Commons Sitting of 30 May 1844

MINUTES,
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Buckingham, the Right Hon. Sir Thomas Francis Fremantle, Bart.—For Chichester, Lord Arthur Lennox.
BILLS. Public—1°. Limitation or Actions (Ireland). 2° New South Wales, etc. Government; Customs Duties (Isle of Man).
3°. and passed:—Stamp Duties; Assaults (Ireland).
Private.—Reported.—Birkenhead Docks; Lakenheath and Brandon Drainage; Delabole and Rock Railway (No. 2); Rodbard's Name; Preston and Wyre Docks, etc.; Swansea Improvement
3°. and passed: — Swansea Harbour; Cwm Celyn and Blaina Iron Company; Salisbury Branch Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members (184 Petitions), against Dissenters Chapels Bill, and 5 in favour of same.—By several hon. Members (8), for Legalizing Presbyterian Marriages. — By Mr. Clive, from Worcester, and Hereford (5), Sir W. Heathcote, from Alton, and Sir R. H. Inglis, from Archdeaconry of Oxford, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.— By Mr. Wakley, from New Zealand, for a Tax on Absentee Proprietors. — By Mr. Gaily Knight (86), from Notts, Mr. H. Baillie, from Inverness, and Lord E. Bruce, from Preshute, against Repeal of Corn Laws.—By Lord E. Bruce, from Wilts, against Duty on Hailstorm Insurances.—By Mr. E. Tennent, from H. Graves and Co., against Encouragement to Art Unions; and by Mr. T. Duncombe, from Mrs. Mary Parkes, for same.—By Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from Dublin, against Renewal of Bank of Ireland Charter. — By Viscount Clive, from Llandyssil, in favour of County Courts Bill.—By Mr. Wakley, from S. Gordon, for consideration of his case.— By Mr. Wakley, from Medical Practitioners (7), for Reform of Medical Profession. — By Mr. Barclay, from Sunderland, and Mr. W. Patten, from Fylde Unions, for Alteration of Poor Law.—By several hon. Members, from Savings' Banks at Bath, Inverness, and Newcastle, against Reducing Rate of Interest. — By Mr. Wakley, from Farringdon Within, for Redemption of Tolls on Metropolitan Bridges.

AMERICAN LOYALISTS. (MR. POWELL.)
Mr. Jervisrose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice,
"That this House will, on Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the following Address to Her Majesty, that is to say, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the claim made by John Hopton Russell Chichester, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, as sole executor of Robert William Powell, an uncompensated American Loyalist, deceased, and that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to such claimant the amount of the balance due to the estate of the said Robert William Powell, for losses incurred in consequence of his adherence to his allegiance, as ascertained by the Commissioners appointed for that purpose, and to assure Her Majesty that the House will make good the same."
The hon. Member said he had hoped that it would not be necessary for him to make any lengthened observations to the House, but as he understood, that those who were interested in matters of this kind thought that a sufficient case had not been made out to warrant an acquiescence in the Motion, he would proceed to satisfy the House that the gentleman whose claim he advocated, had a good, case. The case involved no political question. The gentleman whom he represented was the grandson of a gen-
6
tleman of the name of Powell, who, at the time of the disturbances in America, in 1764, was residing at Charleston, in South Carolina. He was a man of great property and influence, and entered into large speculations, having at one time embarked in his business about 40,000 l. At that time it was of the utmost importance to secure the good feeling of those who were well inclined to British connection. In several of the speeches from the Throne the most solemn assurances were given to those who remained true to their allegiance of the protection of this country, and that they should be compensated for any loss which they might sustain in consequence of such allegiance. Mr. Powell was among the number who remained faithful. He raised a regiment of militia, and, as Colonel of it, rendered the greatest service to the Crown. It had been established, by clear evidence, that he had sustained a loss of 19,000 l., out of which, in 1823, the sum of 10,175 l. only had been paid. A large amount of the sum apportioned out of the droits of the Admiralty for the payment of claims of this kind was expended in defraying the expenses of Royal journeys to Ireland and Scotland. The amount in this case was so small and insignificant that there could be no difficulty in making it up. He believed that if the case was looked into, it would appear that this claim was founded on every principle of justice. All the documents now in existence relative to this gentleman's zealous devotion, to his allegiance and powerful aid to the Royal cause, together with vouchers for the sums of money said to have been expended by him in furtherance of such objects, were ready to be produced, in order to substantiate his claim. Other documents which were of public notoriety and in possession of the Government, would prove that strong inducements had been held out by the British Government, at the time of the war with the colonists, to the loyalists there, to rally in the cause of the connexion, and advance money in aid of the King's cause, promising them protection to the utmost extent within His Majesty's power and security for all sums of money advanced for such praise-worthy objects. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to read extracts from a variety of public proclamations and speeches made by noble Members of the Government in that day, that it was fully resolved by the British Government, that al losses sustained by American loyalists should

7
be guaranteed and made good by the public. He read parts of a correspondence between the Governor of the Colony and the Government at home in support of the representations and claims of Col. Powell, from all which it appeared that the Colonel had devoted himself zealously and at considerable personal risk and positive loss to the Royal cause, more especially during the operations of His Majesty's forces in the State of South Carolina. The Minister of the Crown, both at and after the peace of Paris, through which the independence of the United States had been recognised by England, had fully recognised the principle of compensation in the amplest manner to all American Loyalists who had made sacrifices in the fearful struggle between the Colonies and the Mother Country, during the period of their attempt to assert their political independence. He contended, that unless the House assented to the Motion, it would be a party to a gross act of public injustice and ingratitude. What confidence could they ever expect would be reposed in the faith of any future government by men true to their allegiance, who might, perhaps, in the course of events, be placed in a similarly perplexing and dangerous situation in some other colony of Great Britain? He said, that he looked most minutely into the case, and from personal acquaintance with its merits, he was fully prepared to assert in his place, without fear of contradiction, that upon examination it would be found that the claims of the memorialist in this instance were founded upon principles of national honour and public justice. The hon. and learned Member concluded by submitting his Motion to the House.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that whilst he found it to be his duty to oppose the Motion upon grounds peculiar to this case, he must be allowed to say, that no man in the Government, or in the country, more sincerely sympathised with the few remaining persons similarly situated to the present applicant. There was no class of British subjects that deserved better of their country than the American loyalists. Having stated this, he confessed he had been surprised to find that the hon. and learned Member should have particularly selected this case out of a great number of other cases resembling it in all respects. It was perfectly true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that pursuant to the Treaty concluded between this country and
8
the United States, as an independent state, that the rights of all liege subjects of his Britannic Majesty were reserved, and they were to be at liberty to recover any property to which they were entitled, together with all mortgages and debts due to them by American citizens in courts of the United States, and that no obstacle or impediment should be thrown in their way by that Government to prevent such recovery. This, though very just and proper stipulation, was found to be ineffectual; it turned out that in these cases the American citizens composing the juries, would not find a verdict for the plaintiff against an American citizen. In consequence of this state of things proving extremely unsatisfactory and inconvenient, Lord Grenville, in 1794, came to an understanding with the American President, that to adjust these claims there should be a Joint Commission appointed, consisting of two American and two British Commissioners, with power to appoint a fifth in cases where they could not arbitrate or come to a decision, whose determination was to be final. This plan also proved ineffectual, as there was a clause in the Convention that no decision should be held to be valid, unless there were then present one or more American Commissioners; and when a case was so far investigated that judgment or a decision might be expected to be pronounced, the American Commissioners withdrew, so that the Commission was rendered abortive. A jurisdiction so practically incompetent was soon after abolished, and another attempt to obtain justice to some extent for these claimants was made in 1802 by the late Lord Liverpool, and as the basis of the adjustment he put it to these claimants whether, instead of attempting in vain to obtain justice through the courts in America, or by a mixed Commission, they would accept a stated sum from the American Government. To this proposition, the claimants acceded, and in 1806 that Government paid over to England the sum of 600,000 l. in full of all demands made by such British subjects upon American subjects, for losses during the war, or debts subsisting at the time of the peace. It was true, he must admit, that the sum of 600,000 l. was very small and inadequate to the amount of the claims preferred; but accepted it was—and the result was, that a British Commission was appointed, which immediately proceeded to investigate and adjudicate upon the claims made on this fund. This sum

9
of 600,000 l., with interest accruing, some seven or eight years after amounted to 659,000 l., and was offered to the claimants as a liquidation of their claims, being about 10s. in the pound thereon. It was remarkable that the only stipulation made by the parties in answer to the proposition made by Lord Liverpool in 1802 was, that they hoped this country would recover from America 10s. in the pound on the amount of the debt claimed by them. The Commission made the award in 1811. In 1812 the American claimants presented a petition to the House of Commons, praying for further compensation. A Select Committee was appointed in that year, which was put in possession of all the facts and documents to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred; and when the Report of that Committee was brought under the deliberation of the House, in 1813, a Motion was made by the then hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Lockhart), who moved for a Committee and proposed resolutions to the effect that the American claimants had made out an equitable claim for further compensation. That Motion the House negatived, because they considered that the parties had availed themselves of the alternative which had been offered them in 1802, whether they would resort to the course which they applied for power to pursue, or have a new Commission in America, and do the best they could with the American Government. They chose the latter course. In 1821, Mr. Courtenay, the present Earl of Devon, proposed a resolution somewhat like the present, but embodying the claims of fifty-five persons, instead, as in the present instance, of confining it to a particular case. This resolution was carried by a small majority, in a very thin House, in consequence of which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer offered as a compromise to pay a moiety of the balance claimed by these parties in full of all demands. The parties who made the claims acceded most readily to this, and requested Mr. Courtenay to do so on their part, as they would rather take only a portion of what they conceived themselves entitled to, than run the risk of proceeding in that House. The result was, that a sum of money to the amount required to pay the moiety of these demands was taken out of the droits of the Admiralty, but there had never been any intimation made, either in the House or out of it, that these claims should be paid in full out of the droits of the Admiralty.
10
After the subject had been so fully discussed in 1813 and 1821, he did not think that it would be proper for the House again to open the subject. The hon. Member said that he only rested on the single case of Mr. Powell; but if the House had assented to the Motion, it would be bound to enter upon the cases of the other claimants who, as well as that gentleman, had received a certain sum as a payment in full of all demands. Under these circumstances, he would put it to the House whether it would not be most unwise again to open this question, which had been so long settled. It should also be recollected that the gentleman named in the Motion was not a claimant himself, but only a distant relative of that party, and he (Sir G. Clerk) did not think that he had the slightest case. On these grounds he should oppose the Motion.
Mr. Villiershad seen the receipt which had been given, and it did not state that the payment which had been made was a payment in full, and therefore he did not think it was unwise to renew the claim of this gentleman who was the grandson of the party aggrieved. This matter came forward as identified with the last of the claimants, whose claims had not been satisfied. The claim had been recognised by the House as a just one, a sum of money had been voted, leaving it open to the House to discuss the subject at a future time. This gentleman had renewed his claim regularly; he had had audiences of the Chancellors of the Exchequer, who had never told him there was no ground for his claim, but he had been told there were no means to satisfy those claims.
Mr. Humethought this was a doubtful case. There should be an inquiry into the claims of the whole of these parties, because if the relatives of Mr. Powell were not satisfied, the relatives of others might not be. He would advise his hon. and learned Friend, under all the circumstances, not to press his Motion, for the House could not give an opinion on the matter.
Mr. Jervisreplied: On the 25th June, 1821, Mr. Courtenay said he was glad to inform the House that there were funds at the disposal of the Crown, out of which provision would be made for the claims of the American loyalists.
Motion negatived.

CRIMINAL LAW.
Mr. Fitzroy Kellyaccording to notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to allow of Appeal in Criminal Cases. Of the expediency, the justice of such an amendment in the law, he thought no unprejudiced person could entertain a doubt, and when he had stated the means by which he proposed to carry it into effect, simple, easy, inexpensive, and involving no danger to the rights of any member of the community, he trusted he should secure for his plan the sanction of the House and of the nation. It was a most remarkable thing, that in a country like this, so renowned for the excellence, purity, and efficacy of its judicial institutions generally—where, in every case of a civil nature, whether affecting lands, or houses, or merchandize, or character, or money, the administration of justice was the subject of universal admiration, the Criminal Law should be deficient in one great element of justice. In civil cases, if a party was dissatisfied with the verdict of a jury, or with the charge of a judge, he had an appeal from that verdict or that charge, and could carry his case from one court to another, until it reached the highest tribunal in the land. Yet, if a man were criminally indicted for an offence affecting his property, his liberty, nay, his life, and were found guilty, however strongly he himself, the bystanders, and the whole public might be convinced of his innocence, yet if the judge who tried him was satisfied with the decision of the jury, and saw no reason to disapprove of the charge which he had addressed to them, the verdict, however manifestly erroneous, the charge, however glaringly wrong in point of law, must stand, and the unhappy prisoner must abide his lamented fate. He may suffer in character or in property, he may be imprisoned, he may be transported, he may lose his life, and there is no remedy for him. In almost every civilised country throughout the world such a remedy was open to convicted persons, in criminal as well as in civil cases; in the one case as in the other, persons who considered themselves aggrieved by the verdict of a jury or the summing-up of a judge, had the power given them, by appeal, of seeking to have that erroneous verdict, that mistaken summing-up, rectified, and justice done to him, as against it. But here, however palpable the error of the judge
12
or of the jury, however convincing the weight of evidence which circumstances might bring to light after the passing of sentence, however decided the opinion of all other lawyers against the legal accuracy of the judge's summing-up, yet if the judge himself remained satisfied with the verdict, and with his own charge, in criminal cases the convicted person, however innocent, had no chance of escape from his sentence. This great evil, this great reproach, he proposed to remedy, by a very simple measure, namely, by assimilating, as nearly as possible, the practice of the Criminal to that of the Civil Law, giving, as nearly as possible, the same remedy to persons in criminal cases against an erroneous verdict or a wrong charge, as the English law gave in civil cases. It was in the highest degree surprising, considering the constant efforts which had been made by the Legislature to improve the administration of the law in this country in all its other branches, that it had not applied some remedy to this gross defect in our Criminal Law. Indeed, he could not conceive that this omission would so long have continued a just reproach to us, had it not been that the Members of the Legislature were not of that class of persons which for the most part became liable to criminal prosecutions. Had their characters, their property, their liberty, their life, been, in proportion, so often in jeopardy under the operation of the Criminal Law, as the property, the persons, the character, the lives of the classes below them in society, assuredly this most unjust incongruity would long since have disappeared from our criminal jurisprudence. It was only within a very recent period that the improvement had been introduced of allowing counsel to prisoners charged with criminal offences: it was most just that this improvement should be followed up by that other most essential feature in the due administration of justice, the giving convicted persons a remedy against the errors of juries and of judges. When the fallibility of human judgment, when our proneness to error was taken into consideration, there was unhappily too much reason to fear, that of the sentences which deprived our fellow-creatures of their property, of their good names, of their liberty, of their life, a no slight proportion were sentences founded in error, and therefore resulting in fearful, in fatal injustice, were

13
sentences under which innocent persons suffered a most iniquitous punishment. He could mention, among very many instances in which, by this discreditable anomaly in our laws, irreparable injury had been done to innocent persons (and some such instances had happened within his own experience), instances where, after sentence had been passed, circumstances had been brought to light, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which rendered it clear as day to all unbiassed minds, that the person condemned was innocent of the offence imputed to him, yet where the erroneous impression of his guilt remaining firmly impressed on the mind of the judge who had tried him, the sentence has been abided by, and the innocent man has suffered death simply and solely for want of that appeal which he would have had against a decision which in a civil matter should have passed against him for 40 s. He would just mention one case in illustration of what he had staled. About nine years ago a man named Chalker was indicted, along with another person, for the murder of the gamekeeper of Miss Lloyd, in a wood at Hentlesham Hall, near Ipswich. The trial came on before a learned and eminent Judge now no more. Evidence was adduced that Chalker was in the neighbourhood of the wood at the same time that the deceased was there; there was some evidence of his having been detected poaching; of there being blood on his clothes; of his having been seen near the spot where the murder was committed shortly before and shortly after the discovery of the body; in fact, there was a great deal of circumstantial evidence, more or less strong; and the learned Judge, who, from a very early period had taken a decided impression against the prisoner, from the evidence, summed-up, fairly and impartially, indeed, yet at the same time most ingeniously bringing together every part of the evidence which appeared in his own mind to convict the prisoner before the jury. The prisoner was condemned, and sentenced to death. His fellow prisoner, who was acquitted, solemnly declared that Chalker was as innocent as himself of the murder. It was the universal impression of the whole neighbourhood—the clear conviction of all who knew the man, that he was innocent. The learned counsel who had defended him was so persuaded of his innocence, that he devoted many days to
14
the preparation of a memorial, in which he set forth all the strong evidence he had collected together, manifesting his client's innocence, and he submitted this memorial to the Judge, satisfied that at least it would induce him to order a respite, for the purpose of having further inquiries made; but the learned Judge's conviction of the man's guilt, and of the accuracy of the verdict and of his own charge, remained as strong as ever. He declared himself perfectly satisfied as to the guilt of the prisoner, and he consequently refused to interfere. He (Mr. Kelly) was not aware that there had been in that case any application to the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but if there had, the course adopted would have been to apply to the Judge, and when he supported by his decision the finding of the jury, it was not probable that any remission would take place. The result of the proceedings was, that the man against whom this conviction had been obtained was hanged, the Judge refusing to interfere, as he had satisfied his mind as to the guilt of the prisoner. It had, however, since appeared, that the man who really committed the murder for which that prisoner was hanged, had been present at the execution; but being afterwards unable to bear the load on his conscience which such a crime imposed, he confessed his guilt in India, where he had been sent as a soldier—he declared to his companions that he was the person who committed the murder, and that the man who suffered death for it was innocent. That was only one of the many cases which he might bring forward to show that innocent persons had frequently been capitally punished in consequence of having no power of appeal, and in fact, in consequence of there being no means whatsoever of remedy for a decision involving an innocent person. It might indeed be said to him that such cases as this must be always of rare occurrence, and that where there were real and substantial grounds for doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner, no judge would refuse an inquiry, and that the judge in such a case could reserve the point raised for the decision of the judges. To that he answered that it was not true in point of fact, for the subject had no right whatsoever to compel the judge to reserve a point, and he could state from his own experience, that the most learned and eminent judges might refuse to reserve a point, when it

15
might appear afterwards that the point was a good and valid one. He could state a case from his own knowledge in which that took place. Some years ago, a man was indicted in the county of Huntingdon for a capital offence, and convicted before a learned judge now no more. So soon as the evidence closed, he, who was counsel for the prisoner, submitted that although the man had committed a misdemeanour and was guilty of a grievous offence, yet he could not be convicted of the offence charged in the indictment for the capital felony. This he submitted before the finding of the jury, as well as after that finding, but the judge in each case peremptorily refused to reserve the point. He did not rest satisfied after having been twice refused, for he absolutely went five times to the judge in order to attempt to induce him to reserve the point. He waited on him in his own private room, and once went in the middle of the night, and so strongly represented the case, that the judge, who had on each occasion received him in the kindest manner, intimated that it would be unworthy of him to persevere longer in those attempts to induce him to reserve the point. The judge having thus so long peremptorily refused to reserve the point, the time arrived when the man was about to suffer the sentence of death, when he (Mr. Kelly) again waited on him, and besought him, and implored him, and indeed, insisted, that if the learned judge would not reserve the point himself, he could at least write to the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and ask his opinion as to whether the point were good. That was the sixth application which he made to the learned judge, and on that occasion he at length succeeded, after more than an hour, in inducing him to write to Lord Tendered and the Lord Chancellor, asking their opinion of the point, and to that inquiry he received a reply from those learned judges, recommending that the point be reserved; the time at which the answer, with this recommendation, arrived, being only eight hours before the man would have been executed, if it had not been for that inquiry. A respite was accordingly sent just eight hours before the time appointed for carrying the sentence into execution. The point having been thus reserved, was argued before eleven judges in the subsequent term, and they unanimously decided that the objection was valid, and that the judgment ought to be reversed; the learned judge before whom the case
16
was tried having been one of the judges who came to that decision. That case was one of those which showed that, however merciful, or learned, and experienced a judge might be, it did not follow that he would always reserve a point which was submitted to him, even when it was a sound and valid objection. Now, he believed that nothing but the very strong course which he had adopted on that occasion would have induced the learned judge to write to the Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, and the result of the peremptory refusal to reserve the point would have been, that the sentence for the capital offence would have been carried into effect upon the prisoner. The course which he took, however, produced a contrary effect, and the man who was so near suffering the punishment of death, was now alive, a reformed man, and he believed a useful and honest member of society. Under the present system, no matter how clearly convinced of his innocence all the persons in Court might be, with the exception of the jury—no matter how unanimously of opinion the Bar might be that the law as laid down by the learned judge in directing the jury was laid down erroneously and through mistake of the judge—yet if the man were convicted, no remedy was provided—there was no appeal for the prisoner, the fiat of the judge was final, and the man might innocently suffer death or transportation, or any other punishment to which he was sentenced, without being allowed an opportunity of establishing his innocence. If he had adduced the case of an innocent man put to death, and of another man who had nearly suffered death, from this want of a power of appeal, and if he begged of the House to recollect that, supposing the decisions which affected those men's lives had been on matters in which a question of 40 s. or 5l. was at issue, there would then be an appeal, was not that, he would ask, enough to induce them to apply some remedy to this state of things? Was that a state of things which ought to be allowed to continue in a country that was justly proud of her institutions? He had shown the evil that might arise from the refusal of the judge to reserve a point of law which was raised by the counsel for the prisoner. But the evil was not confined to cases where the judges refused to reserve the points urged for the prisoner; as even in cases where they agreed to reserve the point—where they were disposed to entertain doubts of the prisoner's guilt,

17
and to tale a lenient view—even in such cases the remedy afforded to the prisoner was exceedingly unsatisfactory. Suppose a man were indicted for an offence and convicted, and a legal objection being taken to the conviction, the point was reserved for the opinion of the judges, and the sentence was respited until the decision on the point so reserved; yet the remedy which was given to the prisoner was not a matter of right, but merely a matter of indulgence. He would ask the House were the subjects of this Realm to hold their lives depending on circumstances like these, where the remedy against an erroneous conviction was not a matter of right but a matter of indulgence? Such a state of things ought not to be permitted for one moment to continue, merely because those who suffered from it were principally of the poorer classes of the community. If the judge refused the appeal, as the law stands at present, there is no power to compel him to grant it, and when granted the prisoner was not entitled to it by law, but was indebted for it to the mercy of the judge. It was very well known to members of the Bar, that under the system which now prevails, one Judge would peremptorily refuse to reserve the same objection which another judge would reserve, so that it would in many cases altogether depend on the judge before whom a prisoner was tried, whether, perhaps, an innocent man were to suffer death or not. He could not, for his part, conceive anything more objectionable than the mode in which the objection was allowed under the present system—it was a mode of dealing with the objections not as of a right, but of indulgence, and no man ought to be placed in a situation where his life was to be affected in that way. The mode of proceeding, even after the point was reserved, was highly objectionable: it was not decided upon by the judges in a court of law—it was reserved in point of form to Her Majesty, who referred to the judges, and they met, not in open court, to decide upon it, but in the Exchequer Chamber, or formerly in Serjeants'-inn; and, having decided on the point at their discretion, they assigned no reasons for their decision. It was argued by counsel, no doubt, but that was not done as a matter of right, for like the reservation of the point, it was only as a matter of indulgence. If a verdict were given against a man involving a sum of 5l. or 10 l., he might have a counsel, as a right, to argue in a case of appeal; but where a point was saved in a criminal case,
18
where the question at issue involved the life of a human being, there was no right to be heard by counsel. The proceedings took place in a very objectionable manner: sometimes counsel did not appear for the Crown, and sometimes the prisoner was not able to employ counsel—it was argued before the Judges, as he had already remarked, not in public court but in the Exchequer chamber. The Judges decided civil cases in the open court, in the Queen's Bench or in the Common Pleas, and the Judges in civil cases gave their judgments seriatim, and the public were able to understand the grounds of the decision; but in these criminal cases no similar course was adopted. The Judges delivered their decision in a private room, and it was only in a private manner that the announcement was made as to whether they recommended a pardon or the carrying into execution the sentence. In civil cases the Judges assigned their reasons for the decision, but in criminal cases, where a point was reserved for decision, they never assigned their reasons for the decision to which they had come. The consequence of that was, that while the law as regarded civil matters was looked to with confidence, there was no such assistance from decisions in criminal matters, and it required the mighty grasp of a master mind to reduce the Criminal Law into anything like a code. There were no reasons assigned for any judgments of this kind in criminal matters, and thus all the advantages were lost which had been derived from the mode of delivering judgments in civil matters. He had already shown the evils that might frequently result from absence of a right to appeal in criminal matters, when the judge refused inquiry, thus letting all rest upon the decision of the judge; but there was another portion of the subject to which he would call the attention of the House. If, after conviction, matter was brought forward which induced the Secretary of State for the Home Department to believe that the person so convicted was innocent, and that, in consequence of that belief, he applied to the judge before whom the case was tried, it would be seen that the whole case would rest on the decision of the single judge; for if the judge expressed his approval of the conviction, the sentence was generally carried into effect, and it should be a very strong reason indeed which would have the effect of inducing the Secretary of State for the Home Department to interfere against the opinion of the Judge. There was still another objection, namely,

19
that when an inquiry took place the ground on which the objection was made was laid before the Secretary of State for the Home Department; the evidence was laid before him, but he had no means of ascertaining if the evidence on which he was called on to interfere was exaggerated or not. He could not satisfy himself thoroughly as to its correctness or incorrectness, and he was, obliged blindly to judge from such circumstances as the respectability of the person making the statement, and thus it was, that a question affecting the life or liberty of a fellow creature was dealt with. There was a fearful responsibility attached to the Secretary of State for the Home Department in such matters. In one case there might be brought before him evidence which he might conceive sufficient to justify him in recommending a pardon, whilst, in another case, the evidence might not be sufficient in his mind to justify such an interference with the conviction, and, therefore, he would let the law take its course. Thus it would be seen that the life of an individual would be placed in dependence upon the decision of the Secretary of State or the Judge, and he had shown that, however merciful a judge might be, or however desirous to do justice he might be, such a system was one that was calculated in some cases to permit the escape of the guilty, whilst it allowed the innocent to suffer punishment. He was desirous to provide a remedy for these evils to which he had directed the attention of the House, and it was in order to provide that remedy that he ventured to propose the Measure which he was now about to submit to the House. He had stated to the House the course which was allowed in civil cases of appealing against an erroneous finding of the jury, or against a mistaken direction of the judge to the jury. The plan he proposed was to render the practice in criminal cases as nearly similar to that in civil cases in this respect as was consistent with the character of each. He proposed that in any indictment before the Central Criminal Court, or at the Assizes, or Quarter Sessions, or before any court having authority in criminal cases such as he had referred to, where there was a verdict of guilty, the prisoner might have a power to move by his counsel in the superior courts at Westminster-hall, for a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, or a new trial granted, or a verdict of not guilty returned, or in case of the
20
law having been erroneously laid down by the judge, that the judgment should be reversed. He saw no reason why, if the verdict of the jury were against the evidence, if there were cause to apprehend that the jury were mistaken in their verdict, and that there were grounds for grave doubts as to the guilt of the prisoner, or if it could be shown that the testimony of a witness for the prosecution was brought forward in such a manner as to come by surprise on the prisoner, and that he could prove that the testimony of such a witness was false—he saw no reason why in any of these cases, wherever the court was satisfied as to the justice of the application, that the motion should not be agreed to as at present, in civil cases, where the court is of opinion that the application is just and well-founded. He thought that there might be allowed in criminal cases the same power to the court, as nearly as possible, as that on which a new trial is now ordered in civil cases. He would propose also to give an appeal against the decision, if the judge admitted evidence in the trial that ought not to be admitted, or if he rejected evidence that ought to have been admitted, or if in summing-up the evidence, or during any other part of the case, he mistook as to a point of law. He proposed that in this case also the motion should be dealt with, as regarded the decision, exactly as in the civil cases at present, where the judges were satisfied that there ought to be a new trial, or the judgment reversed; and he should also propose, that in certain criminal cases, where the matter was of sufficient importance, there should be some power of appealing front one court to another, and even to the House of Lords, by means of a bill of exceptions or a writ of error, as the practice was now in civil cases. The exercise of such a power would, no doubt, be attended with great expense, and it might, perhaps, be rarely resorted to; but as there might be cases, the importance and magnitude of which would require some such course to be adopted, he thought it advisable to give in all criminal matters the same power of appeal in questions of law from one court to another as now existed in civil cases. Here it was, however, that the first practical objection to his measure presented itself. It might be asked whether, if he gave the power of appeal in all cases- whether, if he enabled persons to

21
make a motion to set aside a verdict, or to appeal against the judgment in capital cases, or in cases of great crimes, such a motion would not always be made, however groundless the objections. He thought if the matter were attentively and practically considered, no such evil would result from the adoption of his proposal. In carrying the measure into effect, he did not propose to give to the prisoner in all cases of conviction an absolute power of suspending the sentence that might be pronounced against him until he should have made his motion of appeal, and that appeal should have been disposed of. It would be absolutely necessary to leave it to the discretion of the judge to determine whether he would respite the sentence, or whether he would admit the prisoner to bail, or whether he would order him to remain in custody until the motion of appeal were decided. What he should, therefore, suggest, was, that in all cases in which a judge might have tried a prisoner who was found guilty, and who had given notice of an appeal, it should be in the power of the judge either to pronounce sentence accordingly, which sentence was to take effect on the determination of the appeal, if the conviction should be confirmed, or to postpone the sentence until the appeal should have been heard, or to pass sentence and to order its execution if he should think proper; because, were it otherwise, any one might, without the slightest ground, prevent a sentence from taking effect, by giving notice of an appeal, and in capital cases such a notice would, no doubt, be always given. He proposed, therefore, to leave it altogether discretionary in the judge, either at once to pass sentence and to order its execution, or to order that the prisoner should be kept in custody or admitted to bail until the motion of appeal should have been determined. That part of the measure would unquestionably be open to this objection—that it would be in the power of the judge, if he were perversely resolved on carrying the verdict into effect, to refuse to respite the sentence: and cases might occur in which after sentence had been pronounced and the penalty suffered, it would turn out on the motion of appeal that the judgment had been erroneous. But it was impossible to guard against mischief in all cases; and he thought that they might safely rely so far on the discretion of the judges as to conclude that
22
where a declaration of an intention to appeal had been made, whether upon a matter of fact or upon a matter of law, unless the case were so clear that no human being could entertain a doubt about it, a respite would be allowed, in capital charges at least. He believed, that if the measure were passed, justice would always be done. Where a frivolous sttempt was made to delay the sentence of the law by the declaration of an intention to appeal, the judge would of course discountenance such an attempt; and, on the other hand, where any serious doubt might have been suggested upon a matter of law, or respecting the propriety of a verdict, he took it for granted, that on a notice of appeal being given, the judge would always postpone sentence. He was at a loss to know what reasonable objection could be made to the measure. That advantage of the rich over the poor was incidental to the nature of things, and could not be completely removed. If it were said that the appeal would give an advantage to the rich over the poor, that the rich were able to afford it in all cases which the poor could not, and that it was thus practically making one law for the rich and another for the poor. If that argument were urged, then he should say that it would equally apply to the appeal in the courts of law, which was now granted in civil proceedings. The poor man in civil cases must often suffer from the want of money to proceed with an appeal, or to resist the appeal of a rich man against a decision. The advantage of the rich man over the poor man was therefore rather incidental to the nature of things than to this measure, and he could not see that if it were carried into effect, it would in itself possess any advantage for the rich man over the poor man. If a notice of appeal were given, for instance, on the part of a rich man, the judge need not admit him to bail, so he could have no advantage in that respect; whilst a poor man might be let out on bail, or on his own recognizance by the judge pending the appeal. There was only one case in which he should desire to give a power to obtain a respite of sentence against the opinion of the judge—he alluded to indictments on capital charges. He would provide that, when a person was capitally indicted, and there was a verdict of guilty, if the judge refused to respite the sentence until the appeal of

23
which notice had been given should have been heard, that person should have the right to appear by his counsel before two judges and the Recorder of London, if the case had been tried at the Central Criminal Court, and before the Court of Assize if the case had been tried at the Assizes, and those judges should have the power of respiting the sentence, if they thought proper, until the appeal was determined. He had heard it objected to the measure that the judges would not have time to deal with all the appeals to which it would give rise. But he should say in the first place, that if the measure were just in itself, it was surely no answer to the demand of justice made to the Legislature on the part of the public to say, that it would require some additional judges, and consequently some addition to the expenditure of the country. But he did not believe that such a necessity would exist if the measure were carried. If an appeal were granted in every case, it would consume half the time of the Courts of Westminster-hall to hear them; but it might as well be said, that because there was a power of appeal granted in civil cases, that, therefore, every man against whom a decision was given would appeal. That did not take place in civil cases—the Courts were not inundated with appeals, and why, then, after that experience, did they suppose that appeals would be so numerous in criminal cases? Indeed the fact of not allowing judgment to be suspended by the mere declaration of an intention to appeal, would be a great check on the unnecessary increase of appeals. With regard to the objection on the ground of delay, it could not be sustained, for if the application to set aside the decision were frivolous, it would be refused by the Court, and in this case the only delay would be that of making the motion for a rule to show cause. He was satisfied, however, that to answer there was to be no redress of an evil, because the mode of redress might cause some little delay, was a course which would not be adopted here. It was an answer which no Member of that House would be inclined to give. He was fully convinced that the power of appeal was one which was calculated to afford redress where injustice was done, while frivolous appeals were sure to be discountenanced, and he looked upon the measure which he was about to propose as sure to remedy
24
much of that injustice which he had described. Another advantage would follow from this measure, that House would no longer be made a tribunal of appeal in criminal cases. No Gentleman who had been a Member of that House for any length of time could be ignorant of the frequent discussions which had taken place on complaints made respecting the decisions of judges on matters of law. The various applications, for example, which were made to the House in the case of Frost after his conviction must be in the recollection of Gentlemen. And why was it, that persons who felt themselves aggrieved by the decisions of judges or juries appealed to that House or to the newspapers, and there canvassed the conduct of those functionaries? It was because they were denied justice by being refused an appeal. The law drove them to the worst tribunal that could be resorted to, and forced them to canvass in the public papers and in that House, the conduct of the judges. He had now stated the nature of the measure which he proposed to introduce. He had endeavoured to meet the objections that might be advanced against it, and had pointed out the advantages which he conceived would result from it. He believed it could be productive of no evil consequences whatever; it broke in upon no legal or constitutional principle—it invaded the rights of no one member of the community—it involved not the expenditure of a single shilling of the public money; and he believed it would tend to the advancement of the just and pure administration of the law. He, therefore, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to provide an Appeal in Criminal Cases.
Mr. Godsonseconded the Motion, and observed that the principle was already in operation in favour of those who could afford to pay for it; for an indictment for misdemeanor could be removed from the sessions or the assizes to the Court of Queen's Bench, and tried on the civil side, the whole proceedings being conducted as in civil cases. Thus, in cases of misdemeanor, offences which persons of high station were more likely to commit than felonies, an appeal existed; and if in misdemeanor, why not in felony? In proportion as the punishment was heavy, so ought the means of ascertaining the truth to be ample; and if there was an appeal in cases of misdemeanor, it ought also to

25
be in charges of felony, and even in that which was the highest of all—murder. There would be other opportunities of considering the measure, and he should reserve till a future time any further observations which he might feel it his duty to offer respecting it.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that even if a person of less eminence than the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had introduced that Motion, had made the proposition which he had brought under their notice, and if that proposition had been made in a speech infinitely less able than the one to which they had just had the pleasure of listening, he should not have felt it consistent with his duty to resist the preliminary Motion for leave to introduce the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman, with the weight of his long experience, had said, that in his opinion the cause of truth, of justice, and even of mercy, required the existence of an appeal in criminal cases. Now, he had listened with great attention to the speech which had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he had been struck with an observation in that speech, which had raised a doubt in his mind with respect to the policy of the Motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had observed with great truth that the administration of justice in this country had raised its character among the nations of the civilized world, and that in latter times the utmost attention had been bestowed to improve the administration of justice generally, and of criminal justice more especially; and the hon. and learned Gentleman had further remarked with truth that the anomaly— for an anomaly he admitted it was—the absence of appeal in criminal cases had existed for centuries, and that no law reformer had, down to the present time, proposed that an appeal should in such cases be given. Now, he did not say, that that fact was in itself decisive against the present Motion, but he thought it justified caution on the part of the House in at once coming to a conclusion so positive as that announced by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He believed that he was not in error in stating—and he was only mentioning those points in order to show the effect which the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman had produced upon his mind—he believed that he was not in error in stating, that the defence of the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman mainly rested upon the analogy which he sought
26
to establish between civil and criminal jurisdiction, with reference to appeals. He should say, however, that to an unlearned mind that analogy did not appear perfect. He could see, or he thought he could see, a very great difference between civil and criminal cases. Without waiving, for one instant, the question of justice, the matter really to be considered in that case as coincident with considerations of justice—the paramount consideration was, what course in these matters was most conducive to public good. Now, in civil cases, to the public it was a matter of comparative indifference whether between two litigant parties considerable delay should intervene before the adjustment of their suit. But that was not so in criminal cases. He conceived that it was of the last importance to the public that punishment should follow quickly upon crime. The object of punishment was example. Public example was the real, and the only legitimate object of punishment; but punishment lost half its efficacy if it were long delayed after the perpetration of crime, and he did say, that whereas delay was no object to the public in civil cases, they had the deepest interest in criminal cases, that no delay inconsistent with justice should take place. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that he was satisfied that frequent errors were committed in criminal cases. Tribunals were no doubt fallible, and he was far from saying that in criminal cases errors did not occur. But his experience had led him to a conclusion opposed to that at which the hon. and learned Gentleman had arrived; and although justice in criminal cases did occasionally miscarry, yet he believed that the criminal law was in general fairly administered in this country— that crime rarely escaped and that innocence was very rarely punished. He believed, that upon the whole that was the more accurate statement of the fact. Neither should it be forgotten that the appeal sought by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not a single appeal, but was in the nature of a double appeal. He could well understand the strong arguments urged in favour of an appeal on matters of law. It was certainly true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that those matters were decided by one fallible judge; and there might be other objections applicable to the decisions of a judge on points of law which were not applicable to the verdict of a jury. That verdict was the decision of

27
twelve impartial men upon a matter of fact, those men being sworn to do justice, and being guided, although not absolutely led, by the learning of the judge. They had thus the common-sense view of the matter, aided by judicial learning, experience, and acuteness. There were, therefore, as it appeared to him, many arguments applicable to an appeal against the dictum of a judge, which were not applicable to an appeal against the verdict of a jury. The hon. and learned Gentleman would excuse him if he also stated that some of his remedies were altogether inconsistent with the arguments he had used. And first, with respect to the appeal from the dictum of the judge. If he had rightly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, it was his intention to leave it to the discretion of the judge to decide upon what cases the appeal should be allowed to have effect. Practically that was the case at present; for it rested with the judge whether he would reserve the point for the opinion of his brethren. The hon. and learned Member had said that when a point was reserved, no reasons were assigned when sentence was passed. In a great majority of cases, where a point was reserved, sentence was not passed until an opportunity had been given for the consideration of the point reserved by the twelve judges; and when sentence was pronounced after the opinion of the judges had been given, if that opinion should be adverse to the party accused, he (Sir J. Graham) was led to believe that in this case the judge, in passing sentence, invariably assigned a reason. He was unwilling to occupy the attention of the House at this stage of the Bill, the more especially as the attendance of Members was so thin. He regretted that so few should have attended at the discussion of a measure of so much importance, and felt ashamed to confess himself unprepared for its introduction. Moreover, he had unfortunately led his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to believe that the Motion would not come on that evening, by which means his hon. and learned Friend had lost a large portion of the hon. and learned Gentleman's observations. Supposing other obstacles overcome, one great practical difficulty remained which the hon. and learned Gentleman had not got rid of—namely, the appellate tribunal. He was perfectly ready to admit, that in a question where justice and truth were concerned, all considerations of expense ought to be entirely
28
disregarded; but the fact could not be concealed, that they must have an appellate tribunal, composed of judges of the highest eminence, and the question presented itself, that without an addition to the present number of judges, it would not be possible to obtain an appellate tribunal. This being the case, the question was, whether it was expedient to add to the number of judges? For his own part, he confessed that he entertained a very strong opinion on this point, feeling convinced that nothing but the strongest necessity ought to induce the House to consent to any addition. He was satisfied that fifteen was as large a number —speaking with the highest respect of the learned profession to which they belonged—as the bar of Westminster Hall could supply; and the question of an appellate tribunal, therefore, involving a very large addition to the number of judges, must be approached by the Executive Government with the greatest possible caution. He had thought it necessary, in assenting to the introduction of this Bill, to guard himself and the Government to which he belonged with the greatest circumspection as to the course which it might be their duty to pursue on a future stage. He felt this to be a question of immense importance. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a case which happened nine years ago, in which great doubts existed as to the justice of the conviction at the time when the verdict was found, but respecting which all doubts had been subsequently removed by the declaration of a soldier in a regiment in India, that he was the party guilty of the crime. He felt bound to state, that his experience in the administration of criminal justice had led him to the conclusion that a vague statement of that kind, made by a soldier in a distant country, earnestly desiring an opportunity, for some reason or other, to return speedily home, of a participation in a crime of this nature, did not afford anything like conclusive evidence that the party making the statement had really been guilty of the crime. Nothing was more frequent than those false assertions, and he could not think the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman at all admissible as certain and conclusive evidence that the crime had been committed by the party confessing. He was not prepared to go further into this discussion on the present occasion. On the part of the Government he gave his willing assent to the introduction of the Bill, and he could not but express his satisfaction that a ques-

29
tion of such high importance should have been taken up by one so competent to deal with it. It would be his duty to consider the measure of the hon. and learned Member with the deepest attention, especially the practical provisions by which he proposed to carry into effect those principles which he deemed necessary for the proper administration of the criminal law.
Mr. Kellyexplained, that he had not intended to make the power of Appeal dependent upon the consent of the presiding judge; but to empower the judge at his discretion to cause sentence to be recorded and executed. The effect of which would only be — except, of course, in cases of capital penalty—that the prisoner could be confined, or transported, before the Appeal, his right to prosecute which was absolute, had been brought to a conclusion.
Leave given.

POOR LAW —GILBERT UNIONS.
Sir J. Grahammoved to nominate the Select Committee on Poor Relief (Gilbert's Act):— Mr. Barneby, Captain Pechell, Mr. Thomas Duncombe, Sir Robert Heron, Mr. Colvile, Sir William Heathcote, Mr. Becket Denison, Mr. Wrightson, Viscount Barrington, Mr. Manners Sutton, Mr. Strutt, Viscount Marsham, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Wakley, and Mr. Protheroe.
Captain Pechellhad not been aware that the right hon. Gentleman was going to nominate the Committee this evening, and he was sorry there were so few Gentlemen present who were interested in the subject. Great apprehensions were entertained in those parts of the country which were liable to be affected, that whatever might be the report of a Committee, even if it should be in favour of the retention of these incorporations, it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to legislate for their abolition. He had understood the right hon. Baronet on Thursday to say, that he would not at that time pledge himself in one way or other; but from something that had since transpired, either in or out of the House, an unfavourable impression had gone abroad that these incorporations were to be abolished. He thought the parties concerned were justified in believing, that the Poor Law Commissioners were endeavouring to control the Government in the course they should pursue, and were endeavouring to cajole, bully, and tamper with Boards of Guardians in order to induce them to
30
come to certain resolutions. The petition which had been presented from Derbyshire contained a serious accusation against the Poor Law Commissioners, who, it seemed, were endeavouring to persuade Boards of Guardians to dissolve their Unions, as they represented for their own benefit, and in order to give satisfaction to the rate-payers. If it went forth that the Government intended to listen to the representations of the Commissioners, notwithstanding any report of a Committee, it would be believed, that the Bill which they intended to bring in would be completely under the management of the Poor Law Commissioners. The insinuations thrown out against the Gilbert Unions were causing much dissatisfaction in the agricultural districts, where the people were satisfied and happy. The Commissioners were endeavouring to persuade the Boards of Guardians that their affairs would be better managed if they were placed under their control at Somerset-house, and they represented the labourers in the Poor Law Unions as returning whistling from their work, happy and contented. The right hon. Gentleman had before refused a Committee; but having now granted it, he hoped he would enable the advocates of the Gilbert Unions to bring up their evidence, and not throw impediments in their way, and would give them notice of the evidence he meant to produce against them. If that were the case, he did not so much care about the names on the Committee, because he knew the treatment of the poor in those incorporations would bear investigation.
Mr. R. Yorkesaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had declared on a former occasion, that whatever might be the determination of a Committee, it was his intention to follow out the principles of the Poor Law on a system of uniformity. Let the Poor Law Bill be made applicable to the necessities of the people, and he should have no objection to the Gilbert Unions being placed on a footing of uniformity; but after what the right hon. Baronet had formerly declared, it was too great a farce to be endured, that this Committee should be proposed.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that what he had stated on a former evening was, that it would not be respectful to the House to announce his intention before inquiry was made.
Sir W. Jamessaid, as the measure now

31
before the House connected with this subject was in many respects an improvement on the existing law, he should be glad of an assurance from the Home Secretary, that notwithstanding the lateness of the Session, and the appointment of this Committee, it was the intention of the Government, under all circumstances, to proceed with their Bill.
Sir J. Grahamsaid there was not the least intention on the part of the Government of not proceeding with the Bill.
Committee appointed.

CANADA.
On the Motion that the Report of the Committee of Supply be now read,
Mr. Roebucksaid, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to the condition of one of our most important North American Colonies, in which recent events threatened to be attended with serious consequences. He was desirous of calling attention to this subject by way of warning to the noble Lord, and he assured him that he referred to it in no spirit of hostility to the Administration, and influenced by no personal feeling. He hoped the House would allow him to state a few of the circumstances connected with the present state of the Colony, in order that at least his view of the case might be thoroughly understood. That House and the Parliament generally had thought fit, in spite of the warnings of many who had paid attention to the condition of the Colony, to pass a Bill for the re-union of Upper and Lower Canada into one Colony thinking that that measure would be best for the interests of Canada. The Government of this country was told then that this was not a question of race, but of principle; that the question was, whether the people of Canada should be subject to a government abroad or a government within their own lands. The Government were warned also that the rock upon which they would split was that of American democracy, and that the only chance they had of avoiding it, was to conciliate the good feelings of the Canadian people. The hon. and learned Gentleman here referred to the circumstances of the country at the time of the union of the two provinces, but in a scarcely audible tone. When that Act was passed, Mr. Poulett Thomson was sent out to administer the government of that province. He wished to speak of that noble Lord's condin
32
this part of his public career without the slightest asperity. That noble Lord was not here to defend himself; he could not be here for he was no more in this life, and in these days, he did not always find, that public men after their death had many friends to stand forward and speak in their defence. The first important act of Lord Sydenham's government in Canada was to separate the country into disricts for the purposes of elections. In doing this, he (Mr. Roebuck) did not hesitate to say that there was fraud from beginning to end of the proceedings. In many instances polling places were put up in spots which would be most difficult and inconvenient of access. In the case of the town of Montreal, a large portion of the town chiefly inhabited by French Canadians, was cut off under the denomination of the suburbs. In fact, throughout, the noble Lord had endeavoured so to fashion and mould the country, in regard to the number and character of the constituency, that he might secure such a representation as he desired. This was the charge which he made against Lord Sydenham. If there was any man a friend of the noble Lord in this House, he dared him to get up and deny what he had said. So gross was the attempt, so apparent the fraud in this transaction, that the House of Representatives, and that very party amongst the Representatives which was intended to be favoured by it, declared that it was a fraud. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted a passage from the Westminster Review in confirmation of this statement and declared that the article in question was written by a gentleman with whom he was well acquainted, and for whose accuracy he was ready to pledge his own personal responsibility. But Lord Sydenham was not content with fraud; he also introduced intimidation and violence into the election proceedings of Canada. He held in his hand a record of all the acts of violence committed by the authority of the noble Lord, and by his agents, and especially by one man whom he imported into Canada with him from Ireland. By all these means the noble Lord succeeded in obtaining a majority of one in the House of Representatives. To show, however how contrary this was to the feelings of the country after an investigation had taken place, and these abuses were rectified, there was a large majority in favour of liberal principles. Upon the death of Lord

33
Sydenham, Sir C. Bagot was appointed his successor. But the majority against his Government was so manifest that he found he could not continue his government under the existing system and a remarkable change took place. Sir C. Bagot made a declaration of the principles upon which he would henceforth conduct his government. He referred to the resolution of the House of Assembly of the 3rd of September, 1841, a resolution in favour of responsible government, and declared that he would govern Canada upon the principles of that resolution. Acting in the spirit of that resolution, he selected from the body of the House of Assembly certain persons who seemed to possess the public confidence in the strongest degree, and of them constituted his executive council, determining at the same time that so far as the internal polity of the country was concerned he would be guided by their advice. In matters of metropolitan polity, of course, as heretofore, he would continue to receive his instructions from the Home Government. He thought the distinction a very clear one; he thought that in matters relating to the metropolitan or imperial relations of the Colony, the governors should be under the control of the Home Government; but that in matters of purely internal polity, the local council should have the controlling voice; and this, also, was the declaration and explanation of Sir C. Bagot. Accordingly, Sir C. Bagot appointed his council, consisting of men possessing the confidence of the people; and it was touching to see how this conciliatory act was received by the people. That people, who had been so long subject to the iron rule of previous governors—who had been hunted by soldiers, and tried by soldiers, and executed by soldiers, and whose wives and families had been insulted by soldiers— this people, who had thus cruelly suffered, seemed to forget at once all the evil which had been done them, and turned with a gushing outpouring of gratitude to their new governor, who had shown this goodwill towards them; and when that governor who had done so much for them, was oppressed with sickness, a heartfelt prayer was put up from one end of the country to the other for the alleviation of his sufferings. Upon the death of Sir C. Bagot, Sir C. Metcalfe was appointed his successor; and when he went out, he admitted that he was not quite prepared to
34
handle a representative Government, and particularly in America. He did not take the same view of the matter as his predecessor had taken. Indeed, he acknowledged, to use his own words, that the Government established by Sir C. Bagot introduced a principle of "antagonism" which he foresaw could not long work smoothly. Sir C. Metcalfe, however, announced at the same time, that he intended to govern the Colony upon the principles of a responsible Government; but from that hour to this he had never explained what he meant by a "responsible Government." He would beg to refer to a passage in the Life of Lord Sydenham, by Mr. Murdock, a gentleman well known to the noble Lord. The hon. and learned Gentleman read an extract to the effect that the events which had occurred since the death of Lord Sydenham had afforded lamentable confirmation to the previous remarks; that it would be invidious to make any comparisons between his Government and that of his successors; but that there could be no doubt that embarrassments had accumulated to such a degree as to threaten a recurrence of the events of 1837–1839. Now, he wanted to know whether it was the opinion of the noble Lord opposite, that Sir C. Bagot took a wrong view with respect to the principles upon which the Government of Canada should be carried on? He was anxious that the noble Lord should explicitly declare, in the face of the House of Commons, what he really intended by that somewhat mystical form or phraseology, "a responsible Government." He was anxious to hear the noble Lord make that statement, in order that the people of Canada might know what they had to expect from the noble Lord, or any one appointed by him. He was anxious for it also on behalf of the emigrant, whose future interests were involved in the question. What was the case with respect to the emigrant? A river divided him from the United States, where everything was open to him, every office in the Government, every legitimate influence in the conduct of the affairs of the State. In Canada, on the contrary, under the tutelage of England, he could expect nothing in the shape of public honours or emoluments, but, at best, some wretched petty office of a subordinate character; he would have no sympathies with the Government which was put over him; be would have to

35
lead a sort of existence upon sufferance under the Colonial Office in Downing street. He entreated the noble Lord so to fashion the destinies of the emigrant to the Canadas, that he might not be forced, for the future, into invidious comparisons of this sort. On the contrary, the noble Lord ought to lend his assistance to lead on the Canadian people, step by step, to that result which one day must inevitably occur—complete self-government—in order that when the separation from the mother country took place it might be of a friendly, and not of a hostile nature. Sir C. Metcalfe, he contended, acted in violation of the principle adopted by Sir C. Bagot, and particularly in the appointment of persons to local offices without any consultation with the Executive Council. One of these appointments so made, was that of the Speaker of the Upper House of Representatives. This appointment was offered without any advice with the Council, and the people heard for the first time in the streets of Kingston that the offer of this high office had been made to one of their bitterest opponents. He should like to know what the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would say if he were to hear that the office of Speaker of the House of Lords had been offered to Lord Cottenham. The two cases were exactly analogous. It was fair, therefore, to draw the analogy. This was an internal piece of policy, and was bringing the question in dispute to an issue. They went not to vague generalities, but taking a specific case, they said, "Such is the polity you have pursued in this case, do you intend to continue it?" And the answer of Sir C. Metcalfe was most distinctly, that he did, declaring, to use his own phrase, "that he would not violate his duty by surrendering the prerogatives of the Crown." The Executive Council then said, in that case we can no longer act as your Ministry, and they tendered their resignations, which Sir C. Metcalfe accepted, and from that day to this the Colony had been without an Administration. There was a Governor General and nothing else. There was, it was true, the President of the Council (Mr. Daly) a gentleman for whom he (Mr. Roebuck) had personally the highest respect, who acted with the Governor, but had not actually accepted office, in order to avoid the necessity of being re-elected; but the Attorney General, the Solicitor General,
36
and all the important Members of the Executive had retired, and the present Ministry consisted of Mr. Daly and Mr. Draper. There was no longer a Receiver General; the duties of that office being now performed by the clerk of the late Receiver General, M. Turquand, who acted as Receiver General for the Colony though he had given no security whatever. Up to the present hour the Governor General had altogether failed in forming an Administration. At the end of this year the present Parliament of Canada would cease to exist, and another Parliament would have to be elected, in which there could be no doubt that the majority against the Government would be in creased; then they would have the consummation which had been prophesied. The course which the Government had pursued had had the effect of uniting the democratic party of Upper Canada with the Liberals of Lower Canada, and the force of circumstances had produced a party united against the Government in Parliament, so powerful that they could not overcome it, and they had, therefore, no hope but in one of two things—either to yield to the will of the people, or to govern by the bayonet. There was no other alternative left. He would ask the noble Lord—at present Sir C. Metcalfe was the sole Governor of Canada—was that the sort of Government the noble Lord contemplated when he spoke of a responsible government? He would ask the noble Lord whether his understanding of a responsible government, meant a government like that now existing in Canada—a government carried on by a Governor General without any responsible advisers; or whether his idea of a responsible government, was a government chosen out of those persons who enjoyed the confidence of the people expressed in the Representatives they return to the Legislature, as was understood and expressed by Sir C. Bagot? There could be no medium here. Either the noble Lord must mean Canada to continue to be governed by Sir C. Metcalfe, irresponsible to all but the Government at home, or by a government responsible to the people of Canada, such as he (Mr. Roebuck) spoke of. If the former, the most direful results would follow. As he had stated, since the resignation of the Executive Council in November, 1843, to the present hour, Sir C. Metcalfe had not been able to select more

37
than the three gentlemen he had named to act in responsible situations of Government, and he had not been able to call the Parliament together, knowing well what would be the consequence if the Parliament met. Sir C. Metcalfe, however, must meet the Parliament at one time or other, and when he did, that consequence would follow; there was no hope of escape. Now, with regard to the election at Montreal, he had been told that that election had been carried by violence. He denied it; and although the Irish agitators, enlisted, as it were, and paid and organised by Lord Sydenham, had set an example that might unhappily have been followed, he denied, and he defied any one to prove, that anything more of riot or confusion had taken place at the election at Montreal than occurred at every election in Covent-garden. Out of the whole number of polling-booths, in one only had anything like a scuffle occurred. And the result of the election at Montreal, where, if there was an English party in Canada, it existed, the result of the election was against the Government —the English party being as much Canadians as the French party itself. There were also other grounds of complaint; and seeing the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) in his place, he might refer to the interference with the colonial interests by Private Bills passed in this country. The Session before the last (he believed) an Act of Parliament had been passed, giving powers to a company of adventurers to form a bank of issue in Lower Canada [an expression of dissent from Lord Stanley, we believed]. It was during the Sydenham Administration, and while that noble Lord was arranging matters with the legislative body there, that the British House of Commons passed a British North American Bank Bill, which bank was made a bank of issue for Canada. The result was, that the Parliament of Canada refused to listen to Lord Sydenham's proposals, and passed a resolution that it was the bounden duty of the House to protest against the Charter, on behalf of the people of Canada, as being an interference with the affairs of the Colony, opposed to the instructions contained in the recent despatches of Lord J. Russell. He (Mr. Roebuck) had said, that this banking company had been constituted by Act of Parliament, but he found it was by Charter from the Crown,
38
and that circumstance rendered the proceeding still more objectionable. Then there was the North American Colonization Company, which, under an Act of the Imperial Parliament, was invested with powers, which had been increased by a subsequent Act, to acquire lands in Canada. He contended that no Private Bill should be passed affecting the interests of a colony, unless due notice be given to the Colony of the intention to pass it. The cases he had quoted were instances in which great powers had been given to particular bodies to interfere with the internal affairs of the Colony without first consulting the Colonial Legislature, and thus depriving the Colonial Legislature of its constitutional functions. With regard to the Colonization Bill, it might be matter of surprise that, taking, as he believed he did, his fair share of the business of the House, and being pretty regular in his attendance, it should have passed without his knowledge; but he had been since informed that great pains were taken to exclude the progress of that measure from his cognizance, and that it was passed during his absence from London. But what he wished to put to the House and the noble Lord was, whether it were just that the interests of an important Colony like Canada, having a Legislature of its own should be affected by any Private Bill passed in the British House of Commons? He would call upon the House and the Government to remember what had been the results of a similar system of interference with the internal polity of other Colonies. The attempt to tax the colonists, and to impose on them a permanent civil list, without their consent, had occasioned us the loss of the United States. The discontent in Canada was the result of the same system of interference. Treat the Canadas fairly, and they would remain the firm friends of the mother country and of British connection; but continue the system which they were now pursuing, and they would become the firm supporters of democratic institutions, and the chances of their union with the United States would be increased.
Lord Stanleyhad expected that the statement of the hon. and learned Member would have been followed by a Motion on which the sense of the House might have been expressed. The importance of the question and the principle involved in it, as bearing upon the future possible

39
relations between this country and Canada, could not be over-estimated. With the tone the hon. and learned Member had assumed, or with the frankness of his statements, he personally had no right to quarrel. But his objection to the principle kid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and upon which he said, that to avoid American democracy in Canada we must interpose the principle of self-government —his objection to the distinction the hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn between the Government at home and that abroad in our Colonies was this—that however true and unanswerable his principles were, as applied to an independent Republic, if pushed to the extent to which the hon. and learned Member would carry them, they were inconsistent with the existence of monarchical institutions; and in the next place, with the relations which should exist between a colony and the mother country. If he admitted the full extent of the principle on which the hon. and learned Gentleman had laid so much stress—of the right of the colony to govern their own local affairs—he should yet be prepared, on the part of the Government, to express their unhesitating and cordial approbation of the course which Sir C. Metcalfe had pursued, and their unqualified approval of his conduct in the two matters which had been made grounds of accusation against him by the Members of the Executive Council, and which had been brought forward on their behalf by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Now, what were those two points of accusation? They were not left to conjecture on the subject, for the Governor General and the Executive Council had both stated them distinctly as the grounds upon which the Members of that Council resigned their offices, and on which their resignation was accepted by Sir Charles Metcalfe. The Governor General had stated publicly, and it had not been contradicted—it had been stated by one of those who still adhered to his Government, and in the presence of the Executive Council who had left him—that the Executive Council demanded from the Governor General that he would agree, under his hand and seal, to make no appointment, and no offer of an appointment whatever, without previously taking the advice of the Council; that the list of candidates should always be laid before them, and that they should
40
have the power to recommend any other persons, at their discretion, and that the Governor General should not make any appointment which they might consider prejudicial to their views; in other words, that the whole patronage of the Crown in the colony should be surrendered to the Executive Council for the purposes of Parliamentary support. It was not merely that the Council said to the Governor General, you must act with us—you must consult with us—with regard to all the great measures of Government; but it was this—you must bind yourself under your hand and seal, that under all circumstances, and on all occasions, no appointment to any Government Office shall be made without our consent—the patronage of the Crown in every direction and in every department shall be, by an instrument under your hand and seal, submitted to the Executive Council. Sir C. Metcalfe at once rejected that proposal; and he (Lord Stanley) thought he was right in rejecting it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had sought to draw an analogy between the position of the Governor General in Canada and that of the Sovereign in this country. He (Lord Stanley) denied the analogy. But even admit, for the sake of argument, that the analogy existed, and he still contended that the demand which the Executive Council had made of the Governor General was one which no Minister would allow. But he denied the analogy. The constitution of Canada might be formed upon the model of the Constitution here; but still they could not give to it the life of the British Constitution. Observe what was the nature of the British Constitution—what were the functions of the Sovereign. The basis of the British Constitution was, that the Sovereign was personally irresponsible for every act of the Government— that the responsibility rested with the confidential advisers of the Sovereign, who were responsible to Parliament and the people for the advice they gave, and he admitted and allowed that no Minister could hold permanently the reins of power in this country who did not, in addition to the confidence of the Sovereign, possess the confidence of the popular branch of the Legislature. But because the Crown was not responsible for the acts of Government, the Crown particularly exercised no political power; and it was obvious that the exercise of political power without re-

41
sponsibility would not be more dangerous to the liberty of the country than the exercise of responsibility without power would be an absurdity and a contradiction. He said, therefore, that no Minister in this country would make or allow such a proposition as had been made by the Executive Council of Canada to Sir C. Metcalfe. The theory was well understood, and the practice followed. The Sovereign, in deference to the opinion of the constitutional advisers of the Crown, made the appointment on the recommendation of the Minister; and every Minister, in making a recommendation to the Crown, so far as higher and more important considerations would permit, paid and was bound to pay deference to the personal convenience, wishes, and feelings of the Sovereign; and, on the other hand, although the Sovereign had the power to reject the appointment recommended by the Minister, it was usual to sacrifice all personal considerations to the public advantage. But the case of a colony was totally different from that of this country. Here the people respected the dignity of the Crown from its hereditary nature, and were influenced by a loyalty and attachment to the person of the Sovereign and the Monarchy that was almost inherent. Then there was the House of Lords, the hereditary Peerage of the country, exercising no unimportant power, and possessing an influence over public opinion by that hereditary rank, high station, territorial possessions and wealth, and hereditary title, which gave to the Peers importance in their several localities, individually and collectively with the country in general. Compare this with the position of Canada; there they had the representative form of constitution, chosen by the people: but where was the parallel to the House of Lords? There was the Legislative Council, but it possessed none of the advantages of the Peerage of this country; its Members were not elevated much by rank, station, or property, above their fellow-citizens, and possessed no great influence; they were nominated by the Crown, and held office for life. Then the Governor General had none of the dignity of the Sovereign about his position, having an income not more than that of a country gentleman—a stranger to the colony—having probably no personal interest or influence in it until his appointment, and previous to his ar-
42
rival no connection with it. Place that Governor and the Legislature so constituted in the position of a Minister being himself responsible, and compelled to act in every respect with Parliament, stripped of all real power and authority, liable to act under the control of the leading politicians and parties of the day, and what would they institute in Canada? That which, but for the influence of the Crown and the Peerage, and the necessity of the Prime Minister of this country possessing the confidence of the House of Commons, would be the result here, a republican government—a Governor placed in a state of absolute dependence on the Crown. He said to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he proposed a course which, by no gradual steps, but certainly and at once would place the whole authority in the hands of the dominant party for the time, and convert Canada into a republic, independent of the Crown of this country. It was inconsistent with monarchical Government that the Governor who was responsible, should be stripped of all authority and all power, and be reduced to that degree of political power which was vested in the constitutional Sovereign of the country. Not only would such a course be inconsistent with monarchical Government, but also with the colonial dependence. The hon. and learned Gentleman might desire to see the Colony divested of that dependence; but if that was the object, let him say so. ["No."] But the argument the hon. and learned Gentleman laid down would lead to that conclusion. The system which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed was inconsistent with that which at all times had been held forth by all British and Colonial authorities as responsible Government. The sketch of the hon. and learned Gentleman of Canadian affairs went from the period of Lord Durham's Report to the present time, and he stated that that Report was remarkable only for confirming that which had been demanded by the legislations of both provinces for twenty years. Lord Durham, said the hon. and learned Member, confirmed the doctrine of responsible Government. Now he had looked into the recommendations of Lord Durham as to the principle of responsible Government, and although that noble Lord did enunciate certain views, he did not appear to him to have seriously considered the mode in which they were to be carried out,

43
or the practical results to which these principles would give rise if carried to their full extent. But he did not find Lord Durham laying down, even as a principle, the doctrine which the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish to see carried out of responsibility to the people of Canada. The noble Lord proceeded to quote the Report of Lord Durham, to the effect that responsibility to the United Legislature of all the Officers of the Government, except the Governor and the Secretary, should be secured by every means known to the Constitution. The Governor, as representative of the Crown, should carry on the Government by means of heads of departments, on whom the United Legislature shall repose confidence, and who must not look for support from home except in points of imperial interest. The noble Lord continued: Here Lord Durham laid down the doctrine that internal administration should be administered by heads of departments—each of them being in the Legislature answerable for his own department, prepared to defend it, and if not supported by the Legislature, prepared to resign. To that principle, from the time when Lord Sydenham went to Canada until now, when Sir Charles Metcalfe had declared his adherence to responsible Government, he had not heard any objection. But that there might be no doubt as to what was the understanding of the Government of this country upon the point, at a later period than when Lord Durham drew up his Report, when Lord Sydenham was sent out to carry into practice Lord Durham's principles, the noble Lord, the Member for London, officially stated to Lord Sydenham, on the part of the Government, what were the views taken by it of the system under which the affairs of Canada were to be administered. The despatch was as follows:—
"It appears from Sir George Arthur's despatches that you may encounter much difficulty in subduing the excitement which prevails on the question of what is called responsible Government.' I have to instruct you, however, to refuse any explanation which may be construed to imply an acquiescence in the petitions and addresses on this subject. I cannot better commence this despatch than by a reference to the Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, of the 28th April and 9th May, in the year 1837. The Assembly of Lower Canada having repeatedly pressed the point, Her Majesty's confidential advisers at
44
that period thought it necessary not only to explain their views in the communications of the Secretary of State, but expressly called for the opinion of Parliament on the subject. The Crown and the two Houses of Lords and Commons having thus decisively pronounced a judgment upon the question, you will consider yourself precluded from entertaining any proposition on the subject. It does not appear, indeed, that any very definite meaning is generally agreed upon by those who call themselves the advocates of this principle; but its very vagueness is a source of delusion, and if at all encouraged, would prove the cause of embarrassment and danger. The Constitution of England, after long struggles and alternate success, has settled into a form of Government, in which the prerogative of the Crown is undisputed, but it is never exercised without advice. Hence the exercise only is questioned, and however the use of the authority may be condemned, the authority itself remains untouched. This is the practical solution of a great problem, the result of a contest which from 1640 to 1690 shook the monarchy, and disturbed the peace of the country. But if we seek to apply such a practice to a Colony, we shall at once find ourselves at fault. The power for which a Minister is responsible in England, is not his own power, but the power of the Crown, of which he is for the time the organ. It is obvious that the Executive Councillor of a Colony is in a situation totally different. The Governor, under whom he serves, receives his orders from the Crown of England. But can the Colonial Council be the advisers of the Crown of England? Evidently not, for the Crown has other advisers, for the same functions, and with superior authority. It may happen, therefore, that the Governor receives at one and the same time instructions from the Queen, and advice from his Executive Council, totally at variance with each other. If he is to obey his instructions from England, the parallel of constitutional responsibility entirely fails; if, on the other hand, he is to follow the advice of his council, he is no longer a subordinate officer, but an independent sovereign."
These were the opinions upon the point of the noble Lord opposite. But the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that he admitted that there were many questions in which the Imperial Legislature must interfere, in which the Colonial-office must interfere, in which the Minister of the Crown must be put above the Local Legislature, and in which the Local Legislature must succumb; but that, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, was only in cases which affected the metropolitan as well as the local interests; but in cases of internal legislation, the power of the Council should be supreme over the Government. Now,

45
would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell him who was to draw the line of distinction, or how that line was to be drawn between objects of local and metropolitan interest? The noble Lord, the Member for London, answered the question:—
"It is now said that internal government is alone intended. But there are some cases of internal government, in which the honour of the Crown, or the faith of Parliament, or the safety of the State, are so seriously involved, that it would not be possible for Her Majesty to delegate her authority to a Minister in a Colony. I will put for illustration some of the cases which have occurred in that very province where the petition for a responsible Executive first arose—I mean Lower Canada. During the time when a large majority of the Assembly) of Lower Canada followed M. Papineau as their leader, it was obviously the aim of that gentleman to discourage all who did their duty to the Crown within the province, and to deter all. who should resort to Canada with British habits and feelings from without. I need not say that it would have been impossible for any Minister to support, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the measures which a Ministry headed by M. Papineau, would have imposed upon the Governor of Lower Canada: British officers punished for doing their duty; British emigrants defrauded of their property; British merchants discouraged in their lawful pursuits, would have loudly appealed to Parliament against the Canadian Ministry, and would have demanded protection."
He made no apology for quoting from this despatch, because it laid down broadly principles in which he concurred. The noble Lord went on to say,—
"The principle once sanctioned, no one can say how soon its application might be dangerous, or even dishonourable, while all will agree that to recall the power thus conceded would be impossible. While I thus see insuperable objections to the adoption of the principle as it has been stated, I see little or none to the practical views of Colonial Government recommended by Lord Durham, as I understand them. The Queen's Government have no desire to thwart the Representative Assemblies of British North America in their meaures of reform and improvement. They have no wish to make those provinces the resource for patronage at home. They are earnestly intent on giving to the talent and character of leading persons in the Colonies, advantages similar to those which talent and character, employed in the public service, obtain in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty has no desire to maintain any system of policy among Her North American subjects which opinion condemns. In receiving the Queen's commands, therefore, to protest against any declaration at variance with the honour of the Crown and
46
the unity of the empire, I am at the same time instructed to announce Her Majesty's gracious intention to look to the affectionate attachment of her people in North America, as the best security for permanent dominion."
The noble Lord subsequently observed,
"While I have thus cautioned you against any declaration from which dangerous consequences might hereafter flow, and instructed you as to the general line of your conduct, it may be said that I have not drawn any specific line beyond which the power of the Governor on the one hand, and the privileges of the Assembly on the other, ought not to extend. But this must be the case in any mixed government. Every political constitution in which different bodies share the supreme power, is only enabled to exist by the forbearance of those among whom this power is distributed. In this respect the example of England may well be imitated. The Sovereign using the prerogative of the Crown to the utmost extent, and the House of Commons exerting its power of the purse, to carry all its resolutions into immediate effect, would produce confusion in the country in less than a twelvemonth. So in a colony; the Governor thwarting every legitimate proposition of the Assembly; and the Assembly continually recurring to its power of refusing supplies, can but disturb all political relations, embarrass trade, and retard the prosperity of the people. Each must exercise a wise moderation. The Governor must only oppose the wishes of the Assembly where the honour of the Crown or the interests of the empire are deeply concerned; and the Assembly must be ready to Modify some of its measures for the sake of harmony, and from a reverent attachment to the authority of Great Britain."
He much lamented that in the exercise of his discretion Mr. Poulett Thomson had not thought it necessary to lay before the Legislature of Canada this clear and explicit despatch. Had he done so, and had he also communicated to the Colonial Legislature that despatch, dated two days afterward, in which the noble Lord laid down clear regulations for the tenure of political office, and in which he stated that the tenure of office was to be dependent upon those holding it maintaining the confidence of the Assembly — he | thought that much misrepresentation and misconception might have been prevented. But the hon. and learned Gentleman asked him whether he concurred in the views which were taken by Sir Charles Metcalfe on the subject of responsible government, and the hon. and learned Gentleman begged him to state especially to the House, the principle of responsible government as he understood it. He

47
would endeavour to do so; he understood by responsible government that the Administration of Canada was to be carried on by heads of departments enjoying the confidence of the people of Canada—enjoying the confidence of the Legislature of Canada for the due exercise of the functions of their departments; and more, that the Governor in preparing and introducing with their sanction, legislative measures to the Colonial Parliament, was to be guided by the advice of those whom he had called to his councils; that he was to introduce measures upon their advice, and upon the advice and information of the local authorities throughout the kingdom, taking the responsibility of conducting them through the Colonial Legislature. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman asked this, whether he meant by responsible government that the Governor was to be a mere machine—a passive instrument in the hands of the Executive Council, or of any other different body—he replied that he did not so understand it. He quite well understood to what that led; but he did not understand that it was a constitutional method of governing a British Colony. He therefore approved of the discretion exercised by Sir C. Metcalfe in refusing his consent to a proposition which bound him in every respect to the will and pleasure of the Executive Council. But Sir C. Metcalfe had signified his adherence to that principle which the hon. and learned Gentleman desired to see established as the basis of Canadian Administration. The Resolution of the 3rd of September, 1841, bore upon the face of it that the head of the Executive Government, being the representative of the Sovereign, was responsible to the Imperial authority alone, but that the internal management of local affairs could only be conducted by and with the assistance of the Council and the subordinate officers of the province. He did not now enter into the question of whether responsible government were or were not likely to be conducive to the prosperity and welfare of Canada—whether it were most likely to enlist in the ranks of a Government the greatest number of men of talent, honour, integrity, and station. The principle had been fully recognised on the part of Government, both here and in Canada; and it was upon the principle of that recognition that Sir C. Metcalfe had
48
avowed his determination to conduct the Government of that Colony. But what did this Resolution state? That the Governor General was responsible to the Imperial authority alone. Responsible! For what? The doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman would leave him no responsibility, for it would leave him neither power, authority, nor discretion—a mere instrument in the hands of the Executive Council, nominated by the dominant party in the province—and yet, forsooth, that Governor General, who was to be at the feet of the Executive Council —itself the organ of the dominant power of the day—that Governor General was to be solely responsible to the Imperial authority. Why this was a practical absurdity. Taking the principle as he interpreted it, it was to be exercised with mutual forbearance and good sense, neither party straining their powers, but making concessions to the wishes of the other. Interpreting the principle in this way, it was possible—nay, it was not difficult—successfully to administer the affairs of Canada by its application. But taking it as urged by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it was a mere absurdity. Without power there could be no responsibility. Yet the hon. Gentleman proposed to take away all power from the Governor, and then mock the Government at home by calling him responsible to it. For what was he to be responsible? Not for the exercise of patronage, which the Executive Council would deny him; not for the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, in withholding the assent of the Crown from the measures which he considered dangerous. Well, for what was he to be responsible, if it were not on these two heads—for the proper distribution of the rewards and honours in the power of the Crown to bestow, and for the exercise of that prerogative of the Crown which consisted in interposing the authority of the Crown with respect to certain acts of the Legislature. Both of these powers the Council withheld from the Governor General, and not only withheld, but they claimed that as to one of them he should declare by an instrument under his own hands that he for one surrendered it—that that demand was made, he presumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny. [Mr. Roebuck: There was no proof of it at all.] Yes, but there was; the Governor General had

49
made the statement in the House of Assembly, and in the presence of the Executive Council; and it had never been contradicted from that day to this. This statement was made under very remarkable circumstances, too. The Executive Council had furnished to the Governor a statement in writing, of the grounds which they intended to state in the Legislative Assembly, as having acted upon, and the Governor was obliged to enter a protest against its accuracy, and the statement which he had made through his representation in the Assembly, in the presence of the Executive Council, was not repudiated by any of them. At the time of this discussion, and when the demand in question was made, the Governor wrote to inform him of what had taken place, and that he had subsequently four or five hours' conversation with the Executive Council the following day. He wrote back, that approving of the course which he had taken in accepting the resignation of the Executive Council, he regretted that he had not required that the demand when made had not been reduced to writing and laid before the House. And for this reason, that he thought the effect of his subsequent conversation with the Council would have led some of the Members to change the issue of the question, and to put forth statements, as to the causes of their resignations, varying from the fact on which their resignations had been formerly tendered and received. He had stated that he thought this would be the case, and within two days after the despatch had been sent out, he had from the Governor General an account that his anticipation was correct—that the Executive Council had circulated incorrect statements of what had passed, and that he had been compelled publicly to contradict them. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked of the Governor General not having exercised patronage in accordance with the wishes of the Executive Government. In May last he had seen reason to anticipate the nature of the demands which would be made on him, and he wrote as follows:—
"I am required to give myself up entirely to the Council; to submit absolutely to their discretion; to have no judgment of my own: to bestow the patronage of the Government exclusively on their partisans; to proscribe their opponents, and to make some public and unequivocal declaration of my adhesion to these
50
conditions, involving the complete nullification of Her Majesty's Government."
The Governor General wrote again on the 26th of December last year, in the following strain:—
"The facts of the case are, that I scarcely ever heard of a vacancy, except by a nomination from them for a succession; that I rarely made an appointment otherwise than on their recommendation; and that I do not recollect a single instance in which I made an appointment without being previously made acquainted with their sentiments regarding it. I certainly did not consider myself absolutely bound to consult them regarding every appointment, nor to surrender my judgment to their party views; and when a demand was made that I should surrender Her Majesty's Government, I decidedly refused. But, practically, they had more than they could desire, and not only had the means of expressing their opinion on every appointment about to be made, but had actually most appointments given away on their recommendation. Were I endeavouring to account to your Lordship for my exercise of patronage, I should be much more fearful of being found guilty of too much consideration for the Council, than of too rigid a maintenance of the prerogative of the Crown."
Now, as to Canadian patronage, let not the House run away with the idea that it was a question in which the Colonial Government or the Government at home were interested. Long since, the whole of the patronage of the Crown in North America had been placed in the hands of the Governor; and for himself he could say that he had not had the distribution of 50 l. worth of patronage in North America since he had held the reins of office. All the appointments had been made, on recommendations of the Governor General, from residents in the Colonies; and he declared that since he held office he had never, by instruction, recommendation, hint, or suggestion, interfered, directly or indirectly, with any appointment which had or had not been made in Canada. Do not let the hon. and learned Gentleman tell him that the distribution of patronage, in a country like Canada, is of such little importance that it might be safely, or could be wisely entrusted to the absolute discretion of the dominant political party of the day. He doubted whether it was for the advantage of any small community—he was sure it was not for the advantage of a colony—that political patronage should be dispensed as a reward for political subserviency. Let him illus-

51
trate the principle. Take a judicial office; in all small communities, and in colonies, the leading men were very frequently gentlemen of the legal profession. They were generally found near the seat of Government; they were often men of superior education, and of some leisure—men, too, whose attendance upon Government did not materially interfere with their professional pursuits. Therefore such persons generally formed a very large proportion of colonial legislatures, and had great influence in them. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman think that that was a class of persons from among whom judicial offices should be filled at the recommendation of a Council composed of the same general materials? Judicial offices were the best paid, and rightly so—they were among the highest prizes which talent in the Colonies generally struggled for. Now, did the hon. Gentleman think it advisable to hold out judicial offices as a reward for political partizanship? He confessed, that in a small community, a principle more likely to tarnish the sources of justice, and to destroy the confidence of the people in the administration of the law, he could not conceive. Judicial patronage, on the other hand, was safely vested in the discretion of the Governor General, exercising the influence of the Crown. But suppose a case should occur, in which the rivalry of races should spring up, and compose the elements of party dispute. Suppose it should so happen, in the mutability of affairs in Canada, that the British party, to the exclusion of the French party, should attain political power—did the hon. and learned Gentleman think that it be would be right, or safe, or wise, that a dominant political party, so constituted, should have the power of excluding from all office, of whatever description, the whole of the French population, as being connected with their political enemies? Did he think that the minority, whether it were Tory, Radical, English or French, or whatever it were—did he not think that it would have a better chance of fait play in the distribution of patronage, when that patronage was vested in the hands of the Governor General, than it would have if it were in the power of their political opponents. But he would go further. Suppose an Administration, formed mainly of those persons who had been, to say the least of it, lukewarm when that Colony
52
was in danger of being wrested from the Mother Country—some of whom might have given a tacit encouragement to those who wished for the separation,—suppose that the Legislature so constituted, and the Administration so formed, had the absolute disposal of the patronage of the Crown—did the hon. Gentleman think it would be consistent with the dignity, the honour—to use his own phrase—the metropolitan interests of the Crown, that the patronage should be in the hands of such an Administration, and should be used to reward the very men who in the hour of peril had hung back, and to proscribe and drive out of the service of the country all who in the hour of peril had come forward to maintain the Union of the Colony with England? And did the hon. Gentleman think that it would be wise or consistent with the honour of the Crown, that such rewards and privileges in the one instance, and such proscriptions in the other, should be in the one case conferred, in the other inflicted, not in the name of the Legislature of the province, but in the name of the Crown—that the Crown should confer honour and rewards upon those who had favoured the curtailment of its dominions on the one hand, and should inflict proscription upon those who had wished to maintain their integrity on the other? He did not know what the House would think of this. Yes, perhaps he did know what it would think of such a plan: but this he did know, that sooner than submit to such a demand, there was no privation, no sacrifice to which the Governor General would not first succumb. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that Sir Charles Metcalfe was unfortunately not educated for the service of a free country. What! Sir Charles Metcalfe! Was he a man of extreme opinions—a favourer of absolute and despotic Government—was he a man unpractised in public affairs—with no prudence or discretion—of stern and repulsive manners— hostile to popular institutions, and willing to be an instrument for their subversion? Those who knew anything about Sir Charles Metcalfe, knew that he was precisely the opposite of all this—that he was a man not a supporter of the present Government—of liberal views in political matters —practised in public business—having passed a long and honourable career in two important portions of the British Empire— into one of which—into India—he had

53
introduced the liberty of the press. It was known to all who knew Sir Charles Metcalfe that he was a man of the most sociable, the most unassuming, the most courteous manners—of the most princely liberality in pecuniary matters—a man so far from being unfit to conduct affairs of Government by means of a representative assembly, that he had been selected by the late Government to go to the Island of Jamaica to deal with the legislative body there, which was at that moment in such a state of jarring hostility to the Home Government, that it had been attempted utterly to do away with it as an unfit instrument for the regulation of the country over which it was called to preside. He repeated, that he was sent out not for the hatred he bore to free institutions, or the resistance which he was likely to oppose to the demands of a popular assembly— and what was the result? In the course of two years he rescued Jamaica from a state of discontent and distraction, and placed it in a condition of perfect harmony and contentment, in which state, brought about be it remembered by the wise, liberal, and conciliatory policy of Sir Charles Metcalfe, that colony had remained from that day to this. That is the man, continued the noble Lord, whom the hon. and learned Gentleman (I believe he is the only man in the House that would use the expression) says, was unfortunately brought up for the management of affairs in Canada. I feel I owe considerable apology to the House for having on this subject—this most important subject—trespassed at considerable length, and I fear, it will be necessary to draw somewhat further on its attention, as I wish not to leave unanswered any statement of the hon. Gentleman, or to treat it with a want of frankness and explicitness. The hon. Gentleman says, that Sir C. Metcalfe never explained what he means by responsible government. I must say, of all the charges made against Sir C. Metcalfe, that was one I heard with most astonishment. Has the House or the hon. Gentleman ever heard Sir C. Metcalfe's answer to the Address from the Town Council of Gore on the subject? If not, I will take the liberty of reading it; and I think, after hearing it, the hon. Gentleman and the House will admit, that on this point, Sir C. Metcalfe has been tolerably explicit.
54
"With reference, (said Sir Charles) to your views of responsible Government, I cannot tell you how far I concur in them without knowing your meaning, which is not distinctly stated. If you mean that the Governor is to have no exercise of his own judgment in the administration of the Government, and is to be a mere tool in the hands of the Council, then I totally disagree with you. That is a condition to which I can never submit, and which Her Majesty's Government, in my opinion, never can sanction. If you mean that every word and deed of the Governor is to be previously submitted for the advice of the Council, then you propose, what, besides being unnecessary and useless, is utterly impossible, consistently with the due despatch of business. If you mean that the patronage of the Crown is to be surrendered for exclusive party purposes to the Council, instead of being distributed to reward merit, to meet just claims, and to promote the efficiency of the public service, then we are again at issue. Such a surrender of the prerogative of the Crown is, in my opinion, incompatible with the existence of a British Colony. If you mean that the Governor is an irresponsible officer who can, without responsibility, adopt the advice of the Council, then you are, I conceive, entirely in error. The undisputed functions of the Governor are such, that he is not only one of the hardest-worked servants of the Colony, but also has more responsibilities than any other officer in it. He is responsible to the Crown, and the Parliament, and the people of the Mother country, for every act that he performs, or suffers to be done, whether it originates with himself, or is adopted on the advice of others. He could not divest himself of that responsibility by pleading the advice of the Council. He is also virtually responsible to the people of this Colony, and practically more so than even to the Mother Country. Every day proves it, and no resolutions can make it otherwise. But if, instead of meaning any of the above-stated impossibilities, you mean that the government should be administered according to the well-understood wishes and interests of the people; that the resolutions of September, 1841, should be faithfully adherred to; that it should be competent to the Council to offer advice on all occasions, whether as to patronage or otherwise; and that the Governor should receive it with the attention due to his constitutional advisers, and consult with them in all cases of adequate importance; that there should be a cordial co-operation and sympathy between him and them; that the Council should be responsible to the provincial Parliament and the people; and that when the acts of the Governor are such as they do not choose to be responsible for, they should be at liberty to resign—then I entirely agree with you, and see no impracticability in carrying on responsible government in a colony on that footing, provided that the respective parties engaged in the un-

55
dertaking be guided by moderation, honest purpose, common sense, and equitable minds devoid of party spirit. As you have considerately tendered to me your advice in the supposition that I stood in need of it, I trust that I may, without offence, offer some counsel in return. You have all the essentials of responsible government. Keep it. Cling to it. Do not throw it away by grasping at impossibilities. Do not lose the substance by snatching at the shadow. You desire to perpetuate your union with the British empire. Do not imagine that this purpose can be promoted by obstructing Her Majesty's Government in order to reduce its authority to a nullity. You have every privilege freely granted that is compatible with the maintenance of that union. Her Majesty's Government has no inclination to exercise an unnecessary interference in your local affairs; but can never consent to the prostration of the honour and dignity of the Crown, and I cannot be the traitor that would sign the death warrant of British connection. Cherish responsible government and British connection. Let them work together in harmony and unison in a practicable manner. Let no man put them asunder, but do not pursue a course that must destroy one or the other, or both. This advice is offered with perfect sincerity by a friend, whose only interest in the counsel that he gives, is an anxious desire to secure the welfare of Canada and the integrity of the British empire."
There is the opinion, advice, and declaration of Sir C. Metcalfe, as to his view of responsible government, as regards the happiness of the people of Canada. Observe with regard to the distribution of patronage, no single act has been laid to his charge; no single appointment has been objected to by the Council; no appointment has been up to this day questioned on the ground of propriety, fitness, or even as prejudicial to party interests; no one legislative or administrative act has been called in question by that Executive Council, which has abandoned Sir C. Metcalfe in the midst of his difficulties. No act has been charged against him—yes, there is one—that he reserved for the consideration of the Crown an Act which he permitted them to introduce. That Act was against secret societies. It was directed by the party in power against a party obnoxious to it—I mean the Orange party. I have no sympathy whatever with that party. I believe that any advantage derived from the loyalty they profess, and which I believe they sincerely feel, is more than counter-balanced by the religious animosities and political dissensions which as a body they excite. I repeat, I have no sympathy with Orange lodges, and I regret their existence in Ca-
56
nada and elsewhere. But the Council pressed on Sir C. Metcalfe, that he should pass not an act, but that on his own authority he should give effect to an act analogous to the party processions of this country, and which would have the effect of virtually proscribing every person that belonged to an Orange society. Sir C. Metcalfe, well knowing that amongst that body—whatever be their errors—and he is as little disposed as I am to lean to them —there are many loyal, faithful, and devoted subjects of the Crown refused, on the part of the Executive, to take any harsh or arbitrary measure, which should go to the verge of legality, for the purpose of suppressing that institution. They next pressed for the introduction of a Bill. Sir C. Metcalfe's answer was, if anything was to be done in the matter, he should infinitely prefer legislation. A Bill was introduced, and in its progress it was repeatedly and constantly objected to by Sir C. Metcalfe, as containing arbitrary provisions of an oppressive and unconstitutional character, and as being one to which he felt the strongest objection. And I do not think the House will be of opinion that these terms were too strong, when I state the leading provisions of that Bill. Every Orangeman was declared by the Bill incapable of holding municipal or civil office, o serving in the militia, or of serving as jurors when challenged. Every person holding office was to make affidavit that he was not an Orangeman, and penalties of the severest character were inflicted for holding office without making such an affidavit. In the last place, the furniture was to be sold and license forfeited of any public house in which a lodge was held. What did the Governor do? He had the power of assenting to any Act in the name of the Crown, leaving it to the Crown to disallow his decision if it were thought proper. He has the power, and, according to his instructions, he was bound to cause any Bill of an extraordinary or unusual character to be reserved for the signification of the Queen's pleasure: the effect of which was, that such a measure should not become law until the Crown in person signified its assent or dissent. The course he took was pursuant to his instructions. He reserved the Bill for the signification of the Queen's pleasure, in order to leave to the constitutional advisers of the Crown the discretion of exercising that preroga-

57
tive which he felt too weighty to take on himself. And that was the single executive administrative or legislative act with which the Council found fault, and that on the ground that the exercise of the prerogative should be controlled by the advice of the very party to the passing of this Bill. Could a more complete, entire, and absolute surrender be demanded, not of the power of the Governor General, but of the prerogative of the Crown? But the hon. Gentleman canvassed various proceedings of Lord Sydenham in altering the limits of Montreal. I will not go into the motives of Lord Sydenham, or throw out, like the hon. Gentleman, charges of fraud and corruption of all kinds, for an act which at that time the Governor General was perfectly competent to see effected. But when the Colonial Legislature made complaint of the local distribution of Montreal, which the hon. Gentleman so strongly condemns, did the Governor adhere to the views of Lord Sydenham? Not at all. He promised that the matter should be fairly submitted to the local Legislature as soon as the united Parliament met. They reversed Lord Sydenham's plan, and the Governor, without a moment's hesitation, stated that there was every disposition, as it was a local matter, to adopt the principle decided on by the Legislature. The hon. Gentleman says, that private Bills were passed through this House interfering with the privileges enjoyed by the Canadians. I do not know the circumstances of the particular Bill the hon. Gentleman alludes to, as it was introduced four or five years ago. But this I do know, that the company which I believe was referred to by the hon. Gentleman came to me, asking for powers to amend an Act by the interposition of the British Parliament. The answer I gave them was this: So far as relates to the privileges and powers exercised by you in this country, I do not object to an Act of Parliament; but, mind this, I insist that whatever has been done by the Canadians, this Act shall be of no avail until it has obtained the assent of the Colonial Legislature. So much for the justness of the principle of the hon. Gentleman, when he gave me cautious warnings. The best answer to his prophecies is my conduct on this very Bill. The hon. Gentleman also touched on the important and difficult question of the Civil List of Canada. I am not about to
58
re-open the policy of the re-union of the two provinces; I am not about to question the necessity which Parliament felt of insisting, when the re-union of the provinces was effected, on such a Civil List, for the purpose of carrying on the business of the Government, so as to make the principal officers, by whom it was conducted, independent of an annual vote of the local Legislature—I say for the working of any constitution, that the Civil List should be independent of the annual caprice of the local Legislature as absolutely indispensable to the due administration of justice, and the proper disposal of the business of the State. But I had, in the present year, an address laid before me, not from Mr. Hincks, but from the Legislature of the province, complaining of the imposition of a Civil List, and praying for its removal. Perhaps it will not be considered unwarrantably trespassing on the time of the House, if I read my reply. [The noble Lord read his despatch. It was to the effect that her Majesty heard with regret any objection to an enactment which was intended only to give stability to her rule. That her Majesty would gladly owe the provision of the Civil List to the spontaneous bounty of the Canadians; and that if the Legislature, in concert with the Governor, provided a Civil List adequate to the purposes intended by Parliament, he should gladly introduce a Bill removing any restriction on the finances of the United Provinces.] The hon. Gentleman warned me that the effect of the course I was pursuing was seen by the elections. I was rather surprised that he referred to the election of Montreal as an illustration of the unbiassed and independent feeling of Canada, because my information with regard to those proceedings is so completely at variance with that received by the honourable Gentleman, telling, as it does, of the disturbance which took place; of so many polling-booths closed, not in one district, and on the second day; but in several districts, and on the first day of the election being completely controlled by an organised band of persons, not inhabitants of Montreal, but composed of Irish labourers, brought from the Lachine Canal, which, in order to prevent the possibility of those willing to work taking their places, was destroyed previous to the election—I have, I say, such testimony on that subject, that I, for one, cannot assent to the allegations of the hon. Gen-

59
tleman, founded, no doubt, on the information which he received, or subscribe to the opinion which he expressed, that the election of Montreal indicates in the slightest degree or manner the unbiassed feelings of the people of Canada. The hon. Gentleman calls on us to beware of the course we are taking, and carefully to consider the effect of our measures. I do trust—I have a confident belief, that the moderation, discretion, firmness, conciliatory temper and disposition of Sir G. Metcalfe—his earnest desire to carry on the Government of Canada in accordance with the well understood wishes and views of the people of that province—that his determination to act in accordance with his instructions, to the effect that this country is not disposed to interfere in the local administration of purely internal affairs—and that the honesty, simplicity, and straightforwardness of Sir C. Metcalfe's character will not be without its influence on the feelings of the population. I believe that the clamour raised against him through a misrepresentation of his words, actions, and sentiments, will die away within a limited period; and I do entertain a confident belief that his acting on his own sound and determined views—reconciling the Colonial dependency of the Provinces with the entire responsibility of the Government in local matters, will obtain for Sir C. Metcalfe, in the long run, the concurrence and support of the people. The question for that people to solve is a very grave one. It is one to which I trust they will give their deliberate, their calm, their impartial consideration. Sir, I do not underrate the importance of Canada to the empire. I do not look on it as a source of strength in war—it is more likely to be a source of weakness. It would give us little or no support in an European war, and in case of a war with the United States, which God forbid, it would be our most vulnerable point. In a military point of view, therefore, Canada adds little to the strength of the empire. Indirectly, the connection strengthens us by forming a nursery for our seamen; and, in a commercial point of view, it is of great importance to us, as giving us a command over the inlet and outlet to a great Continent, through a mighty river, which is one of the finest water communications on the globe. Commercially and politically, then, I will not deny that it is of great
60
importance to us; but if the connection be of importance to this country, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether, in his judgment, it is not infinitely more advantageous to the population of Canada? Are they slight advantages which the people of Canada derive from it? They enjoy as free a Government, and, I venture to say, the lightest taxation of any people on the inhabited globe. They have perfect religious freedom. They have, at no cost to them, the naval and military protection of one of the mightiest powers. They have annually an immense expenditure in the shape of Commissariat and other establishments distributed over their territory. They have been enabled during the last year to borrow (while the United States are unable to obtain money at 6 per cent.) from their connection with this country and nothing else, for the improvement of their internal communications, a million and a-half at little, if at all, exceeding 3½ per cent. Canada has an immense indirect expenditure from the establishment of British merchants, and the investment of British capital. I have stated already she has the protection of this country. She has also for her produce (and no inconsiderable addition has lately been made to this advantage) the exclusive benefit of a free admission to the richest market in the world. These are the advantages which Canada possesses through her connection with this country; these are the advantages which Canada must be prepared to sacrifice if a separation should unhappily result. It is for Canada well to consider whether the price she has to pay in the slight and all but nominal subordination to this country is too high a price for the protection, advantages, and substantial benefits conferred on her. But Canada must not expect, as the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think she has a right to expect, that she can at once enjoy the unlimited and entire independence of a separate republic, and the advantages derived from British protection and commerce. I believe the mass of the people of Canada are cordially attached to this country. I believe, when they seriously consider the results of the alternative I have put, they will follow, not the advice of the unprincipled demagogues—bad, rash, and interested counsellors, but take as their guide the liberal, sound, and honest views of the Governor General. I am persuaded, that by the

61
exercise of sound sense and discretion, the people of Canada may long continue to enjoy the advantages she now possesses; and that in connection with, rather than in subordination to this country, she may assume the position of a thriving and happy Colony. [The noble Lord sat down amid loud cheers.]
Mr. Humewould not, after the lengthened discussion which had taken place, do more than notice a few points which had been neglected by the noble Lord, He believed the statement which had been made to the House by the hon. Member for Bath to be perfectly correct. The conduct followed by Sir C. Bagot had given the greatest satisfaction to the people of Canada, and he wished the noble Lord had stated whether he approved of it. He wished to know what it was that had produced the state of discontent and disaffection existing in that Colony. He understood the noble Lord entirely to deny the acts which were charged against the Governor General. With respect to the noble Lord's statement, that the Governor had engaged to administer his patronage in accordance with the sentiments of his Council, that was expressly denied by the resigned Ministers. Sir Charles Bagot had frankly adopted the course of acceding to the demands of the Colonists to possess a responsible government, to manage, in fact, the public affairs by the representatives of the people. On the other hand, the late Ministers of Canada had found it impossible to conduct the Government under Sir Charles Metcalfe, and at the same time give satisfaction to the House of Assembly, and had therefore felt it their duty to resign their offices. He asked any hon. Member who had attended to what had passed in the debate, if he could tell what was the meaning of responsible government? It seemed to be now one thing, now another. It was for the Government, who had approved both Governors General, though acting on entirely different principles, to explain what parts of Sir C. Bagot's conduct they thought peculiarly deserving of approbation. With respect to the course taken by the late Colonial Ministers on the Bill which had led to their resignation, he had no doubt they were in the right, for they appeared to have differed from the Governor on the construction to be attached to the principle of responsible government from the very commence-
62
ment. He greatly deplored the misunderstanding which had taken place; for if there was one man by whom he had expected the people of Canada to be conciliated it was Sir C. Metcalfe. From everything he knew of Sir C. Metcalfe's conduct in India and Jamaica, he had been led to believe his appointment one of the most fortunate that had been made by the Government, and he had thought that if any one could carry on Canadian affairs quietly and harmoniously, Sir C. Metcalfe was the man. Indeed he had no doubt that right hon. Gentleman would have done so had he not been trammelled by the noble Lord. [Lord Stanley: I beg your pardon, he is not.] He had a high opinion of Sir C. Metcalfe, and he had not a high opinion of the noble Lord: therefore, whenever a doubt existed he must be excused for throwing the blame, if blame was to be attached to any one, on the noble Lord's head. It appeared to him utterly impossible that Sir C. Metcalfe could get out of his present difficulties. Responsible government would be a delusion if the noble Lord's interpretation of it were adopted. The Canadians expected that a majority of the House of Assembly should appoint the Ministers of the Governor, as a majority of the House of Commons appointed the Ministers of the Crown. What, he should like to know, would be the feeling of the people of this country if any set of Ministers were to be maintained in power contrary to the opinion of Parliament repeatedly expressed? At this moment Canada was without a single responsible Minister; and if the noble Lord's doctrine were adhered to, the inevitable consequence would be that the Colony would be deprived of even the shadow of popular rights. No one could expect that the Canadians would be contented, unless the Government were conducted as it had been by Sir C. Bagot, and Ministers were allowed to act in unison with the Representative Assembly. Allow this, and you would have a happy and a united Colony; deny it, and the worst consequences might be feared. At present we seemed to be plunging into the same career of misgovernment for which England had already paid so dearly, and which had caused so much misery in our Colonial possessions. In every Government there must be a disposition to conciliate, and no man in the House regretted more than he did the

63
first account he had heard of the resignation of Ministers. He had no hesitation in declaring that he thought they might have waited till some overt act had occurred. [Lord Stanley: "Hear, hear"]. He had stated so at the time, but from the turn which affairs had now taken, he saw no hope if the Government persisted in remaining counter to the wishes of the great mass of the people. He hoped that both parties might be disposed to relax somewhat in their demands, but unless the noble Lord set an example of conciliation, he regarded the prospect as one of the gloomiest kind. Every answer made by the Governor General to the addresses presented to him was of the most inflammatory nature, calculated to stir up disaffection and animosities among every class. He had expected that the conduct of Sir C. Metcalfe would be marked by that forbearance, prudence, and conciliation which had distinguished him in other situations. He knew that the principles of the right hon. Gentleman were in favour of liberty, as he had manifested through a long course of public life; and he was very much disappointed to find that he was in the hands of such imprudent advisers.
Mr. C. Bullersaid no man in the House could feel greater interest than he did in the particular question which had now arisen between the Governor-General of Canada and his Executive Council, though many, perhaps, might feel as strong an interest in the welfare of Canada.' The recommendation of responsible government, or, as he preferred calling it, in a general sense, Parliamentary government, was the main feature of Lord Durham's Report; and though his hon. and learned Friend had insinuated that Lord Durham was not the originator of the idea, but took it from Mackenzie, he could assure the House it was borrowed from no such source. Inquiring into the causes of the disorders of Canada, Lord Durham picked this out from the chaos of Canadian discontent and mismanagement, as that which appeared to him, conversant with the Government and constitutional principles of this country, the main obvious cause of the disaffection, the Executive Government being carried on by persons not possessing the confidence of the Legislature, to which was entrusted the full power of making laws, and the entire control over the public purse. No
64
arguments had ever shaken his conviction, that if you had the power of legislation vested in a Parliament, the plainest and simplest reason dictated that you must place the Executive Government in the hands of those who possessed its confidence. ["Hear."] He need not now refer to the spectacle which the North American Colonies presented at the time when Lord Durham's Report was made, or the anarchy which had prevailed for ten years before. In spite of any difficulties which might have lately occurred, he could not but look with triumph to the success of that recommendation, wherever and in so far as it had been fully and honestly applied. There was no one of the British American Colonies, in which, when acted upon, it had failed to produce perfect harmony between the different branches of the Legislature, and content among the people. He felt confident that any attempt to abandon that principle, and revert to the old system of previous years, would only produce confusion and collision, a stoppage of the machine of Government, and a prostration of that prosperity for which the situation of the British Colonies offered so fair an opening, and in the ultimate result an ignominious and disastrous separation from the Mother Country. These were considerations which should induce every man in this country, and in the Colonies, to pause before they trifled with this question. Personally interested as he was in the recommendation of that principle, in which he had borne his full share, he felt bound to insist that it should be fairly carried out. But while he should resist any attempt to abandon it, he felt it to be equally his duty to resist any attempts from those on the popular side to abuse it, by encroaching on the just and due prerogatives of the Crown. He would not lay down any definition of the principle of responsible government. It seemed to him to be very unwise to attempt to frame too strict a definition of constitutional principles, and still more unwise to put—which was the only fault he could find with the noble Lord—hypothetical cases, in which those principles might be pushed to extremes. Of this there could be no doubt, that in every instance of Parliamentary government, the business of that Government must be carried on by heads of departments, who enjoy the confidence of the executive authority, and of a majority of

65
the Legislative Assembly 5 and no man could seriously think of saying, that in the appointment of every subordinate officer in every county of Canada, the opinion of the Executive Council was to be taken. No man could seriously believe, that any one thought that a revenue officer, in a remote county of Canada, would be appointed by any government, otherwise than by recommendation of the local authorities. No ruler could hope to carry on the business of Government, if he did not take that course; for the local authorities were those alone who could possess the knowledge requisite for giving a sound recommendation in such a case. So far then they were agreed as to the principles upon which Canada ought to be governed; and he might say, that the people of Canada had had the full benefit of those principles; but, he differed from the hon. Members for Bath and Montrose, as to the facts. In the first place, Sir Charles Metcalfe did not violate the principle of responsible government; in the second, he did not turn out his Executive Council; and, in the third, he did not refuse, in the manner stated, the pledge which had been demanded of him. And now, he must say, that he could not perceive the resemblance which had been discovered by some hon. Members who addressed the House between the condition of Canada and that of Great Britain. He could not conceive how any one could insist upon the existence of any such resemblance, or how any one, whether he supposed such a resemblance to exist or not, could think of calling upon the governor of a colony to give a general pledge, that he should, in no case, make any appointment, without the consent of the Executive Council. To call upon the Crown, or upon any representative of the Crown, for any pledge of the sort, appeared to him unheard of. In the present instance the story told was that Sir C. Metcalfe made a great number of appointments, in which he selected the objects of his patronage from amongst the political opponents of the Government, and that it was not until then that they called upon him to promise, that he would not make any further appointments without their consent. Sir Charles very plainly told them, that upon that point he totally differed from them, and thereupon nearly one-half of them resigned. Now, when it was said that a great quan-
66
tity of appointments were disposed of in this way, it was only fair to call upon those who made that statement, to specify one case of this alleged abuse of patronage. A member of the Executive Council thus challenged, did specify a single case; but he was obliged to come down to the House of Assembly the next day, and retract his statement. It was true that the Speakership of the Legislative Assembly—an office which had been compared to that of Lord Chancellor in this country—had been given away contrary to the wishes of the Executive Council. That, it must be acknowledged, if the analogy were correct, was a case of the very gravest importance. Let he House only suppose, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government met any one in the street, who told him that the Queen had appointed his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester (Sir T. Wilde) to the office of Lord Chancellor, would not the right hon. Baronet at once consider that as tantamount to a withdrawal of confidence from his Government? Under such circumstances a Ministry ought to resign at once. The offer of such an appointment to such a man, was a mark of the withdrawal of the Governor General's confidence. That offer was made three or four weeks before the resignation took place; and he really did not believe, that the offer of the appointment was the real cause of their resignation. It was not mentioned in Mr. Baldwin's letter, and he looked upon the complaint rather as an after-thought. The fact then was, that a set of gentlemen resigned, because, as they said, appointments had been made without consulting them; and yet, when called upon to state what those appointments were, they could not mention a single one. The unfortunate consequence of that had been, no doubt, that the Government of Canada had not been filled up satisfactorily—that the Governor General not wishing to throw himself immediately into the hands of his political opponents, had not been able, from amongst his own supporters, satisfactorily to fill up the offices of the Government. But, after all, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bath had rather overstated the mischiefs that had resulted, for many of the offices of the Government had been filled—that of Provincial Secretary, by Mr. Daly; of Attorney Gene-

67
ral, by Mr. Draper; and of Solicitor General of Lower Canada, by Mr. Barnard. His hon. and learned Friend said, that the matter had been settled by the Montreal election, which he did not think was the case; for he knew that there were numerous instances of gentlemen of French origin, who adhered to Sir C. Metcalfe's government. As to the Montreal election, he could not altogether acquit Sir C. Metcalfe of blame upon that head, because he could only attribute it to some neglect in using the powers of the Executive Government in a most material point, inasmuch as he did not put a stop to riots and tumults at elections. His hon. and learned Friend said that those riots had begun in Lower Canada under Lord Sydenham. He believed, on the contrary, that there never was an election there before without the most dreadful riots, which were only settled by the Irish coming in with their sticks and driving out both parties. With respect to the election at Montreal, he could prove that the most unfair practices had been resorted to—that during the first day some of the polling booths were closed—that after the first day not a single agent or poll clerk appeared at the booth of the defeated candidate—and that bad votes were tendered and received. Upon that occasion about 900 French Canadians voted for Mr. Drummond, and about fifteen for the other gentleman. Every respectable voter who went to the poll had his clothes torn from his back, which prevented many respectable people from voting at all, and he believed that not above one-third of the French Canadians of Montreal were polled. That was a very strong indication, he thought, that violence had been employed, especially when that circumstance was coupled with the fact that the military had to be called out, and that the voters went to the poll through a double line of soldiery. His hon. and learned Friend had chosen to consider this as a portion of a crusade upon the part of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, against the principle of responsible government in all the Colonies, and in support of his argument had instanced the case of Nova Scotia. Upon that point he would remind his hon. and learned Friend that Mr. Howe, a gentleman who was highly respected throughout the whole of North America, had stated that the cases of Nova Scotia and of Canada were quite
68
distinct, and that all the difficulties in Canada arose from a bungling Administration. The question of the first importance was, what view would the Canadian people and their Parliament take of this matter. He was firmly convinced, looking at the subject with no bias whatever against the gentlemen who had gone out of office, that the errors in this case were upon the part of those who had quaralled with Sir C. Metcalfe. The question was, what party ought to triumph in this contest, and which must. First, it was for the Canadian Parliament to give a solution of it, and no doubt that question would be much complicated if they were to approve of the conduct of the retiring officers. In that case Sir C. Metcalfe would have the resource of appealing to the constituent body, and despite the Montreal elections he believed that such an appeal would be responded to by the good sense of the electoral body. But in order to give that good sense fair play, one thing must be done in this country, and that was that Parliament should strongly express an opinion as to the question at issue between Sir C. Metcalfe and the Executive Government, and as to the course which the Government and the Parliament were prepared to pursue. The tone adopted by the noble Lord, he must say, would be most satisfactory to the people of Canada, and he believed that it would be so, because he understood that the noble Lord was prepared to support Sir C. Metcalfe; because he understood that the noble Lord's support was not confined to one part, but to the whole of the Governor General's policy — because the noble Lord approved of the marked attention paid by Sir C. Metcalfe to the sound and fair practice of Government, and of his resisting any, the slightest, infringement upon the fair prerogatives of the Crown. His firm belief was, that if it was once fairly stated to the people of Canada that such was the determination of the Legislature and Government of this country, the people of Canada would gravely and seriously consider the consequences of maintaining a contest with this country on grounds so untenable as those which their leaders had taken; and he believed this from looking at the principles involved, because those principles were not exactly of the same moment as they were in this country; they were more important in Canada; they were the

69
safeguards of imperial connexion. If the people of Canada believed that an encroachment on the rights of the Crown was meditated, he believed that their good sense would make them resist any such attempt. Whatever might be the advantages to this country in political and commercial points of view of the connexion with Canada, he believed with the noble Lord that the balance of advantages was infinitely on the side of Canada. He knew by experience what mischief a want of reliance on the good faith of the Government of this country, and on its determination to preserve the connexion with the Colony, had worked, and he believed that the best thing which the Legislature could do would be to take means to strengthen the belief of the people of Canada in that good faith and that determination, and that he considered would best be done by taking measures to support Sir C. Metcalfe in the course he was pursuing. He thought that course would be the best for the security of the Government and the welfare of the people. He believed that Her Majesty's Government could not have made a more wise selection than when they took Sir C. Metcalfe out of the ranks of their political opponents and appointed him to the high office he held, as the man best fitted for it by the experience he had had in colonial government. He believed that it was impossible to find any man better adapted to carry on the Government in a conciliatory as well as a perfectly just and liberal manner.
Lord J. Russellhad been unwilling to give any opinion on this matter, because, on the one hand, the facts on which his judgment was to be formed with respect to the conduct of Sir C. Metcalfe, had been presented to him now for the first time, and, on the other hand, those facts had had very little light thrown on them; but as the question had been brought forward, and as he had been concerned formerly in the affairs of Canada, he did not think it right altogether to be silent. He had been one of those who counselled the appointment of Lord Durham, and he had also been one of those who counselled the appointment of Lord Sydenham. With respect to the principles contained in the Report of Lord Durham, he had concurred in them in the despatch which the noble Lord had quoted, to the extent therein stated; but if what he (Lord J. Russell)
70
there said were taken without sufficient limitations, misapprehensions might be, and perhaps had been created. With respect to Lord Sydenham, he was sure that no man could have been appointed who was so likely to use his faculties for the benefit of the people of Canada, and the maintenance of the connexion with this country. Lord Sydenham, he believed, had been struck with an observation of his (Lord J. Russell's), that there was no place where a man could do so much good to a large portion of his follow-creatures, as in the situation of Governor General of Canada. Lord Sydenham on that account accepted that office, and when he got out devoted his energies to the good of the country. Lord Sydenham possessed great influence with the Assemblies of Canada, chiefly on account of the knowledge which Lord Sydenham possessed of Parliamentary business, and the manner in which free discussion ought to be carried on. The knowledge he had of affairs of trade and commerce was likewise a recommendation. Accordingly, those who were engaged in affairs of state felt that his advice was useful to them, and therefore his opinion had great weight with the Representative Assemblies. Those resolutions which the noble Lord had read to the House were passed by the advice of Lord Sydenham, in opposition to those put forward by Mr. Baldwin. They purported, that the Government could be carried on in accordance with the wishes of the representative body of Canada, but that the Governor General could not divest himself of his duty to the Crown. On those two principles the Government had since been carried on. With respect to Sir C. Bagot, he did not think it at all necessary to recur at length to his conduct in the government. He thought that Sir C. Bagot, in the circumstances in which he was placed, could have done no other than choose the Ministry out of the large majority of the representative body; but he thought that circumstances did occur which certainly tended to weaken the authority of the Governor General in those provinces. It must be remembered, however, that for a long period Sir C. Bagot was suffering under indisposition. When Sir C. Metcalfe was placed in the situation of Governor General of Canada, he declared his adherence to the resolutions of 1841; he declared his adherence to the principles of responsible government, so

71
far as they were applicable to a colony; he continued the Ministry of his predecessor; but he found, but not till after a considerable time had elapsed, a difference of opinion between himself and his Ministry; they required concessions from him, which he considered it not to be consistent with his duty to the Crown to make. The noble Lord had read the terms of those demands, with Sir C. Metcalfe's answer, and he had read also the answer to an address of the people of Gore county, which explained more fully the principles and opinions of Sir C. Metcalfe with reference to the question at issue. Now, in his opinion, taking that view of those demands, and of his duty to the Crown, Sir C. Metcalfe could do no other than resist those demands. It was impossible for Sir C. Metcalfe to consent to the demand, that in all cases, he would bind himself to the Executive Council, to follow their will, and thus make himself a cypher in the Government. If Sir C. Metcalfe had declared that he would in no case take the opinion of the Executive Council as to any appointment that was to be made, he should have thought Sir C. Metcalfe took an erroneous view; but the House had heard to-night, from the noble Lord, that no such thing was the case. The other point in dispute, besides that of the appointments to offices, was with respect to a Bill which had been passed by the Canadian Legislature, and which Bill Sir C. Metcalfe had reserved for Her Majesty's consideration. Now, the House had been told, that on that point of dispute there was a difference of opinion as to the facts. The hon. Member for Montrose said that it was merely a question whether or not a slight was put on the Legislature by reserving the Bill; but if that were so, he could not conceive how that could be made a ground for the resignation of the Members of the Council. If their opinion was, that Sir C. Metcalfe should listen to them and not obey his instructions from England, they took, he must say, an exaggerated view of their own power and importance, to which it was impossible for Sir C. Metcalfe to assent. Taking, then, the high authority of Sir C. Metcalfe for the facts—and there could not be higher authority—it appeared to him that Sir C. Metcalfe was right in the disputes with his late Executive Council; and, looking to the future, he must say it was to him
72
some ground of hope, that the late Executive Council seemed to shrink from the ground that Sir C. Metcalfe stated to have been at first put forward by them; they seemed not now to take up those grounds, but to state that the ground was only the want of that confidence in his Ministers which a Governor General ought to show. If, then, as he hoped, they did not mean to insist on those demands, it would be far easier for the Assembly to come to some agreement than if some great constitutional question were at issue. But he imagined that neither Sir C. Metcalfe, nor any other Governor, would deny that with regard to certain persons appointed to offices, their general conduct towards him, and his towards them, ought to be marked with confidence in all transactions. Therefore he did not take the gloomy view of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, supposing that those persons were not at once replaced. He trusted that the Legislative Assembly of Canada would see that it was far better for them to have men who were likely to carry on the business of the Government solely with a view to the prosperity of the country. The noble Lord had stated, in a way not warranted by the fact, the great advantages which Canada derived from her connection with this country. It was impossible to imagine that Canada could obtain any more advantageous position at any price. Even if she were to become an independent republic, she could not last so but for about six months; and if she were to join the United States, what would become of her independency, and especially of that peculiar regard to her religious establishments which this country had always shown in her connection with Canada. He could not but think, then, that the people of Canada and their representatives would ultimately agree in the appointment of Sir C. Metcalfe; and also that his arrangement with regard to the Executive Council would be for the benefit of Canada. He was sure that they would not improve their situation by endeavouring to deprive the Governor of that authority which was so necessary for the maintenance of the connection between this country and the Colony.
Mr. Trelawnycomplained that the hon. and learned Member for Bath had anticipated a Motion which he had placed upon the Paper, and the House he thought ought to bear in mind the promises which

73
had been made to the people by the Government, and particularly by the noble Lord.
Sir R, Peelsaid, that his noble Friend had so fully stated, and with so much ability, the general views of the Government, with reference to the unfortunate disputes with Canada, that it was wholly unnecessary for him to add anything to his statement, in every word of which he agreed. But, in justice to his own feelings, he could not allow this debate to close without expressing the sentiments which he entertained with respect to that distinguished officer, to whom, at a period of great difficulty, the administration of affairs in Canada was entrusted. For his part, he did not think the Ministers could have given a stronger or a greater practical proof of the principles upon which they desired the Government of Canada to be conducted, than by the selection they had made of Sir C. Metcalfe. He believed he was stating what was exactly the truth when he said, that not one single Member of Her Majesty's present Government was personally acquainted with Sir Charles Metcalfe—he doubted, indeed, whether any one of them had ever seen him until the period when the Government of Canada was offered to him. He was not connected with them either by political or by personal ties; and they disregarded all political claims in their desire to make an appointment to Canada which should be an intimation to the people of that Colony of the principles on which their Government was to be carried on. They selected a man who had been a most distinguished civil officer of the East India Company. They selected a man who had been in the administration of the affairs of a popular Government in Jamaica, and who in that situation had achieved great honour by the moderation and firmness with which he had acted. That was the man to whom the Government of Canada was entrusted. And when he looked back and considered the general tenor of the reports which had been that night alluded to—when he also glanced at the views Sir Charles Metcalfe took of the conduct of all who were concerned in the rebellion—the uniform tenor of his recommendations—his desire to bury in oblivion everything that had passed—his desire that there should be, as far as possible, a complete pacification, and a complete indulgence, as far as was
74
consistent with the administration of the first principles of justice, he must own he was surprised that a more favourable construction of the motives and conduct of Sir Charles Metcalfe had not been adopted. It appeared to him that Sir Charles Metcalfe had been completely in the right in this respect, and that he was entitled to the entire confidence of Her Majesty's Government, and to the fullest support that the Government could afford. As to the proposal that he should bind himself to act upon the recommendation of the Executive Council, whether conveyed in writing or by a tacit understanding, he thought Sir C. Metcalfe would have submitted to a great humiliation if he had consented. The first principle undoubtedly of a representative Government, was that the Sovereign should be guided in making appointments by the advice of the Ministers; but it was quite a different thing whether the Sovereign should adopt the advice of the Ministers, when or whether the Sovereign should contract obligations to act upon all occasions by that advice. In that case the Sovereign would become the slave, instead of the master. But independently of the humiliation, waving altogether the consideration of the question whether or no that obligation was admitted by the Council of Sir C. Metcalfe, it was perfectly right for him in substance to decline such an engagement. There was no analogy between the position of the Governor and the Council of Canada, and the position of the Sovereign and Ministers of this country. The Governor was bound, and he admitted the distinction which had been drawn by the hon. and learned Member for Bath—he thought the Governor of Canada would be unwise who did not in all local matters consult the feelings and opinions of his Council; but then he would say this, that, with respect to all these questions of patronage, he thought that Government in England or in Canada would be mad that sought for the possession of patronage or power, excepting for the benefit of the community. But in his opinion the position of an Executive Council towards a Governor was perfectly distinct from the relation of a Minister towards his Sovereign. The very fact of a Governor standing in a double relation as it were, responsible to his Sovereign, at the same time that it was his duty to defer to the Colonial Legislature,

75
at once established that distinction. But there was another ground also on which, in the case of a Colony, a distinction existed. He thought it might be for the interest of the governed that the Governor should refuse to place himself under the entire control of the Executive Council, and that it was impossible to govern Canada on the same principles on which this country was governed. The greater the population and the more regular the Constitution, the easier was the country governed by party. But in a small community he did not think that party could govern with any advantage. It was possible that there might be a Government connected with the ruling power; and supposing that there was a party possessed of a majority in the House of Assembly, and held the reins of power, that viewed with intolerance the minority, and exhibited a disposition to tyrannies over the Government, he was not certain if in that case the Governor ought to be bound to adopt the recommendations of the predominant party in Canada. He thought the Governor would have a perfect right to say, if an appointment were suggested to him by his responsible Government that was offensive or unjust, as in the case he had supposed, towards the French Canadian party, "I owe a duty to my Sovereign. I am the Governor of the whole population in this country. I must exercise a judgment myself whether that particular appointment be right or not. I think it will be offensive to a considerable party, though that party is a minority of those whom I am sent here to protect." In that case he thought the Governor would be quite justified in rejecting the advice of the Executive Council; and it was because the population was small, and that political asperities and animosities were greater in proportion to the limited amount of population, that he thought it good reason why a Governor representing the Sovereign of England, and bound to administer justice to all, ought to refuse to enter into any such engagement as that which Sir Charles Metcalfe had refused. Reference to-night had been made to promises to the Canadian people; but he trusted they had not shown—he was sure his noble Friend had not shown—any disposition to withhold from the people of Canada the fulfilment of any engagements which, by the Act of Union, or the disposition evinced by Parliament in the course
76
of the discussion of that measure, had been undertaken by this country. He was perfectly satisfied, as he had always said, that the utility of our connexion with Canada must depend upon its being continued with perfect goodwill by the majority of the population, otherwise it would be a source of weakness and discontent. The connexion would be extremely onerous to both parties, unless it were continued with the good-will and kindly affection of the majority of the people. It would be infinitely better that that connection should be discontinued rather than that it should be continued by force and against the general feeling and conviction of the people. He trusted nothing had passed in the course of this night's debate, or in the tolerably unanimous desire which had been manifested to support that most able and distinguished man who, under the pressure of severe suffering and ill health, was now discharging what he felt to be a paramount duty to this country—which would be at all an inducement to the people of Canada to show any feeling of ill-temper or disposition to prolong these unhappy dissensions. He did believe there was a firm determination on the part of Sir C. Metcalfe, he was sure there was on the part of the Government and the Legislature, that the Government of Canada should be a just one; and they would seek for no power or patronage except what was believed to be essential to good government in Canada, and necessary to maintain the connexion between the two countries. It seemed to be the impression on the part of some that a vast majority of the people of Canada were adverse to Sir C. Metcalfe; but, as far as he could collect public opinion in Canada, he believed Sir C. Metcalfe had shown such temper and judgment mixed with firmness, that the ultimate result would be to conciliate the good opinion of the majority of the people of Canada. He had great confidence in his ultimate triumph. Even at the commencement of these discussions, of ninety-three addresses presented to Sir C. Metcalfe, ninety were in favour of his policy, and three against it. He did trust this might be considered an indication that when the present feeling had a little subsided, the deep conviction there must be on the part of the people with reference to the motives of Sir C. Metcalfe would induce them to feel sensible that it would be difficult for any Government of this coun-

77
try to find a successor to Sir C. Metcalfe more competent to administer public affairs, or one who in addition to many admirable qualities was actuated by a sincere desire to promote their interests, and conduct his Government in the mode best calculated to increase their prosperity and confirm their connexion with this country.
Report of Supply brought up and agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.