the country to the other there was a general thanksgiving. They felt themselves relieved from an intolerable burden; but that joy and that triumph were not accompanied by anything improper or unfeeling towards that minority which had hitherto ill-treated them. Not one harsh word was uttered on that occasion. But when he said this, how was he to make the House understand it? He would give them an illustration, for the purpose of showing what was the state of the popular mind before and what was its state after. He would take, as an illustration, a man who was well known to many persons in this House. He meant Mr. Viger. He was seventy years of age. He had been a resident in that country for a considerable time, and for many years was a Member of the House of Representatives. He was a worthy, kind-hearted man, and at the age of seventy, he was, on mere suspicion, put into prison. ("Hear,hear.") The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) cried "Hear, hear;" but when he was stating a fact of this nature, he would be obliged by the hon. Member not interrupting him. When the constitution was suspended, that gentleman had been cast into prison, and remained there eighteen months. [Mr. C. Buller: Hear.] He was glad his hon. and learned Friend confirmed him. At the end of the eighteen months, as Mr. Viger had been brought in without inquiry, so he was turned out of prison without inquiry. He asked for a trial, but no trial was granted. He asked for an explanation, but no explanation was given; for redress, but none was given. That gentleman was lately elected a Member of the House of Representatives. Now, if it was possible to create a rancorous disposition in the human mind, it surely would have been in such a case; yet when the late change was effected by Sir Charles Bagot, there was no man so ready and eager to hush all unwise exhibitions of triumph. He entreated his countrymen to forbear, and not to exhibit any contumelious expression of their success to any man. He was the first to set such an example to his countrymen; and the old man, looking to the few days which he had now to live, and to the days of joy which were beginning to dawn on his countrymen, was heard to repeat, in words which he considered as of touching authority, "LORD, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace." He was the man of all others to whom they should look as a leader of the people—as a Specimen of the Lower Canadians—of their piety, their forbearance, and their loyalty. In the midst of these disturbances many unhappy men—peasants almost all of them—were transported from Canada to Van Diemen's Land. He was not inquiring into the propriety or justice of sending them there. He was only asking the House and the Government, if they thought they could do any injury amongst the Canadian people by bringing back those unhappy men—few indeed as regarded the entire population, and wretched as having left their wives and children, their fathers and their mothers behind them? If they could not do any harm by stepping out of the way and bringing back these unhappy people, where would be the impolicy of such conduct? They might tell him that insurrection deserved rebuke and punishment. But it had received them already. They might tell him that he was interfering with the due punishment of criminals. He would not question that point—he would not inquire whether the punishment was due or not—but he would say the leaders of those people were now in the House of Representatives, and would ask how could they say that those misguided men should not be now brought back? He was not impeaching Mr. Lafontaine; he was not one of those to whom he alluded, and against whom no charge could be made. He was speaking of those who had returned, and were now walking the streets of Montreal, and who had been actually in arms, and had led these peasants at St. Denis. When these men were now in Montreal nnder the protection of the law which exculpated them, surely it would be something Very inconsistent if they should appear to have been brought back as it were by accident, and that those whom they led should remain in banishment. Was this justice? Could there be impolicy in the course pursued towards those who were now in Montreal exhibiting themselves every day in the public streets?—("Name.") He knew their names, but he did not wish to tell them publicly, as it might injure the parties. He knew he was right. He was speaking of the policy of letting these poor men back. Nine out of every ten of them had been sent ont of the country by mistake, having been tried by courts-martial. He could not see the impolicy of bringing back these men while their leaders were now in their (the Government) councils. By doing this complement of justice they would the Canadians for ever attached to them, much more than by the force of bayonets, and the Canadians would defend the country as they had defended it before— against all invasion. The right hon. Gentleman had begun a new course which did him honour, and did the country good. The Canadians already saw the advantages of that peaceable and successful policy. If Canada was to afford settlements for our surplus population, and markets for the surplus proceeds of our labour, she must be happy, contented, and prosperous, and she could not be happy, contented, and prosperous, unless she should continue to be governed under the principles now adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted a new rule—he gave a responsible Government, not in name but in reality, to the Canadians, and resorted to no stratagems, to no means, to keep them down, corrupt, or frighten them. The representative of the Government in Canada said to them, You have a majority in the House of Assembly, and unless we choose to govern by 14,000 bayonets, the people of Canada, by their leaders, must be leaders of my councils. That was language that had not been used before to them, and the French Canadians were now, for the first time, admitted, by their leaders, into the councils of their Sovereign. They had raised a noble structure, and he now only asked them to put this coping-stone on the arch, by bringing back that remnant of the misguided population, and binding them to Great Britain for ever by the strongest ties of love and gratitude. How could they refuse this boon, when they considered all the circumstancss of the case? Under the former system of Government they had been driven to the adoption of military law, and under that law they had expatriated these men. But now, when under a different system they found them a quiet, loyal, and virtuous people, and the firmest supporters of their power on that continent, he begged and prayed of them to make one step more in advance—to forgive their past excitement, and grant what they prayed. He besought them to grant this motion, and to implore her Majesty to extend her mercy to this unfortunate fragment of the population, that they might be restored to their friends and families.

Lord Stanley

regretted that he felt it to be his duty to interpose between the exercise of that which was the highest prerogative of the Crown, the exercise of mercy, and those unhappy men who had transgressed the laws of their country. He was well aware of the impression produced on the House by the forcible and temperate manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman who had opened this question had appealed to their feelings on behalf of those who were now suffering under a sentence imposed upon them under extraordinary circumstances; but he must not shrink from the performance of his duty, however painful it might be, and he did earnestly hope that the House would not be so far led away by the eloquence of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to induce them to take a step which the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted to be one of a most unusual character, namely, to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, and take into the hands of the House of Commons that grace and favour which, if bestowed at all, ought to emanate exclusively from the Crown. He was sure that under any circumstances it would be most unfavourable and most inexpedient that the House of Commons should interfere with those functions and that prerogative of the Crown; but under the circumstances which the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself detailed, he thought that even if the constitutional objection did not prevail, the objection of discretion as to the time and circumstances under which the motion was made was one that must have peculiar weight with the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that by the recent changes in the councils of Canada universal contentment had pervaded the people formerly dissatis- fied, if not disaffected to this country, and that with the Administration as now formed in Canada the French Canadians—of whom the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared exclusively to have spoken in the address he had just made to the House, but who in reality formed a very inconsiderable portion of those to whom his motion referred; he said that at the moment when the hon. and learned Gentleman told them that that portion of the people was entirely satisfied with the just, equitable, and judicious course, as he considered it, which her Majesty had thought fit to pursue in Canada, he thought it would be most unwise that the House of Commons, upon the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, should recur to topics of difference and dissension, should revive the subject of former contests, and should interfere with a Government with which the whole people, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had told them, entirely concurred. When Sir C. Bagot first went out to Canada, the instructions given to him on the part of her Majesty's Government, were, that in the administration of the law and in the selection of those to whom he might think fit to call to his councils, no distinction of origin or race should be made, but that all men of all parties, of different origin and race, should combine together in that which was to be the great object of his policy and government—forgetting and passing by recent transactions and recent animosities—should combine together for the advantage of those great provinces which her Majesty's Government —he thought advisedly—had united under one Government and Council. He thought, therefore, that in the main—in all the essential features of the case,—Sir C. Bagot since is appointmehnt had acted entirely and cordially in concurrence with her Majesty's Government. It was in pursuance of the policy they pointed out—in pursuance of that determination they had taken to know no distinction of race or origin between those who were willing cordially to cooperate with the Government for the advantage and welfare of the colony. He was very unwilling to go back to the period at which the affairs of Canada were very different from what they now were. He would not go back to a period when the difficulties in the course of the Government—difficulties of which no man was more aware than the hon. and learned Gentlemen—presented themselves at every turn from the conflicting views and the geographical position of the two provinces which he thought ought never to have been disunited, but being separated, it was impossible, in these days, with regard to British interests and the connexion of that country with this, that the affairs of the Lower Province, interposed as they were geographically between the Upper Province and this country, could be carried on without the accordance of that portion of the people who numerically were by far the largest, and who had wishes certainly in many respects at variance with British interests. But the two provinces of Canada were united; the difficulties formerly interposed, whatever other difficulties might have arisen, were at once at an end; from that moment there was no fear of the British population being over-whelmed by the dominant race interposed between themselves and the sea and communication with the mother country. From that time there was no reason why in the affairs of Canada this country should not feel herself bound to act upon the principles upon which, in all other colonies with legislative assemblies, she had felt it necessary to act—namely, to carry on the Government in accordance with the views and sense of the great bulk of the population, that without entering into the abstract theories which were put—and he thought needlessly—of a responsible government, and how far the Colonial Assembly must be overruled by the Parliament of this country, it was at once the duty of the British Government frankly to act upon the maxim of carrying on the Government in accordance with the views of the great bulk of the people, and in support of the great interests of the province; but in admitting that principle he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be so unjust to the great body of French Canadians as to think that because they were justly entitled to obtain a share in the administration of the affairs of the province, that determination so to introduce and admit them involved, as a necessary consequence, the utter oblivion of the crime of treason and the necessity not to vindicate the power of the law against those who had placed themselves in arms against the established Government of the country. He joined with the hon. and learned Gentlemen in the com mendation he had bestowed on the fair- ness, moderation, and temper, with which the French Canadians had borne their elevation to a share of power. He believed there had been evinced among them a most cautious abstinence from everything that would excite an angry feeling, and he did cordially expect that universal harmony would hereafter take the place of discord, and that the colony would increase in wealth and happiness. But if the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentlemen were now to be adopted—that, because the French population had been admitted to a share of the administration, that therefore those, whether French, British, or citizens of the United States, who are now suffering the sentence of the law for an aggravated act of treason were to receive at once, without discretion, her Majesty's free pardon and the benefit of a full amnesty and oblivion—he did say that those who in both provinces had stood loyally by the Crown—those who boldly repelled the hordes of plunderers from the neighbouring states who entered Canada, and burnt and destroyed the property, and sacrificed the lives of many of her Majesty's subjects—those who stood forward and denounced rebellion and treason within, and repulsed the lawless bands of invaders from without, would have reason to complain, and might sorrowfully ask, where was the remembrance of all these things—that their support and exertions should appear to be lost sight of; and that those who were now suffering very moderate punishment for their crimes should he restored to society, and at once placed on an equal footing with those who had never swerved from their duty. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they were mostly French Canadians. [Mr. Roebuck: Mostly peasants.] Well, then, if they were not mostly French Canadians, where was the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman who complained that the pressure upon them entirely led to this state of disaffection?

Mr. Roebuck

was sure the noble Lord did not intend to misunderstand him; but he never uttered one syllable to show why they entered into a state of rebellion.

Lord Stanley

certainly thought that every hon. Gentleman who had just heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said would have thought he was speaking in favour of the French population, and that they had entered into rebellion in consequence of the pressure upon them. He would not enter into the question with whom this insult, this injury, this offence, which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of under the term of "Anglification" of the country, had originated. There could be no meaning of the anglification of the country as to the British population. It was the French population, and those only, to whom that doctrine applied; and the whole of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech turned upon that—that it was in favour of the deluded French population that he was now arguing in the presence of the House. But the hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny that in speaking of those unhappy deluded men, they had visited upon them that punishment which ought to be visited upon their leaders, and he said, "The leaders of these poor deluded people have now obtained places in your legislative council." [Mr. Roebuck: The leaders of the people, not of the French people.] The hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to go so far as to state that those persons who led these people to revolt—who had been their leaders in rebellion—did now occupy places high in authority. [Mr. Roebuck: I never said one word of the kind.] The hon. and learned Gentleman must excuse him, but he took down the words, and his statement was "those whose leaders are now in our councils," and then the hon. and learned Gentleman qualified it by the exception of M. Lafontaine, and said, "but when I make use of this expression, I do not mean to include M. Lafontaine, against whom all the world knows there was not sufficient evidence to bring forward a charge, or even the shadow of a suspicion." Then the hon. Gentleman spoke of individuals who, under the protection of the act of exculpation, were walking about Montreal perfectly free. If he was not mistaken, the hon. Gentleman alluded to eight persons in particular? [Mr. Roebuck: Yes.] The hon. Gentleman alluded to eight persons who were found guilty, and ordered to be transported to Bermuda, but who, on Lord Durham's ordinances being declared illegal and unconstitutional, necessarily escaped punishment. Why, surely, the hon. Gentleman did not pretend to draw from the case of those persons his argument, that while the Government seized upon the inferior victims they allowed to pass with impunity those who from their superior station ought to have been also punished; and, whatever fault the hon. Gentleman might have had to find with the Administration of the present or of former Governments in Canada, he could hardly be prepared, considering the magnitude and extent of the rebellion in Canada, to say that there was any great severity in the punishments, or that the penalties inflicted were, under the circumstances, disproportionate. The rebellion in Canada first broke out in the winter of 1837, and for that rebellion no persons were put upon their trial. In June, 1838, the rebellion having been suppressed in a short time by Sir John Colborne, now Lord Seaton, Lord Durham thought it advisable to take the most merciful view of the case, and passed a general amnesty as regarded all persons who had taken part in the rebellion in Lower Canada, with the exception of the eight persons to whom the hon. Member referred, and also of sixteen others, who, having fled from justice, were called on by proclamation to take their trial, and, failing to do so, became subject to the penalty of outlawry and attainder. These were all the penalties that resulted to indivi duals on account of the Lower Canadian rebellion of 1837 and 1838. In 1839 the rebellion in Upper Canada took place, and there were two executions in consequence of it. The parties executed were named Matthews and Love—persons who were taken in open rebellion, under the most aggravated circumstances. [Mr. Roebuck: No, no.] In June, 1838, just at the time Lord Durham was proclaiming the amnesty in Lower Canada, there came another irruption from the United States; and, in the course of the summer, there were two other irruptions of Patriots and Sympathisers, as they called themselves. A considerable number of persons were taken in arms against the Crown, and a number of persons were put upon their trial; but, although those invasions were marked by circumstances of peculiar atrocity, one person, and one only, was executed on account of them. Four others there were who were taken in arms under most aggravated circumstances, and they were sentenced to death, but Lord Durham recommended that their sentence should be commuted to transportation for life. Those four persons were amongst those for whom the hon. Member asked for an undiscriminating act of amnesty on the part of the Crown. A general amnesty was afterwards passed in October, 1838, with the exception, as in the case of Lower Canada, of sixty-one persons who did not come in to take their trials. Those several acts of amnesty were passed, the one in the month of June, and the other in the month of October, 1838; and certainly at that period, no man could have said that there had been any great severity of punishment on the part of the Crown. Yet what followed? Why, on the 3rd of November in the same year, there broke forth simultaneously an irruption into Lower Canada and a rebellion within the province, and an invasion of Upper Canada by persons from the United States. Not a fortnight elapsed before the whole country was again in a flame; and before the winter, the colony was made a scene of horrors at the thought of which the mind recoiled, and which he would not disgust and weary the House by describing. But, even under these aggravated circumstanes, was it a fact that any great and undue severity had been exercised? In Lower Canada, after the second rebellion, there were arrested altogether 855 persons. They were arrested under various circumstances, and the evidence against many of them was not such as to justify prosecution. In Upper Canada there were arrested between 1,100 and 1,200 persons. Out of those arrested in Lower Canada, Her Majesty's Government brought only 106 to trial. But the hon. Gentleman complained that the trials of those 106 took place by court-martial. Unhappily the hon. Gentleman knew too well, and particularly be might remember the case of the murderers of Lieutenant Weir—that if the Government had proceeded by any other means than by court-martial, it would have been, under the circumstances of the case, but a mockery of justice; and the result would only have been to afford a triumph to men, who, though unconvicted, were notoriously guilty of treason. Of those who were tried, ninety-eight only were found guilty, of whom twelve were executed, and fifty-eight were transported. The hon. Gentleman would fain have the House believe, that the great bulk of those who suffered were French Canadians of the Lower Province. What was the fact? Why, that out of 2,000 persons arrested in Upper and Lower Canada, there were executed in Lower Canada twelve, and, if his memory were not at fault, in Upper Canada, seventeen. That was the total number of persons; and he need hardly say, that the Government selected the most aggravated cases, and those that were made out by the clearest evidence. Of the whole 106, seventy-eight were from Upper Canada, persons who could not possibly be connected with the French Canadians; and he was bound to add, that of those persons also there were many who owed no allegiance whatever to the British Crown; and who, without having any authority from the government of their own country, were engaged in a murderous, predatory, and buccaneering warfare. Such were the persons on whose behalf the hon. Gentleman called upon the Crown to exercise indiscriminately the prerogative of mercy. He did not mean to say that there were not others among the convicted persons whose cases were more deserving of consideration than those of the persons to whom the hon. Gentleman had referred, but what he did complain of was, that the hon. Gentleman made no distinction between the ignorant peasant of Lower Canada, struggling under mistaken views for relief from unknown grievances, and those persons who, consulting nothing but their own treasonable dispositions, their lawless wishes, and their thirst for blood and plunder, did without any palliating cause invade a peaceful province, and deluge a whole country with blood. As a responsible adviser of the Crown, he could not advise her Majesty to take the case of those persons into consideration. An address of the legislature of Canada strongly recommended her Majesty to extend an act of amnesty to all parties concerned in the late rebellion; but the hon. Gentleman stopped short of this. The hon. Gentleman should have gone further still. Why did he ask for an amnesty towards those alone who, having given offence, were now suffering the penalty of their offences? Why did he not extend his demand on behalf of those who from fear of the possible consequences of their actions suffered a voluntary exile, and had never appeared at all to take their trial? Why did the hon. Gentleman limit it to one class, and that the most guilty of all? The Canadian legislature recommended an amnesty to all, but the death of Lord Sydenham prevented that address from reaching this country, and it was only in November of the last year that he (Lord Stanley) received a copy of it from Sir Charles Bagot. On its receipt, he wrote to Sir Charles Bagot, pointing out the number of persons who were compromised in different degrees in the late rebellion,—those who were under attainder and outlawry for not coming in to take their trial,—those who were excepted from the amnesty, though not convicted of any crime,—many also in the province, against whom no steps had been taken, but in favour of whom it was desirable to extend the clemency of the Crown, and those also in favour of whom the hon. Member's motion was now made, without any distinction of their degrees of guilt. Some of these had been transported for seven years, some for fourteen, and some for the period of their natural lives. The sentences of some had been commuted, although their offences were of the most aggravated kind, such as warranted the Crown in visiting the severest penalty of the law; yet it was proposed on behalf of these different persons to interfere with the prerogative of mercy, and ask the Crown to grant pardon to all, without inquiry, and without any discrimination of their different degrees of guilt. He hoped he had not said anything that could imply a doubt on his part of the truth of that effusion of loyal feeling on the part of the population of Lower Canada to which recent events had given rise. He did not feel, in any degree, the slightest reluctance or hesitation in approving of the course which circumstances had rendered it necessary for Sir Charles Bagot to pursue; but, at the same time, he was loth, at the very moment when we were taking such steps—when we were giving to the Canadians the practical benefits of a free constitution—that we should couple with it an act which would amount to a triumph of sedition and treason, which would bring back those persons, whether they were Canadians or British, or those who had been Americans, who had justly subjected themselves to the penalty of the law, and with regard to whom her Majesty would not be left to form a judgment of their several claims according to the information that might be laid before her, and so to extend the mercy of the Crown according to the nature and degree of their several offences and the punishment they had already undergone. He did hope and trust that the House of Commons would not, in regard to such persons, attempt to take the function and prerogative of mercy out of the hands of the Crown, and, by inter- fering in cases where gradations of offences and punishment existed, and no unjust punishments had been inflicted, at the same time compromise political affairs in Canada. For these reasons he did hope the House would not agree to the motion of the hon. Gentleman, while her Majesty was prepared to receive representations in each individual case, and to act with the utmost leniency towards those persons who were in the colonies: and here he might add, that out of those who were convicted those who were not imprisoned had tickets of leave, which amounted to comparative freedom. While this was the view taken by her Majesty's advisers he could not at the same time assent to a motion which had for its object the interposition of an undiscriminating mercy, and the reintroduction into a peaceful country of a body of those convicted felons.

Mr. Hume

supported the motion of the hon. Member for Bath. Sir Charles Bagot himself had recommended that all past differences in the province should be buried in oblivion. He recommended, that the future Government of the country should be carried on in a conciliatory spirit. Could that be interpreted in any other way than that there should be a removal of all the irritation and excitement which would be kept up by the relatives and connections of these unfortunate men in Van Diemen's Land. It was a fair inference, from Sir C. Bagot's conduct, that he thought an amnesty should be granted. These men were the victims of bad Government, and for that reason the right hon. Baronet deserved the thanks of every friend of humanity for the change he had effected in giving a good Government to the Canadas. It was an opposite course of policy that had raised all the angry feelings they had seen excited, till at last actual rebellion prevailed. The Government would do well to complete the good work they had begun. In every case of this kind, there were different shades of guilt, but as the Government had admitted the evils arising from the former mismanagement, he hoped it would come round to give the people that which alone was wanting to give full satisfaction. The hon. Member for Bath had only recommended the House to follow up the advice of Sir C. Bagot, that no remains of this unfortunate feeling should be allowed to exist. He admitted, there was some force in the argument of the noble Lord, that there was an evident distinction between the cases of the men who rose in Lower Canada, being natives of that province, and those who entered it from another country, perhaps only for purposes of plunder. He admitted, that an indiscriminate pardon to these men would be unjust, but still they must balance the inconvenience of their remaining as they were, against the effect of granting a pardon. He thought, that where there was a doubt, mercy ought to prevail. If his hon. Friend had satisfied them of the recommendation of Sir C. Bagot, and had proved that the whole united population of Canada asked the boon, he submitted that it would be a wise policy to advise her Majesty to grant a pardon to these unfortunate men. Agreeing, as he did, with his hon. and learned Friend, in his desire to see the mercy of the Crown extended to those unfortunate persons; yet, perceiving the decided opposition with which the motion had been met, he could not advise his hon. and learned Friend to take the sense of the House on his Motion. He had elicited from the noble Lord one most important statement, — namely, that the noble Lord was ready to consider, individually, every case. That was yielding in no inconsiderable degree to the desires of his hon. and learned Friend. He regretted that mercy could not be extended to all; but, under the circumstances, he advised his hon. and learned Friend not to press his motion.

Mr. C. Buller

had never seen any notice of motion with deeper regret than that of his hon. and learned Friend, because, though he entirely concurred with him in the practical object he had in view, and considered that it would be an act of the wisest policy as well as an act of mercy, and, of enlarged justice in the Government to wipe out all traces of the late disturbances in Canada—still he could not but think that his hon. and learned Friend had taken a course by no means calculated to attain the object he had in view. It was, of course, with the greatest reluctance that he referred to any of the circumstances connected with the rebellions in Canada. There were associations connected with them of which he could never think without infinite regret, and which led him at the present moment to abstain from alluding to the horrors of that insurrection. He should object to the motion of his hon. and learned Friend in any case, as being an interference with the prerogative of the Crown, which was better left to act, as it was always ready to do, on its own spontaneous good-will; but he objected to the motion, also, because, on principle, he was opposed to the interference of the Imperial Parliament in colonial matters, except in cases of absolute necessity, and as a last re sourse against an ill-disposed Government. He must say that he could see no such necessity in the present case. There was no case made out of the government of Canada obstinately resisting thef eeling of the people, or the expression of the Legislature of the province. On the contrary, he was bound there publicly to give his strongest approving testimony to the policy which had recently been pursued in Canada. He was afraid he should only do it harm in the eyes of a majority of that House if he were to say that he claimed a portion of the credit for others: and he would only say that he regarded the recent arrangements which had given so much satisfaction as the natural consequence of the union of the two provinces. [Lord Stanley: Hear.] — which settled those unhappy questions of nationality that had given rise to the disturbances in one of those provinces, and added strength to the local Legislature. These were the circumstances which had rendered it absolutely necessary to have an executive in harmony with the Legislature. But it depended on Sir C. Bagot, the present Governor-general of Canada, and on those who had sent him out, to determine in what way he should meet the new necessities imposed upon him,—whether he was to struggle to conduct affairs as former governors had done and oppose for a while an unavailing and mischievous opposition to the will and power of the people speaking through their Legislature, or cheerfully and at once accept those necessities, and without a struggle adopt a new and better and more liberal system, in such a manner as to conciliate the good-will of the people, while he yielded to their inclinations? He was bound to say that Sir C. Bagot's government had taken the wiser and safer course; that he had, in a manner which could never be more than sufficiently commended, adopted the right course, and in the best possible way. The past acts of the present Government in Canada inspired him with confidence in their administration of the affairs of the province, and he looked to the future with equal security, because he saw in the appointment which her Majesty's Ministers had lately made—an appointment influenced by no party feeling, but resulting from a wise selection of the very fittest person that could be found in the country for so arduous an office—he saw in that appointment a guarantee that the Government of Canada would be conducted on just and sound principles. He must say, then, there was nothing in the conduct of the Government at home, there was nothing surely in the state of affairs in Canada, nothing in the working of the new system, tried and proved by the recent appointments, nothing in the conduct of the people, which had been so eloquently and truly described by his hon. and learned Friend— nothing above all, in the preceding acts and general public conduct of the new Governor, that could create any distrust of his intentions. He would not now enter further into the question; indeed, he thought the noble Lord had entered rather unnecessarily into some of the details. Having sent such a man as Sir C. Metcalfe to govern Canada with a free Legislature, and an Executive in harmony with it, their obvious duty was to leave him as unfettered as possible. Their opinions in this country, wise as they might be, and guided by the most enlightened principles, could have no weight in his judgment compared with those which an enlightened Governor would form on the spot when conversant with the circumstances with which he had himself to deal. He wished to inculcate upon both sides of the House that in this case there was no reason for distrust; on the contrary, that the exercise of the largest trust, the fullest confidence, was the safest and most prudent policy for them to follow. If he found his expectations disappointed —if the course which he thought absolutely necessary for the safety and harmony of Canada was obstinately rejected by the new Governor-general or by the Government, he would join his hon. and learned Friend in interfering to arrest their progress; but so convinced was he that the circumstances of Canada were such as to make an instantaneous impression on the mind of the Governor-general, and render absolutely necessary that course which he was sure would accord with his own just, humane, and merciful disposition, that he felt not the slightest hesitation in leaving matters entirely with him and the Government, in the perfect confidence that the House would never again be called upon to interfere with the subject. Under these circumstances, he did hope this motion would be withdrawn. He should now sit down, but for a personal allusion that had been made to him in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He wished that hon. and learned Member would be a little more cautious when he thinks it necessary to attack persons, and that he would make himself thoroughly acquainted with the facts before he comments so severely on them. He could not avoid cheering the observation which his hon. and learned Friend had made with regard to the respectability of that aged gentleman, Mr. Viger, who had certainly been imprisoned for a very long period. In consequence of this cheer, his learned Friend had thought proper to take him to task for not having, while in office, released Mr. Viger. Now he could not discharge this gentlemen from prison for the best of all possible reasons, because Mr. Viger never was in prison during the entire time he was in Canada.

Mr. Roebuck,

in reply, contended that his motion would by no means interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, inasmuch as he merely called upon the House, by an humble address, to pray her Majesty to exercise it. He denied having said that the leaders of the rebellion were in the councils of the Crown; what he had said was, that the leaders of the people were in the councils of the Crown; and it seemed hard, consistently with justice, that the poor uninstructed Canadians should still suffer the penalties of the law. He acknowledged that the noble Lord had pointed out one error in his motion, and that it must be confined to such prisoners as were subjects of her Majesty, leaving the American freebooters, as the noble Lord designated them, to be dealt with on separate grounds. He should, however, withdraw his motion, his object having been obtained by the engagement of the noble Lord to pay attention to such circumstances in each case as should be brought before him.

Motion withdrawn.

House adjourned at a quarter to eight o'clock.