Sitting of 10 August 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Private Bill Deposits; and Spirit Licences.
Petitions presented. By Mr. DOTTIN, against the Sale of Beer Act.—By Dr. LUSHINGTON, from a place in Kent, against the Encouragement of Idolatry in India.

TRADE WITH FRENCH AFRICA.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, it was not his intention to trouble the House at any length on the motion which he now rose to bring forward, and which he regarded as of very considerable importance to a large class of merchants in this country. His object was to obtain, if possible, the aid of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in improving the state of the negotiations now going on with the government of France relative to the terms on which our commercial intercourse with the possessions of that power in western Africa was conducted. It would probably be known to some hon. Members that

1153
there was a port of some consequence on the north-west coast of Africa called Portendic. Two British merchant ships had been seized by a French vessel of war for trading with that port. In the month of February, 1834, the government of France thought fit to impose a blockade on this part of the coast, under pretence that they were at war with a native tribe, and several vessels engaged in trading with the coast were compelled by the blockading forces to quit their station. The whole commerce of this country, the object of which was, to provide articles of much importance and value to our manufacturers, was in consequence forcibly suspended. It was a point of no small magnitude to ascertain what were the rights of British subjects as to traffic in this part of the globe. Gum and other articles were the staple part of the trade, and were of essential use in some branches of manufacture; yet the trade on which we were dependant for a supply of them was at present in a most precarious and unsatisfactory condition. Before this trade could be carried on so as to be of advantage to this country, and supply the wants of its manufacturers, it was absolutely necessary that the footing on which it stood should be distinctly settled. It appeared, that the French government now claimed an undoubted right to the whole of that extensive territory, which stretched from the mouth of the Senegal northwards, from which the greatest quantity of gum was drawn. They claimed a right to make regulations for those engaged in trade, and to establish blockades whenever it might suit their convenience. It so happened, that the whole of this district of country, formerly belonged to Great Britain, being secured to it by the treaty of Versailles in 1763. It was afterwards transferred to France by the treaty of 1783, but with an express declaration, that there should be reserved to the merchants of this country, a perfect right to trade in gum. In 1792 Great Britain again acquired Senegal, and the coast where these disturbances of which he complained had arisen, but by the treaty of 1814, France was reinstated in the possession of all her colonies and fisheries on the African coast. A question had however arisen, whether France possessed a valid territorial right over those districts which she possessed prior to 1792. It was not his intention to enter at length into this subject, of the difficulty of which and its importance to British interests he
1154
was fully sensible; but, whatever might be the right of the French government to the place at which the seizure was made, it could not be maintained for a moment that they were justified in taking forcible possession without the slightest previous notice of two British ships, bearing the flag of Britain, and in carrying them into a French port, thus depriving the merchants concerned of the benefits which would result from the voyage and exposing the owners of the ships to the loss of their property. One of the pretensions set up by the French Government was so preposterous on the face of it, that he was quite satisfied they would not persist in it: that was, that though the subjects of Britain might have a right to a share in the trade, it ought to be restricted by regulations formed by themselves, which would in fact put an end to all freedom of intercourse with the inhabitants of the coast. There were strong reasons for believing, that the step taken by the French government in declaring a blockade was not a bonâ fide exercise of a belligerent right, but had, in point of fact, been resorted to merely to benefit their own commerce at the expense of ours. He was in possession of the regulations of the French society for carrying on the gum trade, and he found that the price of gum was fixed with express reference to the enforcement of a blockade of the coast, and this without any previous notice of the intentions of the French Government. The nature of the gum trade was peculiar; that important article was only to be procured from three ports in the vicinity of Portendic, all within 100 miles of it; and if the French government were permitted without interference to continue their present measures, the inevitable consequence would be, as had been already in a great measure experienced, the entire stoppage of a valuable branch of British commerce, and of the supply of an article of great importance. He trusted, that the noble Viscount at the head of the Foreign Department would avert this evil by timely and energetic remonstrances, and that he would also obtain the satisfaction of the just demands of the merchants and owners of the vessels seized upon for the losses they had sustained. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for copies or extracts of all correspondence between the British Government and the government of the King of the French concern-

1155
ing seizures made by French authority of British vessels and cargoes on the coast of Africa in 1834 and 1835, and also relating to the blockade imposed by the French government on the coast of Africa at Portendic.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the subject to which his hon. and learned Friend had drawn the attention of the House was undoubtedly one of considerable importance—in the first place, as affecting the interests of a certain number of individuals who had very severely suffered in consequence of the transactions to which the motion related—and next, as bearing upon some questions of international right materially connected with the commercial interests of this country. At the same time, however, that he admitted, that the subject was one which his hon. and learned Friend was perfectly justified in bringing under the consideration of the House, he hoped, on the other hand, that his hon. Friend would feel it would not be consistent with his duty as a Minister of the Crown to consent to the production of the correspondence he had moved for, consisting of unfinished communications and negotiations between this Government and that of France. If the negotiations had terminated in a manner unsatisfactory to the Government of this country, then undoubtedly his hon. and learned Friend would have a good and sufficient ground for calling on Government to produce the correspondence, with the view of founding on it such a motion as he might think fit to submit to Parliament; but it would be a departure from the general practice, and attended with obvious inconvenience to those interests at stake if the whole proceedings of a negotiation yet pending were to be produced. For the same reason it would not be proper for him to state the precise condition in which that negotiation now stood, nor would he enter into any discussion of the several points adverted to by his hon. and learned Friend. He did not think this would be the proper time for him to state to the House the view Government took of the various questions arising out of the treaties concluded with France respecting the commerce of the African coast, as for instance whether the trade at Portendic ought to be carried on under the provisions of the treaty of 1783, or whether that treaty should be considered as no longer in force, having been terminated by the war of 1793, and
1156
not renewed in 1814. These were very material questions, but for the reason he had stated, he would not now discuss them. He could only express his hope, that the French government would not fail to give this question their earliest and most serious consideration, and he was quite sure, there was nothing either in the amount of the sums claimed as compensation for losses or in the character of the local interests affected which should induce the government of France to deny justice to the subjects of this country. From the complicated nature of the questions to be discussed, this negotiation had occupied a considerable time, and would probably occupy more; but he could not but express his belief and expectation, that it would end in a manner satisfactory to both countries.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonwas much disappointed, that the noble Lord had refused to produce the papers moved for. There were individuals whose property had been destroyed to the extent of nearly 100,000 l., so long ago as the year 1835, and whose wrongs were still unredressed. He should not desire the production of the papers if that step would tend to embarrass the negotiations, but he deeply regretted, that the noble Lord had not expressed a stronger opinion as to the justice of the claims made by the sufferers for compensation. British ships had been seized under pretence of a blockade of which no notice had been given. One of the merchants to whom they belonged, hearing of the sailing of a French man-of-war to the African coast, communicated the fact to the noble Lord, and urged the necessity of having an explanation from the French government relative to its destination. The French government being applied to, declared, that there was no intention of establishing any blockade, but, notwithstanding, the blockade was enforced, and British ships seized. Yet it was well known, that while this blockade was established, the French merchants were carrying on an extensive trade on the coast. The French government, he had no doubt, were actuated in what they had done by a desire to get the whole of the gum trade into their own hands, and he was very much afraid from what he had heard, that there was no disposition on their part to meet this question in the spirit of fairness or candour. He trusted, that if it were not settled before the next

1157
Session, his hon. and learned Friend would again bring it before the House. Common justice demanded, that the merchants who had been exposed to unmerited losses should be compensated, and he thought the noble Lord might have been more explicit in declaring his opinion on this point as well as on the general question of our right to trade on the coast.
Dr. Lushington, in reply, said, that he was desirous, that the French government might learn from this public notice of the subject, that where justice ought to be done, the delay of doing that justice amounted, in many cases to a positive injustice. He knew of no pretence upon which the seizures of 1834 could be justified, and he thought the ships and cargoes ought to be delivered up, without delay. With regard to the question of the blockade, he should refrain from expressing his opinion until he saw what was the statement of the French government, the rights they asserted, and the ground on which they sought to rest those rights. At present, however, he should not press his motion, but in the next Session of Parliament, unless the question was satisfactorily settled in the mean time, he should feel it his duty to press more strongly on the House the history of the transactions, and the necessity of affording redress to the parties aggrieved.
Motion withdrawn.

FOREIGN FRUITS.
Captain Woodcalled the attention of the House to the state of the import duties on foreign grapes cherries, pears, &c., brought for consumption into this country and dwelt upon the injustice which would be done the English market-gardeners and growers of fruit for sale, if the reduction to a five per cent. ad valorem duty were to take place as contemplated in the Customs Duties Bill. He asked for a fair protection for the industrious and highly-burdened class who embarked their capital in gardening, which he conceived would be affected by imposing a duty of 30 or 40 per cent., on all foreign table-fruits. This would be doing no more than placing this portion of the community on a footing in point of protection with the manufacturing and agricultural interests. He moved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, in order to take into consideration the Customs' Acts.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that in point of
1158
form, the hon. Gentleman could not proceed in the way he proposed doing, inasmuch as the Customs Duties Bill, which had been passed during the present Session, had not yet received the Royal Assent. The existing duties, therefore, with which the hon. Gentleman could deal, were those of which he himself approved. But even if there were no objection in point of form, he should resist the motion; and for this reason, that the Legislature had already this Session determined to reduce the duties on these articles. The object of the Legislature was to allow these kinds of fruit to be imported at the same rate of duty as other fruits and vegetables, viz., five per cent. He believed there was no real ground of alarm, that the new scale of duties would at all injure the hon. Gentleman's constituents—the market-gardeners in and about London; at all events he was convinced, that their fears were greatly exaggerated. If, however, it should ultimately appear that their interests were injuriously affected by the new rate of duty, he should have no objection, in the next Session of Parliament, to interfere on their behalf.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the House ought not to entertain this bill; but if it did entertain it, still the hon. Gentleman would not obtain his object, which was to give his constituents a monopoly of the London market, unless he went further and introduced a measure to prevent fruit being brought from distant parts of the country to London by the railways.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that he thought an address ought to be presented to her Majesty, to call the House together in the month of November, to take the subject of the corn-laws into consideration; for he believed, that the corn harvest would be of a nature that would require very considerable attention on the part of the Legislature. And when the subject of corn was taken into consideration, they might perhaps look into the question of apples and pears at the same time. He thought the Government would soon have to consider, rather whether the people were likely to have anything to cover their pies with, than apples to put in them.
Mr. Villiersagreed with hon. Members, that the corn-laws had answered the purposes for which they were passed, and he thought that the hon. Member had well chosen the moment to make that observa-

1159
tion. What was that purpose? To raise the price of food, in order to raise the rent of land, with the view to a profitable monopoly to the owners of land, in utter disregard and neglect of the wants and interests of the rest of the community; and this was the moment to call their attention to that object, when wheat had sold in some places, as he was informed, for 80 s. a-quarter, and when most men expected, with the prospects of a bad harvest, and the known scarcity on the continent, that it would reach 100 s. before the end of the year. The corn-laws were, indeed, then answering their purpose, and working well as it was called. And this was the time when a county Member came forward to ask them to raise the duties on other artiticles of necessary consumption, to afford further protection to the produce of land. He hoped the public would ponder well upon this attempt, and consider the prospects which were offered to them by this House. The hon. Member complained, that his constituents were unjustly treated, because they had not the same protection as other interests; and he said, that all he demanded, without reference to the principle of free trade, was, that while there was to be protection, that it should be extended equally to all, and that one interest should not receive more protection than another. Why, did the hon. Member know, that it was of that very inequality of the protection given to landowners which he supported, as compared with every other interest, that the public had so much reason to complain, and that while no interest received a protection of more than 30 per cent., and many not more than 10 per cent., that the landowners were enjoying a protection of 80, 90, or 100 per cent.? Let him, then, tell his constituents, who have urged him to moot this matter, why the House give no credit to his advocacy of the principle of equality of protection, when it is known that he is a supporter of the corn-laws. Let his constituents tell him to vote for an alteration of those laws, and, if he succeed, then they will have little reason to complain of the reduction of duty on foreign fruit, and will at least be in a situation to demand equal justice for themselves; but as a supporter of a monopoly of the very worst kind, he came with a poor face to demand favour against the public for his constituents. Be was astonished that the hon. Member should, at this particular
1160
moment, have thought it right to propose anything so prejudicial to the community, oppressed and suffering as they were from the corn-laws. He hoped, however, it would have the effect of increasing the interest which that subject was at this moment necessarily exciting in the public mind. He was glad to think, that the forms of the House prevented the hon. Member persevering in his schemes, which must be so injurious to the public at large.
Mr. M. Philipsthought it would have been just as reasonable to have called for the imposition of a higher duty on foreign corn, as on the articles mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's motion.
Captain Woodbriefly replied, and said, that all he required was, to put the market-gardeners on the same footing as the manufacturers, by affording them a protection of 30 per cent. duty on the importation of foreign fruit.
Motion negatived.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal assent:—Stamp Dies; Juvenile Offenders; Slave Trade (Sicily); Slave Trade (Tuscany); Affirmations; Recovery of Tenements; Custody of Insane Persons (England); Constables on Public Works; Hackney Carriages (Metropolis); Bank of Ireland Repayment; Loan Societies (Ireland); Fisheries (Ireland); Schools (Scotland); Liverpool Clergy Endowments; and Church Rebuilding Amendment.—Read a first time:—Spirit Licences (Ireland) Suspension.—Read a second time:—Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.—Read a third time:—Militia Pay; Militia Ballot Suspension; Mails on Railways; Mediterranean Postage; and Joint Stock-Bank.
Petitions presented. By Lord ELLENDOROUGH, from an Individual, in favour of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill.—By the Bishop of HEREFORD, from Fermanagh, against Encouragement to Idolatry in India.—By Lord REDESDALF, from Sidmouth, in favour of a further Grant to the Church of Upper Canada.

EDINBURGH MAGISTRACY.
The Earl of Haddingtonrose, pursuant to no-

1123
tice, to call the attention of the House to the case of certain persons recently appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the city of Edinburgh, and he could assure their Lordships, that he would not have taken up their time at that late period of the Session, if he had not considered this case to be a real grievance, and to present grounds of just complaint. An addition had been made to the number of the magistracy for the city of Edinburgh to the amount of ninety-one, and these, with the persons previously in the commission and official personages, made 187 justices for a population of 150,000 persons. He knew not why this immense array of justice should have been provided. There was little or nothing to do, all the regular business being fully discharged by the magistrates of the city and the sheriff of the county; and he had some right to complain of the selection made; that of the ninety-one lately appointed, eighty-seven were notoriously Whigs or Radicals, and four only Tories. Their Lordships were aware, that party spirit ran very high in Edinburgh, and it was assuredly the object of a wise Government not to inflame that party spirit; but no course could have been pursued so likely to excite and increase it, as to make a Commission of the Peace, which, on the face of it, appeared to favour a party that had returned as its particular representatives to Parliament, the right hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the hon. and learned Attorney-general. He understood that the persons who had been thus placed in the commission, were notorious retainers and canvassers for those honorable persons; and further, that many individuals had been left out whom it would have been natural to select for filling the honorary office. Of the entire magistracy, 100 were what were called merchants, although the greater part of these were merely shopkeepers of a respectable class, and only fourteen of them were Conservatives. In a city containing a great number of bankers, the commission contained the names of only three, one of whom only was a Conservative; and there were twelve advocates, of whom only two were Conservatives. Of the 155 magistrates, exclusive of official persons, who, being most of them connected with the town council of Edinburgh, were generally of the same political opinions with the present Government, twenty-five were Con-
1124
servatives, and 130 Whigs and Radicals. He did the noble and learned Lord the justice to believe, that what he was now stating was new to him; for he could not believe, if the noble and learned Lord had known that a political list of this sort had been returned to him, he would have given it the sanction of the great seal. The city of Edinburgh, as regarded party feeling, had been tested not merely by the Parliamentary, but by the municipal elections, and he should have expected, that a recommendation coming from the chief magistrate, as lord-lieutenant of the county and city, was one which would have been strictly inquired into. If the noble and learned Lord had not instituted an inquiry as to that list, he must say, that he had not discharged his duty; but at whatever door the blame might lie, this partiality was calculated to produce the greatest mischief. If these justices were to be of any use at all, it must be at a time of considerable riot and confusion; and, at such a time, it was highly desirable, that the inhabitants of the town should have full confidence in their magistrates; and with their feelings excited and inflamed by such a list, it was scarcely to be expected, that they would entertain that necessary degree of confidence in those magistrates; for there was no doubt, that a decided majority of the respectable inhabitants of that city entertained the same political opinions with the majority in that House. He should, therefore, move, for copies of the correspondence on the subject of these appointments between the Lord Provost of Edinburgh and the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble Earl did him no more than justice in supposing, that he would reject any list which he knew to be framed at all upon the principle of exclusion. He had no knowledge himself of the facts of the case; no complaint had ever been made to him of the persons so appointed, nor had he ever received any application from others claiming to be inserted. A list had been submitted to him by the Lord Provost, in the month of October or November last, and he had written in reply to state, that the names in the Lord Provost's list would be inserted in the new commission. He had acted on the recommendation of the lord-lieutenant of the county of the town of Edinburgh, and he had received no complaint either before or since that time.

1125
He had now stated the whole of the correspondence, and the noble Earl might take any further steps he thought proper; but he could not enter at all into the description given of these persons as being Whigs and Radicals, because he knew nothing at all about that.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, though his noble and learned Friend had received no complaint, he had received very great complaints from the highest authorities in Edinburgh, and he could assure their Lordships, that a very strong feeling existed in that city on this subject. His noble and learned Friend was rather unfortunate in his appointment of magistrates. In England, when the lord-lieutenant happened to be a Conservative in polities, the commission was kept back a considerable time, and minute inquiries were made, and ultimately a list was presented, containing many names which a lord-lieutenant would never have presented, and which were introduced contrary to his opinion. But when they went to Scotland, to a county where the lord-lieutenant happened to be a Whig—what took place then? Two persons were suggested, both of whom notoriously had been guilty of fraud, and one of them was in a low station of life; but, in that case, so little inquiry was made, that though, with their own consent, they had been convicted of fraud, those persons were inserted in the commission. On a former discussion, the noble and learned Lord had laid down a doctrine to which he would, by no means, give his consent, and it was to the effect, that if there were a certain number of Conservatives in the commission, it was expedient to add the names of some Radicals, for the purpose of creating a balance between the parties, so that justice might be administered fairly and without passion; and that doctrine had been followed by the noble Baron, Lord Holland, who said, that if he found a certain number of persons members of the Church of England in the commission, he should feel it his duty to introduce a corresponding number of Dissenters for the same purpose of keeping the balance even. Now, what system could be more abominable than that? But let them mark the consistency of his noble and learned Friend. His noble and learned Friend had looked at the old commission for the city of Edinburgh, and he found there forty-four Whigs and twenty-one
1126
Conservatives. What, then, ought he to have done on his own principle? Why, he ought to have added twenty Conservatives. But what did he do? Why, he added eighty-seven Whigs and Radicals. His noble and learned Friend asked, innocently enough, how could he tell whether they were Whigs or Conservatives; how was it known what their politics were? They knew it by the poll-books—a pretty good test—they knew it by their being actively employed as partisans in the sharp contests which had taken place in that city. Whether they were Whigs or Radicals it might be now difficult to discover. Indeed, the only difference seemed to be this—that he who was a Whig in office became a Radical when he went out. He wanted to know, why his noble and learned Friend had not acted on his own principle of keeping the balance even, instead of throwing the whole weight so extravagantly on one side. They would not have complained of anything in moderation; but this was so extravagant—eighty-seven to three by way of a balance! This was really too bad. He had no doubt, it was not intentional on the part of his noble and learned Friend, who was not aware when he was guilty of partiality, or how far his judgment was influenced by his private feelings; for whether he was appointing trustees or justices, no doubt, he intended to do that which was just and proper; but, in the end, it generally turned out, that Radicals were appointed.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that with respect to the appointment of trustees, in very few cases indeed had the decision of the Master been altered, and the cases in which that had taken place afforded no ground whatever for the observation of the noble and learned Lord. He should have thought, that at least the noble and learned Lord would have been satisfied on that matter, because he was acquainted with the practice of the Court of Chancery, and he must know that the charge was wholly groundless; but the charge was equally unfair and unjust as regarded the appointment of magistrates. In this present case he knew nothing of the persons in the list submitted to him; he had no means of knowing anything, and therefore he could exercise no discretion about it. If other persons had thought themselves entitled to admission, why had they not applied? He had received no such application; he had heard no complaint

1127
until to-night. By no possibility could a public officer, holding the situation he did, discharge its duties without instantly being subject to attacks of this sort; but it was unnecessary for him to complain of them, as they were manifestly unjust. He did not object to the noble Earl bringing the subject forward, because there might be matter of complaint of which he had no knowledge, being unacquainted with the names in the list, as also with the wants of the locality.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that he had made no charge against the noble and learned Lord. He was only surprised, that it did not occur to him to make inquiry into the composition of a list coming from the Lord Provost of Edinburgh. There was another case to which he would just allude. From the county of Dumbarton a memorial had been presented to the noble and learned Lord, from which it appeared that there were three persons of property in the county who had been formerly magistrates, and who were entered as solicitors; they had perhaps properly been struck off; but three others were found on the same list who had no connection with the county, and one of whom was the general agent in Edinburgh for the lord-lieutenant of that county, a supporter of the present Government.
Motion agreed to.

CANADA.—DECLARATORY AND INDEMNITY BILL.
Lord Broughammoved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Canada Government Declaratory Bill.
Viscount Melbournesaid, before my noble and learned friend leaves the Woolsack, it may be as respectful and convenient to your Lordships, that I should state the course which I intend to pursue in reference to this bill. Your Lordships have determined, unquestionably very contrary to my feelings, to give a second reading to this bill, and it is impossible for me to express my deep concern and my great anxiety for the great and important interests which are now at stake in it. With respect to the objection taken to the ordinances recently promulgated by Lord Durham, that is a point which rests upon a broad principle of law which I do not pretend nor mean to deny—a principle of law very evident, clear, and distinct to lawyers, though not, perhaps, so clearly appre-
1128
hended by other persons. It is in favour of and an encouragement to a particular party in that colony, and that party is a party which has lately excited rebellion against this country, and which undoubtedly is bent upon the separation of the two countries. You may depend upon it, my Lords, that such will be the effect of the course which the noble and learned Lord is pursuing; that will be the effect of the course your Lordships have pursued—the practical effect: and the reason why I objected to your Lordships taking that course, and why I endeavoured to dissuade you from taking it was, that it was, impossible for me to conceal the apprehensions with which I look upon this course, and especially when it was taken at such a distance from the scene in which it is to operate, and when it is impossible for us to say in what state or condition of feeling those debates and this bill may find the people and the inhabitants of that colony. Unquestionably I am of opinion, that it would have been far better if your Lordships had not taken that course, that it would have been far more prudent if your Lordships had left that course to be pursued which should be decided upon by her Majesty's Ministers; but as your Lordships have decided otherwise, it is for me now, setting that aside, to state the course which I and my colleagues have considered it our duty to take in consequence of that decision. My Lords, I cannot but say, that looking at these ordinances, and being compelled to admit that one part of them is clearly without the bounds of the jurisdiction of the noble Earl, the Governor-general of Canada, I cannot but say, that I felt very much pressed by the argument that fell from my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Ripon) on a former occasion, when he said, that he considered that one part of these ordinances was clearly and distinctly beyond the bounds of the authority that had undertaken to create them; and when he also said, that with respect to a colony of this nature, a chartered colony, the Crown had not the power of allowing one part and rejecting another, I felt strongly pressed by his argument to come to the conclusion, that her Majesty ought to be advised to disallow these ordinances. On the contrary, in disallowing an ordinance of so solemn a character, I could not avoid taking into consideration the effect which it would produce in enabling the

1129
persons it was directed against, to return to the seat of Government, if they thought proper; I cannot avoid saying, that the impression under which I addressed your Lordships last night was, that you were in effect striking at the root of all authority in the country. Grave objections were taken to that part of the ordinance which related to those persons not in custody, but who had fled from the country. Now, my Lords, I think it impossible to suppose but that everybody acquainted with the feeling of the present day, and with the temper and disposition of my noble Friend, the Governor-general, must feel certain that this was merely held out in terrorem, that it was intended to secure the colony against the return of those persons, which necessarily must have been felt to be dangerous. And I must say, that I should have been better contented if your Lordships had not interfered with that part of the ordinance, because from the particular omissions in it, as I argued last night, it is not possible to believe, that there must not have been some particular and sufficient reasons for those omissions. At the same time, feeling that I was pressed by the argument that had fallen from my noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon)—feeling strongly the cogency with which he urged that the Crown having disallowed one part of the ordinance, it being clearly unwarranted by law, it was very difficult to avoid exercising the power of the Crown and disallowing the whole ordinance. I, therefore, beg leave to say, that we have come to the decision of advising her Majesty to adopt that course, and to disallow the ordinance. I cannot but say, that it is with the deepest regret and alarm, that I have taken this course. I cannot but say, that it is not without very great apprehensions of the consequences that I have taken this course, and that it is not without feeling the greatest pain and regret, that I have come to the determination. It follows as a consequence that one part of the ordinance being illegal, that which was done in execution of that part of it is also illegal, and those who have acted in the execution of it are liable to proceedings in the civil and criminal courts. It is necessary, therefore, that some indemnity should be given to those persons; and seeing, as is perfectly well known, the guilt of the parties against whom the ordinance was
1130
directed, and seeing that those who may have detained those parties have acted in such a manner as would subject them to the penalty of the law, I certainly have felt, that the indemnity clause of the present bill, ought to be passed. With respect to the first clause of the bill, I think it goes too far. It deprives the government in Canada of a power which they may find it necessary to exercise; and it is, in my opinion, for that reason, objectionable; and, therefore, in the adoption of that clause, it is impossible for me to concur. A great deal has been said, in the course of these discussions, respecting a proviso in the bill which was passed in the beginning of the session upon the subject of Canada, and which prohibits the Governor of Canada in council from doing anything in contravention of any act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or certain acts passed by the legislature of Canada. Unquestionably, this proviso, considering the grounds upon which it certainly was introduced, it being stated, that it was intended to apply only to the Canada Act of 1791, and the other act relating to tenures, was very large, and I must say, I shall be very much surprised, if your Lordships permit it to stand in its present shape. It is impossible to deny, that which has been said, considering who the person was, that moved this particular clause, as to what was the intention of the act, and I hope your Lordships will consider what its effects would be, and what it was meant to be, and although, certainly, there is no ambiguity in the words, and they must be considered as co-extensive with what they express. I feel, at the same time, considering that it appears, that doubts are entertained on the subject, and that the proviso, as it stands, leaves the law evidently in a state of absurdity; if it disables the Governor in council, from altering or amending any act that was passed before the union with Scotland, or to deal with the common law in any way he pleases, if it disables him from dealing with the criminal law as he pleases, that certainly was not the intention of the act, and it cannot be the intention of your Lordships to tie up the Governor-general in Canada, and his council from taking measures which may be necessary for the safety of the country, even, although inconsistent with

1131
some of the acts mentioned in the proviso. Noble and learned Lords seem to me to push this matter to an absurdity in the arguments which they have held on the subject. As for instance, with respect to a police act, it was stated, that the government in Canada must adhere to all the forms of police acts in this country, and that the party must be taken, and examined before two magistrates, and not before one. If this proviso be adhered to, it would bind the Governor-general to observe all the regulations of any act of Parliament, even on the most minute subjects. I think, therefore, that your Lordships can have no objection to introduce into this bill an explanation of this proviso, stating, that it shall not interfere with any measure which may be absolutely necessary to be adopted in the circumstances which may occur in that country. When we come to that part of the bill, I shall move a clause to that effect.
Lord Broughamsaid, but for the concluding part of the noble Viscount's speech, I should have felt unmixed satisfaction at the announcement he has just made of the course which he intends to pursue, I think most judiciously, most wisely, and most virtuously, and most in accordance with the principles of law and justice, which a government ought to administer. I think the course be is taking is worthy of those who have always defended the great principles of civil liberty—worthy of the men who feel, that the principle of public conduct is a regard to the interests of the mass of the community; and I think it consistent with those great principles with which he should regard, with which he does now regard, and with which your Lordships regarded this most outrageous violation of every principle of law, and every feeling of justice. But I differ from the noble Viscount on one or two points, and I think, I should not be discharging my duty, or showing a becoming respect for your Lordships, after the struggle which we made for right and justice, and for conciliation last night, if I abstained from remarking, which I shall do very shortly, upon the difference that separates me from the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount says, "he greatly laments the decision to which we came last night. He says, that he deems it his duty to declare, that he labours under serious apprehensions and alarm, as to the consequences of that
1132
decision, and that he will fling upon you, and upon me the responsibility of what may happen in consequence of that decision; and he tells your Lordships, that, though true it is, that here, as lawyers and statesmen, you submitted the broad principle upon which last night, you rested, it is only lawyers and statesmen who apprehend, and appreciate the principle, and that the people at large will only see in it the victory of a party." Gracious God! does it require men to be lawyers, or statesmen, or learned men, or even ever to have read a book upon any of thote subjects, to know, and feel, that it is an outrage upon all justice to condemn to death fifteen men who have never been tried; for that, in one sentence, is the effect of this unheard of ordinance, and that is the principle, and the whole principle which your Lordships have laid down. I do not believe, that in Canada, from one end to the other of her wastes of snow, and her forests of pines, her boundless lakes, and her rapid rivers, that one man dwells, who will be doubtful of the truth of the proposition, that under ignorance of what he was doing, or under a misapprehension of it, under an oblivion of the restraints upon his jurisdiction, under the influence of haste, or precipitation, or error, or neglect of some sort, from oversight, or mistake, well-meaning, but ill-judging, wishing to do good, but in effect, doing wrong, thinking that he was following the law, but in fact, breaking the law, the Governor-general of Canada has condemned these fifteen men to be punished capitally without notice, without trial, without a hearing, and that as soon as her Majesty's Government heard of it, with the advice and consent, and urged by the opinion, declared by your Lordships last night, they have not suffered a day to elapse without advising the recall of that illegal, though it may be well-meaning, ordinance. I think, I cannot put the proposition more fairly as regards the fact, more fairly towards the inference of law, and, at the same time, permit me to add, more fairly, more candidly, more temperately towards the authors of the mistake than in the sentence which I have just now spoken. I charge the government in Canada with no wilful error—I impute no tyrannical object as the cause of this wrongful act whatever—I acquit them of all blame except that of having committed a gross and manifest

1133
error; and upon the ground of that gross and manifest error I consider that your Lordships have done wisely, and well, and justly, and according to your duty in coming to last night's decision. Upon the same ground I venture to foretell, that the people of Canada will not make this conduct of ours, or of the Government, which is the result of the division, the pretext for further outrage. If they do, I will take my share, as your Lordships will take your share, of the responsibility; but I must add, in justice to you and to myself, that I should hold them as guilty of outrage, and of being wrong doers, not from mistake, but from wilful crime, if they make this conduct of ours a pretext for further outrage. Because it is as hollow, as shallow, as arrant, as flimsy a pretence as a man could rack his brain to invent. Because an illegal act is done, because an outrage is committed on law and justice through mistake, and because those who compose the highest court of judicature in the country, as well as the upper chamber of Parliament, because the Crown at their advice and suggestion loses not twenty-four hours to undo what was wrongly done, to repair what was mischievous, to prevent further mischief, and to lead to greater caution and circumspection in future, will any man living say, that this is to furnish a pretext for the people of Canada to suppose that we have altered the opinions that made us pass the bill, that we have shown a disposition to encourage outrage, and to stimulate the French party against the English party? Can any mortal derive the slightest shadow of a pretext to justify such conduct from the course we have pursued here? My Lords, be not discouraged—persist in the course to which you bound yourselves last night,—let it be called that of a jobbing oligarchy or a truculent democracy. I care not for it; so that you only show a jealousy not of your own privileges, but of the public rights, and so that you show that your truculency leads you to prevent innocent blood being shed by an unlawful ordinance, and to secure a trial for men who have not been heard, tried, or summoned, but who have been convicted unheard, untried, and unsummoned. I heartily rejoice, therefore, that Government has come to this virtuous and wise and politic resolution. If the course they had taken has produced an increase of disaffection towards them, and a distrust
1134
of their motives, I think I may say now that we have, for the first time, shed daylight on this obscure question; and that the course we have taken will lead to a conciliation of the affections and the respect of many even among the disaffected. And doubt not but that if the time and the interval be wisely used, and the measure of last night be wisely and consistently followed up, it will better lead to gain the hearts of the people of Canada than if they had made themselves parties, infatuated parties, to those ordinances which they have so wisely condemned. I must confess, that I have no objection to strike out the declaratory part of the act, and to leave the clause of indemnity. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) suggested that course; but I must say, that I cannot consent to arm the government of Canada with powers which, under the bill as it stood, that Government did not possess. Has the conduct of the Government in Canada been such as to tempt your Lordships to enlarge its power? I certainly do not think so. I do not go along with the noble Viscount in saying that it was ever intended by the passing of the act to give any power to the Government of Canada, however strongly they might be armed in other respects, to pass bills of attainder, and bills of pains and penalties, against individuals. The noble Viscount said, that we ought to have done so. At first, the noble Viscount said, that we had done so; but now he says, that as we have not done so we ought, and he calls upon us to do so, that is, to give the power of passing bills of attainder, without hearing the party. The Government of Canada is not composed of men who are so little likely to underrate their powers, or to stand within the strict line of them, or to be governed by law and common sense, as to make it wholesome to enlarge the powers which they already possess. I do not ask to restrain those powers which they at present possess; I am willing to leave the law as it is, and as it was left when we passed the bill; for although I opposed the bill, I am not the man now to rise and attempt to repeal it; let it be as it is, and let there be an indemnity for those who have counteracted any part of it, or committed any offence against it, as far as regards Nelson and his associates, but I am not prepared to extend that indemnity to all cases that may have happened. The Government of Canada, may

1135
have caused to be put to death, unheard, untried and unnotified, those fifteen persons. They have included in this ordinance, Perrault, who has never absconded. If those persons have been imprisoned, and treated as felons, I am not prepared to say that they should be deprived of their right of action, that they should be deprived of their solatium of damages which a person has a right to have who has been illegally imprisoned. I am prepared, however, to grant the indemnity in the case of those nine persons who were willing to go to Bermuda; they have no right to complain if we take away this remedy, but I am not prepared to go further. It is, therefore, my intention, on bringing up the report, to move the addition of two or three words, to confine the indemnity to that extent. I am in the hands of the House. This is your Lordships' bill as well as mine, and whatever course to you shall seem fit to be pursued, with that I shall be entirely contented, completely satisfied, but I consider that I have only done my duty in stating the impression which the speech of the noble Viscount has made on my mind.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, I cannot help expressing the satisfaction with which I have heard the declaration of the noble Viscount; and I must add my sincere desire that the noble Viscount will be disappointed in his apprehensions that the course taken by this House may lead to inconveniences in the Government of Canada, and to evils such as he has described. I feel a sincere conviction that the people of Canada, as well as the people of this country, will do justice to your Lordships upon this subject, and that they will not be led to believe that it was the intention of your Lordships, or even that your Lordships could possibly imagine, that the course pursued last night, is calculated to lead to the evils which the noble Viscount apprehends. Having said thus much upon the course taken by the Government, I must say that I concur entirely in the proposition made by the noble Viscount, that in Committee we should proceed to amend the bill, so as to give indemnity as proposed in the second clause. With respect to the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, and the alterations which he proposes to introduce, I must avoid giving any positive opinion on such a subject until I have seen what the amendments are which he
1136
intends to propose. But some circumstances have occurred to my mind, even when first hearing the noble Viscount's proposition, and afterwards on hearing the objections stated by the noble and learned Lord, which induce me to think that it would be highly inexpedient to adopt that proposition. We are now at the close of the Session of Parliament, which we commenced by adopting this bill, after full consideration in both Houses of Parliament. I contend that it was perfectly understood, in the other House at least, if not in this, that the proviso in the act did provide for those cases which I contended last night it provided for. Under these circumstances I should say, that it would be highly inexpedient in the Committee on another bill so far to alter an act of Parliament which was passed at the commencement of the Session with universal consent, universal in this House with the exception of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), and by a great majority in the other House, I think it would be highly inexpedient now to alter that measure. I must first beg leave to submit to the noble Viscount that the alteration proposed is by no means necessary. It is not necessary for carrying into execution the purpose of Government to punish rebellion and treason within those provinces. I believe, that the late Governor-general acted under the provisions of this very act, and he must have had the power to punish rebellion and treason, as the present Governor-general must have under the act of Parliament as it existed at present without the alteration proposed. Under these circumstances I should wish that this proposition should not be brought under the consideration of the House, having a sincere desire that this matter should be discussed and should terminate without any further division of opinion upon it, and really feeling that if it is now brought on no real service will be done to the State. I hope, therefore, that Government will adopt that suggestion.
Lord Wharncliffeconcurred entirely in the opinion that in the decision which their Lordships had come to last night, there was nothing to excite the apprehensions for the consequences in which the noble Viscount had indulged. He thought also, that after the manner in which the Government of Canada had exercised the powers confided to it, no blame could be

1137
imputed to their Lordships for the course which they had pursued.
The Earl of Riponsaid it was perfectly true that there might have been difficulty in obtaining a sufficient and competent council under almost any circumstances similar to those in which the Governor-general stood, but he thought it must be imputed to the peculiar position of the Government at home that such a council as now assisted Lord Durham should have been formed. Nothing less than the extraordinary condition in which the Cabinet at present was, could have led to the appointment of the council in Canada of men who were unacquainted with the condition of that country, and at the same time deficient in that knowledge of the law so necessary to the proper discharge of the difficult and delicate duty which had been intrusted to Lord Durham as Governor-general.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, they could not overlook the fact that the possible effect of what had taken place might be, to convince a party in Canada, however unjustifiable the conclusion, that the Governor-general and the government there had no longer the authority they had believed them to possess, but that they were stripped of that authority by the act of the Legislature. He believed, however, that the maintenance of the authority of the Canadian government was essential to the preservation of peace and tranquillity in the colony, and to the continuance of the connexion between the two countries, which it was the first object of their Lordships to consider. Were they not, then, bound to consider what would be the effect of this measure on the minds of persons in Canada, who were still disposed to give encouragement to the cause of rebellion in that country? In that view alone he should feel himself called on to support such an amendment as was suggested by his noble Friend; the effect of which would be to remove the doubts that had been raised as to the power of the Governor-general. But if it were true that the noble Lords opposite had acquiesced in the power which had been exercised by Sir J. Colborne, a power which went far beyond that which it was said they had assumed would have been exercised by the present Governor-general—if it were admitted that the power so exercised by Sir J. Colborne was conformable to the law, then the object of his noble Friend would
1138
be in a great measure gained. It was contended that the words of the act that had been so often quoted deprived the Governor-general of the power of attainder. That had not been considered the case heretofore; because if such were the proper construction noble Lords had been neglectful of their duty hitherto, inasmuch as they had allowed an act of Sir J. Colborne to lie upon their table uncondemned, unnoticed, for the last six weeks, that act being an act of attainder, and professedly founded on the authority of the act of this Session. Was it not clear that it was some new doubt, some new suggestion, that had occurred to them and inclined them to raise the question as to whether those powers had been legally exercised? He claimed for Lord Durham the power which had been exercised by Sir John Colborne; and he would say, that power to that extent was necessary to the peace of Canada, and, being so, he trusted that the noble Earl would continue undauntedly and fearlessly to exercise it when necessary to put down the efforts of those who were guilty of resistance to the lawful Government. Sir John Colborne acted on this principle, and, as he would maintain, most properly; but he desired to be told whether he was considered to have acted in conformity with the law or not. He was confident that he had; and if he heard a declaration to that effect from noble Lords, and Lord Durham was allowed the same power, he should be satisfied; and that much in behalf not of the Government, but of the public and of the interests of the people of Canada, he had a right to expect.
Lord Broughamsaid, there could be no doubt, that whatever power Sir John Colborne possessed Lord Durham could legally exercise. As regarded the question asked by the noble Marquess, he did not know whether it was addressed to himself, to the noble Duke, the noble Baron, or the noble and learned Lord opposite; but if the noble Marquess intended to ask him to state his opinion as to whether Sir John Colborne had exceeded his powers under the act or not, he begged to say, that the noble Marquess put a question to him such as he did not feel himself at liberty to answer.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: It was on record, that Sir John Colborne had used these powers, and he believed the majority of their Lordships would say,

1139
that he had done no more than was right. But if there existed doubts as to the legality of these acts, however proper they were in any other respect—if by the exercise of those powers he had rendered himself liable to action or impeachment, that, surely, was not a state in which the House ought to leave the question, either as regarded Sir J. Colborne or any one that succeeded him.
Lord Brougham: God forbid he should say, that Sir John Colborne was liable to impeachment or action. Whatever opinion he gave, neither Sir John Colborne nor the Earl of Durham would be any the better for it, for still they must act on their own responsibility.
The Marquess of Clanricardecould see nothing calling for animadversion in the conduct of the Earl of Durham, except the fact of his having sent the offending party to the island of Bermuda, an act which was admitted on all hands to have been inconsiderate. But if Lord Durham had done anything illegal in the other acts of attainder, he conceived, that Sir J. Colborne was equally liable to that imputation.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that it had been proved to demonstration in the course of last night's discussion, that these acts of attainder by Lord Durham had taken place in a manner totally at variance with the institutions of the country which he was sent to govern. He had to accuse the noble Viscount opposite of not doing that upon the previous night which, upon further consideration, the wisdom of his Cabinet had judged to be proper. The responsibility in this matter, therefore, rested entirely with that noble Viscount. He was of opinion, that the discussion of the previous evening would raise the character of their Lordships with the country, and prove that they were most careful guardians of the interests of the empire at large.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the construction put on the act by his noble and learned Friend was never put on it till now. And suppose that were a right construction, what would be the consequence? It would be this, that the noble Earl would not have it in his power to alter any act of Great Britain, or of the United Kingdom. Nay, an act of attainder was contrary to law. However necessary it might be considered to the peace of Canada, he could not issue an
1140
act of attainder, neither could he suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. He could do neither of these things, because he could not depart from the criminal law as administered in any county in England. All that was asked of the noble Lords was, that they would grant those powers which they thought the Governor-general ought to possess. If the limited construction now put on the act by his noble and learned Friend had been put upon it during its progress through their Lordships' House, would they not have objected to its passing in that shape. Those noble Lords who objected to the powers conferred by the act, of course would not favour a declaratory act to define what those powers were; but those who thought the powers which it was believed the act gave when it was under consideration, could not possibly object to any amendments that were necessary to remove all doubts. Whatever construction was put now upon the words introduced by Sir William Follett, there could be no doubt of this—that a very different construction was put upon them when the bill passed the Commons from that contended for by his noble and learned friend and others.
Lord Mansfieldsaid, that he had retained, as singular historical documents, the Canada Government Bill, by which such extensive powers were conferred upon the Earl of Durham, in the shape in which it had originally passed the House of Commons, and in the shape in which it had afterwards received the Royal assent. These documents presented a most remarkable contrast to each other. He would not say, that the one exhibited the beauty of the god, and the other, the deformity of the satyr, but he was positive, that so striking a contrast had never before been witnessed. It was said, that the ordinances which had been issued by Sir John Colborne and the Earl of Durham were to the same effect. Now, he was of quite an opposite opinion. Sir John Colborne's ordinances contained nothing more than a mere warning; whereas Lord Durham's ordinances contained a proclamation ordering transportation, without previous notice or time given. To have withdrawn that illegal ordinance upon the previous evening would have been better both for the character of the Earl of Durham and of the head of her Majesty's Government.
Their Lordships went into Committee, and went through the bill.
The House resumed. On the bringing up the Report,
Viscount Melbournerose to propose an amendment to this effect:—
"Whereas it was provided by an act passed during this present Session of Parliament, that it should not be lawful for the Governor-general and Council of Lower Canada, by any law or ordinance, to repeal, suspend, or alter any provision of any act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, or of any act of the Legislature of Lower Canada as now constituted, repealing or altering any such act of Parliament; and whereas doubts have arisen as to the meaning of the said proviso; be it, therefore, enacted that the said proviso shall not extend to prevent the Governor and Special Council of Lower Canada from passing such laws as may be necessary for the safety of the province, or from providing for the punishment of, or detaining in custody, persons who have been engaged in conspiracies against her Majesty's crown and dignity."
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that these words gave a power to the full extent, as great as was conferred by the original bill in the House of Commons. In every stage, however, through which the bill passed, it received some modification; but by the amendment of the noble Viscount, it was proposed that the Governor should not be prohibited from taking such measures as should be necessary for the security of the province. That was in plain English exactly what was rendered by the Latin—caveat ne quid respublica detrimenti capiat, and it never was at any time the intention of Parliament that he should take that power. The original bill gave him power to do all acts that might be necessary to the good government of Canada, and the words now proposed by the noble Viscount, went beyond the original proposition of her Majesty's Government. He therefore trusted, that their Lordships would not agree to the amendment of the noble Viscount.
Lord Broughamobserved, that what his noble Friend opposite had said, in respect to this amendment was perfectly and literally true. It would enable the Governor of Lower Canada to do whatever he saw fit to do, and destroy a man behind his back by an act of attainder. All the Government wanted was to get something. [Lord Lyndhurst:—Why?] Oh, my noble and learned Friend knows why as well as I do. He knows what Governments are, and what governors are, and all they want is, while we are giving them
1142
a sort of rap, to get a plaster. They want to say to the Governor-general, "Although we have been obliged to disallow your ordinances, yet we have got you a great power."
The Earl of Mansfieldsuggested a short act on the subject distinct from the present bill. The House could never agree to grant the Governor-general powers not given even by the original bill.
Lord Lyndhurst: The regular course would be to introduce another bill.
Lord Broughamhad never read of any such mode of proceeding in a bill for indemnity by way of letting the object of it down gently. When the illustrious ancestor of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Mansfield) drew up a bill of indemnity for Lord Chatham, Lord Chatham came down to the House and refused to accept the bill of indemnity, and said he would face his accusers. Lord Mansfield, however, told him, that if he did not accept the indemnity, he would immediately have a hundred actions brought against him, so Lord Chatham thought better of it and accepted the indemnity. The bill, however, did not contain anything but the provision for indemnity, and yet the wrath of Lord Chatham was quite as formidable as that of any other man either here or in Canada.
Viscount Melbournewould not press his amendment.
The Earl of Harrowbywas understood to say, that it appeared to him that the Government not having formed last night the determination which it had since taken of withdrawing these ordinances, it was impossible for the House, after the subject had been brought under their consideration, to avoid expressing an opinion upon it. The noble Viscount would have entirely blunted the dart which he supposed to have been launched at his Cabinet and Government, if he had taken the course which he had since adopted. Whatever, therefore, might be the results of the discussion which had ensued, they could not be laid at the door of those who had voted upon this question, but must be chargeable upon those who had forced them to vote. It appeared that if the bill passed as it was framed at present, the Governor-general of Canada would be left in a situation which would cramp his exercise of the powers with which he was invested to put down rebellion. He trusted, therefore, that some opportunity would be given

1143
before the bill passed, of pointing out what were the powers which he really possessed. Whether that should be done by a declaratory act or not, he could not pretend to say. He merely threw out the suggestion, whether there were not two powers which ought to be placed in the hands of the government of Canada, and whether the bill might not declare that the act of this Session was not intended to prevent the passing of such bills of attainder as were warranted by the ancient practice of the Parliament of England, or the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. This would, at the same time, avoid ambiguity, and the arbitrariness of the measure proposed by the noble Viscount.
Lord Ellenboroughthought that after the discussion which had taken place in that House, and the difference of opinion upon the construction of the act expressed by his noble and learned Friend opposite, by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, and the noble and learned Lord below him, their Lordships could not expect that any man fit to be a governor, would consent to govern Canada, unless the doubts which existed were cleared up. He could not do it if he had any respect for his own character, or any regard for the welfare of the persons whom he was to govern. He was, therefore, strongly in favour of an Act which should declare what the powers of the Governor-general and council really were. However, with the means which existed of applying to the Parliament of Great Britain, he did not think that any colonial Legislature ought to have the power of passing acts of attainder. The power of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act was of a different character, and one which the Government of Lower Canada certainly ought to possess at present. He understood, that it had been supposed, that the Government had not the power to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and therefore, they were obliged to have recourse to a stronger measure—the proclamation of martial law. What, therefore, he thought ought to satisfy the Government, was an explanation of the powers really vested in the Governor-general and Council of Lower Canada. He must, however, observe, that it was never intended that the Special Council should be illusory—a sort of sham. That, he repeated, was never intended by Parliament. It was the fault of her Majesty's Government, who ought to have selected a sufficient number
1144
of persons to form a proper and sufficient special council. But when they had united the Governor and the Council, and enabled him to absorb the Council, he must say with such a Governor-general, and such a Special Council, he would not give the Government of Lower Canada the power of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act without a provision was made that a real Special Council should be appointed.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that it was absolutely impossible to enter into this question without taking into consideration the act of the present Session, and considering it in all its parts, and reviewing the acts of the Governor-general of Canada, and making provision for them all. He therefore acquiesced in the withdrawal of the motion by the noble Viscount, which in his opinion was wise and proper. In the course of the discussion last night various opinions were given by high legal authorities on the construction of certain clauses of the Canada Government Bill. One opinion had been given by the noble and learned Lord opposite, and his noble and learned Friend behind him, and another by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. He would ask their Lordships, therefore, under these circumstances, and considering that there was nothing positive on the subject, excepting, that it was necessary to pass an Act of indemnity for those acts which were known to be illegal, to enter into a revision of the whole power and authority intrusted to the Governor-general of Canada, and to consider the acts of the Governor-general under the several provisions of the Act of this Session, and then to make a new law. Before he sat down, he earnestly recommended to the noble and learned Lord to print his bill after it had been amended in the report, and that the third reading should take place after the bill should have been printed.
The Marquess of Lansdownerose merely to say, that he thought the course proposed by the noble Duke was the most convenient that could be adopted; but it was very inconvenient that doubts had been thrown out at all. There had now been three days' discussion on this subject, during which doubts had been raised by high legal authorities in this House as to limitation of particular words introduced into the Act of the present Session by an hon. and learned Member of the other

1145
House of Parliament; and after those opinions had been expressed, was it not possible that doubts might arise in the mind of the Governor-general of Lower Canada, as to whether he and the Special Council had power to do that which had been done in Upper Canada, namely, the suspension by the legislature of that province of the habeas corpus? It was desirable that the noble Governor-general of Lower Canada should know the situation in which Sir John Colborne was placed, in reference to the course he had taken; and if he now acquiesced in the suggestion of the noble Duke opposite, of allowing this bill to pass in its present shape, it was because, although these general doubts had arisen, the attention of their Lordships had been particularly called to the proclamation issued, and the acts of attainder passed by Sir John Colborne, and yet no one noble and learned Lord had got up and suggested the expediency of an Act of Indemnity for Sir John Colborne. He therefore assumed that in those acts of Sir John Colborne there was nothing illegal, and therefore no noble Lord of any high authority had called upon Parliament to administer the remedy of a bill of indemnity. If Sir John Colborne's acts were contrary to law, their Lordships were doing an act of great injustice to that gallant officer by not including him in the bill of indemnity. He trusted, however, that this bill would go forth to Canada accompanied by the fact, that the attention of the House had been called to the acts of Sir John Colborne, and with that comment he thought it possible the measure would not be productive of that inconvenience which he had first anticipated.
Lord Broughamrepeated his objections to the noble Marquess who had just sat down, throwing hints to feel (as was said in the courts) the pulse of the House. The House had not had the acts of Sir John Colborne before it. Many noble Lords—his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) for instance—had not seen a line of them, and what could mortal man, whether lawyer or layman, at present say more than that if Sir John Colborne's acts were lawful, he did not want a declaration of opinion upon them—if they were illegal, any declaration of opinion would not avail him a straw. At present the House was dealing with a bill of indemnity for acts done, of the illegality
1146
of which there existed no doubt. He heartily concurred with the noble Duke that nothing ought to be done by way of tack to the present bill. If the clause were added, this country and Canada would have a right to complain that new and most important powers, which ought to have been discussed on the second reading, were given in a late stage of the bill, and at a period of the Session when they could not be deliberately considered as they ought to be by either House of Parliament. The better course would be, therefore, to pass the bill of indemnity as it now stood, and if, on further consideration, the noble Viscount and his advisers thought it necessary to proceed further, let him to-morrow or Monday propose a separate measure for that purpose.
Clause withdrawn, bill to be read a third time on Monday next.

COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND.)
Lord Broughammoved the third reading of the Court of Session (Scotland) Bill.
The Earl of Haddingtonmoved the omission of a proviso at the end of the 34th clause, empowering either House of Parliament to rescind by resolutions any acts of sederunt passed by the Court of Session.
Lord Broughamand Lord Lyndhurst suggested the propriety of omitting the entire clause.
Their Lordships divided on the omission of the clause—Content 20; Not Content 13: Majority 7.
Bill read a third time and passed.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND.)
The Prisons (Scotland) Bill was read a third time.
On the question that the bill do pass,
The Earl of Mansfieldfelt it to be his duty to oppose the third reading of this bill, which had not been sufficiently considered. In fact, there never had been a bill of so much importance which had been so little discussed in the House; there had been a practice of late which he thought very objectionable to postpone the discussion of a bill at the proper stage to another opportunity. In this way, this bill had been delivered to their Lordships in the morning, had been read a second time in the evening, had afterwards been committed and about sixty clauses were passed in about as many seconds and now it was proposed to read the bill a third time, without any discussion, but he,

1147
Lord Mansfield) felt it necessary to make some observations on the bill which he would confine within the narrowest limits; though he feared, that he could not equal the rapidity of the Committee. Although the bill had not been discussed in the House, it was correctly stated by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) that few bills had undergone so much consideration in the Select Committee; but previously a noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleugh) who was always most attentive to any measure which was connected with the advantage of the people of Scotland, had assembled several Peers at his house, who had been employed for several days in trying to alter the bill and make it fit to pass this Session; but being unable to agree upon these improvements, they had proposed to the House to defer reading the bill a second time, Their Lordships, however, had determined to refer the bill to a Select Committee, which had had the advantage of the assistance of the noble and learned Lord and of two other noble Lords who had had great experience in Select Committees and the result was that the bill with the corrections was submitted to the House—but in the opinion of the Select Committee in an imperfect state. The bill therefore in his (Lord Mansfield's) opinion, should not be allowed to pass. To state shortly the object of the bill; it was to relieve the Royal Boroughs from the obligation under which they were now placed, of building and maintaining sufficient prisons and bearing certain expenses for the maintenance of prisoners, to erect sufficient prisons in every county, and place them under the management of a local County Board, acting under a general Board, which would have the sole management of three great General Prisons,—a part of which would be Penitentiaries in which prisoners were confined with the hope that an improvement in their morals would be effected, before their liberation.
In the constitution of this Board great alteration, and in his (Lord Mansfield's) opinion great improvement had been made but he could not see the necessity for the House passing a bill (which perhaps would be rejected elsewhere) merely to show that the House of Lords approved the principle of centralization, as recommended by a noble Lord opposite, for his own part he would not object to any plan of centralization or one mixed with local Boards, he
1148
had no prejudice upon this point, he could agree to anything which appeared to be most advantageous, but at this moment was not prepared to say, what was best. But in relieving the Royal Burghs from the obligation of maintaining the prisons, there was a clause providing that a prison should be built in each county and, that in this debtors were to be confined, now this would occur; in some places there would be a small prison, and the gaoler would not receive high wages, yet he was to find security against the escape of debtors who might be confined for a considerable sum, it could not be expected that the Royal Boroughs should remain bound as before, now that they were discharged from all interference with the prisons; the clause had just now been struck out, but no other provision had been set in its place, there would be no adequate security.
The expense of the three general prisons and of maintaining prisoners, was to be defrayed by a general fund to which the boroughs and counties were to contribute, and an assessment was to be laid on by the general board according to an estimate founded upon population and crime.
Now, against this basis, remonstrances had been made by several counties, complaining that a much larger sum would be assessed on them than if the estimate had been founded upon population only, or upon crime; the county of Perth and the county of Ayr, were nearly equal in population, but by taking an estimate on population and crime, there would be an assessment on the county of Perth, greater by 1,000 l. Upon what basis the estimate should be founded there were different opinions; but the present returns were notoriously incorrect, inasmuch as some counties had returned the number of convictions, and others had given the number of committals as establishing the amount of crime.
Again, the sum is to be assessed on the counties and the burghs, in equal proportions; but this question arises, should this be the uniform mode of assessment, or should not the particular circumstances of each burgh be taken into consideration, the amount of the burgh revenues which is stated in the preamble as a ground for relieving them, as well as the uncertainty of the contributions of counties.
Should a borough like Dundee for instance, winch has lately built a gaol, at an expense of 22,000 l., to which the county

1149
did not contribute, be assessed in the same proportion as a burgh in another county, in which a gaol has been erected but the cost defrayed by the county and the burgh in certain proportions? in equity it appears, that there should be a difference—but as to the amount of the common good and property of these boroughs as to the manner in which they have fulfilled their obligations, the House was not sufficiently informed; and, it was his intention to move for returns which would afford the information, but which would require sometime to prepare.
In conclusion, he found it to be his duty to press their Lordships not to consent to the third reading; as to the rejection of the bill in another place, that should have no effect upon their decision. No bill ought to leave this House, but in so perfect a state that their Lordships would consent to pass it, if the sole right of making laws were vested in them. This bill was by the admission of all, imperfect. He moved, that this bill be read this day three months.
Their Lordships divided. Contents 11; Not Contents 15:—Majority 4.
Bill rejected.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
The Lord Chancellorcalled the attention of the House to the Imprisonment for Debt Bill; since the last discussion he had had communication with the Judges as to the time when it could come into operation, and the earliest day on which the necessary rules could be made was the 2nd of November, when the judges met.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he had received a number of the most heart-melting letters from parties who, expecting to be discharged on the 1st of October, now found that they were to be detained till the 1st of December; and he suggested that the act which had been passed in this Session enabling the judges to sit in banco during the recess should be made available for the purpose of forming the necessary rules under this act.
The Lord Chancellorknew that a few days ago there was only one judge in London, and he could not hope to find them in town soon.
Lord Broughamsaid, that whilst upon this bill he would call the noble and learned Lord's attention to a very hard restriction which was imposed upon newspapers, the proprietors of which were
1150
bound to insert every advertisement at 3s. each; and he had had a representation from a most respectable provincial paper stating that for 3s. they might be obliged to insert an advertisement of so many lines as to take up one-fourth of the paper. This was from a country paper, published only once a week, and such a proposal was enormous. Why was a newspaper proprietor to be taxed more than any one else for a private purpose?
Lord Lyndhursthad a petition to present upon this subject, which he regretted that he had not with him. It was from the proprietor of a country newspaper, and it stated that the sum proposed to be paid would not amount to the money paid to the workmen for setting and printing the advertisement. He (Lord Lyndhurst) could not think for what purpose the clause had been introduced.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that he had also received several letters stating objections to the clause, and he could not conceive why the clause had been allowed to pass both Houses of Parliament. The 3s. would not be a compensation for the mere labour.
Lord Lyndhurstsuggested that the clause should be struck out. What right had they to interfere with private property?
Lord Broughamsaid, this was an amendment made by the Commons, and not having had the discussion which, if it had been in the original bill, would have taken place in its different stages, it was only saying, let A, B, C pay out of their own private pockets for the benefit of X, Y, Z, or any other individuals.
Viscount Melbourneadvised their Lordships to consider well whether by making this alteration they would not run the risk of keeping the persons in prison till the next Session of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that this clause, with others, had been left out of the bill originally, because they were considered to be money clauses; and if the same provision, as he believed it did, existed in the Insolvent Act, why should it not be re-enacted?
Lord Lyndhurst: Why should they pursue a wrong? If it were in the Insolvent Act, why should they perpetuate what was bad?
Lord Broughamadded, that the proposed clause was of much more general operation than the old one, and it imposed

1151
the necessity of inserting a much larger amount of advertisements.
Further consideration of the amendment postponed.

PARLIAMENTARY BURGHS (SCOTLAND).
The order of the day for the second reading of the Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland) Bill having been read,
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he was surprised that the bill should be brought forward. He had been told, that it would not be pressed.
Lord Broughamsaid, that this was an entirely new Municipal Bill for Scotland, consisting of seventy clauses, with two or three schedules, one of which contained the names of thirteen towns. He had not heard before of the existence of the bill. The noble Earl had not said one word to him about the alteration of the bill of 1833, which had been wholly in his (Lord Brougham's) charge. The noble Earl had never wished him to pay any attention to the former bill; and as he had not time to pay due attention to it now, he hoped that the House would agree to the motion that he would make, that the bill should be read a second time that day three months. During those three months he would direct his attention to the subject, and he thought it would have been but common decorum to have consulted him upon the bill before it was passed. He supposed that he would next hear of an amendment to be proposed in his Slave Trade Felony Act, without having had the opportunity of looking at the proposed amendment even for one hour. He would say nothing of common courtesy, because that had long passed and gone; but parliamentary decorum required that so important a bill as the present should not be read a second time, without a previous consultation, on the 10th August, on the very eve of the prorogation; and for these reasons he would save the noble Earl the trouble of going through the particulars of the bill, by moving that it should be read a second time that day three months.
The Earl of Mintoreplied, that the noble and learned Lord had rather inverted the order of proceeding by moving the rejection of the bill before the second reading itself had been moved. He wished, however, to state that the bill had no new object in view, it was only intended to work out the principle of the former acts, and to enable the burghs to raise funds
1152
which were essentially necessary to carry out the objects of the Legislature in conferring the municipal franchise. Some of the clauses in the bill were precisely the same as those in the old bill, and the others were intended only to effect the object which he had stated.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he wished to consider the bill, to know whether the proposed alterations really were amendments to his own act; for, judging from some recent proposals with respect to Scotch bills coming from the same quarter, he was not satisfied to take it for granted that the new bill would amend the old; and unless his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) particularly wished for the bill, he (Lord Brougham) would certainly persist in his motion.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that so far from wishing for this bill, he was anxious to compare it with the other, to see whether the clauses in the new bill were in reality superior to those in the old; and he thought that it was rather too late in the Session, on the 10th of August, to read such a bill a second time.
The Earl of Mintofelt that there was considerable force in the objection founded on the lateness of the period at which he wished to proceed with this bill, and under the circumstances he would consent to postpone it till the next Session.
Bill postponed.