HC Deb 02 February 1844 vol 72 cc144-5
Mr. S. Wortley

wished to ask his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies a question, on which it was of great importance that the country should obtain an intimation of the views of the Government; it was, whether the course which Sir Charles Metcalf had pursued as Governor-General of Canada had received the sanction and approbation of her Majesty's Government.

Lord Stanley

was not sorry that his hon. Friend had put this question, because he believed it to be matter of considerable importance that there should be no mistake as to the views of her Majesty's Government. He did not hesitate to say, that the course which had been taken by Sir Charles Metcalf had the entire concurrence and approbation of her Majesty's Government. The resolution of sending out Sir Charles 'Metcalf as Governor to Canada, a man of tried ability and of known liberality in his views of government, was a sufficient indication of the wishes of her Majesty's Ministers. Sir C. Metcalf went out to Canada to carry out fairly the new colonial system, but equally determined to resist those extravagant demands which were inconsistent with the authority of the Crown and of the true rights of a colonial legislature. He be- lieved that the course taken by the Governor-general was the right one, and he had no hesitation in stating that it met with the entire concurrence of the Government at home.

Lord J. Russell

, after that expression of opinion, would ask the noble Lord whether he would communicate to the House the instructions given to Sir Charles Metcalf, and the correspondence with him.

Lord Stanley

did not think that it would be of advantage to the public interest to communicate the instructions given, or the communications received. Whenever the noble Lord should bring forward the question for discussion he would be quite ready to explain the conduct of the Government, and he hoped to be able to explain to the satisfaction of the House and of the country.

Lord J. Russell

did not put his question as blaming Sir C. Metcalf, he neither blamed him, nor did he under present circumstances say that he approved of his conduct.

Back to