Sitting of 5 February 1838

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Qualification of Members.
Petitions presented. By Sir G. STRICKLAND, from Barnsley, Yorkshire, against the Small Debts Courts Bill.—By Mr. WALLACE, from the Chamber of Commerce, Edinburgh, for Post-Office reform.—By Lord A. CONYNGHAM, from Canterbury, for the Ballot, Extension of the Suffrage, and Triennial Parliaments.—By Sir G. STRICKLAND, from Boroughbridge, Yorkshire, for the immediate abolition of Negro Slavery.—By Mr. WAKLEY, from Huddersfield, and other places, that counsel might be

773
heard at the bar on behalf of the Glasgow Cotton-spinners.—By Sir R. INGLIS, from Darlaston, Staffordshire, against the proposed suppression of the Bishopric of Sodor and Man.—By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, against the Rating of Small Tenements Bill.—By Mr. HUME, from Middlesex, and two places in Devon and Suffolk, for Vote by Ballot.—By Lord EBRINGTON, from the Union of Rochampton, against any alteration in the principles of the Poor-law Bill.—By Mr. BAINES, from a place in Yorkshire, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By Mr. C. BULLER, from Dissenters of Staffordshire and Pentonville, to the same effect.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the county of Cork, and the city of Dublin, against the Poor-law Bill for Ireland.

BANKING.
Mr. Humeinquired whether the Government intended to renew the Committee, or take any measures with respect to the Bank of England?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in the course of next week he should propose the re-appointment of the Committee on joint-stock banks.
Mr. Hume: Will it be open for the Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Bank of England during the last eighteen months?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it certainly was not his intention to propose any question before that Committee the tendency of which would be to alter the arrangements deliberately entered into between that House and the Bank of England; at the same time he thought it would be impossible for the Committee to consider the state of banking generally throughout the country without taking into account a certain portion of the proceedings of the Bank of England, as connected with the circulation of the country.
Mr. Humesaid, it was not his intention to propose any alteration in the agreement made with the Bank of England, but he wished to know how that agreement was to be carried out. He should therefore move, whenever the proposed Committee should be appointed, that the inquiry should be extended into the conduct of the Bank of England. He also wanted to know what was to be done with the Bank of Ireland, as the expiration of its charter was fast approaching?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerproposed to proceed with the inquiry on joint-stock banks before any measures should be be taken with regard to the Bank of Ireland.
Conversation dropped.

DUTY ON LINEN IN FRANCE.
Mr. Bainesasked whether the Government had directed its attention to the alteration
774
of the French tariff on linens and linen yarns?
Mr. P. Thomsonstated, that as soon as the Government heard of the rumour of the intention to alter the duties on linens and linen yarns, no time had been lost in making representations at Paris against the proposed change; but from the communications made to him he was not led to hope that the decision which the French Government would come to on that point would be very satisfactory to himself or to the hon. Member (Mr. Baines).
Subject dropped.

REGULATIONS FOR STEAM VESSELS.
Lord Ebringtonwished to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Government had been directed to the recent loss of the Killarney steamer, and whether Ministers had any legislative measure in contemplation for the purpose of securing passengers against the risks to which they are constantly exposed on board Steam-boats as at present conducted?
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, the unfortunate accident to which the noble Lord had alluded, had occurred so recently, that the Government had not had time to investigate the circumstances attending the loss of the Killarney steamer. It was, however, a subject well worthy of the most attentive consideration, and it was unquestionably of the greatest importance to ascertain whether in regard to steam-boats generally some restrictions could not be made as to the quantity of live stock shipped on board those vessels, similar to those restrictions which existed in regard to other passage-boats.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND).
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the Second Reading of the Poor-relief (Ireland) Bill.
Sir Charles Stylesaid, that although he thought the Bill insufficient for the purposes for which it was intended, and was persuaded that it would impose heavy expenses, without corresponding advantages, yet he could not reconcile it to his conscience to withhold his support from it. Whatever faults there might be in the measure, sooner than that the poor of Ireland should remain in their present depressed and degraded state, he was prepared to adopt a measure even still more objectionable in its character. The first thing that struck him as objectionable in the Bill was, that one-half of the burthen was to be im-

775
posed upon a class of persons who were usable to support it, and who ought not in justice to be called upon to pay it. By this Bill persons in Ireland occupying land to the value of 5l. a year were rendered liable to the payment of the amount of one-half of the poor-rate. Now, really, that was too hard, especially when the almost destitute state of persons who occupied a much higher station as tenants of land was considered. He was quite aware that it would be said that those persons would be relieved from the charge which at present devolved upon them; but that was a payment made by them voluntarily, a very different matter from being compelled to pay, under an act of Parliament which was to be carried into effect by a most extensive machinery. It was also different; because under this Bill the relief to the poor would be entirely left to the discretion of the poor-law guardians; it would rest with them whether the destitute poor should have relief or not; it rested with them to say whether they would grant relief to all, to some, or to none, of the destitute poor within their respective districts. The Bill expressly provided that the guardians of the different unions should have it in their discretion to make orders for the relief of the poor, as they should see fit. He, for one, was very apprehensive that these Poor-law guardians, or, in other words, the rate-payers themselves, the persons whose immediate interest it would be to curtail the relief within the narrowest limits possible—that these Poor-law guardians, speaking the voice of the rate-payers, would take a very limited view indeed of the number of persons who ought to receive relief under the provisions of this Bill. It was his opinion, therefore, that if it were really intended that this Bill should be what it professed to be—a Bill for the more effectual relief of the destitute in Ireland—that it should grant a right to such relief to such persons as were destitute and unable to support themselves; and also that the nature of that relief should be such as to make it practically applicable to the extent of the destitution which existed in Ireland. He would, endeavour to show that, by denying a right to relief, and by restricting the mode of administering relief, the Bill must prove inefficient as to its proposed object; and also that this Bill would be by no means efficient as a measure for remedying even in the slightest degree, the causes which created the destitution in Ireland, namely, the total want of employment by the people. Why, what was the
776
Bill? It was a Bill that, perhaps, might be the means of affording relief to 80,000, or, it might be, 120,000 persons; and that altogether depended upon certain powers conferred on the Poor-law commissioners, and for raising a sum of money, by way of poor-rate, for the purpose of emigration. Such was the full measure of relief which it was proposed to bestow upon the destitute poor of Ireland. In forming his opinion on the subject he would not advert to the amount of the relief now given to the poor in Ireland, or to the number who received that relief. He had been told that in making a calculation upon such a basis the results would be quite erroneous, and would give an exaggerated notion of the amount of destitution in Ireland. He thought, however, that he should be justified in referring to the evidence and the information collected by the commissioners of inquiry into the state of the poor of Ireland. He knew it had been objected that those commissioners were mistaken in many of their calculations, and that their statement of destitution was exaggerated; but it was, nevertheless, indisputable that the distress which existed was most extensive, and imperatively called for relief. The poor in Ireland were without clothing; they lived in hovels that were totally unfit for any human being to breathe in; they were huddled together in crowds, and lay on the damp floor at night. Such was the condition of the poor in Ireland, and he should like to know what degree of human suffering further than that was required before it was thought expedient to give relief? If ever relief was necessary, the people of Ireland required it. There were nearly two millions of human beings in that country in the state which he had described. In his opinion, the present Bill would not operate in the slightest degree upon the cause of destitution; for it was not by shutting up two or three hundred thousand persons that any good could be effected, or that the social condition of the Irish peasantry could be improved. Employment was the only efficient and desirable remedy—employment which, while it administered to the physical wants of man, elevated him in his moral feelings. The Bill left the great evil which existed among the peasantry of Ireland without alleviation. The Irish peasant had at present no security for his miserable subsistence, unless it were the occupation of some wretched patch of ground. Now, the bill held out no right to such a person to

777
claim relief, or no prospect of enjoying it; and, therefore, no feeling of security was created that he who received the relief would continue to obtain it; as the administrator of the law had the power of refusing it, even if he had the means of granting it to the fullest extent required. The consequence of it would be, that the fierce struggle for land which now existed to such a frightful extent in Ireland would continue unabated. Yet that was the real cause to which most of the barbarous murders and other crimes that were committed in Ireland and to which the insecurity of property in that country were mainly attributable. He would not occupy the time of the House by entering into statements to prove that this was the fact, for it was already well known to every one who was acquainted with the administration of the law in Ireland. It was a well established fact that there was scarcely a landed proprietor in Ireland who dared to make the slightest alteration whatever in the distribution of his property, without incurring the danger of raising an insurrection in the country around him. It appeared to him of the highest importance that they should without delay vigorously grapple with the difficulties which surrounded this question. In his opinion, with every sense of the difficulty of the undertaking, the only course was at once to place the landed proprietors in that position in which they would be compelled to find either employment or subsistence for the poor. They ought to be made to do that which they had so long neglected to do—to employ the great mass of labour which now existed in Ireland in a destitute state, and which might be so profitably employed. It had been objected to a poor-law bill for Ireland that it would absorb a considerable portion of the rental of the landlords. That would certainly be the fact if the landlords looked supinely on while the change was going forward; but if they applied themselves to the better cultivation of their estates, and to the breaking up of waste lands they would cause an increase of the means of subsistence, and would promote general benefit, of which they would be large participators. There was one part of Mr. Nicholls's second report which bore so strongly on this question that, with the permission of the House, he would read it. It related to a part of Ireland with which he was well acquainted, and he would vouch for its accuracy. The passage was as follows:—
778
"Nothing can exceed the miserable appearence of the cottages in Donegal, or the desolate aspect of a cluster of these hovels, always teeming with an excessive population. Yet, if you enter their cabins, and converse with them frankly and kindly, you will find the people intelligent and communicative, quick to comprehend, and ready to impart what they know. They admitted that they were too numerous, 'too thick upon the land,' and that, as one of them declared, 'they were eating each other's heads off—but what could they do? There was no employment for the young people, nor relief for the aged, nor means nor opportunity for removing their surplus numbers to some more eligible spot. They could only therefore live on 'hoping,' as they said, 'that times might mend, and that their landlords would sooner or later do something for them.' Yet, with all this suffering, no disturbance or act of violence has occurred in Donegal. During the severe privations of the last summer, when numbers were actually in want of sustenance, there was no dishonesty, no plundering—the people starved, but they would not steal; and although their little stock of cattle and moveables have been notoriously lessening these last four years, and especially in the last year, which seems to have swallowed up nearly all their visible means, they have yet paid their rents—the occupier's share of the produce has been insufficient for his own support, yet the landlord's share has generally been paid in full; and I was assured by the agent of one of the largest proprietors that he had no arrears worth noticing."
He begged to ask how long it was thought desirable that the people of Ireland should remain in this miserable condition, while at the same time they were able and willing to work, and to earn their subsistence? An efficient poor law would certainly be in the end a pecuniary advantage to the landlords in Ireland, although it would no doubt be attended with some inconvenience in the first instance. Although he advocated a poor-law in Ireland on the most extended scale, he was convinced that auxiliary measures must he put in operation at the same time. He should vote for the second reading of this bill, and for its going into a Committee, with the greatest reluctance, and only because he had no alternative.
Mr. Shawintended to support the principle of the bill by voting for the second reading; but he thought that the details of it would require many alterations and amendments in Committee. He did not agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Style) who had just sat down in the principle that the poor had a right to relief; nor did he agree with him in the proposition

779
that relief should be given out of the work- house. He thought that the principle upon which the bill ought to proceed was this: in-door relief to the aged and impotent, aided by increased facilities of emigration to the able-bodied. Neither this law nor any other that could be devised would be adequate to give relief to all who were in distress, or employment to all who were idle, in Ireland. The subject was one of a very complicated and difficult nature, and required to be very calmly and very carefully considered before any decisive measure were adopted. He did not feel that he should be justified in trespassing upon the patience of the House at that moment; but in a subsequent stage he should consider himself bound to state his opinions upon the bill at considerable length. Meanwhile, everybody, he thought, would feel that the question was one that ought not to be influenced by considerations of party. Every one, too, must be aware, now that the subject had once been mooted, that a law partaking something of the character of the present must certainly be adopted.
Mr. O'Connellagreed with one-half of what had just fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that was a great deal, he thought. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that if the Bill did not pass this year, as he (Mr. O'Connell) certainly hoped it would not, a measure giving some kind of relief to the poor of Ireland must some day pass. At the same time he did not see why it should be expected that the House of Commons should be unanimous in introducing Poor-laws into Ireland at all. Had he (Mr. O'Connell) been in London a few hours sooner, he should have felt it his duty to have trespassed upon the House at considerable length in stating his objections to the Bill now proposed; but as his arrival had been delayed, he should confine himself to one or two observations only in the present stage of the Bill, reserving himself until the proposition for going into Committee, when he should state his objections at length, and move that the Committal of the Bill be deferred for six months. He could not agree in the principle of any Poor-law as proposed to be applied to Ireland which should go beyond the extension of relief to the lame, the impotent, and the blind—those who from permanent physical causes were utterly incapable of labouring for their own subsistence. To that extent, and to that extent only, would he go in the introduction of a system of Poor-laws
780
into Ireland. Any thing short of that he knew it would be ruin for him, in the present feeling of the House of Commons, to attempt to resist. But upon that point—upon the limitation of the relief to the objects he had named—his determination was fixed and inflexible; and upon that point he would decidedly take the opinion of the House, even if he stood alone. He entertained a firm conviction that a poor country was never yet benefitted by a Poor-law. He believed that Ireland was too poor for a Poor-law. The distinction that was attempted to be drawn between poverty and destitution, although both certainly existed, excited something of the ludicrous when applied to Ireland. The sages who out of that House had laid the ground-work for the present measure admitted that there was more poverty in Ireland than in England; "but then," said they, "there is less destitution." There might be great merit in the phraseology employed to express that opinion; but how, in common sense, poverty should not be considered the mother of destitution it was impossible for him to explain, as he certainly could not understand. He entertained a full conviction that a measure like the present must entirely fail. The notion of having 100 workhouses, in each of which 800 persons were to be boxed up and imprisoned for the benefit of their health, the fattening of their bodies, and the increase of their moral feelings and tenderness by the separation of husband and wife, was absurd and ridiculous. There never was a country so utterly unfitted for the introduction of such a system of Poor-laws as Ireland. Mr. Nicholls need not have gone to Bristol, to Liverpool, and to Manchester, to ascertain whether the Irish were reluctant to receive relief administered in the form proposed by this Bill. Every body who knew any thing of Ireland would have told him that the Irish people would rather remain in a state as near as possible akin to actual starvation than be admitted to the enjoyment of workhouse food at the cost of personal liberty. He had trespassed further than he intended upon the patience of the House; his only object in rising was to intimate his intention, in the next stage of the Bill, of proposing, by way of amendment, that it be deferred for three or six months.
Mr. Gibsonrejoiced that there was at least one Irish question upon which all sides of the House were agreed, and he

781
regarded the present discussion as an omen of better days for his unhappy country. Before they proceeded, however, to legislate on a measure which was of such paramount importance as this, and which was pregnant with consequences of such a vital nature, they ought to inquire if they had sufficient data to proceed upon. He denied that they had such data, and he impeached in particular the report of Mr. Nicholls. That gentleman had stated that the number of poor that would require relief in Ireland would be only 80,000. He (Mr. Gibson) could not believe it. Would it were true! From his experience of the state of the poor in Ireland, he believed that that was only a fraction of the number that would require relief. The House could not proceed to legislate with confidence on this subject upon such data as the report which had been laid on the table of the House contained. Upon that report the Legislature ought to place no reliance, for it really furnished no data upon which Parliament could efficiently legislate. He denied that 80,000 would be the highest number that would require relief, and the system was calculated to pauperise the middle classes in Ireland, upon whom the burden of contributing to that support would fall. The principle of this Bill was repugnant to the feelings of the Irish poor man, who would never consent for a paltry subsistence in the workhouse to a separation there from the wife of his affection, and the children of his love. He had a further objection to this Bill, on the ground that it excluded any provision with reference to the law of settlement. Though he was ready to admit, that in this country the law of settlement had been much abused, and had led to considerable expense, still some provision with reference to that subject ought to be made for Ireland, or the Bill would be the acme of injustice. On these grounds he objected to the introduction of the proposed law, and would say it would be better to leave Ireland alone, and rely on the natural course of events, from which even Mr. Nicholls admitted that improvement within the last fifty years had ensued; and he believed, that if equal and impartial justice were done—if there was not one law for the rich and another for the poor—more happiness would be produced than could possibly flow from a measure of the kind now under the consideration of the House. On these grounds he could not assent to the principle of the Bill, but, coerced as he
782
was by the opinions of others, he should not oppose its second reading, but should watch with minute attention its progress through the Committee.
Mr. James Grattansaid, in his judgment the present measure was the best ever introduced for the improvement of the condition of Ireland. He trusted her Majesty's Government would keep the Bill in its present shape, with the exception of the clause relating to emigration. He thought also that the relief ought to be confined to indoor relief, as by increasing the various modes of relief the object of the measure would be wholly destroyed. With these alterations, and by the omission of the emigration clause, the Bill would be a blessing to the country to which its operations were directed. The hon. Member who had spoken last had said leave Ireland alone; but that would never do when it was notorious that the assassinations, agrarian combinations, and outrages—all were to be traced to the state of destitution which, unhappily, generally prevailed in Ireland. The establishment of boards of guardians would of itself be productive of great good. The noble Lord below him (Lord Morpeth) was entitled to great praise for the mode in which he had brought the Bill forward, and he trusted that the Government without vacillation would carry it through in a bold, manly, and straightforward manner.
Mr. Wrightsonsaid, that having some years ago been engaged as a commissioner to inquire into the state of the poor in Ireland, he hoped to be permitted to express his opinion on the present measure. Undoubtedly the Government had taken great pains in the matter; they had consulted persons of high attainments upon the subject, and the result was the Bill now on the table, the great objection to which was that part which involved the public with a degree of liability with regard to the great mass of the labouring classes of the people. He thought that liability to be of a very injudicious character. The classes of people who were to be entitled to relief ought to be specified, and when the Bill was in Committee, he should feel it his duty to propose amendments to attain that object, and to confine relief to the lame, blind,' and impotent, following as near as possible the words contained in the statute of Elizabeth and to exclude from the provisions of the Bill young healthy men who were able to earn their own livelihood.
Mr. Poulett Scropebegged to ask the hon. Member who had just sat down, if it

783
was not the young men of Ireland who formed agrarian combinations, and committed murders and outrages in consequence of not having the means of subsistence? and if so, what answer would the hon. Member give to such young men, when, though in a state of starvation, the workhouse was not open to them? He was disposed to give his support to the present Bill. He approved of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wicklow in the latter part of his speech. He certainly thought that this was the most important measure by far which had ever been introduced for the pacification of Ireland. He believed that it would raise that country from a position the most miserable and the most disgraceful of any nation on the face of the globe to one of the most prosperous that could be imagined. On the whole he agreed most completely with the general principles of the Bill. He did hope, however, that the Government would not erase the clauses which related to emigration. He was far from thinking that too many avenues could be opened for employment. It was, in his opinion, desirable to have as many strings as possible to their bow. Ireland was in a situation of great embarrassment, and it required extraordinary efforts to meet extraordinary circumstances. The more means they took to assist the practical operation of the Bill, in providing employment for the poor, the better. He regretted that there was not some measure carried on in conjunction with this Bill which would promote its operation, such as an extensive system of public works. He believed that a great pressure on the board of guardians would be the result, and that great numbers of able-bodied men would be unable to obtain work. He trusted, therefore, that Government would do something to relieve the guardians from this difficulty. There was some prospect last Session of employment from public works forming an adjunct to this measure, and he hoped that it would not be lost sight of by the Government, and that the House would endeavour to open as many doors as possible to the employment of the poor of Ireland, as the best and most effectual method of giving real relief.
Mr. Hindleyobserved, that it had been said that this was not a party question. He wished it were a party question, for it would then be better for the poor of Ireland. They would then have had both sides of the House richly clothed; but because the poor of that country had no party in that House, hon. Members could
784
say this was not a party question, and both sides of the House could agree to oppress them. He could not concur with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in that a Poor-law was not necessary for Ireland. On the contrary, he thought it highly necessary, and therefore if he expressed the very strong objections which he felt to the measure in its present shape, he hoped the House would not infer that he was opposed to the principle of a poor-law generally. He had no objection to the machinery of this Bill, or to a board of guardians, but would the hon. Member for Wicklow call this a good Bill; when it contained a clause which dried up entirely that source of relief for destitution which as yet had never failed the poor of Ireland—he meant the charity of their countrymen. What did this Bill propose to do? In a country containing 2,000,000 of beggars, it was proposed to pass into law a clause which provided that every person begging or gathering alms, or placing himself for the purpose of begging or gathering alms, or placing any child to do so, should be committed to the house of correction, there to be kept to hard labour for any period not exceeding one calendar month, and for a repetition of the offence he was to be imprisoned for any period not exceeding three calendar months. Any person might apprehend the offender, and a justice of the peace might issue his warrant on suspicion, and then any person when in the last hour of destitution he cried to his fellow-man for relief, and had found a heart to assist him in his distress, might have the money taken from him and applied to defray the expense of conducting him to gaol, and of keeping him there. Did they live in a Christian land? Did the 43rd Elizabeth introduce any vagrancy clauses? This was called a bill for the more effectual relief of the Irish poor. If it deserved that title, did the House think that the Irish poor would not avail themselves of it? Did they suppose that they would beg a precarious subsistence from the hand of charity if they were properly treated in the workhouses of the noble Lord? He felt that if this clause were pressed, they would inflict as great an injustice on the people of the north of England as on the poor of Ireland. What would be the consequence? They would drive the poor of Ireland from that country to this. The principle upon which relief was to be afforded was this, that the treatment of the poor under the workhouse system, must be worse than the subsistence which

785
they might earn by their labour out of it. Now, what was the food on which the poor of Ireland lived? Potatoes and buttermilk. Their workhouse system, then, must provide them with worse food than this. But the Government said to the poor, "You shall not have recourse to private charity, but you shall be imprisoned in the workhouse, and fed on fare worse than potatoes and buttermilk, or else we will drive you from the land." They would then come to the north of England, they would compete with the labourers there, who were not accustomed to live on potatoes and buttermilk, and what would be the results of that competition it was not difficult to foresee. They would also apply to the manufacturers, and that would increase the distress which already prevailed there. He trusted that this clause would be struck out of the Bill.
Lord Clementswas sure, that the hon. Member who had just sat down, would himself, on reflection, condemn the intemperate language which the House had heard from him. The speech of the hon. Member was, he must say, more suited for the Committee than for the present moment. He was himself disposed to think that the mendicancy clauses had better be omitted. If reasons were given to satisfy him that they ought to be retained, he should be glad to see them form part of the bill, but he thought this was not the present time to discuss that question. In reference, however, to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member in the beginning of his speech, he must say, that it was very unfair in him to say that both parties in that House had agreed to oppress the poor of Ireland. He would assert that but one feeling prevailed in the House, and that was anxiety to remedy their condition. He should not have ventured to rise on this occasion, but that he wished to make one remark, which he begged to do with great respect and deference to the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department. He thought it desirable that the noble Lord should, on going into Committee, lay before the House a more general view than he had hitherto done of the way in which he would recommend that the discretion given to the Poor-law Commissioners should be acted on. He himself approved of the powers which were vested in the Poor-law Commissioners, but no explanation had yet been given of the way
786
in which they were to be exercised, and he believed that much of the dissatisfaction with the measure which prevailed in Ireland took its origin in the misapprehension which existed with respect to the nature of those powers. The present was a question of much complication; there was the question of the formation of unions, the question as to the size of the unions—whether the system was to be tried first in one part of Ireland, or whether it was intended that its operation should be simultaneous, which he thought would be found impracticable. If, therefore, the noble Lord, would give the House some explanation, not of the details but of the principles on which the discretion of the Poor-law Commissioners was to be exercised, he thought that it would soften the feeling of hostility with which this measure was regarded in some quarters.
Mr. William Rochesaid, that having but that moment arrived from Ireland, he had no opportunity of hearing the arguments and opinions adduced during the present discussion; but, nevertheless, he could not forego the occasion now presented of expressing his conviction that it was high time to extend to Ireland a system of protection for its poor; and that he was more disposed to regret that circumstances should have prevented its commencement at a much earlier period, than to quarrel with its adoption now; convinced as he was that if adopted some years ago, and therefore now in active and mature operation the condition of the Irish people, and the face of that country would present a much more gratifying aspect. Few opposed the measure on principle, and therefore, the sooner they came to the details and thereby expedited practical proceedings with a view to arrive at the test of experience, the sooner would they be enabled to discover faults, if any, and to smooth down difficulties. Difficulties no doubt must attend the maturing of every new measure and extensive change; but that he was quite sure so soon as the machinery was made by practical knowledge and experience, to work with ease, the measure would be found to be one most salutary and beneficial to all classes of the community. Nevertheless, no one felt more than he did that it was only a beginning and a fragment of what was due to Ireland, and necessary to remove the impediments and to call forth the sources of her prosperity—sources in which no country more abounded, but which from,

787
various causes, moral and political, had been grievously neglected, if not disregarded. Yet he considered this measure a most indispensable first step, and a sure foundation upon which to build future exertions, and if they allowed themselves to be deterred by seeming difficulties they might as well abandon it altogether, for whenever undertaken, those difficulties would have to be encountered. Therefore the sooner they began the nearer they would be to the disembarrassed advantages of that measure, and he could not allow speculative fears or doubts to retard even a mitigation of the mass of misery which so long and still pervaded the poorer classes of Ireland, and which must needs be so prolific of disorder and disturbance. Then in regard to its expense he trusted they would find it not so serious as might be apprehended; for a little before he left Limerick (the city he represents) he visited one of the principal asylums for the poor there, called the House of Industry; where he saw 400 to 500 poor fellow-beings, healthfully and gratefully fed and lodged, (though from want of adequate space rather crowded together), at the trivial expense of about 3d. each per day; very much owing indeed to the zeal and benevolence of a respected fellow-citizen, who so charitably and gratuitously superintended it. In fine he was disposed to strongly hope that when a short period of practical operation and experience smoothened down obstacles, and disclosed the proper remedies, this measure would be hailed and acknowledged as one most salutary and beneficial, but to render it so assuredly required the most rigid scrutiny of its details, both as regarded such a measure in general and in reference to the peculiarities of Ireland in particular.
Lord John Russellcertainly could not agree with the hon. Member for Ashton, who seemed to think that the House must intend to oppress the poor because there was an agreement between both parties to pass this measure for their welfare. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that we ought to go back to those times when beggary was generally permitted, and when it was considered to be rather a merit than otherwise that the whole country was overrun with troops of mendicants. The hon. Gentleman seemed also to think that at present the law permitted vagrancy in Ireland. But so far from that, as the law now stood, vagrants might be transported. The hon. Member, therefore, was mistaken in supposing that this bill introduced for
788
the first time a punishment for vagrancy. The Government thought that the law of Ireland pressed too severely on this offence, and they therefore proposed that it should be visited by a lighter punishment. The feelings of mankind would not go along with the law unless the law were consonant to general justice. It was the practice of the law in England, that while with one hand we offered relief to destitution, if it were not accepted, with the other we inflicted punishment for vagrancy. But while the law of Ireland punished vagrancy most severely, it gave destitution no relief. The Government, then, proposed to place the law on a more just footing, and while vagrancy was not to be permitted on the one hand, on the other relief would be given to the poor. He must say that it appeared to him that this arrangement was consonant with the principles of general justice. This was the general principle on which any poor-law should be founded. He knew no country in which it was not the duty of the state to relieve destitution, and punish vagrancy. But when they relieved the destitute, they should also take care to provide that no abuses should take place; and if any hon. Member should be of opinion that the hardships which would probably arise in individual instances from the establishment of the principle of a test of destitution would outweigh the advantages to be derived from its adoption, that hon. Member would be bound to oppose the Bill. He must observe that numerous cases had been proved to have occurred under the operation of the English Poor Law Act, and were equally likely to occur elsewhere, where persons not really destitute preferred the idle mode of subsisting by receiving parochial relief without work, rather than support themselves by the wages of industry. If he were asked to specify a recent instance of this description, he could point to a letter which had appeared in the public newspapers two or three days since from a person who signed himself a "Market Gardener," in which the public was cautioned against giving relief to persons going about and describing themselves as market gardeners out of work. The writer of this letter stated that if these persons chose to work, there was employment for them, but that, in point of fact, they had left their work of their own accord, so tempting a thing was it to them to live on the charity of the public. To abuses of this description the

789
charitable institutions of every country were liable. And if they established by law a system of relief, without identifying with it some test of destitution, they would run a great risk of turning men, who might otherwise be laborious and useful members of society, aside from the paths of industry. For these reasons he had arrived at the conclusion that some test of destitution there should be, and that which appeared to be the best practical test, was the workhouse, established upon the principle that no person should receive relief outside it. He was not prepared to say that in Ireland particular circumstances might not exist which might call for some modification of this principle. He was not prepared to say that in Ireland there ought to be no relief except in the workhouse. Neither did he say, that there might not be some other test framed; but that the principle must, he believed, at least with certain limitations, be adopted. He was glad to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) approved of the principle of the Bill, and would give it his support. The details would of course all form the subject of consideration in Committee. His noble Friend near him had made some observations as to the mode in which the commissioners were to proceed in working out the details of the Bill. He did not exactly understand the point to which the noble Lord alluded. If there was any point upon which he was desirous of being informed as to his (Lord J. Russell's) intentions, he should be happy to explain to the noble Lord. This much he would observe generally, that in carrying into effect the details of the Bill, much must of course be left to the discretion of the commissioners. He was happy to find that no serious opposition had been made to the second reading of this Bill. And from what had fallen from several hon. Gentlemen, he belived that the House was disposed generally to adopt some Bill of this description; and, without entertaining the extravagant expectations in which some individuals had indulged, as to the benefits which the people of Ireland would derive from this Bill, he would express his belief that it would tend very much to improve their condition.
Bill read a second time.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS AND FREEMEN BILL.
The Order of the Day for going into Committee upon this Bill having been read upon the motion of Lord J. Russell,
Mr. H. Hinderose, pursuant to notice, to move that the Bill be divided into two Bills, the first referring to the 10 l. household voters, and the other referring to the freemen. It had been said by the noble Lord opposite, that, in conceding a been to the freemen of this country, it was proper that a been should also be conceded to the 10 l. householders. With that part of the subject, however, he had nothing to do. But he would observe that the noble Lord having been, as he might say, compelled to grant this been to the freemen when the hon. Member for Coventry brought forward this subject last year, he had determined to grant it with the worst possible grace. For coupling it with another been to the 10 l. householders, in remitting to them a portion of their taxes, he adopted the most effectual means of insuring its rejection in the other House of Parliament. Having treated this subject at considerable length before, he would content himself with expressing a hope that the House would support him in his present proposition, which was for the separation of two subjects which were totally distinct, and rested upon entirely different grounds.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he had stated upon a former occasion the grounds upon which it had been judged proper to unite these two subjects in the same Bill. He could not say, that the hon. and learned gentleman had convinced him by any of the reasons which he had advanced, that he was wrong in adopting that course. He therefore thought that the House should pass into Committee upon the Bill as it stood at present.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that when this subject was last before the House, he had stood forward for the purpose of vindicating the honest freemen of England from the charges of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, her Majesty's Attorney-General, who had thought fit to designate them "the curse of the country." He was happy again to have the opportunity of standing forward boldly in behalf of those injured, individuals whose character he was ever ready to defend. The two points which, formed the subject of the present Bill appeared to him to be totally incongruous; and, for his part, he never would become a party to any such unjustifiable and underhanded trick. He certainly would not commit himself by giving his sanction to any Bill of this, he was going to say, nefarious description.
Sir Adolphus Dalrymplecould not sup-

791
port the proposed separation, because he was anxious to effect both the objects of the Bill. The rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act he considered to operate merely as a help to the tax gatherers, and in many places most distressing circumstances took place in consequence of their strict enforcement. In the borough which he represented it was the custom of the overseers and collectors of taxes to sit up till twelve o'clock at night on the 20th of July to receive the taxes; and their strict payment entailed, therefore, considerable hardships on the public officers, as well as upon the rate-payers themselves. The interval between the 5th of April and the 20th of July was a period during which many persons were frequently away from home, it was inconvenient for them, therefore, to pay the taxes, and these persons on their return very frequently found themselves disfranchised. Another objection which he entertained to the system as it stood was, that it made the collector of poor-rates a political person, for he had the power on the 15th or l6th of July of going round to his political friends, telling them that their taxes must be paid before the 20th, or they would be disfranchised; he postponed his call upon his opponents, who being ignorant of what was required, lost their votes. He thought, therefore, that the Bill should pass without alteration, as he did not consider it as changing any part of the principle of the Reform Act, but only as an amendment on some of its details, which had been found to work badly.
Mr. Praedcould not see the propriety of mixing up one part of the Bill with the other, and thus making them stand or fall together. The principle involved in the two parts was entirely different. The stamp duty on the admission of freemen was imposed only for fiscal purposes, and had no reference to their right to vote; and even during the discussion on the Reform Bill not one word was said on the necessity for this payment. Up to that time the admission to the freedom was the means of acquiring several pecuniary privileges, and the right to vote was only an incidental advantage. These pecuniary privileges had since been taken away, and all that remained of the right for which they had to pay the stamp-duty was the exercise of the elective franchise, for which they ought not to be made to pay. With the ten pound householders, however, the case was different. They had a right conferred upon
792
them by the Reform Act subject to the performance of certain conditions, and if the House altered or repealed these conditions the Reform Bill would be altered, and with many persons this circumstance alone would be a sufficient reason for rejecting the Bill. The noble Lord had said that if a been were given to one class he would give another been to the other class; both the freemen and the ten pound householders, however, disclaimed the receiving of any such boon. If it were for the public advantage let their demands be granted, but let it not be described as a boon. If, it were meant as a been to the freemen how could they expect that it would proceed from the Ministerial side of the House, on which sat the noble Lord who had already denounced the freemen, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who considered them so great an evil? He (Mr. Praed) saw no reason why the Bill should not be divided into two parts, and why the House should not decide separately on the merits of each; and he should therefore vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle.
Mr. Macleanobjected to proceeding with the Bill. If it were proposed on the ground of fraud on the part of the overseers, he could understand it, but none such was alleged, and the House was left entirely in the dark as to the reasons for proposing the measure. If it were correct to relieve the Parliamentary electors, why did they not make it more extensive and let it apply to voters under the Vestry and Corporation Acts, in both of which Acts payment of rates formed part of the qualification? He objected also to the introduction of a series of changes without the reason for them having been unfolded by the leader of that House; and unless good grounds for this measure were brought forward, he hoped that it would be rejected on the third reading.
The House divided on Mr. Hinde's motion:—Ayes 68; Noes 158: Majority 90.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Blair, J.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Blennerhasset, A.

Attwood, W.

Burr, H.

Bailey, I.

Canning rt. hn. Sir S.

Baillie, Colonel

Chapman, A.

Baker, E.

Chute, W. L. W.

Barrington, Viscount

Creswell, C.

Bateman, J.

D'Israell, B.

Bell, M.

Eaton, R. J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Ellis, J.

Blackstone, W. S.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

793

Forbes, W.

Milnes, R. M.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Parker, T. A. W.

Freshfield, J. W.

Perceval, Colonel

Gladstone, W. E.

Peyton, H.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Planta, right hon. J.

Gore, O. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Grimsditch, T.

Praed, W. M.

Hodgson, R.

Pringle, A.

Hogg, J. W.

Rickford, W.

Holmes, hon. W. A. C.

Round, C. G.

Hughes, W. B.

Round, J.

Johnstone, H.

Sandon, Viscount

Jones, T.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Kemble, H.

Shirley, E. J.

Knatchbull, hn. Sir R.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Law, hon. C. E.

Stuart, H.

Lockhart, A. M.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Logan, H.

Villiers, Viscount

Lowther, hon. Col.

Whitmore, T. C.

Mackenzie, T.

Wood, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Wynn, right hon. C. W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

TELLERS.

Marton, G.

Hinde, J. H.

Maxwell, H.

Maclean, D.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Dashwood, G. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Duke, Sir J.

Aglionby, Major

Duncombe, T.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Dundas, C. W. D.

Anson, Sir G.

Dundas, F.

Archbold, R.

Dundas, hon. T.

Attwood, T.

Dundas, Captain D.

Baines, E.

Easthope, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Ebrington, Viscount

Beamish, F. B.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Bellew, R. M.

Ellice, E.

Bernal, R.

Erle, W.

Bewes, T.

Evans, Colonel

Blackett, C.

Evans, G.

Blake, M. J.

Fielden, J.

Blake, W. J.

Fenton, J.

Bridgman, H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Briscoe, J. I.

Ferguson, rt. hn. R. C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Finch, F.

Brodie, W. B.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Brotherton, J.

French, F.

Buller, C.

Gibson, J.

Buller, E.

Gillon, W. D.

Busfield, W.

Gordon, R.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Goring, H. D.

Callaghan, D.

Grattan, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Grattan, H.

Cayley, E. S.

Grote, G.

Clay, W.

Hall, B.

Clements, Viscount

Harland, W. C.

Clive, E. B.

Hawkins, J. H.

Collier, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Colquhoun, Sir J.

Kindley, C.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Craig, W. G.

Hodges, T. L.

Crawford, W.

Howard, F. J.

Crompton, S.

Howard, P. H.

Curry, W.

Hume, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Humphery, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Hutton, R.

794

Ingham, R.

Russell, Lord John

James, W.

Russell, Lord G.

Jervis, S.

Salwey, Colonel

Lambton, H.

Sandford, E. A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Scholefield, J.

Lennox, Lord G.

Scrope, G. P.

Lister, E. C.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Macleod, R.

Stanley, W. O.

Mactaggard, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Maher, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Marshall, W.

Stuart, V.

Marsland, H.

Strangways, hon. J.

Martin, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Maule, W. H.

Style, Sir C.

Melgund, Viscount

Talbot, J. H.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Tancred, H. W.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Thornley, T.

Morris, D.

Tracy, H. H.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Muskett, G. A.

Turner, E.

Nagle, Sir R.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Brien, W. S.

Villiers, C. P.

O'Connor Don

Vivian, Major C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Wakley, T.

Parker, J.

Walker, C. A.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wallace, R.

Parrott, J.

Warburton, H.

Pattison, J.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Pease, J.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Pechell, Gaptain

Whalley, Sir S.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

White, A.

Philips, M.

Williams, W.

Philpotts, J.

Wilshere, W.

Poulter, J. S.

Wood, C.

Protheroe, E.

Wood, Sir M.

Pryme, G.

Wrightson, W. B.

Redington, T. N.

Yates, J. A.

Rice, E. R.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

TELLERS.

Rich, H.

Stanley, E. J.

Roche, W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

The House resolved itself into a Committee on the 1st clause.
Mr. T. Duncomberose to introduce an amendment, which, as he thought, would be a great benefit. He proposed to leave out the last two lines in the first clause, "except such as shall have become payable from him previously to the 11th day of October in the preceding year." The effect, if the omission which he suggested were adopted by the House, would be to enact that, after the passing of that Act, no person should be required, in order to have his name retained in the list of voters for any city, town, or borough, in England, for any year, to have paid any poor-rates or assessed taxes. This was a simple and summary mode of repealing the rate-paying clauses of the Reform form Act. It was for the House to say whether the clause should be repealed, or whether the remedy which he proposed

795
was not preferable to the homoeopathic provisions of the Bill. Motions to the same effect had already been brought forward in the House, which for a considerable time had been generally rejected, but at the same time they were gradually more favourably received, and at length one which he had introduced to the House in the year 1837 was carried by a majority of eleven. Some, observations had fallen from an hon. Member opposite that the more respectable classes of society were those by whom the rates were more generally paid, but he was prepared to say, that this was not the case, for in the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, which was well known as the most aristocratic parish in London, containing most of the fashionable streets and squares, there were 5,144 persons rated, and who would be entitled to vote, but of whom twenty-two only had paid their rates. This at least showed that it was not always the disreputable portion of the community who were negligent in this respect. The clause completely reversed the order of things, for it not only required the electors to be taxed, but it also required that they should have paid the tax before they could vote for the representatives that were to be empowered on the principles of the constitution to impose taxes on them. He did not see why it should apply to 10 l. householders, and not to tenants of the yearly value of 50 l. who had votes for the counties, and he knew that many 50 l. tenants had expressed their wish that the principle should apply to them, because they could then disfranchise themselves if they chose, and relieve themselves from the unpleasant situations in which they were frequently placed. When the noble Lord proposed the Reform Bill he told them that they were to have 500,000 additional men called into electoral existence in Great Britain, of which London was to have 95,000; whereas it had at present but 47,000. It was thrown out also by an hon. Member opposite that the Bill would not be well received elsewhere. He believed it would not; but if the House adopted his amendment, it would have the effect of showing to the public the opinion of the House; and he was persuaded that if the noble Lord would adopt his amendment he would have the public feeling very much in his favour in consequence. Therefore, he sincerely hoped that the noble Lord would adopt the amendment, which hew as convinced would give universal satisfaction to true Reformers. The noble Lord would then be able to send
796
the Bill to the other House with the greatest satisfaction, and with the greatest confidence in the effect which it would produce in the public mind.
Lord John Russellhad only to say, that the proposition of the hon. Member was far wide of the alteration which he proposed—an alteration which was originally suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. He proposed it on the ground, which he considered a just one, of punctuality in the payment of the rates year after year. It often happened that persons failed in paying those rates at the necessary time for entitling them to be placed on the register, and, therefore, said the hon. Gentleman, was it that persons to whom the Reform Bill intended to give the franchise were by this provision prevented from exercising it, although every person admitted that those were the persons for whom the Reform Bill was chiefly intended. But the hon. Member's proposition now was, that the franchise ought to be given to persons for whom the Reform Bill intended it. The Reform Bill adopted the principle established in the constitution of this country respecting scot and lot voters, that the payment of the rates should be looked upon as the criterion of their solvency. The hon. Member wished them to extend the franchise to those who did not pay taxes, and who gave no test of solvency, a proposition consequently differing from the Reform Bill, and one in which he could not therefore agree. It would be in fact, to admit that the Reform Bill, and the ancient constitution, were altogether wrong, and that insolvency and beggary were no obstacle to the exercise of the franchise.
Mr. Warburtonwould ask why householders should be required at all to prove their solvency, and why a rule should be applied to persons resident in England which was not applied to electors in Scotland. He was prepared to vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury, but he would go farther than that hon. Member; and he was sure that if the hon. Member would propose a regulation for England similar to that which existed in Scotland he would succeed. He really hoped that some hon. Member would put a motion to that effect on record, in order that the opportunity of exhibiting the opinion of the House to the public might not be lost.
Mr. Claysaid, that before the passing of the Reform Act, the qualification of voters was on a far different footing from

797
that which now existed, and the House had then adopted a pecuniary qualification; but he did not think that that should be used as a means of enforcing payment of taxes, and he thought it would be better to repeal or modify that section of the Reform Bill, which had a rather larger influence than had been originally thought. He said this because he was one of those who was disposed to take his stand on the Reform Act, and he stated distinctly that he did not think it advisable to extend the elective franchise to others besides those mentioned in it. The pecuniary test was that which it had been chosen to assume, and he believed that it had gone far enough, and he was entitled to demand that the whole of the class should have the elective franchise. Bribery and corruption, it was complained, had hitherto been practised, but he thought that the proposition of the hon. Member, if adopted, would give it one more opportunity. He concluded by declaring his intention to support the noble Lord.
Colonel Evanssaid, he believed the Bill to be an extremely useful amendment of the Reform Act, and he sincerely thanked the noble Lord for the amendment which he had introduced. At the same time however, he could not but express his intention to vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, which was only consistent with the view which he took during the passing of the Reform Bill.
Mr. Humewas prepared to say that much mischief had hitherto proceeded from the system at present acted upon, for during the last Westminster election but one he saw some dozen persons who were prepared to vote for Mr. Leader if the committee would pay their taxes; but he had reason to believe, that their votes were eventually secured by the Conservative candidate. When the clause in the Reform Bill referring to scot and lot voters was before the House, it was predicted that this would be the result, and it was the result; and he thought that the noble Lord was bound to complain of the Reform Bill. His object in passing that measure was not to have any constituency consisting of less than 300 voters, but he must now be well aware that there were forty with less than that.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he was astonished at the statement just made by his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny. It was well known that one of the purposes of the Reform Act was to remove the species of temptation to which the elec-
798
tors just mentioned were presumed to have been exposed. If there had not been such a provision as there was in the Reform Act, the temptation to electors to ask the committees of candidates to pay their taxes would have been great; but according to the Reform Act, before they could vote, their names must be on the registry, and before those names could get there, the parties, antecedently to a certain day in July, must have paid all the taxes due previous to the preceding 5th of April. He could not, then, conceive how electors of Westminster came to a candidate's committee asking them to pay their taxes. Not being on the register how could they expect to vote, and they could not be on the register if they had failed to pay their taxes. He was glad, then, that his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny had not been imposed on by persons thus pretending to be electors. His hon. Friends, the Members for Bridport and for Finsbury had complained that towns and counties were not placed, with respect to the right of voting, upon the same footing, appearing at the same time to complain of that as an instance of inconsistency in him (Lord J. Russell). To this he had but one reply to make, namely, that he had never undertaken to do any thing of the sort. In the Reform Act no general uniformity of principle was proposed in the modes of voting for counties and cities. Electors for counties were presumed to possess an estate in land, and no other test of their solvency was required. As to those who claimed to vote under the 50 l. tenant-at-will clause, there might, perhaps, have been no objection to their payment of rates and taxes being required as a qualification, and, in fact, he considered that a provision for that purpose ought to have been introduced. While he was upon this part of the subject he begged to observe that his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had voted for that 50 l. tenant-at-will clause, and that none of the Government did. His hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, used another argument in favour of the proposed amendment, on which he wished to make an observation. His hon. Friend contended that the Scottish elector was not bound to prove the payment of rates; so far from that being the case the Scottish Reform Act provided that electors should prove the payment on or before the 20th of August in the year in which the act was passed, and on or before the 20th of July in all future years, of all rates and

799
taxes which fell due before the 6th of April preceding. How, then, his hon. Friend could say that the Scottish Reform differed from the English Reform Act appeared to him incomprehensible. He believed that if he had thus called attention to the clause of the act to which his hon. Friend referred, it Would have been supposed that there really existed a substantial difference between the two acts.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, in explanation, that when the names of the electors were once on the register, it never after became necessary for them to prove the payment of rates and taxes.
Mr. Gillonsaid, it had been ruled that the non-payment of rates and taxes formed no valid objection to the right of voting. He thought his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, had used his argument fairly enough, and was right in his facts. As to the amendment of his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, it should have his cordial support.
Mr. Bainesapproved of the principle of the Bill, but he contended that its operation ought to be extended. By the Bill as it at present stood, the extension of the time for the payment of rates and taxes, applied only to persons whose names were already upon the register of the past year, and not to those who claimed in virtue of their occupancy to have their names inserted upon the register for the first time. This was a distinction unknown to the Reform Act, and he hoped the noble Lord would extend the time for the payment to the 11th of October in the preceding year, as well to those names which were not in the former register as to those that were inserted in that register. He might mention, to show the importance of this alteration, that in the borough which he had the honour to represent there were upwards of a thousand names claiming to be registered in the last revising barristers' court, not one of whom could have availed himself of the benefit of this Bill if it had then been passed into a law. Nothing could be more detrimental to the Reform Act than to grant the privileges under it partially or parsimoniously.
Sir S. Whalleysupported the amendment, and referred to the opinions expressed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire, during the debates on the Reform Act. Their opinions, he had no doubt, would have more weight with the House
800
than any thing he could urge. The former said, that the clause which the hon. Member for Finsbury sought to amend would open a wide door to bribery and corruption—that strong temptations would be held out to electors to invite candidates to pay their rates and taxes, and the result, he had no doubt, would be that purity of election must be impaired to a greater extent than before. The right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire stated, that he had long been resident in London—that he never was called on in July for the rates due in April, and he thought it would be hard if he happened to be out of town and neglected to pay his rates that that circumstance should deprive him of the right of voting. He was sure that the effect of the clause must be to disfranchise hundreds of thousands of electors. It was also material for the House to recollect, that Sir Charles Wetherell, in the same debate, had contended, that the people would not find the 10 l. qualification any great boon, when it was fettered with this restriction. He hoped, then, that the noble Lord would reconsider his measure, and take the advice of the hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. Praedconsidered that it was necessary he should correct a misapprehension into which an hon. Member had fallen with respect to what he had stated. He never said, that the rich and the reputable would pay their rates, while the poor and disreputable would not pay; he thought, on the contrary, and said, that many reputable people might not pay their rates, but he was of opinion, that the payment of a man's just and fair debts afforded a fair test of his respectability. He objected to the clause however, on grounds totally distinct from those relied on by hon. Members opposite. The opinions of right hon. Members, not now in the House, referred to by the hon. Member for Marylebone, supplied no evidence as to what they thought of the present Bill. On the opposition side of the House, they desired to abide by the Reform Act in its present state, and to take it as a whole. As to the evil arising from the non-payment of taxes, it was every year decreasing, and he really thought that, after the change in the franchise which that measure effected, it was not unreasonable to expect the continuance of such a test of solvency, of respectability, of attention to, and interest in, public affairs, as the punctual payment of rates and taxes supplied. He was resolved to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Hallhad no doubt, that if the right hon. Members referred to were in the House, they would vote against the amendment; they opposed the extension of the franchise, and now they desired to cripple its exercise as much as possible. He could name three Gentlemen, Members of that House, whose sufficiency could not be doubted, whose names had been struck off the register of voters, in consequence of not having paid their rates. In small boroughs, where parties were divided, the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Act, in addition to many other evils consequent upon them, placed the election too much in the hands of the overseers. Candidates were frequently called upon to pay the voter's taxes for him; and he had no hesitation in declaring, that some years ago, he had assisted in the payment of the rates and taxes of some persons occupying 10 l. houses, in order that they might be placed upon the register of electors. In his opinion the 10 l. franchise should be carried out to its full extent, and he thought, that there was no right to demand that a vote should be consequent on the payment of rates. He should, therefore, support the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. J. Jervisconsidered it impossible to find one argument in favour of the course followed by the noble Lord. It was a truckling and a middle course, and if this measure were taken as a sample of the policy of the Government, he was sure they would derive commendation from no party in the House, and that the people without would give them no credit, but that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be praised for spoiling the question for which they were all contending, viz., freedom of election.
Mr. Leadersaid, that at his election for Westminster there were not ten or twelve, but hundreds of persons holding the 10 l. franchise who were anxious to vote for him, but who could not do so, because, owing to some accident or some negligence, their names had been struck off the registry. In consequence of this rate-paying claim they could not vote. This had occurred to him not only in Westminster, but also at Bridgewater. It frequently happened that the overseers were Tories, and favourable to their own party, and they took the opportunity their offices gave them of disfranchising electors by calling on ratepayers opposed to them only once for their rates, but giving to others the convenience of their calling several times. This ought
802
not to be the case, and the continuance of it was a great temptation to corruption. It opened a wide source for corruption at the time of registration. The hon. Member for Marylebone had declared in a very manly manner, and he wished others who had done so would avow it as candidly, that he had assisted many in being registered by the payment of their rates. This, however, he considered as almost buying their votes; it was certainly giving them something for them. He thought that the proposal of the noble Lord would ensure opposition from a large party in that House, and the rejection of it in the Upper House, but that the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury was what the majority of electors wished for. If men were fit to vote by a 10 l. qualification, they were fit without the consideration of their rates being paid or not; this ought not to have been super-added to the franchise, it was an unnecessary restriction, and he should, therefore, support the amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury.
Lord Ebringtondid not think the payment of rates the best qualification, but, as he considered that the amendment would defeat the object of the Bill, he should vote for the proposal of the noble Lord.
Colonel Sibthorphad not the slightest political respect for either Whigs or Radicals; and since the noble Lord had been altering, patching up, and mending the measure of reform, which he had told him at the time of passing, he knew nothing about, he would ask the noble Lord why the 10 l. qualification should not be extended to the county electors as well as to those of boroughs? He should like to see this power given to them. As to the rejection of this measure by the House of Lords, he hoped that House would long continue to resist the machinations of parties opposite. With respect to the noble Lord's proposal, he considered it mere trumpery; and as to that of the hon. Member for Finsbury, it was still more truckling. Unless some good measure were brought forward, he would vote for neither the one nor the other, but thought he should best perform his duty by withdrawing altogether.
Mr. C. Bullerthought, the best provision of the Reform Act was the extension of the franchise to 50 l. landholders; but he had long wished to see the 10 l. qualification extended to both town and country, as he considered it the only reasonable proposition for

803
putting an end to further litigation on the subject. He owned that it was not without great regret he had heard the noble Lord express his intention of opposing the proposal of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He could not understand in what manner the noble Lord could adhere to the principle of the Reform Bill, and not go on to doing away with the rate-paying clause altogether. The noble Lord's proposition, without the amendment proposed by his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, was practically a repeal of that clause, for a great number of persons who were now disfranchised would get their votes by means of this Bill, but he thought the measure would not pass the other, House. The people felt no interest in the Bill, because it enlarged their franchise in a manner they did not ask for. He wished to stand on the true intention of the Reform Bill. The rate-paying clause, however, gave great power to overseers, and many of their own party were allowed to be registered, whilst others of the opposite party were, although equally reputable persons, frequently disfranchised by their means.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought, it was of much greater importance to propose such measures as were likely to be carried into effect than to push principles too far and fail altogether. The Bill of his noble Friend met the case of a man who, under existing circumstances, would be deprived of his vote by an accidental omission to pay his rate, and supplied a remedy for that inconvenience, whereas the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury would extend the franchise to an individual who might be insolvent. He could not help observing that the practice pursued by some hon. Members on the present and other occasions was calculated to place the Ministers in a false position, for whenever an advanced step in the course of amendment was taken by them, it was misrepresented to the country by its being immediately contrasted with some more extreme measure. He begged to remind the House that when the present Bill was introduced in a former Parliament, it was received with general satisfaction by the Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House.
Sir E. Sugdenfelt some surprise at the Bill proposed by the Government, support for which was demanded, not only from those who advocated the present small measure, but also from those who were in favour of a stronger measure. He recollected that the noble Lord once denounced
804
all changes of the Reform Act, saying that it was a charter by which he would abide, and that a revolution once a year was too much for any country to bear: and yet the noble Lord now proposed to make an alteration of that charter; whereupon the hon. Member for Finsbury said, as it was natural he should say, if there is to be an alteration at all let it be an effectual one. If he were forced to choose between the two propositions, he should certainly vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury; but he was for leaving the Reform Act alone. When that Act was first introduced, the right of voting was made dependent upon the payment of rent, but in consequence of his repeated remonstrances on the inconveniences and evils which such a provision would create, that portion of the bill was not insisted on; and now that the Bill had passed into law, he was not the one who would consent to see it altered day after day. It appeared to him that the Government desired to open the rate-paying clauses, and to enlarge the franchise; but they had not the courage to make that proposition frankly, and they therefore wished, by a little grant and a little concession, to pave the way by degrees for the adoption of the hon. Member for Finsbury's motion. He repeated, he was against all changes of the Reform Act. When he last had the honour of sitting in Parliament, he remembered that if he found the least fault with the provisions of the Reform Act, he was told that the people were knocking at the doors of that House, and that they were devotedly attached to the bill—the whole bill. Well! the bill having passed into law, nobody obeyed it with greater fidelity than himself, for he took the principle of Conservatism to be, to oppose that which might be deemed bad, but when once it passed into law, to obey it. But now it was said by the other side that the oppression practised under the Reform Act was such as no man could long endure. Did the noble Lord think, that continually tampering with the constitution of England, that making some trifling alteration in it year after year, and leaving the rights of Englishmen unsettled, was a course which would be long endured by the country? He again repeated that he would oppose these eternal changes in the Reform Act, which had worked better than he had expected—a result he attributed to the right feeling and good sense of the people of England.
Lord John Russellfelt extreme astonish-

805
ment at hearing the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had so perseveringly and bitterly opposed the Reform Bill, now say, with regard to that measure, "leave well alone." The hon. and learned Gentleman having night after night opposed the progress of that bill—having condemned it as revolutionary, and predicted that it would take the Crown off the Monarch's head, and sever Church from State, now, after an absence of some years returned to the House, and,
"Ut belli signum laurenti Turnus ab arce Extulit,"
he waged another war against the Government under other auspices; for he attacked not the Reform Act, being, indeed, only anxious to bear testimony to its beneficial operation and the utter failure of all his predictions. The spirit of Conservatism appeared to be very strong and singular in its nature, for he should certainly have expected that the hon. Gentlemen opposite, being so strong in numbers, would have come forward with a proposition to repeal a bill which they characterised as sure to work perpetual mischief. At the motion made by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he felt no surprise; because that hon. Member, and the Gentlemen who supported his views, always contended that the Reform Bill should lead to other changes. What they asked now was, in principle, that property should have nothing to do with the elective franchise. That, he thought, was implied by their proposition. For his part, he had always contended that the principle of the Reform Bill should be maintained; but he had never gone so far as to say, that there could not possibly be found any defects in that measure arising from its working, or arising from the conduct of those who had always been its enemies, and who tried to impede its working in a natural and safe manner. He should, therefore, be always ready to promote practical remedies for such defects, and he thought that if such practical amendments were introduced, they would tend to the maintenance of the Reform Bill; and that if they were refused, the consequence would be, that such propositions as that of the hon. Member for Finsbury, would meet with greater support.
Mr. C. Bullercomplained of the charge made against the supporters of the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury, that they wished to have the electoral qua-
806
lification totally unconnected with property. On what ground did the noble Lord make such a charge?
Lord J. Russellthought, that the principle involved in the proposition was, that property should not be the basis of the qualification, for it did away with the necessity of paying rates, which might be looked upon as a test of the bonâ fide occupation of a House.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it appeared from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the duty of the Conservatives was to oppose a bad law before passing, and to support it after it had passed, maintaining it unchanged in its original form. It was certainly a curious sort of Conservatism for hon. Gentlemen opposite to support a law against which they had so vehemently protested, as they did against the Reform Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, and those around him, were continually crying out against every improvement, and saying, "let well alone." They would admit of no alterations in the Reform Bill, against which they had ever exerted all their energies. The right hon. Gentleman had said, he had contended against the rent-paying clauses of the Reform Bill, and been successful in having them removed, and in his (Mr. O'Connell's) opinion, it would be better to strike out the rate-paying clause also; and he should therefore vote for the amendment.
Sir E. Sugdenobserved, that he had only talked of obeying the law, and had said nothing of alterations of the law. To obey the laws, he had said, was the duty of the Conservatives; but perhaps the hon. Member for Dublin did not fully understand that duty.
Mr. O'Connelldid not say whether his obedience to the laws was or was not greater than that of the right hon. Gentleman. He regretted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should have lost his temper.
Sir E. Sugdencould assure the hon. Member for Dublin that he had not lost temper.
Mr. O'Connell: Then all I have to say is, that the right hon. Gentleman can say an uncivil thing in good humour—that's all.
The Committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the clause:—Ayes 206; Noes 107:—Majority 99.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Adam, Sir C.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Adare, Viscount

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Fleming, J.

Ashley, Lord

Forbes, W.

Bagge, W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Bagot, hon. W.

French, F.

Bailey, J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Baillie, Colonel

Gibson, T.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Baker, E.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Baring, H. B.

Goddard, A.

Baring, W. B.

Godson, R.

Barrington, Viscount

Gordon, R.

Bateman, J.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Bellew, R. M.

Gore, O. J. R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Goring, H. D.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Granby, Marquess of

Bewes, T.

Grey, Sir G.

Blackett, C.

Grimsditch, T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Grimston, Viscount

Blair, James

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Blennerhassett, A.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Bradshaw, J.

Hale, R. B.

Briscoe, J. I.

Harcourt, G. S.

Broadley, H.

Hardinge, right hon. Sir H.

Broadwood, Henry

Brodie, W. B.

Harland, W. C.

Brownrigg, S.

Hayter, W. G.

Buller, E.

Heron, Sir R.

Burr, H.

Hinde, J. H.

Busfield, W.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Byng, G.

Byng, right hon. G. S.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Cayley, E. S.

Hodgson, F.

Christopher, R. A.

Hodgson, R.

Clements, Viscount

Hogg, J. W.

Clive, E. B.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

Collier, J.

Hope, G. W.

Colquhoun, Sir J.

Houstoun, G.

Compton, H. C.

Hughes, W. B.

Copeland, Alderman

Hurst, R. H.

Corry, hon. H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Craig, W. G.

James, Sir W. C.

Crawford, W.

Johnstone, H.

Crompton, S.

Jones, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Jones, T.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Kemble, H.

Darby, G.

Knatchbull, hn. Sir E.

D'Israeli, B.

Knight, H. G.

Dottin, A. R.

Knightley, Sir C.

Duff, J.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Duffield, T.

Law, hon. C. E.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Dundas, F.

Lemon, Sir C.

Dundas, hon. T.

Lennox, Lord G.

Dundas, Captain

Loch, J.

East, J. B.

Lockhart, A M.

Eaton, R. J.

Logan, H.

Ebrington, Viscount

Long, W.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Ellis, J.

Lowther, J. H.

Estcourt, T.

Lygon, hon. General

808

Mackenzie, T.

Sandford, E. A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Seale, Colonel

Maidstone, Viscount

Seymour, Lord

Manners, Lord C. S.

Sharpe, General

Master, T. W. C.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Maunsell, T. P.

Shirley, E. J.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Smith, hon. R.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Smith, R. V.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Standish, C.

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Stanley, W. O.

Packe, C. W.

Stuart, H.

Paget, Lord A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Palmer, C. F.

Strangways, hon. J.

Palmer, R.

Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.

Palmerston, Viscount

Surrey, Earl of

Parker, J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Parker, T. A. W.

Townley, R. G.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Trench, Sir F.

Pease, J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pemberton, T.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Tuffnell, H.

Perceval, Colonel

Vere, Sir C. B.

Peyton, H.

Verney, Sir H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Villiers, Viscount

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

Vivian, Major C.

Poulter, J. S.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Praed, W. M.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Pringle, A.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Rice, E. R.

Whitmore, T. C.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Wilberforce, W.

Rich, R.

Wilshere, W.

Richards, R.

Wood, C.

Rickford, W.

Wood, Sir M.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Wood, T.

Rose, right hon. Sir G.

Wrightson, W. B.

Round, C. G.

Young, Sir W.

Round, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord J.

Stanley, E. J.

Russell, Lord C.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Divett, E.

Archbold, R.

Duckworth, S.

Allwood, T.

Duke, Sir J.

Baines, E.

Easthope, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Ellice, E.

Beamish, F. B.

Evans, G.

Blake, M. J.

Fielden, J.

Blake, W. J.

Fenton, J.

Bowes, J.

Finch, F.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Gillon, W. D.

Bridgeman, H.

Grattan, H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Grote, G.

Brotherton, J.

Hall, B.

Buller, C.

Harvey, D. W.

Callaghan, D.

Hastie, A.

Chalmers, P.

Hawkins, J. H.

Clay, W.

Heathcoat, J.

Collins, W.

Hindley, C.

Conyngham, Lord A.

Hodges, T. L.

Currie, R.

Hume, J.

Curry, W.

Humphrey, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Hutton, R.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.

James, W.

809

Jervis, J.

Rippon, C.

Jervis, S.

Salwey, Colonel

Johnston, General

Scholefield, J.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Somers, J. P.

Leader, J. T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Lister, E. C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Lushington, Dr.

Stuart, V.

Lushington, C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Macleod, R.

Strutt, E.

Maher, J.

Style, Sir C.

Marshall, W.

Talbot, J. H.

Marsland, H.

Tancred, H. W.

Martin, J.

Thornley, T.

Maule, W. H.

Tracy, H. H.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Turner, E.

Morris, D.

Vigors, N. A.

Muskett, G. A.

Villiers, C. P.

Nagle, Sir R.

Vivian, J. H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Wakley, T.

O'Connell, D.

Walker, C. A.

O'Connell, J.

Walker, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wallace, R.

O'Connell, M.

Whalley, Sir S.

O'Conor, Don

White, A.

Parrot, J.

White, S.

Pattison, J.

Williams, W.

Philips, M.

Worsley, Lord

Phillpotts, J.

Wyse, T.

Protheroe, E.

Yates, J. A.

Pryme, G.

TELLERS.

Ramsbotton, J.

Duncombe, T.

Redington, T. N.

Warburton, H.

The clause was again put to the vote.
Mr. Bainessuggested to the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, whether proof of one year's payment of taxes would not be sufficient. He did not mean to divide the House on the subject, but as the law at present stood, it was necessary, in many cases, to go back for, perhaps, twenty years, and he had seen great inconvenience resulting as the consequence to the revising barristers. He thought it would be better, if the payment of one year's rates and taxes before entering the name of the elector on the register was made sufficient. He only wished to suggest the matter to the noble Lord, and had no wish to impede the progress of the bill.
Lord J. Russellthought, the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Leeds, would have been better discussed on a question of registration than on the present occasion.
Mr. Macleansaid, there was one portion of the clause on which he should divide the House, unless the noble Lord opposite consented to alter it. The bill required the payment of rates and taxes to give a right to vote, but it never could have been the object of its framers to apply any other test than that of solvency to claimants for the
810
right of exercising the franchise. Now, overseers might have prejudices and be actuated by party feelings, and therefore decline calling on and demanding payment of rates from those whom they did not wish to vote. Unless, therefore, the noble Lord consented to frame the clause so as to make a demand for payment of rates by the overseers necessary before an elector was disqualified from voting, he should take the sense of the House upon the subject.
The Committee divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 214; Noes 118:—Majority 96.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Dashwood, G. H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Dennistoun, J.

Aglionby, Major

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Divett, E.

Archbold, R.

Duckworth, S.

Attwood, T.

Duff, James

Bainbridge, E. T.

Duke, Sir J.

Baines, E.

Duncombe, T.

Barrington, Viscount

Dundas, C. W. D.

Barron, H. W.

Dundas, Frederick

Beamish, F. B.

Dundas, hon. T.

Bellew, R. M.

Dundas, Captain

Bentinck, Lord W.

Easthope, J.

Berkeley, hon. G.

Ebrington, Viscount

Berkeley, hon. H.

Ellice, E.

Bewes, T.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Blackett, C.

Evans, Colonel

Blackstone, W. S.

Evans, G.

Blake, M. J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bowes, J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Finch, F.

Bridgman, H.

Fitzalan, Lord

Briscoe, J. I.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Broadwood, H.

French, F.

Brocklehurst, J.

Gillon, W. D.

Brodie, W. B.

Godson, R.

Brotherton, J.

Gordon, R.

Buller, C.

Grattan, H.

Busfield, W.

Grey, Sir G.

Byng, G.

Grote, G.

Byng, right hon. G. S.

Hall, B.

Callaghan, D.

Harland, W. C.

Campbell, W. F.

Harvey, D. W.

Cayley, E. S.

Hastie, Archibald

Chalmers, P.

Hawkins, J. W.

Chapman, Sir M. L.

Hayter, William G.

Clay, W.

Heathcoat, J.

Clements, Viscount

Heron, Sir R.

Clive, E. H.

Hindley, C.

Collier, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Collins, W.

Colquhoun, Sir J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Craig, W. G.

Hodges, T. L.

Crawford, W.

Howard, P. H.

Crompton, S.

Hughes, W. B.

Currie, R.

Hume, J.

Curry, W.

Humphrey, J.

Dalmeney, Lord

Hurst, R. H.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Button, R.

811

James, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Jervis, J.

Sanford, E. A.

Jervis, S.

Scholefield, J.

Johnston, General

Seale, Colonel

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Seymour, Lord

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Sharpe, General

Leader, J. T.

Sheil, R. L.

Lefevre, C. S.

Smith, J. A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Smith, hon. R.

Lennox, Lord G.

Smith, R. V.

Lister, E. C.

Somers, J. P.

Loch, J.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Long, W.

Standish, C.

Lushington, C.

Stanley, W. O.

Macleod, R.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Maher, J.

Stewart, John

Marshall, W.

Stuart, Lord James

Marsland, H.

Stuart, V.

Martin, J.

Strangways, hon. J.

Maule, W. H.

Strutt, E.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Style, Sir C.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Surrey, Earl of

Morris, D.

Talbot, J. H.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Muskett, G. A.

Tancred, H. W.

Nagle, Sir R.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

O'Brien, W. S.

Thornley, T.

O'Connell, D.

Townley, R. G.

O'Connell, J.

Tracy, H. H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

O'Connell, M.

Tufnell, H.

O'Conor, Don

Turner, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Verney, Sir H.

Paget, Lord A.

Vigors, N. A.

Paget, F.

Villiers, C. P.

Palmer, C. F.

Vivian, Major C.

Palmerston, Viscount

Vivian, J. H.

Parker, J.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wakley, T.

Parrott, J.

Walker, C. A.

Pattison, J.

Walker, R.

Pease, J.

Wallace, R.

Pechell, Captain

Warburton, Henry

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Westenra, hon H. R.

Philips, M.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Phillpotts, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

White, A.

Poulter, J. S.

White, S.

Power, J.

Williams, W.

Protheroe, E.

Wilshere, W.

Pryme, G.

Wood, C.

Ramsbottom, J.

Wood, Sir M.

Redington, T. N.

Worsley, Lord

Rice, E. R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Wyse, T.

Rich, H.

Yates, J. A.

Rippon, C.

Rolt'e, Sir R. M.

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord J.

Stanley, E. J.

Russell, Lord C.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Bagge, W.

Adare, Viscount

Bagot, hon. W.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Bailey, J.

Ashley, Lord

Ballie, Colonel

812

Baker, Edward

Irton, S.

Baring, H. B.

James, Sir W. C.

Baring, W. B.

Johnstone, H.

Bateman, J.

Jones, J.

Bell, M.

Jones, W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Jones, T.

Blair, J.

Kemble, H.

Blennerhassett, A.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Bradshaw, J.

Sir E.

Broadley, H.

Knight, H. G.

Brownrigg, S.

Knightley, Sir C.

Burr, H.

Law, hon. C. E.

Christopher, R. A.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Compton, H. C.

Lockhart, A. M.

Copeland, Alderman

Logan, H.

Corry, hon. H.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Courtenay, P.

Lowther, J. H.

Darby, George

Lygon, hon. General

De Horsey, S. H.

Mackenzie, T.

D'Israeli, B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Dottin, A. R.

Maidstone, Viscount

Douro, Marquess of

Manners, Lord C. S.

Duffield, T.

Master, T. W. C.

East, J. B.

Maunsell, T. P.

Eaton, R. J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Eliot, Lord

O'Neill, hon. J. B. R.

Ellis, J.

Packe, C. W.

Estcourt, T.

Palmer, R.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Parker, T. A. W.

Fleming, J.

Pemberton, T.

Follett, Sir W.

Perceval, Colonel

Forbes, W.

Peyton, H.

Forester, hon. G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Pringle, A.

Freshfield, J. W.

Richards, R.

Gibson, T.

Rickford, W.

Gladstone, W. E.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Goddard, A.

Round, C. G.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Round, J.

Gore, O. J. R.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Gore, O. W.

Sanderson, R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Granby, Marquess of

Shirley, E. J.

Grimsditch, T.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Grimston, Viscount

Somerset, Lord G.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Stuart, H.

Hale, R. B.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Harcourt, G. S.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Hardinge, right hon. Sir H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Villiers, Viscount

Hinde, J. H.

Whitmore, T. C.

Hodgson, F.

Wilberforce, W.

Hodgson, R.

Wood, T.

Hogg, J. W.

Young, Sir W.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

Hope, G. W.

TELLERS.

Houstoun, G.

Maclean, D.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Praed, W. M.

The other clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

THE COAL TRADE.
Mr. Labouchere, on bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice, for the House resolving itself a Committee on the Coal Trade

813
Act said, that, although the subject was of considerable importance, yet it would not be necessary for him to trespass at any length on the attention of the House. The object which he had in view was the continuance of the Bill which Mr. Frankland Lewis brought in a few years ago for regulating the coal trade, as respected this metropolis and certain parts of the adjoining counties. That Bill, as the House must recollect, made an alteration, by which instead of being sold by measure coals should be only sold by weight, the dues being regulated by the same principle. The operation of Mr. Frankland Lewis's Bill was limited to seven years, and as that time had nearly expired it became necessary to continue its provisions. If it were allowed to expire the consequence would be a return to the old system. The whole of the arrangements with respect to coal metres would be done away with, and the vexatious imposts and dues of the city of London would all be revived. There could, he thought, be no difference of opinion as to the impropriety of allowing this Bill to expire, but at the same time he begged to say, that it was not his intention to propose its renewal without allowing the House a full opportunity of looking into it, and closely and accurately investigating every one of its provisions, in order to see whether any fresh alterations were necessary, and if the duties and regulations of the trade could be rendered less onerous to the inhabitants of the metropolis than they now were. It appeared to him, that the proper course would be to refer the Bill on the second reading to a Select Committee up stairs. Its provisions would by this means be best examined and considered, and, with this impression on his mind, that was the course he meant to take. He had communicated with the parties interested in the subject, both in the North and in London, and they all expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with what he proposed to do. This circumstance relieved him of the necessity of going into the details of the measure. There was one point, however, which he was bound to mention, and it was one which he was sure would give satisfaction to the House, and that was, that when the corporation of the city of London applied to him to move for the renewal of this Bill, they stated, that they would consent to have the duty now levied by them on each ton of coals reduced one-half The sum thus to be given up to the public would be about 6,000 l. a year, and showed
814
the disposition of the city of London to do everything in their power to contribute to the comfort and welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis. He should propose, that the Select Committee should have power to inquire whether the duty of 12 d. the chaldron, at present paid, could not be still further reduced, and also to investigate generally the manner in which the coal trade was conducted in the port of London. It was not his intention that they should carry their inquiry further, or go into the coal trade as it existed in the North; and in order that they should confine themselves to this branch of the subject merely, he should propose that their investigation should be limited to the regulations of the coal trade in London, and the amount of duties chargeable on coals brought into market in the metropolis. In these inquiries they would find considerable assistance in the Report of the Committee of 1826. Though they did not want to make any material alterations with respect either to the amount of the duties or the way in which the coal trade was carried on, he was anxious that the matter should be fully examined into, in the hope that a satisfactory result to all parties would be arrived at. The hon. Member then moved, that the House should resolve itself into Committee.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, he concurred in much of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, but in considering the question he hoped the interests of the coalowners of the north were not the only interests which would be regarded. He disapproved of invidious distinctions, and as the system of combination in this trade existed as much now as ever, he thought that the whole subject, without reference to any part of the country, should be inquired into.
The House resolved itself into a Committee.
Mr. Laboucherethen proposed a resolution, to the effect that a Bill should be brought in for continuing the law now in operation with respect to the coal trade of the metropolis.
Mr. Goulburnfeared, that the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view would not be attained by his resolution, as it went merely to the continuance of the present Act, and not to the inquiry proposed.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that he meant to effect the inquiry by means of an instruction to the Committee. With respect to what had fallen from the noble Lord, (Lord

815
G. Somerset), he had merely to explain, that his reason for mentioning the coal-owners of the north was, because it was on them the metropolis depended for a supply of that article. He was sorry to say, that little or no coals reached the port of London from any other quarter.
Resolution agreed to, and the House resumed. Bill brought in and read a first time.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord DENMAN, from Coventry, for a system of National Education.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.
Lord Brougham
735
moved the Order of the Day for hearing Mr. Roebuck at the bar of the House.
Mr. Roebuckcame to the bar, and said: I appear at your bar, my Lords, as agent of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, for the purpose of laying before you statements, and arguments thereon, which, in my belief, prove the impolicy and the injustice of a bill now pending in your Lordships' House, entitled, very falsely, in my opinion, "An Act for the better government of Lower Canada." This act is intended as a punishment; it not only attempts to provide for the future better government of Canada, but while it does so punishes my clients for supposed misdeeds. The necessity for this extraordinary measure is supposed to arise out of the conduct of the people of Lower Canada and their representatives. The difficulties which have existed in the government of Canada are asserted to have their origin in the desires of the House of Assembly, which house has been supported by the unanimous voice of their constituents. Their desires are presumed to be mischievous; and, therefore, rather than yield to them, it is proposed to deprive the people of a representative government—to reduce the hitherto self-governed inhabitants of our American province to the abject condition of an Hindoo serf. It proposes to take from them the right which every other people on that continent possesses, and, in place of their rights, to send them a dictator, to govern according to his arbitrary discretion. My duty, my Lords, upon this extraordinary and momentous proposal is two-fold. I have first to prove the injustice, next to point out the impolicy of this measure. I shall prove that it is unjust by disproving the assertion, that the House of Assembly has been guilty of the misdeeds laid to their charge. I shall prove that their conduct, so far from deserving any reprobation, has been just, firm, and prudent; that their demands are those which a wise and honest body of representatives ought strenuously to have insisted on, and that the measures which they have adopted to attain their ends have been such as the constitution sanctions—such as great prudence, forbearance, and an earnest desire for the well-being of their country demanded. Furthermore, I shall show, that the really guilty parties, they who have unwisely and wickedly checked the operations of government, and put a stop to all im-
736
provement in this magnificent province, are they who are instigating your Lordships to break in upon the established principles of representative government, by this violent, high-handed, and arbitrary proceeding. It will be my painful duty to show your Lordships, that if on any side there has been folly, haste, violence, procrastination, vacillation, ignorance, petulance, and unconstitutional proceedings, they have been manifested, not in the conduct of the Assembly, but in that of those who have resisted their just demands; and that among those who have chiefly evinced all these evil qualities, the colonial administrations, past and present, are eminently conspicuous. I shall not, my Lords, attempt to justify revolt; but I shall justify the Assembly, by showing that the unhappy insurrection in Lower Canada, which has been suppressed with a cruelty shameful to our national character, lies not at their door, but was the legitimate offspring of the folly, and the ignorance, and the injustice which seem to be the necessary adjuncts and appendages of our colonial administration. If I shall succeed in these attempts, my case as to the injustice of this measure will be fully made out, and it will be plain to your Lordships that the real culprits nearer at hand are about to escape, while the innocent who are distant are to be treated as the guilty. I shall then attempt to make your Lordships aware of the great impolicy of this measure, by pointing out a means of allaying all discontent in Canada, and providing for the regular and peaceful administration of the government, means far more efficacious, more constitutional, and less revolting to the feelings of all men accustomed to representative government, than the proposed dangerous experiment. I will, with your Lordships' leave, submit to you a scheme which, while it will secure peace for the present, will also provide security for the future; and while I do all this, I shall endeavour to show that the proposed scheme is one of unmingled mischief, and that the noble Lord who is about to attempt to carry it into execution will find all his good intentions frustrated, all his hopes of peace dashed to the ground, by the suspension of the Canadian constitution; that the government of force which he is about to institute can never, while the colony is ours, be succeeded by a government of law; that, in short, we are blindly preparing for a violent disruption

737
of the empire, and that we shall after this fatal measure is passed, hold Canada by the sword, and maintain our dominion only so long as an overwhelming military force overrides and represses the indignant desires of an injured and insulted people. Before I attempt a defence of the House of Assembly, however, I must accurately ascertain that of which they are accused; and this, in reality, constitutes the most difficult portion of my task. For, amidst the wild farrago that has been spoken and written, it is hard to tell what has been put forth as matter of serious charge. Much has been asserted with base motives, and for base purposes; prejudices degrading to our nature have been constantly, and I fear but too successfully, appealed to, in order to persuade the English people to sanction a tyranny that they would not for a moment tolerate were they in the perfect possession of their reason, undisturbed by passion. Falsehood, too, has been lavishly employed to the same unrighteous end. The wildest stories, the foulest calumnies, have been unhesitatingly used to blacken the character of the Assembly, and to induce the people of this country to look upon them as a factious set of unprincipled demagogues. This calumny has taken every shape—speech, book, pamphlet, essay, sermon, and poem; it has graced the harangues of Ministers, and been employed and echoed by their servile dependents; nevertheless, however great the authority, still it was calumny, and I must endeavour to find something more definite and precise than these vague and flagitious assertions. It would seem that the volumes of vituperation which have issued upon this subject may be reduced to three distinct assertions:—1. It is asserted that the House of Assembly has unwarrantably stopped the supplies, and thus put an end to all the operations of Government. 2. It is said, that the people, or rather a portion of them have risen in revolt at the instigation of the Assembly. 3. It is declared that the large French majority of Lower Canada have oppressed the very small English minority of the inhabitants; and these three charges or assertions are supposed a sufficient justification for the extraordinary proceeding which your Lordships are now called upon to sanction—namely, the utter subversion of their present constitution and a destruction of the most valued rights of the people. But, my Lords, I, on the other hand, assert,
738
that each and every charge which I have just now stated is utterly false, and I shall at once proceed to prove that on the occasions on which the Assembly have stopped the supplies they were completely justified in so doing, and that they are not the parties who are chargeable with having checked and arrested the operations of Government, also that there is no evidence that the House of Assembly are in any way guilty of instigating the people to revolt. I will prove the outbreak to have been an outburst of mere passion, at the sight of gross injustice and tyranny, perpetrated under the eyes of the people, and I will then disprove the last recited charge or calumny—viz., that there has been any oppression of the English by the French inhabitants of Lower Canada. Your Lordships are doubtless aware, that the connexion between the mother country and her North American colonies has ever been attended with disputes and bickerings which not unfrequently broke out into violent and dangerous quarrels. The mother country, on the one hand, sought to obtain unlimited dominion over her distant possessions, while the colonies on the other, endeavoured to establish a self government as little dependent as possible on the metropolis. The people of New England, for example, set out with asserting that they were an independent people, subject to the Crown of England, and only voluntarily bound by charter to make no laws opposed to those of England. While these colonies were poor, and struggling for their very existence—while, in fact, they yielded no fertile field for official patronage, their high pretensions excited no displeasure, because the colonies themselves were matters of no consideration. When, however, the colonies became rich and extensive, then, indeed, the attention of England was awakened, and they were compelled by the superior force of the mother country to abate somewhat of their high tone, and submit to material and exceedingly painful restrictions upon their free will. The navigation laws were passed and trade restrictions imposed; and to these restraints the colonies submitted, with an ill grace, nevertheless, still asserting openly and fiercely their exclusive right to regulate their internal concerns. The exact line, however, was never drawn, defining what the mother country could nut, w hat she could do, by way of supervision and control. The colonies did, in fact, regulate all their internal affairs,

739
and in the case of all the New England states, which created and have ever guided the political creed of the new world, they actually elected and paid the greater part of their executive officers. The time at length came when England chose to have a share in the executive, and royal Governors were appointed. This no sooner happened than the quarrel commenced which is now actually raging in Canada. All the Executive were exceedingly averse to being responsible to the colonial Assemblies, and they were constantly persuading the metropolitan Government, that such responsibility was dangerous to the supremacy of England. To the colonial authorities of America, such responsibility was exceedingly obnoxious, because it had one very disagreeable consequence. When the people were displeased with the conduct of the Executive, they were accustomed to curtail their salaries. These salaries were at the outset completely under the control of the Assemblies, who decided on their amount, and who voted them annually. In the reign of Anne, however, the Governors were ordered to demand of the various Assemblies, fixed salaries for themselves, the judges, and certain executive officers. This demand was peremptorily refused by the Assemblies of some of the colonies, and to all gave great offence. The dispute went on from year to year, till at length it was brought to a close for a time in New England by the complete success of the Assemblies, who pertinaciously refused this demand of a permanent civil list. And if any of your Lordships have a curiosity to learn upon what grounds this demand was refused by our own purely English colonies, they will find them stated in an address passed by the Assembly of Massachusetts to the then Governor, Mr. Burnett, in the year 1728. The official party, however, did not approve of this settlement of the dispute; they still harped upon the old string, endeavouring to persuade the Ministers of the Crown to insist upon a permanent civil list. At length, their ingenuity suggested a means of making the affair which so deeply interested themselves, interest also the Ministry; they pointed out to the Ministry a new source of revenue, and speciously pretended that America, because she ought to pay for her own safety, and security, and good government, ought to submit to be taxed for these purposes by the Parliament of Great Britain. In an evil hour Mr. Grenville listened to these suggestions, and he
740
brought forward his too famous Stamp Act, expressly to provide means for the security and good government of the colonies. The colonies resisted this attempt, and for the moment it was foregone; the Stamp Act was repealed; with a declaration, however, that Parliament had supreme authority in all cases. In America this was thought merely a salvo to soothe fallen pride, and was, therefore, disregarded. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. C. Townshend, quickly acted upon this declaration by laying a tax on various articles of trade imported into America, expressly for the purpose of paying fixed and certain salaries to the judges and governors. This measure also raised up violent opposition; so much so, that it was repealed with the exception of a tax of 3d. a-pound on tea, the proceeds of which were also to be applied to the same purpose. In 1774 a cargo of tea was sent to Boston, was violently seized by the people, and thrown into the sea. This proceeding led to the famous Boston Port Bill, and also, by an ominous coincidence, to an Act for the better regulating the government of Massachusetts, and this Act produced the American revolution. I have thus hastily reminded your Lordships of these well known facts, in order that you may contrast the patient forbearance of the Assembly of Lower Canada, in circumstances precisely similar, with the heat and passion of the Assembly of Massachusetts. These last, when threatened with a permanent civil list, broke out into open and eventually successful rebellion, while the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, when threatened with the same calamity, demanded, before they submitted to the desires of the colonial Administration, that they should be relieved from an evil which America refused to bear—viz., a House of Legislature which was responsible to no one, and which had no interests in common with the people. The Act for the better government of Massachusetts transformed the Second Chamber from being one elected by the people to one nominated by the Crown. The threat of this change produced war and dismemberment of the empire. The patient people of Canada have borne the same evil for half a century; and at last, when everybody has condemned this Council—when Parliamentary Committees, Royal Commissioners, Parliament itself, have declared that change was necessary, the House of Assembly does what?—de-

741
clares war? no; rebels? no; but modestly employs a constitutional power, and, under circumstances of great provocation, stops the supplies for two consecutive seasons; and then what happens? Why, Parliament, wholly regardless of past experience, contemning the solemn sanction of two most momentous Acts of Parliament, violates the constitution of the people of Canada, by determining to rob their Exchequer. Shortly after, a riot or revolt occurs in one particular district of Lower Canada, and you now, without further consideration, are called upon utterly to destroy the constitution of 1791. Is this, my Lords, a true history? Let me shortly run over the facts, and then say, if it be not true to the letter, and then ask yourselves what mankind will say in after times when they shall read the two histories which I have ventured to lay before you, and compare the different fortunes of the United States and of Lower Canada. Although the people of Canada received their constitution in 1791, and the whole of their revenues were nominally subjected to the control of the Assembly in 1794 still the expenses of the civil government were paid by England up to the year 1816. In the year 1774 Parliament passed an Act imposing certain duties upon goods imported into Canada from England and her colonies—exactly like those duties which in that very year caused a revolution in America. From the proceeds of those duties (Canada having patiently submitted to our taxation), and from certain revenues derived from territorial sources, the expenses of the civil government were provided for. When the Assembly inquired what the expenses were, the answer always was, "You need not trouble yourselves about the matter, as England pays everything." The Assembly being well aware that much money was paid by the Canadians in the shape of duties and territorial dues, humbly asked in 1816 to be allowed to pay their own expenses. Up to this time the old quarrel which I have described as going on in our English Colonies had lain dormant; because, in reality, there was no responsibility to the Assembly on the part of the official people of Canada. When, however, in 1816, the offer of the House of Assembly to pay its own expenses was accepted, then was the old demand of a permanent civil list revived by the colonial authorities, and refused by the colonial Assembly. In America, the Governors had
742
themselves, on this refusal on the part of the Assemblies, arrested the business of Government by using the various powers they possessed. But in Canada this office was performed by the Legislative Council. This Council in the old colonies was elective, and did not therefore obstruct the desires of the people; but in Canada, being appointed by the Crown for life, and being moreover, the chief part of the Executive, they checked all the operations of the Legislature by opposing the Bills passed by the Assembly, which were of chief moment to the colony, and for the passing of which the people were most anxious. The consequence of these proceedings on the part of the Council, and certain arbitrary conduct on the part of the Government, was petitions from the people of Lower Canada to the Imperial Parliament in the year 1828. This year of 1828 is a remarkable epoch in the history of Canada, to which I must entreat your Lordships' most serious attention. The people in their petitions alleged various grievances, among which the most remarkable were the following:—First, An arbitrary taking and employment of their monies out of the provincial chest, and the payment of the public servants by the Governor, without the sanction of the Assembly. Second, A mischievous opposition on the part of the Legislative Council to all beneficial legislation. Third, And an improper dependence of the judges upon the Executive, inasmuch as they, the judges, were judges simply during the pleasure of the Crown. And they prayed, as a remedy for these grievances, that the Governor should be recalled, and the law steadily adhered to, which commanded, that no money is to be applied without their consent, and that all the revenues should be subjected to the immediate and complete control of the House of Assembly. Next, they prayed for a change in the composition of the Legislative Council, so that it might be made to harmonise with the general feelings of the great body of the people; and, lastly, that the judges should hold their offices during good behaviour, and be subject to impeachment before some competent tribunal. The whole of these allegations respecting their grievances were fully proved before the Committee of the House of Commons to which the Canadian petitions were referred, and the Committee deemed their various demands so reasonable as most explicitly to recommend the chief of them to the House, as

743
fit remedies for their grievances, and they earnestly advised, that the Legislative Council should be changed, so that it might be more independent and be made to deserve the confidence of the people; they, without ambiguity, recommended that the whole of the revenues of the province should be subject to the control of the colonial legislature, and they condemned, in very pointed terms, the manner in which the colony had been governed. In consequence of this report from the Committee of the House of Commons, great expectations were created in the province, and these expectations, in certain cases, took a definite shape, because of the words of the Committee's Report. First, it was confidently hoped, that a very thorough change would be made in the Legislative Council, and, being so made, it was hoped that it would be an effective tribunal of impeachment, that the judges should hold their offices during good behaviour, and, under this hope, the Assembly determined to grant them permanent salaries; and, lastly, it was now confidently expected, that all the revenues, without reserve, would be submitted to the control of the Colonial Legislature. Your Lordships must bear in mind that the chief hope, that on which all the others rested, was, that a thorough and searching change was to be made in the Legislative Council. And I would beg of you here to remark the remarkable prudence and forbearance of the House of Assembly. They did not rush headlong after change, and for certain defined grievances demand wide and startling reforms. The proposed change was just enough, in their belief, to cover the acknowledged evil; all that they asked in this first instance was, that the composition of the Council should be changed, believing that the home authorities had sufficient knowledge of the country, and sufficient good will towards it, to know the right men to put into the Council, and knowing, to put them into that body. The event belied their expectations—changes were made in that body—all the judges except the chief justice were requested to abstain from using their privilege of legislative councillors, but no precaution was taken by law to prevent them going down to the Council at any critical period, and overwhelming any opposition. Next, additions were also made to the Assembly, but these at once proved one of two things—either that the Minister at home did not possess sufficiently accurate knowledge
744
of the characters of the leading men in the country, or that, if he did, he was not willing to employ it so as to satisfy the people. The Council now did not, to use the language of the Committee of the House of Commons, deserve the confidence of the people. To show your Lordships, however, the anxiety felt by the Assembly to perform all that depended on them, to make the Government such as was required for the well-being of the people, and to prove to you, also, their confidence in the justice of the English Ministry, I must here mention one fact that is usually slurred over by the opponents of the Assembly. In spite of the old colonial dread of fixed salaries, the House did, in Feb, 1832, pass a Bill appointing permanent salaries for the judges; and they, at the same time, constituted the Legislative Council, a tribunal of impeachment. This was done in the confidence they felt that a real and effective change in that body was intended. I will here, with your Lordships' permission, read Lord Aylmer's dispatch respecting this measure, and his speech to the Legislature on the same subject. [The learned gentleman proceeded to read the dispatch.] It commenced by stating, that the writer, on the 15th of December, 1831, had the honour of communicating to his Lordship a message, sent down by him to the House of Assembly, calling upon them, in obedience to his Lordship's directions, to make a permanent provision for the salaries of the judges of Lower Canada. The message was referred to a Committee, who brought up a report on the 28th of December. That report was taken into consideration by a Committee of the whole House, and it was resolved by a majority of five, the numbers being thirty-four against twenty-nine, that the whole of the judges should be disqualified from having seats in the Legislative Council, no exception being made in favour of the chief justice. The exclusion of the chief justice would, under the instructions of his Lordship, render it impossible to sanction a Bill containing such provisions, but when it was again discussed, the objectionable clause was lost by a majority of thirty-four against twenty-four. The Bill for making the Legislative Council into a court of impeachment, passed the House of Assembly by thirteen to forty-two. The Bill subsequently passed the Legislative Council without a dissentient voice, and it was taken to be a sign of a good disposition on

745
the part of the House of Assembly. With regard to the chief judge having a seat in the Council, that question was given up for a time. The Bill did not receive the royal assent, because Lord Aylmer conceived it to be contrary to the instructions upon which he was acting Yet he used these remarkable words in his dispatch:—"At the same time I take leave, with the utmost submission, to recommend the Bill to the most favourable consideration of his Majesty." And the grounds upon which he made that recommendation was, "That in my opinion, at no time can we reasonably expect that we will get a Bill passed, or the dispute settled upon such favourable terms." Then, with respect to the same Bill, the same Governor said, "I cannot avoid noticing the Bill for establishing the independence of the judge. I think it necessary, at the same time, to inform you, that, although the principle of this Bill coincides altogether with the views of his Majesty's Government, it contains one or two provisions that impose on me reservation until I know his Majesty's pleasure." Lord Aylmer's prediction was verified, the Bill was rejected, and has never since been passed. Many things now concurred to create discontent and distrust on the part of the Assembly. The changes in the Council gave great offence; and a new claim was put forward, spite of the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons, and spite of former usage, to the exclusive supervision by the executive, of the casual and territorial revenues. Your Lordships have heard what Lord Aylmer says on the subject of those revenues, and it cannot but be a matter of deep regret, that such a claim should, under such circumstances, and at such a period, have been put forward. Nevertheless, for the year 1832, a Bill of supply was passed, though the House distinctly and firmly refused any further permanent provision for the executive. In May of this year, 1832, a most calamitous riot occurred in Montreal; the troops interfered, and three Canadians, who were proved to have taken no part in the disturbances, were shot. When the Assembly met in session, a long inquiry commenced respecting this unfortunate affair. Great offence was taken at the conduct of the executive, and the general feeling now was, that justice, even with annual salaries, was with great difficulty obtained by the people, but that, with permanent ones, justice would be impossible. This ill tem-
746
per was greatly aggravated by the conduct of the Legislative Council, which, at this time, took occasion to insult the House of Assembly; and by its continuance in the old plan of rejecting measures useful to the province, proved its spirit to be the same as heretofore. The ill-humour of the Assembly was not improved by the conduct of the Government respecting the civil list. In consequence of the Assembly's refusal to provide permanent salaries for the Governor and certain executive officers, the Colonial Minister determined no longer to ask the Assembly to furnish salaries for those functionaries, but took the proceeds of certain revenues, hitherto always submitted to the control of the Assembly, and out of them determined to pay the Governor and these executive officers. If your Lordships will put together and so arrange these various particular causes of discontent, as to see them all in one group, you will fully understand the state of feeling on the part of the Assembly. First, they found the old grievance of the Legislative Council was continued in all its pristine vigour. They believed that they saw good reasons for coming to the conclusion that justice would not be administered to the people fairly and impartially in matters of dispute between the executive and the people. They also saw the Colonial Minister pressing for permanent salaries for officers already, too independent, and, because refused, violently appropriating revenues which, by long usage, as well as by the solemn declaration of a Committee of the House of Commons, had been entirely under their own control. The natural conclusion from all these proceedings in their minds was, that there was a determination on the part of the executive to free themselves from the wholesome control to which, by the constitution, they were subject; and the Assembly very naturally, and in my opinion very wisely, applied itself to the task of strengthening that responsibility on the part of the public servants, by which alone good service is secured. But to effect this did they, as did the people of the united English colonies on their continent, declare war or rebel? No, my Lords, they employed the peaceful constitutional means in their power; they refused permanent supplies, and again petitioned Parliament to redress their grievances. Nevertheless, again in 1833, they passed the supplies for the year, attaching cer-

747
tain conditions to their grant, by which mischievous pluralities were prevented. This Supply Bill of 1833 the Legislative Council refused to pass; and thus began that war of refusals, of which such complaints are daily made. When the House met in 1834, seeing that the Legislative Council had refused the last year's supplies, and believing that this year also the Council would reiterate their refusal, the Assembly did not provide supplies, but resolved to petition Parliament for redress, and their chief demand was for an elective Legislative Council. But I must earnestly entreat your Lordships to remember that this is the first of the two solitary instances of refusal of supplies by the Assembly; I shall soon have to speak of the second. It may be thought, my Lords, that I have a delicate task to perform, while I defend this demand for an elective council before your Lordships. Many pretended friends of your Lordships' House, have endeavoured, by a forced analogy, to persuade the people of England that the Legislative Council, being a second chamber, is the House of Lords of Canada. I, however, will not pay you the ill compliment to make any such comparison. My opinions respecting any species of irresponsible legislative body are well known, and need not here be repeated; but, whatever be those opinions, I never for an instant was so blind as not to see the enormous difference that exists between an aristocracy, properly so called, and a body of men selected by one will at hazard almost from amongst the people, and endowed with legislative functions. An aristocracy is a social distinction, it is the growth of ages; it results from ancient national peculiarities; it cannot be brought into existence at a moment, or at the will of any man. Power may create a legislative body, and give them exclusive privileges, but power cannot create an aristocracy. Wealth may build a wall, but no extent of riches can produce suddenly an avenue of full-grown trees. The last is the long product of natural causes—the growth of ages, and not the work of an hour. Your Lordships are what you are, not by any one man's will—a breath has not made, neither can it unmake you. The institution of this Hone is sanctioned by time and by opinion—it is supported by the respect always paid to antiquity, and by large territorial possessions. Strip the peers of their possessions—strip them of the prestige which
748
attends them in consequence of their ancient history—reduce each one of you to the position of an obscure, poor, name-lt ss individual—then fancy yourselves suddenly called together by an Act of Parliament, in direct opposition to the people's wishes—then, my Lords, but not till then, will the comparison hold between this House and the Legislative Council of Lower Canada. Your Lordships' strongest support is the national opinion, but in Canada the national opinion is against this body of hungry and irresponsible nameless legislators. And the House of Assembly only speaks the unanimous voice of its constituents when it demands, that in place of this unknown and untrustworthy body, they should be favoured with a respectable and worthy band of legislators, supported by the approbation of the nation at large. This is, my Lords, their view, and to me it appears a wise and prudent one, of an elective Legislative Council. In Canada, there are no elements for an aristocracy; this is acknowledged by all men who know that country, and experience has shown that you cannot force an aristocracy as you would force a cucumber. Why then cling to the dead and empty form, and reject the only principle which gives vitality and strength to this institution? That principle is election—for this the Assembly contended; and because they took the path which wisdom pointed out, we are about to punish them, by reducing them and their countrymen to the condition of slaves. But, my Lords, I am not justified in thus seeking excuses for my clients; my duty requires that I should take higher ground, and boldly assume, that unless they had made a demand for an elective Legislative Council they would have betrayed their trust, their honour, and their country. You, my Lords, as I have already said, derive your best title from the nation's approval of your institution; but in Canada the national opinion is entirely against this Legislative Council, and they who called themselves the representatives of the people did no more than what their bare duty demanded when they gave expression to the national will. Experience had taught the people that it was Useless to expect any beneficial change in the body at the hands of governors 3,000 miles off, and they, therefore, failing in their first proposal of reform, were bound to endeavour to frame another, and what so natural as that they should adopt one

749
under which the old colonies flourished, and grew powerful, and which they daily-see produces innumerable benefits to their neighbours, the Americans? Looking to the past history of the American colonies, they learned that for nearly two centuries elective councils had existed in the most flourishing and powerful of the English colonies. Such being the fact, they could not anticipate that English statesmen now-a-days would gravely assert that such an institution was inconsistent with the relation of colony and mother country. What! is it impossible, when under it the most extensive colonies England ever possessed lived happily and peaceably; and that while it existed these colonies proved, by a prodigal effusion of their blood, and expenditure of their treasure in the cause of England, their attachment to her name and dominion? The Canadians, therefore, without hesitation adopted this precedent, and sought by the sanction of antiquity to conciliate opposition. They were mistaken; authority was disregarded when interest was endangered. Official people admire the wisdom of ancient times, and patronise Conservative doctrines only so long as they are likely to gain more by retaining an institution than by changing it. Show them some personal advantage to be derived form change, and there can be found none so daring, so reckless, in their desires and attempts at alteration. The men who shrink with affected horror from remodeling the constitution of the Legislative Council, without trembling and without compunction, do at one fell swoop carry off the entire constitution. They dread to touch a part, but exultingly destroy the whole. The House of Assembly could not foresee, that inconsistency would be so bold; neither could they believe that any serious objection would be made to the adoption of a plan which had, for so many years, existed in full operation in our most favoured colonies. It is said, however, that it was unjustifiable in the Assembly to use their constitutional power to obtain an organic reform. What, my Lords, do I hear this dangerous argument used by men of so called Conservative opinions? The wildest fanatic for revolutionary change never propounded a more destructive principle. What is the meaning of this statement? This, if it mean anything:—You are not to seek great reforms by peaceful means. All changes that are trifling, and not likely to agitate the whole body of society—these
750
you may pursue by quiet and legal means; but when you seek such extensive reforms as to excite all minds, to raise up a hope or fear in every heart—when the angry passions are most excitable—then you are to forego methods of peace, and modes of constitutional action. If you are determined on reform, it behoves you to seek it by arms, by violence. Are these counsels wise in these times of social, and genera), and very dangerous excitement? Is it not far more prudent to accustom men wholly to such peaceful modes of action—to dissuade them from ever looking to the adoption of violent and physical means for attaining great moral ends? Such, however, is not the advice or the creed of those who tell us that organic changes are not to be sought by constitutional means. They who blame the Assembly for adopting the peaceful means within their power, are the most vehement and successful preachers of violence and rebellion. A nation suffering under abuses will not fail, will not cease, to try to get rid of them. The desire and the hope of reform you cannot prevent: it is the height of wickedness and folly to force these desires into dangerous courses—to bid men be hopeless of relief from moral power. The Assembly of Lower Canada, however, were truly Conservative. They followed in the well-known and well-marked tracks of the constitution, and adopted the method of redress which Parliament had of aforethought placed in their hands; by which placing I assert, my Lords, that we are estopped, to use a legal phrase—we gave them with our eyes open a discretionary power, and we are not justified in quarrelling with their use of it. But it is asserted, and by high authorities, that by the conduct of the House of Assembly the constitution of Lower Canada was in reality suspended, and that, therefore, this measure is needed. Now, in answer, I will first prove that the assertion is wholly unfounded. The constitution has not been suspended by the Assembly. So much for the premises; but next, as to the conclusion, I will endeavour to make it manifest that none such accurately follows-In the history of Canadian grievances which I have ventured to lay before you, I have arrived at the demand made by the Assembly in the year 1834. In that year, they embodied their grievances in ninety-two resolutions, and sent agents home to lay their complaints before Parliament. A Committee was appointed to inquire into the truth of their allegations, but this

751
Committee never came to any determination respecting the matter, in consequence of the Ministerial difficulties which induced Lord Stanley to resign the office of Secretary for the Colonies, and placed Mr. Rice in his stead. Mr. Rice was anxious, as he said, not to be hampered by any determinations of the Committee, and he requested the Canadian agents, and myself, to allow the Committee to close without asking for a decision; promising, at the same time, loosely and vaguely, that his future proceedings as to Canada should be favourable. One solemn promise he made, the breach of which led to the second refusal and last refusal of supplies, and that was, not to pay the arrears of salary which the Assembly had not provided for: he professed great horror of any such encroachment upon the privileges of the Assembly, and great respect and attachment to the peculiar doctrines of our constitution concerning the appropriation of money by the Commons. The agents, at my request (for which request I most sincerely entreat pardon from the people of Canada), put faith in the right hon. Gentleman's professions and promises; yet we had hardly left his office, when despatches were sent to Lord Aylmer, ordering him to pay thirty-one thousand and odd pounds of salaries in arrear. The governor obeyed his instructions, and also with like obedience did, when the Assembly again met, demand of them to pay all the arrears of salary, together with the money which he had advanced. The Assembly, naturally irritated, refused compliance; they for the second and last time refused the supplies, saying, "We will again appeal to the Parliament of England, and ask whether they sanction such conduct," and they again strenuously insisted upon their demand of an elective Legislative Council. Before I proceed in my history, I would request your Lord-ships to mark well, and to reprobate, the example which I have here laid before you of a very dangerous, but very common, system at the present time. What could any man expect to be the consequence of conduct such as I have described—conduct little worthy of the high station of Colonial Minister—in fact, I know no honest station that would not be degraded by it? But I call your attention to it, as part of a disingenuous and dangerous system, which has throughout been followed with respect to this unfortunate affair. The people of Canada have not been fairly dealt with. The Minister has constantly, by ambigu-
752
ous language, raised hopes intentionally which he never intended to satisfy. In the very case before you, Mr. Rice made the agents believe, he made me believe, that he was about to pursue a course wholly unlike that of his predecessor. He intended by his language to raise this belief in our minds, while he endeavoured to screen himself by an ambiguous phraseology, which, with Old Bailey ingenuity, was to be used and explained upon fitting occasion. But neither he nor his successor ever seemed to consider what the result would be upon the minds of the colonists; the difficulty of the present time was staved off, and the future was left to take care of itself. To this disingenuous conduct, however (I will give it no harsher name), much of the discontent that arose can easily be traced. Hopes were raised only to be disappointed; disappointment brought anger; and anger brought resistance. It was so in the present case. The hopes of the Assembly had been raised by the language held by the Minister to their agents. Their disappointment was bitter, when they learned what his conduct had been. They considered themselves insulted—first, by the trickery of the proceeding, then by the interference thus openly practised with affairs wholly and peculiarly subject to their own control, and they indignantly applied to Parliament for redress. My Lords, you all know the history of the latter part of the year 1834. The Ministry was suddenly changed, and, as usual, a change took place in the colonial rule. Lord Aberdeen succeeded to Mr. Rice. That noble Lord determined to send a Commissioner to Canada for the purpose of inquiry and redress; but before he could carry his design into effect, the Ministry was again changed, and the unfortunate colonies had again to undergo a change of masters. The present Minister, Lord Glenelg, then came into office; he seized upon this idea of a Commission, and multiplied the numbers of the Commissioners, making them three instead of one. Lord Aylmer was removed also; Lord Gosford took his situation, and filled at the same time the somewhat incongruous offices of Governor and Commissioner. The system of deceit was now in full force; every possible method of cajolery and mystification was practised, and again hopes were raised, intentionally raised, which the Ministry were determined never to satisfy. I will not now stop, my Lords, to describe the low and degrading

753
arts employed to trap the Assembly into voting the supplies. It was my duty to set this whole history before the public of England. I have done it fully once, and I leave willingly, and for ever the humiliating subject. Suffice it to say, that in spite of their arts and mean devices, Sir Francis Head whose etourderie has hitherto been farcical, though it has lately led to tragical results, published his instructions, and thereby discovered the intentions of the colonial Minister, and the deception practised upon the Assembly of Lower Canada. The Assembly, therefore, refused for the present, to pay the arrears due to the public officers. But in order to prevent further inconvenience, they voted a six months' supply, and again appealed to the Parliament of England. At this period of my argument), I must request you, my Lords, to take a retrospect view of this history. At the outset, I told you that if there had been ill conduct, such as deceit, vacillation, non-fulfilment of engagements, petulance, and low arts of deception and intrigue, I would show the Assembly not to be the guilty parties, but that I would fasten the guilt chiefly upon the agents of the Crown. Have I not fulfilled my promise? You are constantly told that the people of Canada had, since the year 1828, had all their grievances redressed, and yet I have proved to you that in spite of all sorts of boastful promises and professions, the great grievances complained of in 1828 still remain. The Legislative Council was as bad as ever; the judges were still wholly dependent, on the Crown, thus poisoning justice at its very source; the revenues, the growing revenues, of ' the country, were withdrawn from the control of the Assembly, while the only step towards reformation, was the performance in 1831, of a promise made in 1794. But these three great grievances, the parent source of all the sufferings and all the complaints of the Canadians, were the grand subjects of complaint in 1828. They still remained in their pristine vigour; and yet are we told that all was redressed! But during this period, what was the conduct of the Assembly? Did they act in heat and with passion? Did they call in question the dominion of the mother country? Did they, like our English colonies, prepare for armed resistance? No, my Lords, they did none of these things, but they said, "We are tired of this state of oppression, we have the constitutional power of regulating the supplies, and,
754
although we will carry on the government, we will not recede from our demands, will not concede to our opponents that which they seek to tear from us, before we learn the definite determination of the Imperial Parliament." Did this conduct deserve punishment—was there here any abuse of power? How can any one assert that by such proceedings the constitution was suspended? Peaceably, calmly, the Assembly appealed to the great governing principle of that constitution, and waited with confidence to see them produce their legitimate effects by the assistance of the Imperial Legislature. The expectations of the Assembly were, however, doomed to a bitter disappointment. I now arrive at the eventful period 1837, and the Parliamentary proceedings respecting the Canadian difficulties. The Commissioners of the Crown sent home voluminous reports, which are in every one's hands. I will not now stop to describe them. They have been condemned by all parties, and need not my helping hand to consign them to their due place in history. But now came the grand determination of the Ministers, which may be briefly described thus:—They flatly refused to amend the Legislative Council by the mode of election. They gravely asserted that the Legislative Council required reform, and they thereupon determined to seize upon the money of the colony lying in the provincial treasury, and to apply it as they thought fit. Here was the first, the most flagrant, violent, breach of the constitution—a breach, too, of solemn promises made in acts of Parliament—promises made expressly to our North American colonies and expressly on this very point of application of the provincial funds. We never, even before our experience gathered in the American revolution, dared to try so bold an experiment upon the patience and forbearance of any colony. Here was collected together under acts passed in reliance upon England's honour, money the produce of three years' taxation. Safe, as the people of Canada believed, because guarded by the authority, and sanction, and guarantee of this country, they slept secure, although their treasure was in the hands of others, because they believed those others to be honest as well as powerful, and because they had our pledged faith and honour that we would never appropriate it without their approval. Alas! alas! for England's honour—alas! for our character for common prudence, for common honesty!

755
When we passed those fatal resolutions, we set a dangerous and fatal example of disregard of public faith and of public morals. We shook all men's faith in the most solemn compacts, and taught our subjects to believe that whatever we had the power to do we should believe that we had the right; that we placed ourselves above all moral rules, and decided upon our proceedings solely with reference to our own immediate power and expediency. Let us not, then, complain if others do as we have done, and imitate but too successfully the example we have set. Remark, however, the forbearance, the prudence, and the firmness of the Assembly at this pressing juncture. America, under circumstances far less exasperating, had at once rebelled and successfully resisted our attempts to assert our dominion. The kind feelings of the Canadians were not so easily shaken. Although their near neighbourhood to the United States rendered their situation in case of preconcerted and deliberate revolt, far more hopeful than was that of America formerly, still they did not call out for rebellion, or prepare for resistance. They believed that the strife would be one of no ordinary horror, and they shrank from the responsibility of beginning it. Still they determined not to yield wholly and without compromise; but they did determine, seeing the determination of Parliament for the present to forego their desire of an Elective Council, provided that the promise of reform contained in the resolutions of the two Houses of Parliament was fulfilled. The people, however, determined to try what they could do by legal means to shake the resolution of the mother country. They said—"If you determine not to do us justice, we are not bound to be your commercial customers, and we will learn to depend upon our own resources." In imitation of the Americans in 1774, non-intercourse was established, and they also resolved to settle all differences by arbitration of judges appointed by themselves. These last resolutions were of the people, be it remembered. The Assembly met in August, 1837, and to their astonishment they found the Governor asking them for money, threatening them with the resolutions of the Parliament if they refused it; and at the same time they discovered, that he had done nothing to soften the rigour of this proceeding by fulfilling the promise of reforming the Legislative Council. Their answer to this
756
demand was—"Perform the promise of reform, and then ask us for money; until that promise is fulfilled we cannot entertain your demand." Had that promise been fulfilled in its true spirit, I am prepared to prove by evidence at your bar that it was the intention of the Assembly to have voted the supplies. I will adduce this evidence, and your Lordships shall judge whether they who through negligence or some worse reasons did not obey the commands of Parliament, are the persons who ought to be accusers in this matter—whether the accused are not the innocent—whether the accusers be not the offending parties. I here solemnly charge the Minister of the Crown, the Secretary for the Colonies, with being the author of all the calamities which have resulted from this fatal betrayal of his duty. Whether it was indolence, incapacity, heedlessness, neglect, or intentional disregard of duty, it is not for me to inquire. I see the result, I know the cause, and I call on you, my Lords, if you seek to punish the guilty, if you desire to make answerable those who have disturbed the peace of the empire, have led to the slaughter of her peaceful subjects, have introduced the horrors and calamities of war into the peaceful vales of Canada, to look to the culprit who sits beside you. Call on the Minister of the Crown to answer this charge, and do not, I entreat you, add to the misery already existing by allowing this dreadful measure now upon your table to become law, and thus render confusion and dismemberment of the empire almost inevitable. Punish the guilty, spare the innocent. Throw out this Bill, which is an injustice to my clients, and bid the Minister of the Crown make his defence upon three grave and solemn charges. Some of you, my Lords, may smile at this idea, but be assured, that posterity and the world at large will affirm the judgment which I have ventured to pronounce. I have now, my Lords, brought to a close my history of the Assembly's proceedings. As soon as the Address was passed, to the effect that I have described, they were unceremoniously dismissed, without further explanation or application. Since that moment the Assembly which this proposed measure is to annihilate has had no means of acting. The members composing it, having returned to their homes, were scattered over a territory of above 800 miles in extent, and are not collectively answerable for

757
anything that has happened since. Looking back, then, my Lords, again, have I not made out my first proposition—viz., that the conduct of the Assembly has throughout been wise, firm, forbearing, and prudent? Spite of all the various provocations they received (and I have passed, of necessity, over many, lest I should tire your patience), spite of all the trying injuries heaped upon them, spite of disappointment of all their most cherished hopes, they never swerved from their path of duty, and always evinced respect and obedience to England; and yet are we now about to reward their generous zeal for their country, their confidence in us, their respect and attachment, to our dominion, by degrading and insulting them and their country, making them an object for the scorn and contempt of the whole continent of America. If this be prudent, it is not just, it is not generous. The world will wonder, I fear, at our rashness, as well as our injustice. But it may be said, it is true that the Assembly are not to blame, but the people have rebelled, and rebellion must be punished, and what so fit a punishment as depriving them of that power of self-government which they have abused? The answer to this assertion is,—first, the people have not rebelled; but a portion, a small portion, of the whole broke out into a riot in consequence of what they conceived a crying injustice committed by the authorities; next, in this riot there was no abuse of the powers of self-government—there was no connexion between the Assembly and the riot. The riot took place merely in consequence of some proceedings which the people thought unjust, and which they resisted. The people, in fact, had resisted the execution of certain writs, as he had no doubt their Lordships knew from the newspapers. There was evidence that the Government had knowledge of the proceedings of the people for a length of time before they chose to take any notice of it; at last, however, they seemed to have discovered that a conspiracy existed somewhere, and their method of taking measures to provide for the public safety was curious. They forthwith dismissed a number of officers of militia, much in the same way as a certain Government bad once dismissed Earl Fitzwilliam from a high situation for attending a meeting for the reform of Parliament; nearly in a similar way to this were those officers of militia dismissed for attending a meeting,
758
and along with them were dismissed also a number of magistrates, and a new commission was issued, leaving out almost all in whom the people had confidence. Your Lordships must understand, that just at this juncture the Jury Act had expired, leaving it in the power of the Crown, by means of the Attorney-General, an officer of the Crown, and appointed, paid, and dismissable by the Crown, to prick just whomsoever he pleased to serve on juries. Just at this time Lord Gosford issued warrants against persons on account of acts committed three months before: these were directed chiefly against M. Papineau's associates, but not against M. Papineau himself in the first instance, though very significant warning was given that it was intended to issue a warrant against him shortly. Such are the facts of the case: and were your Lordships called upon to disfranchise a borough, or to deprive a corporation of its charter upon such a case, you would give a flat refusal; and yet here, in a case where the outrage upon existing vested interests is far more marked and extraordinary, there seems no hesitation. A small portion of the whole people, a few parishes, resist a force endeavouring to arrest certain individuals; thereupon you punish the whole nation, who could have no part in the affray, who neither by word nor by action aided and abetted the rioters. Compare the conduct pursued with regard to the Canadians with that towards the people of Bristol. A dangerous riot occurred in that town; yet nobody thought of depriving the city of their Representatives nor of their charter. Look at the daily riots of Ireland—whole counties, not parishes, declared to be in such a state as to require martial law; and yet there is no proposal to deprive Ireland, or even the disturbed counties, of their Representatives. Take again a yet more striking case—Scotland in 1715 and 1745. At that time the whole of Scotland was on the side of the Pretender, and actually in willing subjection to him; and yet Scotland was not deprived of her Representatives. Even the supposed parallel case of Boston affords nothing like the present Bill. An outrage in that case had been committed expressly against the authority of Parliament; the whole people of the province of Massachusetts Bay applauded the rioters, and refused to give them up, and turned out in arms to resist the Government. Yet, then, all that was proposed to be done was to give to Boston

759
a constitution similar to that which Lower Canada now has. There was no attempt to destroy their means of self-government, their House of Representatives remained; but the Council was now to be chosen by the Crown, instead of being elected by the people. The truth is, my Lords, and we cannot hide it from ourselves or the world, this riot is but a pretext. The Ministers found that the Government of Canada, with its present constitution, was a painful and difficult matter, and they took advantage of the fright which this riot created in Parliament to persuade them that the source of all this confusion and terror was the House of Assembly, the fact all the time being, that the imbecility, the vacillation, and deception adopted by the Ministers, were the true causes of the disturbance. Pretences were wanted to cover this disagreeable fact, and the riot came opportunely to their aid. Nevertheless, it may still be insisted that some change is necessary, because the populations, English and French, are divided and hostile, and the French majority are said to oppress the English minority. Having thus proved the injustice of the proposed measure, by describing and defending the conduct of the Assembly, having, as I believe, successfully justified that much injured, much calumniated body, and repulsed the various attacks which malice and ignorance combined have made on it, I now proceed to that part of my duty which is comparatively light and easy. I am no longer on the defensive, I am about to attack the so called healing measure on your Lordships' table, and to prove it to be for good purposes wholly inadequate, while for mischief it is but too potent and effective. Let us, at the outset, clearly understand what the measure is, and what it is intended to effect. The Bill is called one for the government of Lower Canada. Difficulties have arisen in the government of that colony—difficulties such as I have been at some pains to describe; the machinery created by the act of 1791 has been found not altogether perfect; the Assembly has exercised its powers in a manner to give offence; and you are in consequence called upon—to do what? Amend the faulty parts of the machine? so to arrange the now conflicting powers of it that it may proceed to its accustomed and useful work? No, my Lords, this is not what you are now asked to do. The bright idea of mending the machine by first destroying it has sug-
760
gested itself to the Colonial Minister; and because the great mass of the Lower Canadian population are already somewhat displeased with the treatment they have received at our hands, it is deemed the height of wisdom to take a step which will inevitably increase their discontent, and render their allegiance the result of physical coercion, and not spontaneous and affectionate attachment to our dominion. Now, my Lords, I must presume to differ entirely from the policy of this proceeding, and I will at once endeavour to show your Lordships how all the present difficulties attending our rule will be greatly aggravated by this fatal measure—to point out to you the portentous evils with which it threatens us, the dire calamities which must of necessity flow from it. But stdl it may be said, something must be done. I allow it. This admission, however, does not yield anything in favour of this Bill. This measure makes bad worse; where under present circumstances you have one difficulty, under this brilliant specimen of colonial legislation you will have to encounter a hundred. When I have proved all this, my Lords, I will go one step further, by showing that it is wanton mischief—that a dangerous path has been chosen—that you have, while a safe one was open to you, adopted a course in which you encounter danger, in which you certainly incur enormous expense, which will probably produce calamity without limit, and yet attain no security for the future—that you do this, when it is possible with ease to allay all discontent, without incurring any danger of hostility at the present time, and also to provide for our future security from any evil that may threaten us in consequence of the great and rapidly increasing power of the great federal republic of North America. The Bill, in the first place, is a temporary measure. You suspend the constitution of Lower Canada till the year 1840, and in the mean time you send out a dictator. The question immediately arises—in what better condition do you suppose you will be in the year 1840 than now? What do you suppose will take place when the constitution revives r Will not the same difficulties which now beset and obstruct it revive also? But we intend to provide against them. By what means? and why are those means not at once adopted? Why do you not now amend the constitution in place of destroying it? You know the whole case—more information cannot

761
be obtained. Why, then, delay to act? Why, because they who have the power have not the courage to face the real difficulties of the question. This sending out a dictator, this temporary suspension of the constitution, is a part of the old system which has produced the present crisis. The great object of all Ministerial endeavours seems to be to stave off a difficulty. Manfully to grapple with it requires courage, requires knowledge; and courage and knowlege are qualities, unfortunately, which are far too rare in the rulers of mankind. At this moment the Ministers of the Crown are reduced to this dilemma—either they know what ought to be done, or they do not. If they do know what ought to be done, there is no need of delay; if they do not know, they never will. Let us not, however, hide the truth from ourselves. They who have governed England and her colonies for the last six years, have been always halting between two opinions, and subject to the influence of two sorts of principles diametrically opposed. They have obtained power under the guise of liberality—under the promise and pretence of reform. They have endeavoured to retain power without any fulfilment of their promises. The consequence has been that their Government at home and in our colonies has been one continued shuffle. They have allowed expectations to arise that they determined not to satisfy. They seek to make men live upon hope, and themselves desire to enjoy all the odour of liberality. Discontent, however, attends disappointment, and all our present difficulties in Canada are the result of discontent and anger, raised by the disappointment of hopes produced by this unwarrantable system of promise without performance. Habits, however, are not easily eradicated; the Ministers of the Crown will not take lessons from experience, and are determined to continue their old game of procrastination and delay. But, my Lords, I appeal fearlessly to your common sense, and to your honour and honesty, and I ask of you, possessed as you are of all the knowledge which the case affords or requires, whether it would not be more prudent, more honourable, more honest, at once to say what you will, what you will not, do to satisfy the wishes of your colonists? Take your measures like bold, like honest men: tell us what they are; establish your system of colonial rule—that system to which you determine to adhere, and at once frame that machine of
762
colonial government which you believe to be the best one. Do this, and there is no need to suspend the constitution of Canada. Change it, if you so determine; but do so at once, and do not fly to subterfuge. Do not come with hypocritical pretences of sorrow—hollow lamentations over the necessity which compels you to act, and under the guise of sham liberality perpetrate this crying outrage against common sense and common honesty. If you intend permanently to destroy the representative government of Lower Canada, say so at once, and do it avowedly and openly; and do not, I entreat of you, adopt the poor, the paltry screen, of saying that you suspend it only. If you do not intend to destroy, but to amend it, let us at once know what those proposed amendments are. For your own sakes, for the sake of that connexion between this country and the colony, which all in this House and most of those in the other House of Parliament prize so highly, I beseech you, my Lords, to adopt this manly, this honest course, for depend on me when I tell you, that the moment this Bill becomes a law, all hope of any peaceful maintenance of that connexion may at once and for ever be discarded. I know the people of whom I am speaking; I know the circumstances by which they are surrounded, and without hesitation I assert that they will deem this measure one of great, of unmitigated injustice: they will consider it part of a system, and that system they will believe to have for its object the establishment of such a colonial dominion as will leave them but the shadow of freedom. They will feel that this measure is an insult as well as injury; it will degrade them in their own esteem—it will degrade them in that of their neighbours. They will make comparisons between their own position and the happy situation of the free citizens of the United States, and they will, while they imprecate curses upon the rule under which they are compelled for a time to crouch, look with longing eyes to that mighty people who dwell near to them, and will in secret cherish the darling hope, that the fortune which ever pursues injustice, even though she be halt, and lame, and slow, will yet inevitably overtake it, and bring with the turn of her fatal wheel an opportunity of punishing their oppressors, and vindicating their own honour and freedom. I speak prophetically, my Lords, not as one wishing the misfortunes to England which I now predict; but be you

763
assured, that now in scorn and contemptuous disregard of worthy men and worthy feelings we are sowing seeds of discontent and resistance, which some day, not far distant, we shall gather into our garners with tears of sorrow and of shame. It is the fashion, my Lords, to talk of the ignorance of the Canadian people; and assertions are recklessly hazarded, which greater knowledge of the people and their actual condition, and also of the true criterion of education, would altogether have prevented. We are prone to believe that America and Europe are the same, and to fancy that the agricultural serfs, who in Europe form the mass of the inhabitants, find a counterpart in the independent possessors of the soil in America. Never was there committed a more gross or a more fatal error. America at this moment is governed by habits of thought and feeling, fostered, perpetuated, and extended by that remarkable band of religious and political enthusiasts who originally settled New England, and whose sons now swarm in every part of the great federal union of the United States. The political creed of these men has, in reality, become the political creed of the whole continent, and is entertained as well by the descendants of the French colonists on the banks of the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence, as by the immediate heirs of those English who originally seized and settled on the shores of the Hudson or the Connecticut, You are treated often with dissertations upon the feudal laws and burdens which exist in Canada; believe me, my Lords, when I tell you, that a feudal schism is unknown in that country; that the people are not driven, but persuaded by their leaders, and that the influence of Papineau and his friends at this moment is precisely the same sort of power as that possessed formerly by the Adamses, the Warrens, and the Washing-tons of America. How do I prove this? I do so by stating two facts, for which I challenge and defy contradiction. Let any seigneur change his present politics, and take part with the oppressors of Canada; let the priest of the parish preach the same doctrine, and then let these two persons combined go to a political election against a liberal candidate, and I will abide by the result. The seigneur and the priest will fail. Why do I assert this? Because the experiment has been tried and failed. Well-known instances must suggest themselves to every one conversant with the affairs of that country. But if this be so,
764
what becomes of the assertions concerning the ignorance of the Canadian people? Do you usually find an ignorant and dependent peasantry turning a deaf ear, and refusing obedience to the commands of their territorial lords, and their priesthood combined? Never. Such a phenomenon was never seen. But in America, where the farmer is his own master, living in great plenty and comfort, and surrounded by circumstances which daily call for great activity of mind, of great ingenuity, under novel difficulties which task his sagacity in the application of means to ends—the farmer, I say, who is thus situated, acquires habits of independent thought and action; he listens to him who comes armed with reason and with facts, and despises any attempt which would subject him blindly to authority. Talk not to me of reading and writing as the only criterion of education; I have seen many a farmer who knew nothing of scholastic learning, yet was well read in the book of nature and experience, whose judgment was far more sane and accurate, whose sagacity was far more acute, and whose mind was much more thoroughly guarded against the assaults of prejudice and superstition, than those of many a learned, but still ignorant bookworm, whose only knowledge was the pretended science of the schools. Furthermore, my Lords, when we speak of ignorance, let us remember this fact: the moment that the means of scholastic education were placed within the reach of the Canadian people, the whole population at once availed themselves of the advantages thus offered to them. And let us never forget, that they who are ever harping upon this ignorance of the Canadian people, the Legislative Council, in the year 1836, did, from political hate and to serve their own base purposes, deprive 40,000 children of the means of instruction, by shutting up the national schools. And this ignorant people have cherished, and will cherish, the memory of this wrong, so that when the day of retribution is come, they may not forget the punishment due to the crime. I now, my Lords, invite your serious consideration to the peculiar condition of the American continent, so that when you have well weighed the various and extraordinary circumstances there existing, you may be able to form something like an accurate and vivid conception of the probable effects of this proposed measure and the influence that it is likely to have upon the future peace and security

765
of our American colonies. Any person who should for the first time look upon the map of North America would naturally have his attention irresistibly attracted to that immense territory which stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific across the whole continent, and which extends from the Gulf of Mexico to the chain of lakes which have their outlet to the sea by the St. Lawrence. His astonishment would undoubtedly be created if he learned that this immense and fertile tract, situated within the most favourable degrees of latitude, possessing every conceivable natural advantage, belonged to a people speaking one language, and united under one Government. His opinion of the power of this people would be undoubtedly greatly raised when he also learned that the whole of the various of this stupendous country were self-governed, and that the people took every precaution to increase and improve their own education and that of their children. His ideas of this people's greatness would receive no diminution when he learned that their commerce extended to every realm, and that every improvement in science was, by the ingenuity and enterprise of the people, immediately on its becoming known, applied to practical purposes; that by this means a system of roads, railroads, canals, was there to be witnessed which defied the world to parallel it; that steam, with all its wonders, had there almost its birth, and was there certainly hourly extending the dominion of man over nature. Would he not exclaim when he was told that this gigantic power was only in its infancy, "We unto those who shall cross this mighty people in the hour of their meridian greatness; and blind must be those statesmen of other nations, who, if they have the power, neglect the means of creating a counterpoise to such a dominion?" Such, my Lords, however, is the United States; and the influence of her opinions is already paramount upon that continent, and affects the habits of thought and feeling of every inhabitant of its boundless regions. Now the leading dogma of this people's political creed is, that all men ought to be self-governed, and they look down with ineffable contempt upon all who submit to the domination of others. The Canadians, living in daily intercourse with these bold-thinking and free-speaking republicans, have necessarily acquired their habits, and adopted their political dogmata. What will be the necessary conse-
766
quence of your depriving the Canadians of that highly prized privilege—viz., the right of self-government? You will at once excite the indignation of the whole population of the United States, and create intense sympathy with the suffering, and as they will call them, the oppressed and enslaved Canadians. Not a newspaper among the millions that circulate within the American territories but will contain violent philippics against you and your enactment. You will be unable to pre-vent these papers circulating throughout the Canadas. Besides, you cannot prevent the expression of opinion reaching the Canadas through personal communication. Every trader coming from America will exhibit his indignation of the oppressor, and his sympathy for the reluctant, and contempt for the willingly suffering and submissive. Deep shame and bitter hatred, and cherished hope of revenge, ample and immediate, will be the inmates of every Canadian bosom. Your armies may for a while enforce obedience, but a thousand accidents may at once and for ever drive you from the continent. Any dispute with America which shall again, as in 1812, bring her armies on your frontier, will not find you with a population enthusiastically attached to, and ready to die for your dominion. No; in place of this, the Americans would find the Canadians stretching out their arms for succour, crying with piteous voices and bitter wailings and curses. "Aid us in throwing off the yoke of the oppressor. Come, brave and generous people, sympathise with our wrongs, and alleviate our misfortunes." Your dominion will end. Should any national calamity occur which would cripple our power and our resources, they will, if possible, rise in open rebellion, and again would they stretch out their arms and cry for succour from the already sympathising Americans. My Lords, this is no idle fancy of my brain—no fantastic product of a heated imagination. At this moment the picture that I have drawn may be seen in the life. You are told, and I believe truly, that the American Government sincerely desires peace with England; but in America it is the people that govern. There you cannot neglect or contemn the popular feeling; neither can you easily suppress its working. Is not the Federal Government at this moment powerless in its attempts to put down the excitement now existing on their northern frontier in favour of the Canadians? This excite-

767
ment has been created simply by the fact of revolt against the mother country (for as yet they know nothing of this measure of revenge). Their own revolution is ever in their thoughts. The cases, in their opinion, seem almost identical, and they believe that the God of the oppressed bids them aid and assist the Canadians. The revolt, in spite of all these formidable difficulties, may be suppressed; but where is your security for the future? Your well-trained soldiers may defeat the rebels, but they cannot convert them into attached and faithful subjects. Every act of this fatal tragedy only renders more certain the painful, and to us, humiliating, result. Hostile separation and war with the United States will some day inevitably follow. Then, my Lords, see what follows. This already too gigantic power will add to her union the whole continent of America. They are shallow politicians who cannot see the immense temptation which is held out by the free navigation of the St. Lawrence to all the northern states of the Union. The very question which, of all others, appears most likely to create dissention in the Union, viz. that of slavery, renders, under present circumstances, the annexation of the Canadas, as a counterpoise to Texas, almost inevitable, unless timely and wise precautions be taken by England to prevent it. Can such precautions be taken? Do any means exist by which this fatal junction might be prevented and our discontented colonies firmly attached to our dominion? My Lords, I think there are such means, and to those means, to that measure which ought to supersede the direful experiment you are about to venture, I will almost immediately apply myself, and shortly describe it, as the best apology I can offer to your Lordships for the trial I have made of your patience and attention. I would, however, before I do this, add a few observations upon the consequences likely to result from the precious specimen of legislation before your Lordships. It is clear that this suspension of the Canadian constitution is not needed for the suppression of the revolt. It is clear also that the noble Lord who is to be Dictator of Canada is not to employ his powers to that end, otherwise he would proceed immediately to his government, and not await the coming of fine weather in the spring. Except, then, for purposes of vengeance, the objects of this Bill are all prospective. By the preamble as it originally stood, and
768
also by the instructions to Lord Durham, which have been printed, we are told, that one of the means which his Lordship will adopt for the future better government of Canada is the calling together of a convention; and the members of this convention in Lower Canada are to be elected by the people of that country. Now, at this moment I will say nothing as to the wisdom or folly of this proposed arrangement, but I call attention to this remarkable circumstance. The very same persons—viz., the Ministers of the Crown, who dread the assembling of the Parliament of Lower Canada, who dread also a new election, yet have no fear of calling the people together for the election of delegates to a convention. It is obvious, then, that they do not fear assemblies of the people. What, then, do they dread? and why do they not allow the noble Lord who is to go out as pacificator after peace is established—why not allow him to call together the Parliament? I heard a whisper and a suggestion in the other House of Parliament which to me explained a mystery. There will be some plan devised to narrow the constituency of that country, and the ignorant meddlers in politics who have hitherto ruled the destinies of that unfortunate country are so blind as not to see the consequence of such an attempt. You are told, my Lords, that all the wealth of that country is in the hands of the English, and you believe what you are told. Now, hear my version of the story; all the real wealth of the country is in the hands of the agricultural community, and they, for the most part, are French, while the pretended riches of the merchants of Montreal and Quebec, who are chiefly English, is more show than reality. Few are rich—few are solvent; and the real cause of their furious outcry is the dread of bankruptcy in peaceful times. Create a riot, and to be a bankrupt will not be dishonourable. Keep the country quiet, and if they break, then men will scan closely the honesty of those who have deluded their creditors. However, make your electoral qualification higher, try the experiment, and you will not have one Englishman in your new Parliament. Your only chance is by extending the suffrage; but this does not accord with notions predominant here, and we are all but too prone to fancy the rest of the world like ourselves in every particular. The noble Lord who is about to go on this mission of supposed peace will find all his plans of good ruined

769
by the suspicion attendant on this Bill. He is popular it is said, in this country. I suppose that he is known to the people by some great achievement in their favour, by some great service rendered them. But to the Canadian people he is unknown, except as the dictator who strides over the ruins of their constitution, and the near connexion of one they deem their bitterest enemy. He may surround himself with pomp and parade; he may enact the viceroy, and play with what effect or vigour he pleases the farce of mock royalty; but when he sends this bill as his harbinger, be assured that he will play to empty benches: he will be no popular favourite; and, though a star from London, the provincials will not run after him. Some few fools may gape and cry God bless him; but the national feeling will be such towards him, that no man need envy him his power, even with all its tinsel concomitants; nor will he, if he have the heart of a man, long stand up against the concentrated hatred and indignation that will on all occasions break out against him who could seize this unhallowed sceptre, and consent to play the dictator over an injured and a helpless people. Perhaps, in the day of his failure, he will remember the words uttered this night. But what then ought to be done? Let me answer that question in one sentence:—Do justice to Canada. You seek to retain your dominion, you wish to maintain peace, you desire to have your colony a profitable possession. If you wish these things, reign over it with justice; but justice here means—grant the demands of the people. What are they? Freedom from irresponsible rule. The interests of England are in this the same as those of the colony. England gains nothing by an irresponsible Legislative Council. Give the people a government which shall provide for their interests and for yours, and not for those of the hungry band who have so long preyed upon the vitals of the colony. How is this to be done? As follows:—A careful and provident statesman would, in all his measures respecting the present government of Canada, keep a steady eye on the future destinies of the colony—would be careful so to arrange his plans as to render it impossible that any junction with the United States and our present colonies should ever take place. The present condition of those provinces gives you an opportunity of doing both the things which you should now seek to effect—viz.,
770
to allay the discontents of the lower and upper province, and provide against the extension of the power of the United States. The mode of allaying the discontents of Canada I last year propounded to the House of Commons, and have lately again set forth to the head of her Majesty's Government. That plan contemplated the abolition of the Legislative Council, and the creation of a council of advice, to be chosen by each successive governor. By this means, responsibility would be fixed upon a single person, who would have all the advantage that could be derived from advice. In order to protect the general interests of the colonies and England's interests, it was proposed that there should be a general assembly composed of persons elected by the various legislatures of the different colonies, that by a written code the powers of this body should be determined—one of their functions being to hear impeachments preferred by the Colonial Legislatures. Besides this body, it was proposed to institute a superior court of judicature, to try all judicial questions between the several colonies—and such as should arise from calling in question the limits of the powers exercised by the general assembly and the several Colonial Legislatures. Such a machinery as this would keep your colonies in one compact body—would keep them separate from the United States, and when the time comes, which must come, in which they are to be independent of our dominion, they might form themselves into a northern confederation, balancing and controlling the powers of the United States of America. Such, my Lords, is my plan of pacification, to which no object on can be brought, but such as results either from misconception of the real interests of England or a too nice perception of personal interests. But before you decide upon this or any other plan, I would beseech you, my Lords, gravely and seriously to inquire into the benefit which you hope to derive from opposing the general wishes of the colonists, and then to set against this supposed benefit the real evils which you brave, by obstinately opposing yourself to the just wishes of our subjects At this moment, every one of you must feel that war with the United States has been risked by this insane quarrel with our colonies. No greater calamity could happen to mankind than such a war, and yet have we heedlessly—may I not say criminally?—incurred the danger of it—

771
and for what? To maintain a wretched band of hungry officials in the possession of ill-used as well as ill-gotten power—to shelter a few peculating servants from the just indignation of their robbed and insulted masters. This, my Lords, is the real end of all our great expense, of all our loss of money, time, and blood—the magnificent object for which we have stayed all improvement in Canada, for which we now seek to outrage the feelings of the whole continent of America, for which we have already risked the chance of the most disastrous calamity which ignorance and wickedness combined could inflict on mankind! Is not this, my Lords, a magnificent requital for such a risk? And are we not, by our proceedings, exhibiting to the world a scene humiliating to the national character for sense, for honour, and generosity? To you, my Lords, as the supposed guardians of our ancient honour, I appeal to save us from this degradation and disgrace. The learned gentleman, after reading part of a protest, recommending conciliatory measures to be pursued towards the colonies, a protest which had been entered on their journals by some of their most illustrious ancestors, among whom he mentioned the names of the Duke of Richmond, the Duke of Devonshire, Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Falkland, and Lord Ponsonby, concluded by stating that he would not trespass further upon their indulgence, but would reserve to himself the right of calling, at a future stage of the bill, evidence to prove the various facts which he had stated in the course of his speech.
Lord Broughampaid a high compliment to the distinguished power and ability with which the learned counsel at the bar had advocated the just claims of the Canadian people, while he had shown that the bill, suspending their constitution, ought not to pass into law. As the learned counsel proposed at a future stage of the bill to tender evidence in support of the allegations which he had just made, he thought that the best course for their Lordships to pursue would be to go at once into the Committee, and then, at a future stage of the bill, if their Lordships were so minded, they could hear the evidence which the learned counsel said he was ready to produce. Mind, he wished it to be understood as his opinion, that it was by no means a matter of course that such evidence should be heard at their bar. For his own part, he did not intend to
772
offer any vexatious or harassing opposition to the Committee on the bill, though he differed in every respect, not only from the principle, but also from the details of it. He would, however, reserve any observations which he had to make upon it to a future opportunity, if he thought it worth while, which he scarcely thought it was, to trouble their Lordships with any further objections which he had to this measure.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that in consequence of what had fallen from the learned counsel at the bar, he felt it necessary to trouble their Lordships with one or two observations. If this bill were right at all, it was so because the acts of the House of Assembly had de facto suspended the constitution of Lower Canada. Their Lordships were, therefore, compelled either to assent to this bill or to some other bill of a similar kind.
Their Lordships went into a Committee. The clauses of the Bill were agreed to without amendment, and the House resumed.
On the question that the report be received,
The Earl of Aberdeenobserved, that there was a clause by which it was provided that this bill, when it was proclaimed by the governor of Canada, should immediately take effect. Now, he wished to know, whether it was intended that the bill was to wait for proclamation until the arrival of the Earl of Durham in Canada, or whether it was intended to give a discretionary power to Sir John Colborne, as acting governor, to proclaim it when he should think fitting.
Lord Glenelg, in reply, stated, that it was intended that Sir John Colborne should have power to carry the bill into effect before the arrival of the Earl of Durham in Canada.
Report received.