Sitting of 7 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Apothecaries Hall (Dublin); Population (Ireland); Prisons (Ireland); Insolvent Debtors (Ireland); Assessed Taxes Composition; Court of Exchequer (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Episcopal Church (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. Williams, Mr. Easthope, and other Members, from a number of places, for the Immediate Abolition of Church Rates.—By Viscount Sandon, from a' Baptist Congregation, against the Opium War with China; and from Boatmen of the Trent and Mersey Canal Company, for a better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Grimsditch, from Leddington, and other places in Derbyshire, against the Canal Carriers Bill.—By Mr. William Roche, from Medical Practitioners of Li-

523
merick, for Remuneration for Professional Attendance in Courts of Justice By Mr. Greene, from Bolton, and other places in Lancashire, against the powers of the Poor-law Commissioners.—By Mr. C. B. Hamilton, from the Headington Union, to dispense with the services of the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners.—By Mr. Wakley, from Lincoln, Stepney, and other places, against the Copyright Bill; from the Committee of the Working Men's Association of St. Andrew's, and from Nottingham, for the Release of Mr. Feargus O'Connor; from a Public Meeting at Dunfermline, for the Pardon of all persons convicted of Political Offences; and from Medical Practitioners, for Medical Reform.—By Colonel Salwey, from a Gas Company of Ludlow, against the Rating of Stock in Trade Bill.—By Mr. O'Connell, from Physicians and Surgeons of the north of Ireland, for Reform of the Apothecaries' Company of Dublin; and from the Victuallers of Dublin, for Justice to Ireland By Mr. Sergeant Jackson, from different parts of Ireland, against the National system of Education.—By Sir James Graham, from the Manchester and Leeds Railway, against the Canal Carriers' Bill.—By Colonel Conolly, from Armagh, against the Poor-law Commissioners in Ireland—By Mr. Hume, from the House of Assembly of Prince Edward's Island, against Unequal Taxation; from Ayles-bury, Middlesex, Wick, and other places, against the Copyright Bill; from St. Andrew's, for Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Annual Parliaments; and from Montrose, to alter the Laws with respect to Political Offenders.—By Mr. Gillon, from 400 Congregations at Edinburgh, against Church Extension.—By Sir R. Peel, from Southend, in favour of the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill.—By Mr. Scrope, from the Proprietors of the Great Western Railway, against the Railways Bill.—By Viscount Morpeth, from places in the West Riding of Yorkshire, against Church Extension.—By Mr. Leader, from Bath, for Extension of the Suffrage, for the Discharge of Feargus O'Connor, and complaining of the conduct of certain Magistrates.—By Mr. Baines, from the Grand Junction Railway, and from the Leeds and Selby Railway, against the Railways Bill.

NEW ZEALAND.
Lord Eliotsaid, the petition to which he was about to call the attention of the House, agreeably to his notice, was from the merchants, bankers, and shipowners, of the city of London, respecting the colonization of New Zealand; and embodying, as it did, the opinion of so large, so respectable, and so enlightened a body of men on a subject of such great importance, it appeared to him to be deserving of the serious consideration of the House. He regretted that the subject had not been taken up by some hon. Member whose talents and whose position in the House might enable him to do more justice to the subject than he (Lord Eliot) was able to do; but, concurring as he did in the views of the petitioners, he thought it right to acquiesce in their wish that he should bring the matter under the consideration of the House. It was not necessary for him to expatiate on the general subject of emigration; it had been so often brought forward in this House, and the general principle had been so universally acknowledged, that he should only advert to it in passing. A right hon. Friend of his, no longer a Member of that
524
House, Sir R. W. Horlon—had devoted much of his time to the consideration of this subject, and had succeeded in producing a strong impression on the public mind. Meetings had been held in almost all the large towns in this country, expressing the opinions of the working classes that it was impossible for them, with the increasing state of the population, and the great improvements that were daily being made in machinery, to obtain sufficient employment for the support of themselves and their families: and not longer than two or three days ago a copy of a memorial from the working men of Paisley to the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies had come under his notice, in which they said —
"That it has been a subject of the deepest and most anxious consideration with the memorialists what mode to adopt, or course to pursue, whereby they might have an opportunity of turning their industry to better account, and improving their condition. That they are satisfied (whatever might be the effect of a repeal of the Corn-laws, or of an extension of political privileges), that amongst the weaving population, at least, in consequence of the daily increase of their numbers, and extension of mechanical power and ingenuity, the labour market is greatly over-sup, plied in proportion to the demand; and the memorialists can see no immediate, effectual, or practical remedy for the distress existing amongst them, except by transferring their industry to some one or other of our colonial possessions, where land is cheap and labour dear, and where the most urgent demand for labour exists, and where by industry and sobriety they will be sure of a comfortable subsistence for themselves and families, rather than by remaining at home, inevitably to sink into the condition of paupers and become dependent on the parish poor's funds for their daily bread."
He rejoiced to find that those sentiments were becoming general amongst the operative classes of this community. With regard to the principle of colonization, which had been so ably developed by Mr. Wakefield, he would observe, that the experiment of a colony conducted on such a principle had been tried with perfect success in South Australia; and he could wish that the noble Lord would follow the same course in regard to the colony of New Zealand. The evidence which had been given before the Lords' Committee, made it quite unnecessary for him to state to the House the peculiar advantages which New Zealand offered, from the fer-

525
tility of its soil and the salubrity of its climate, as well as in other respects, to settlers from this country; and the publication of that evidence had had the effect of inducing a large number of persons to proceed to that colony. There were only two questions to which he should call the attention of the House; and they were, first, the right of this country to occupy or claim the sovereignty of those islands; and, secondly, as to the best mode of establishing; British colonies in them. He would not fatigue the House by entering into the historical details of the manner in which those islands first became known to Europeans, but he would just state that he believed there was no doubt that Tasman was the first person who touched upon those shores, but that it was reserved to Captain Cook to plant there for the first time the flag of a civilized state. That was in the year 1769 or 1770, and those islands were then taken possession of in the name of his Majesty King George 3rd, with the accustomed formalities. He, therefore, thought we had the same title to the possession of New Zealand as we had to a great part of our colonial empire, and more especially to our South Australian possessions; and, if the Government thought fit to disclaim what he thought was a just claim to the Government of New Zealand, then they had in his opinion no right to retain the sovereignty of the other parts of the South Australian Islands. He believed that, down to 1829, there had been no doubt whatever on the part of the Colonial Secretary of State as to that right. It was in 1814, that Governor Macquarrie, the Governor of New South Wales, issued a commission of dedimus potestatem to various inhabitants of New Zealand, some of whom were natives and others British settlers, and he believed that other commissions of a similar nature were issued by the Governor of New South Wales in 1819, without any objection, as far as he could learn, being made to that proceeding: so that he was bound to consider that it was assented to by the Government here. He would read a short extract from a letter of Lord Glenelg, who was then Secretary of State, which was dated in December, 1837:—
"The intelligence which his Majesty's Government has received from the most recent and authentic sources justifies the conclusion that it is an indispensable duty, in reference
526
both to the natives and to British interests, to interpose by some effective authority to put a stop to the evils and dangers to which all those interests are exposed in consequence of the manner in which the intercourse of foreigners with those islands is now carried on."
Now, it was rather a remarkable fact, that notwithstanding the strong opinion which was there expressed by the noble Lord, then at the head of the Colonial Government, that no steps were taken until the winter of 1839, and that it was not until 1839, that Captain Hobson was despatched to New Zealand by her Majesty's Government. But it would be remembered, that in these papers and in the subsequent despatches the argument was not started, nor was any doubt expressed as to the right of the British Crown to the sovereignty of New Zealand. He might, he thought, also state the authority of the noble Lord, the present Secretary for the Colonies, who, in his instructions to the land commissioners, in January, last, said—
"Thus it appears that the Australian colonies must be the principal field for your operations. Even here, however, it will probably be found that in Van Diemen's Land the great amount of available land has already been granted. But New Holland, and probably New Zealand, contain districts which it is not possible to exhaust by any rational scheme of colonization for a long course of years."
It therefore clearly appeared that up to January, 1840, the Government had no doubt of the kind. The result of the disclaimer on the part of the Colonial Department in this country had been to invite the attention of foreign states to this derelict colony, which was thus abandoned by the noble Lord. This was an important part of the subject, and he trusted that he should approach it with proper delicacy. No one could be less disposed than himself to undervalue the French alliance; he entertained feelings of respect, of good will, and of admiration for the French nation, and considered the alliance between France and England as the surest guarantee of the peace of the world. He should, therefore, be the last person to say anything likely to endanger the continuance of the friendly relations between, the two countries. It was because he was desirous that the alliance should continue that he was anxious to avoid the possibility of any collision arising. Although great harmony prevailed between the Go-

527
vernments, and, as he really believed, between the people of England and France, yet it could not be denied that there existed a great tendency to jealousy and suspicion as regarded the interests of the two countries in different parts of the world. This had proved to be the case with respect to India arid Canada. If it were true, then, as he believed, that the juxta-position of settlements from the two nations led to quarrels and collisions, it was clear that nothing would have a greater tendency to endanger the peaceful relations which existed between the two Governments at home. It was understood that settlers were about to proceed from France to the southern island of New Zealand. This was the island which Captain Hobson represented as being inhabited by persons in a savage state, and incapable, from ignorance, of entering into any treaty; and he recommended the assertion, on the ground of discovery, of Her Majesty's sovereign rights over the island—a recommendation of which Lord Normanby appeared to approve. Now, if it were true that French settlers were proceeding to this island, the noble Lord opposite would have caused all the consequences which would shortly arise from such a state of things. The noble Lord denied the right of the Crown to claim the sole and exclusive sovereignty of these islands. He would read a passage from a work of a distinguished American lawyer, which appeared very applicable to the subject now before the House. It was in Chancellor Kent's Commentaries, and the author was speaking, not so much of the practice of America at present, as of that pursued by all European nations:
"On the discovery of this continent by the nations of Europe, the discovery was considered to have given to the Government, by whose subjects or authority it was made, a title to the country, and the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives as against all other European powers. Each nation claimed the right to regulate for itself, in exclusion of all others, the relations which were to subsist between the discoverer and the Indians. The natives were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own direction, though not to dispose of the soil at their own will, except to the Government claiming the right of preemption. The practice of Spain, France, Holland, and England proved the general recognition of this principle of a claim and title to territories given by discovery,'' "To leave
528
the Indians in possession of the country was to leave the country a wilderness." "The Supreme Court of the United States declared in the case of 'Worcester' that the right given by European discovery was the exclusive right to purchase, but this right was not founded on a denial of the rights of the Indian possessor to sell. Though the right to the soil was claimed to be in the European Government as a necessary consequence of the right of discovery, yet that right was only deemed such in reference to the whites."
Vattel did not place much value on the territorial rights of erratic races of people, who sparely inhabited immense regions and allowed them to remain a wilderness, because their occupation was war, and who drew their subsistence chiefly from the forest. He observed,
"That the cultivation of the soil was an obligation imposed by nature on mankind, and that the human race could not well subsist or greatly multiply if savage tribes were entitled to claim and retain all the boundless regions through which they might wander. If such a people would usurp more territory than they could subdue and cultivate, they had no right to complain if a nation of cultivators put in a claim for a part, and confined the natives in their narrower limits."
The same author alluded to the establishment of European colonies in North America as being, in his opinion, entirely lawful; and he extolled the moderation of William Penn and the first settlers in New England, who were understood to have fairly purchased of the natives from time to time the lands they wished to colonize. The Government of the United States had never insisted on any other claim to the Indian lands than the right of pre-emption. Now New Zealand was 800 miles long and 100 miles broad, and the whole population of the two islands was 150,000 or 160,000, consequently the opinions to which he had referred, of Chancellor Kent and Vattel, were entirely applicable. Various statements had been published to show the lamentable state of New Zealand in point of morality. For some years past it had been the rendezvous of the South Sea whale ships, and had been the resort of runaway convicts from the penal colonies and of sailors who had deserted their ships, so that bad men were without restraint and good men without protection. This was a state of things which called for the interposition of the noble Lord, not only for the sake of the emigrant population, which now amounted to from

529
4,000 to 5,000, but for the sake of the unfortunate aborigines, who were exposed to all the evils which a population so composed would inflict upon them, and the treatment which they experienced must necessarily produce a general distrust of the whole white race. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had in one part of the correspondence disclaimed altogether on the part of this country the sovereignty of New Zealand, and said that the law did not recognize as valid even the title to lands already acquired by the subjects of her Majesty. Now he was at a loss to guess, if the islands of New Zealand were independent states, what authority the noble Lord could have, to say, that the acquisitions of individuals resident there were not legal and binding in that country. The noble Lord had requested him not to press this motion, because news was expected from New Zealand relating to the proceedings of Captain Hobson there; but he had declined complying with the noble Lord's request, because, as his complaint was, that the noble Lord was proceeding on vicious and erroneous principles, no news which might arrive respecting Captain Hobson's proceedings could supersede the necessity of the inquiry which he sought now to institute. One element of the arrangement proposed by the noble Lord was to make New Zealand a dependency of the colony of New South Wales. Now, one consideration which rendered this project very inexpedient was the distance of the two colonies, they being 1,200 miles apart, and the state of the winds frequently rendering the passage of two months duration. Another consideration was, the jealousy and dislike which the two colonies entertained towards each other. The rapid strides which New Zealand had made had excited no small apprehensions in the minds of, the colonists of New South Wales. The noble Lord [proposed, also, to saddle these colonists with the expense of the colony of New Zealand; to this, of course, they were exceedingly adverse. Nor was the discontent only on the side of New South Wales, for the colonists of New Zealand felt a disinclination to be connected in any way with a penal colony and to be governed by a colony placed at so great a distance from them. By private letters it appeared that Captain Hobson had upon landing issued a proclamation
530
stating, that her Majesty had directed a commission to be appointed to inquire into the validity of the titles of the colonists to the lands which they held. That commission was to be composed of members of the Legislative Council of New South Wales, who were amongst the largest holders of land in New Zealand, and were, consequently, constituted judges to decide upon their own claims. Besides, it was a very doubtful point whether these commissioners would have any right to make an award, and whether appeals might not be made to the Privy Council, so as to try this question. He thought, that under these circumstances, it was the duty of the noble Lord, before he took this step, to come to Parliament for the powers which were requisite for the purpose. Not only was the board of commissioners to be constituted in the manner which he had described, but no principle was laid down for their guidance, nor were any instructions given as to the proof which was to be required. Another part of the noble Lord's plan, if plan it could be called, was that by which the price of land was fixed at 5s. an acre. Now, he apprehended that such a price would be found altogether inapplicable to the colony of New Zealand. The price in South Australia was 1l., and in no respect was New Zealand less favourably situated as a colony than South Australia, where 1l. was considered as the lowest price which could be adopted consistently with the objects proposed by Mr. Wakefield's principle, of preventing persons from purchasing more land than they could cultivate, and of providing a land fund for the purpose of promoting emigration. Whether this price was proper to be imposed as a condition of sale would be a proper subject of inquiry before the committee which he proposed to appoint. He had brought forward this motion without communication with any party in the House, and he did not at that moment know whether the right hon. Member for Tamworth would think himself justified in supporting the motion. He left the subject in the hands of the House, feeling satisfied that some good must arise from the discussion which he expected to take place. He thought some legislative measure absolutely necessary, and under this impression, he sought for this inquiry, which would enable Parliament to legislate soundly, wisely, and well, upon a subject of very great interest and importance.

531
The noble Lord concluded by moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the statements contained in the petition of the merchants, bankers, and others, of London, presented May 22nd, respecting the colonization of New Zealand.
Lord John Russellhad stated upon a former occasion to the noble Lord, that he Could not see any practical use in appointing a committee upon this subject. It was upon that ground that he should object to the proposed committee, having no other objection than that he could not see how any practical benefit could be derived from the inquiry. As to what the Colonial-office had done, he certainly entertained no apprehension on account of any inquiry upon that subject; on the contrary, he felt it would have the effect of doing away with a great number of gross misrepresentations in point of fact, made at various public meetings upon this subject, and which a very slight inquiry would prove to be unfounded. But he did not see how the House could appoints committee unless some ground were previously laid, upon which inquiry might proceed, and from which some benefit might be derived. He could not throughout the whole of the speech of the noble Lord, perceive any subject of inquiry. All that the noble Lord stated was, that if a committee were appointed, it might probably find some grounds upon which legislation hereafter might proceed. Now, he must say, that for the House to appoint a committee without some definite object in view, but merely for the sake of looking speculatively for some ground of future legislation would be rather a wild species of inquiry. There was one point on which the committee of the House of Lords on the subject of colonization had made a very short report. They stated that:—
"It appeared to the committee that the extension of the colonial possessions of the Crown was a question, the policy of which belonged exclusively for decision to her Majesty's Government."
The committee of the House of Lords, after a great deal of inquiry came to the opinion that this was a subject which properly belonged to the Crown, and he did not believe, that a committee of the House of Commons could come to any other conclusion. It would be impossible that a committee could point to those parts of the world where colonization might be established, where governors might be sent,
532
or where the English Crown alone could claim a right of possession. The noble Lord had entered into some arguments as to the right of the claim of sovereignty in places discovered by civilized nations, where wild tribes only were, the inhabitants, into which, however, he would not follow him. He did not dispute the principle of the passage quoted by the noble Lord from Vattel. On the contrary, he thought the conduct of the British Government had been in entire accordance with the principle so laid down. But, although a right might accrue to the first discoverer, and although of that right one could have little doubt, yet it might be disputed whether the right of sovereignty remained, if the party making the discovery did not avail himself of it for a long series of years. If, then, it appeared that the right which accrued in 1769 was not for a long period after that time asserted and enforced, and if, still more, it, on the contrary, appeared that solemn declarations had been since made, apparently relinquishing, at all events, not confirming, that right, it certainly was necessary that there should be some new title to the possession of any such sovereignty. In 1769, Captain Cook asserted the right of the British Crown to the sovereignty of the Southern Island of New Zealand. In the year l817 it was recited in an Act of Parliament that there had been murders and other crimes committed in New Zealand, Otaheite, and other Islands, which were not within his Majesty's dominions; and there was a recital in an Act passed in 1824 to the same effect. It had, then, been recited in two solemn Acts of Parliament—by the three separate branches of the Legislature—that New Zealand was a place wherein offences were committed, and which were considered offences committed not in her Majesty's dominions, but in places out of her Majesty's dominions, and a provision was made for trying those offences in places within her Majesty's dominions. Such being the solemn declaration of Parliament, without adverting to what took place in the year 1835, under the directions of the Earl of Ripon, with regard to the recognition of the national flag, could it, he would ask, be considered imperative on the Government, because a number of gentlemen chose to meet in London, and form themselves into a company to carry on operations in New Zealand, to agree at once to assert the British sovereignty over

533
that country? If they did this, it might ' extend to the asserting of our right of sovereignty over every place that ever had been discovered by British navigators, however long the time that right might have remained unexercised, or whatever navigators of other countries might have done. However, there had existed of late years strong reasons why it was desirable that New Zealand, a great part of it at least, should not be left the pray of a number of persons who were settled there, many of them being convicts escaped from New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, and producing a state of society, the evils of which were fully stated by Lord Glenelg in his despatch. Then the question was, in what manner, if colonization was to be attempted, and the authority of the British Crown established, that should be effected? While Lord Glenelg held the office of Secretary of State for the colonies, that question was brought under the consideration of the Government in the shape of an application from the company which had been formed in London for colonising New Zealand. That question was a good deal considered by the Government, with a view, if possible, to give its sanction to such a plan, which the Government finally refused. It was afterwards debated in the House of Commons upon a bill brought in upon the subject, but the House likewise refused its sanction. It was a plan to which the strongest and gravest objections might be made. His notion of it was this: colonies might take place in various ways. One way was for persons being themselves emigrants proceeding to a distant country, furnished with a royal charter, and purchasing land from the natives; such as they might conceive (as Vattel said) William Penn so laudably did. Another mode was, to have the colony founded by the sovereign power of the state. The Crown of this country might send out a colony, with a person at their head armed with a commission, as was the case with certain colonies established in North America, and having certain laws prescribed to them by which they were to be bound, and a regular form of government established to which they could submit. Now, in neither of these ways, nor by any modification of these ways (all of which had taken place in the formation of the colonies which had hitherto proceeded from European countries), was it that this colony was proposed
534
to be established. But it was proposed to form a company, which company were not themselves to be armed with the authority of the state, nor were they themselves to emigrate and found a colony by negotiating with the inhabitants and making purchases of the land; but it was to be a company having nominally a very great capital in shares, but which capital was not to be wholly paid up. Upon the credit of this supposed capital the land of New Zealand was to be sold by the company to other parties—the company guaranteeing the final purchase of the land from the natives, and thus large profits were to be acquired by the shareholders. There were many persons connected with that company for whom he had great respect, and who perhaps had the best intentions for wishing to form such a colony. But he would call upon the House to consider what a precedent the Government would have established, if in the first instance they had sanctioned such a plan; or what a precedent the House of Commons would have established if they had agreed to the bill that was submitted to them. It would have been a precedent by which any person in future might have said with respect to any country, the natives of which were deficient in strength to compete with Europeans, that they would send out persons there and establish a colony, and make large profits by selling the land, to which they had no right —and who were not to be themselves at the expense of originally founding the colony, nor to be settled as residents in the colony. It would have been a precedent that would have led the way to a species of land piracy all over the globe. The House of Commons rejected a bill upon that subject. At a subsequent period the Government, in taking the subject into consideration, resolved to send a consul to New Zealand; New Zealand having, by the Acts of Parliament he had mentioned, been reckoned a foreign dominion; but the consul was to proceed afterwards in the manner that Vattel declared to be so laudable, and in perfect conformity with the law of nations —namely, if he could, to make an agreement with the natives to purchase their land and territory, and then establish the authority of this country there. Now he had not heard anything to induce him to suppose that the noble Lord (Lord Eliot), objected to that course. The noble Lord

535
read the authority of Vattel to that effect, but he had not found fault with Captain Hobson being sent out with those instructions; therefore he really did not see in this part of the case what it was the noble Lord would complain of. True it was, the noble Lord complained of the instructions given to Captain Hobson as to the right of possession to the land by the settlers there. The noble Lord said that Captain Hobson was to enquire whether the lands were fairly purchased, and he observed that there would be very great difficulty in doing this. He did not consider there would be any difficulty in carrying out this part of the instructions. The noble Lord had also said, that the Crown might resume all these lands on payment of the price originally given for them. Undoubtedly the Crown had, with respect to all its colonies, the general and original right in the land. But when the noble Lord complained of the difficulty and complexity of the plan ordered by the Secretary of State, he (Lord J. Russell) thought that this proposal for taking away the land from the present occupiers on repaying the price of the hatchet, or blanket, or some such trifling thing which they gave for it, would certainly be found much more difficult of accomplishment. Now, the original price was in most instances of very small value, the payment of which would not, he thought, be satisfactory to the settlers. But, in fact, it would have been impracticable to have done any such thing. Captain Hobson's authority would at once have been resisted. What Captain Hobson, therefore, was instructed to do was, to ascertain, if possible, what was the description of title the parties had to the lands they occupied. Another objection made by the noble Lord was, supposing a new colony should be established in New Zealand, the connecting of that colony with New South Wales. He admitted that, if New Zealand should be formed into a colony, it would be right hereafter to separate it from New South Wales, and that it ought not permanently to be a dependent of that colony. The act of Parliament enabled the government to give Captain Hobson authority to inquire as to what institutions were necessary in the first formation of the colony, and it appeared to him better, instead of taking out a person as a new governor for the colony, that they should avail themselves of the authority
536
already existing in that part of the world. It was, however, merely a temporary provision, that the commission was given to Captain Hobson, who was ordered to act under the direction of the governor of New South Wales. The governor of New South Wales had been ordered to give Captain Hobson every aid and assistance, and soon after Captain Hobson's departure a despatch was sent to the governor, directing him to supply a force from New South Wales for the purpose of supporting Captain Hobson's authority. With respect to the persons who had gone to New Zealand under the authority of the New Zealand Company, and had settled themselves there, he conceived there would be very little difficulty after the Company had retracted their first instructions, which were declared to be contrary to law, which the counsel whom they advised with told them that all acts done under those instructions would be void and of no effect, and that any person proceeding under them might be guilty of a grave offence. After this he conceived there would be no difficulty in Captain Hobson and the emigrants, who had settled in New Zealand under the authority of the company, acting in perfect harmony together, they acknowledging (which he thought it would be to their benefit to do, and as they were advised to do) the authority of Captain Hobson as the representative of the Crown, and giving him every assistance and support; while he, on the other hand, was endeavouring to maintain peace and tranquillity, and in the exercise of his authority doing everything he could to promote the progress and interest of the colony. Such being the case, and the expedition, in fact, having gone there under one of her Majesty's officers, in one of her Majesty's ships, and being supported, if necessary, by a military force, and having the powers which he (Lord John Russell) had described, if he should make an agreement with the native chiefs and obtain possession of a part of their territory, he (Lord J. Russell) did not see what further could be done until the Government and the House had received intelligence from him and knew something of his proceedings. The noble Lord might, perhaps, wish to send out instructions to Captain Hobson to resume all the lands now occupied by the settlers. That he thought would create great confusion. He thought where no very unfair or fraudulent

537
bargain had been made, the title to those lands ought to be maintained. The noble Lord complained, and this was a point he, (Lord J. Russell), had almost overlooked, that he had instructed Captain Hobson that the upshot price of land should be 5s. per acre; but upon that point, as well as many others, the noble Lord was entirely in want of information. The noble Lord had gone entirely upon misinformation. The fact was, that land was originally sold in New South Wales and in Western Australia for 5s. an acre. Orders were sent out that the price should be 12 s. an acre. Accounts were received from the governors of those two colonies, and also from the governor of Van Diemen's Land, that there was a great quantity of land set up at 5s. an acre; in New South Wales there were no less than 300,000 acres, and the governors stated that they did not think it right (the faith of the Government having been pledged) to raise the price to 12 s. an acre until that portion of the land set up had been sold. It appeared to him, therefore, that if in New South Wales, Van Diemen's Land, and Western Australia, land could be procured at 5s. an acre, and he should have ordered that no land in New Zealand should be sold for less than 1l. an acre, it would, in all probability, create discontent and remonstrance; and that Captain Hobson would have experienced great difficulty in establishing such a regulation. Captain Hobson was therefore instructed to sell the land at 5s. an acre, until the price in the other colonies should rise to 12 s.; then he bad authority to sell at that price. Since then it had been determined that the price in the other colonies (except New South Wales) should be 1l. an acre. When that took place, instructions would be given to Captain Hobson to sell the land at 1l. an acre in New Zealand. If, then, a committee should be appointed, and should meet in order to give an opinion that land should not be sold at 5s. an acre, it would be giving an opinion as to a matter which had already ceased to exist. Upon the whole, he confessed he did not see what advantage was to be gained by a committee of the House upon the subject; for whatever they might devise, might be completely overthrown by the arrival of a despatch the day after the committee made their report. It might be necessary, probably, to legislate upon the subject in the course of next Session,
538
when the House would have the whole subject before them; but with respect to all that was required to be done in detail by Captain Hobson, it seemed to him quite impossible that a committee of the House of Commons could in any way give from time to time proper or practical directions. With regard to the general principle, he did not think there was much difference of opinion, and even with regard to the company, as the noble Lord did not make it any grievance as to the manner in which the Colonial-office had communicated with them, immediately the authority of the government in New Zealand was established, there would at once be an end to all disputes. What he objected to was, that a company in London should send persons into a country, and do those things which it belonged to the Crown to do, which had at all times been considered as the undoubted prerogative of the Crown, and which he was of opinion ought always to be maintained as one of its prerogatives.
Mr. Mackinnondid not think the noble Lord had answered the speech of his noble Friend. The colony of South Australia had been established in consequence of a committee of the House of Commons. It would be necessary, even by the noble Lord's admission, to legislate for the formation of the colony in New Zealand, but it was impossible to do so with any prospect of success, without previous inquiry. With respect to the South Australian commission, the noble Lord's letter in September, 1839, to the Lords of the Treasury, stating that there were nine commissioners who expected a salary, was a complete fallacy, for he had himself written to the noble Lord, declining a salary, and three other of the nine commissioners had followed his example.
Mr. Wardwould support the motion of the noble Lord, because it was the duty of an independent Member to force upon the public a knowledge of the absurdities and difficulties in which we have been placed with respect to colonization, in consequence of the course taken by the colonial officers during the last few years; difficulties from which nothing but an act of Parliament could extricate the country. He had attended the public meetings alluded to by the noble Lord, and he repeated in the House what he had said at these meetings, that looking at the papers now before them, the Government

539
of this country was placed in a discreditable light with reference to foreign powers, and particularly with reference to France, at this very moment, when she was fitting out an expedition. It was not till others had taken up these subjects that the Government made any movement. Then, with respect to the ill-used company which had been referred to, and which had received such harsh treatment, the first step which it took was to apply to the Government—they attended the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, and the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland, and had met with much encouragement. Their bill was revised by Lord Howick, and yet it was opposed. Subsequently other negotiations took place between the Government and the company. The Colonial-office objected to the company because the capital was not paid up; and now that the capital was paid up, even that did not satisfy the Government. He had always understood that from the first moment when the company was started it was intended that the title to the land under the company was to be a bonâfide title. That a large sum was to be paid to the New Zealand chiefs for the purchase of land, which was to be guaranteed to the purchasers. So firm was that belief, that the company had actually sold 120,000 acres of land "at £1 an acre. If they required any instance of a necessity for inquiry, this fact would be sufficient; because that number of acres had been actually sold by the company at that price, whilst the Government had sent out directions to the consul to sell land at 5s. an acre. How could the two systems act well together? The noble Lord had objected to certain instructions given in the first instance by the land company to their agents. They gave those instructions because the Government had refused to perform its duty, and would give no instructions whatever. Here were 800 individuals, about to emigrate to a distant country, kept in suspense by the Government for two years —they were obliged to embark, and, in the absence of all instructions from the Government, they had formed a kind of social compact to bind themselves. As far as a committee went, he did not think that there ought to be any difficulty on the part of the Government, to allow the principles on which they intended to act to be well known. The company
540
was willing to give to Captain Hobson every possible assistance, and he was sure that the greatest benefit and consolation would be derived by the individuals who had embarked their fortunes and had emigrated to New Zealand, if, after the inquiry recommended by the noble Lord, they should find, that certain and definite principles were to be laid down, on which land was to be held. Upon these grounds he would vote for the motion of the noble Lord; and, unless some more satisfactory explanation should be given on the part of the Government, he hoped that the noble Lord would press his motion to a division. The noble Lord (the Secretary for the Colonies) admitted that next year there must be some legislation, and therefore he thought that the noble Lord must wish to have an inquiry with the view of establishing the title to the land on some intelligible basis.
Mr. Vernon Smithmust say, that the noble Lord, in the speech which he had addressed to the House, temperate though it was, did not appear to lay down sufficient grounds to induce the House to appoint a committee. The noble Lord had dwelt much on the great advantages of emigration conducted upon some known principle. He was quite as much convinced as the noble Lord of the importance of emigration generally, and also of conducting it on good principles. Because, however the Colonial-office promoted caution, it was most improperly described as against all emigration. There was, however, so much false information given to the public, connected with emigration on which the public, and particularly the working men, were liable to imposition, that it was the duty of the Colonial office to watch narrowly all proceedings in relation to this subject. Again, the method of our colonization, as it respected the natives, was, generally speaking, disgraceful to us as a nation. When it was found that our superior civilization only led to a refinement of cruelty, and not to any improvement in the condition of the natives, he thought that the Colonial-office ought to look upon all steps taken to establish new colonies with much suspicion. The noble Lord had referred to a petition from the manufacturers of Paisley; but, to any one who had read that petition it would be obvious that it must have been prepared by some other person, and

541
was not the production of any one of the manufacturing operatives themselves. What did the petitioners ask? That there should be granted by the Government a free passage to New Zealand; that they should immediately embark in the Clyde, and on landing in New Zealand should have a grant of land for a location. Was it the intention of the noble Lord in proposing a committee to consent to any such scheme? Certainly not. The noble Lord then proceeded to quote the case of South Australia, and he supposed that the state of things in that colony was nearer to what the noble Lord would propose. The noble Lord talked of the self-supporting principle, as if it had completely succeeded. He thought that the principle propounded by Mr. Wakefield was correct; but South Australia could not come under the designation of a self-supporting colony. No country could be properly called self-supporting that raised money on security and added to the future embarrassment of the colony. South Australia ought, and he hoped would, overcome those embarrassments; but it was, in his opinion, too soon for the noble Lord to call upon them to follow, as perfectly successful, the example of South Australia. He would only enter into the question of the sovereignty of New Zealand, to refer to the statement by the hon. Member for Sheffield, that the documents and correspondence relating to it appeared at an unfortunate time. But when the New Zealand Land Company said that our sovereignty was established, it became necessary, then, for the Foreign-office to take some steps. It had no option—and was obliged to show that our sovereignty was not established. He blamed those who rendered the publication necessary. The petition from London complained that there was a publication of a part of Captain Hobson's instructions; but it was the Land Company that was responsible for the publication. The petitioner said,
"That shortly after the departure of the said consul, in her Majesty's ship Druid, and the publication of a portion of his instructions, together with the said Treasury minute, the public mind in France became suddenly excited on the subject of the acts of the British Government and the departure of the said colonists from Great Britain, and that the result of this excitement has been the formation of a company, with a capital of one
542
million francs, for forming a settlement in New Zealand, and the despatch of an expedition from Rochfort, charged (in violation, as your petitioners consider, of the law of nations) to effect a settlement at Banks' Peninsular, in the South Island; which expedition is reported to have had an armament of forty sailors from the French navy, and aid of money from the French government, by whom the leaders of the expedition are said to have been instructed to report on the fitness of Banks' Peninsula as a place of transportation for convicts, and at all events to reserve for the use of the French government one-fifth of the territory which they might acquire in this part of the British dominions."
It was probable that an expedition had sailed, although that it had sailed, still less that it had the authority of the government of France, was not known to him officially. If they appointed a committee, he thought that fresh expeditions would start forth from other countries, seeing that the Government of this country had not as yet acknowledged the sovereignty, but for this the Government was not responsible; the responsibility rested with those who agitated this question, as he thought, most improperly. No information from Captain Hobson had been yet received at the Colonial-office. What question then, did the noble Lord intend to submit to the committee? Did he propose to submit to its examination, the question, whether this country should assume the sovereignty of New Zealand? Did the noble Lord think that this was a question to be removed from the Government, and submitted to a committee of that House? Did the noble Lord propose to submit to the consideration of the committee a bill to be proposed in the next session? Was not the noble Lord as capable of framing such a bill as he would wish to see introduced, as the committee? or could he not leave it to be brought forward by his noble Friend, who had admitted that legislation would be necessary next year? In his judgment no reason for the committee had been stated by the noble Lord; and seeing no good from its appointment, he would oppose it. With regard to the conduct of the Colonial-office, which was not intended to be impugned, it had acted throughout with great caution, but with no intentional harshness. Every information would always be given by the Colonial-office; but he thought that it was not the business of

543
the office to urge persons to emigrate to this part of the world, or to another.
Mr. Humeadmitted, that the Colonial-office was called upon to exercise great caution; yet he could not say, that in this instance it had done what it ought to do. The great object should be to provide for the security of property. Was it possible, however, for any one to go to New Zealand under the present state of the disputed titles? Could any one who did go tell in what situation he would be? And if this were impossible, was it not necessary that the Government should settle the difficult points? Then Captain Hobson went out as Consul and also as Lieutenant-governor. Why was he sent out as Lieutenant-governor? He went out as the authorised representative of her Majesty, and yet the Government disclaimed having any power in New Zealand. Money had been raised by the sale of the land to carry out labourers; and it could not be raised for a more charitable object. Whenever the people were unable to maintain themselves, and there was a waste and wild country to which they wished to emigrate, let them go. They ought not to meet with difficulties, because there was one officer at the head of the Colonial Department in January, and another in April, and a third in June, to be replaced by a fourth in October—so that the officers were changed before the instructions and rules sent out by each arrived at their destination. Who would settle upon waste land unless it was secured to himself and his family, that all improvements he made were to be for his benefit, and that all the advantage to be derived from the application of labour and capital should be his and his children's? That was the ground why the emigrants in America had settled so freely. But was that the case in our own colonies? There the arrangements were for ever varying with the change of persons holding office. He thought that the noble Lord, by moving for a committee was only doing an act of justice to our starving population, and that company which had come forward with large means to assist those who were in want of assistance. By the committee the noble Lord would be able to ascertain the real nature of the title, the claims to the sovereignty of the island, what an individual who had a free passage given to him could gain when he settled in New Zea
544
land, and the chance he had of obtaining a livelihood. Such an inquiry would enable the Government to make proper rules and regulations for the future, and he would, therefore, vote for the motion of the noble Lord.
Mr. F. Baringbegged to assure the House that the New Zealand Land Company were much more independent than the noble Lord, and the hon. Member the Under-Secretary for the Colonies seemed to suppose of any decision to which the Government or the House should arrive upon the subject. There had been a time when the Government had appeared hostile to them, but even then the company would have gone on without its assistance, although, at the same time, they would have felt better pleased if they could have proceeded with the sanction of the Government.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienafter having perused the papers upon this subject, was bound to give his support to the motion of the noble Lord. He thought that there were several questions, which were of the utmost importance, upon which neither the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, nor the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for that department, had given any answer, and he thought that it would be highly advantageous that these matters should form the subject of mature deliberation before a committee of the House. Delay upon this question would produce the greatest injury to a large portion of the community, and the sooner the views of the Government were finally declared the better.
Sir H. Verneyhoped that the noble Lord opposite would abstain from pressing his motion to a division at that late period of the Session.
Viscount Sandondesired, first, to know the precise extent to which the sovereignty of the Crown of England over New Zealand was to extend? Some differences appear to have existed upon this subject, and he should like clearly to learn what was the understanding upon which Captain Hobson was to proceed: whether he was to negotiate for the sovereignty of the whole of New Zealand, or whether his negotiations were to be restricted to those parts of the islands where he found Englishmen located? He also desired to be informed, whether, in the event of a colony being formed, any objection would exist to the establishment of a church with a bishop?
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the duties of Captain Hobson were, in the first place, to endeavour to acquire the sovereignty of those lands in which any of her Majesty's subjects were located. If he should find, in the course of his negotiations with the chiefs, that they were desirous of placing the whole sovereignty of their country in the hands of the Crown of England, he would be authorised to accept such a proposition. It was, however, a subject very much left to the discretion of Captain Hobson, and it was impossible to give any definite answer upon the subject, until some report had been received from him. With regard to the second question of the noble Viscount, he should say, that directly a settlement was made in New Zealand, it would be most desirable that an episcopal establishment, under the authority of the Church of England, should be formed.
Lord Eliot replied. The contradictory statements which had been made upon this question to the House, distinctly proved to him the necessity for that inquiry for which he had moved. In consequence of the support he had received from both sides of the House, he should not be authorised to withdraw his motion.
Lord John Russell: If the noble Lord persists in his motion, I shall not now oppose it.
Motion agreed to.

CHURCH RATES.
Easthopesaid, that it was with no inconsiderable embarrassment that he rose to address the House, feeling that the subject to which he was about to draw their attention would have been much better and more advantageously placed in other and abler hands. He sincerely hoped that the question of Church-rates would cease to be considered one of a political nature, and that it would be looked to, not as a matter of strife between two antagonist parties in that House, but as a question affecting the interests, the happiness, and the religious character of a large part of the population of this country. The object of his motion was, to obtain leave to bring in a bill to exonerate Dissenters from the burden of Church-rates. The bill would have plainly and simply for its object the exemption of Dissenters from the payment of Church-rates, and the mode by which he should carry out his proposition was, that when a person was summoned for the payment of any rate, his solemn declaration that he
546
was a Dissenter should be taken to be proof of his being entitled to relief. He knew that it might be stated, that this was too simple a plan to be safe, and that it would operate as a premium for dissent. He thought, however, that the more that part of the question was examined, the less ground would be discovered to exist for the objection. If it were true that it would be an inducement to persons to avow themselves Dissenters, surely that objection must fail, for the same inducement existed under the present law. Persons who desired to avoid the payment of Church-rates by any means now, had only to go to the parish meetings on Easter Monday, and out-numbering those who were in favour of the rate, to prevent its being carried. His proposition was not without a precedent. The Roman Catholic religion was the established religion of the province of Lower Canada, and the law there was, that if any Member of the Episcopal church declared himself to be so, that was taken to be evidence of the fact, his lands were exempted from tithes, and he was exonerated from all assessments in favour of the Canadian church, to which otherwise he would be liable. It had been so frequently stated that church-rates were a grievance, and severe burden upon the consciences of Dissenters, by persons of high authority in that House, that he should deem it hardly necessary to advert further to it, if he had not, on some occasions, heard the proposition controverted. In the debate on the subject of Church-rates, on the 21st April, 1834, when Lord Althorp moved a resolution to abolish Church-rates, and to substitute for them a charge of 250,000 l. on the land tax, that noble Lord stated —[The hon. Member quoted Lord Althorp's opinion, and the opinion of Lord Stanley delivered on the day mentioned. The hon. Member also quoted the opinion of the Attorney-General delivered on March 14, 1837. On the same point for all which see Hansard, days mentioned.] He was confident, the hon. Member continued, that even those who were most zealous for the Established Church, if they would relinquish their prejudices and enter upon this subject with an impartial and unbiassed judgment, would see sufficient inducement to look carefully, seriously, and kindly at the question, and then they must see that the Established Church, so far from being a gainer by Church-rates,

547
so far from profiting by the unseemly and unholy strife which attended their collection, was, on the contrary, in all really essential respects, a loser by them. As a sample and an evidence of the state of the public feeling on the subject, he would state what had occurred in the town which he had himself the honour to represent. It was only one instance out of many which, if he did not fear to weary the House, he could bring forward. In Leicester there were five parishes: in four of them Church-rates were abolished by that sort of resistance that is always attended with pain to those serious people who feel obliged to resort to it, and disadvantage to those against whom it was brought to bear. One of those parishes contained upwards of 20,000 persons. In the fifth parish, Church-rates were still attempted to be collected; but what was the result? That there were now twenty-six persons liable to citation in the Ecclesiastical courts. One had already been cited. A writ was issued, but execution was stayed. The conditional rule that had been obtained, however, was subsequently discharged; and the party in question now stood every moment exposed to the expected punishment of imprisonment. This individual was not a poor man, unable to maintain himself, but a person possessing considerable property, of undoubted respectability, of the mildest disposition and manner, and the object of a general sympathy. His conscientious feelings determined him to go to prison rather than submit to the payment of an impost which he regarded as essentially unjust. He was not considered, even by those opposed to him, to be an obstinate or factious man, but a kind, industrious, and respectable member of society, labouring, in common with his neighbours, under an oppression of conscience; and he had, in the full expectation of being incarcerated in a prison, prepared and arranged his affairs in the best way he could. What was all this for? The Dissenters, and he hoped many members of the Established Church would ask why was all this? Was it that those who were now in possession of the Church property, and who had it under their control, might continue to have the mismanagement of it—to have the power of preventing the property from being as productive as it might be if administered according to the dictates of wisdom and common sense. Was it that they might
548
refuse to adopt a course which would not only be a great gain to the community at large, but also put an end to a system of cruelty and oppression? With the particular case of John Thorogood he did not propose to interfere; but at the same time he could not but feel that the situation of that individual was intimately connected with this question. A short time only would elapse before many others would follow his example, when not only Chelmsford gaol would contain its prisoner, the victim of religious persecution, but throughout the kingdom the same oppression would produce the same results. If the resistance to Church-rates thus extended, if the feeling against them became, as he was convinced it would become, almost universal, he put it to the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, whether it would be possible any longer, with even partial success, to levy them on the Dissenters? But when and where would they stop? Not, he feared, until resistance had brought about alienation, and destroyed much of that reverence and respect which were still felt for the Established Church. Would they continue to disregard the feelings of the Dissenters until such results as these were produced, or would they now redress the grievances which were so justly complained of. The House must already be aware of the great advance this question had made in the public mind. Within a very short period 584 petitions, signed by 67,135 persons, had been presented to that House to obtain relief from the burthen of these unjust and onerous rates. How many petitions had been presented in favour of their continuance? Only two, and the signatures to those two amounted to only 275. He had that day presented a petition from Beccles in Suffolk, signed by the rector of the place, and other clergy of the Establishment, by justices of the peace, by the mayor, the deputy mayor, and several of the aldermen and councillors, by many members of the legal and medical professions, and a number of the dissenting clergy, recommending another provision for the maintenance of the Church, and that church rates should be abolished. He put it to the House whether any advantage arising from the existing system could, in the opinion of even the most sceptical on the subject, counterbalance its disadvantages, or make up for the loss of that

549
peace and good will which the abolition of church-rates would produce? Was it not better at once to put a stop to the system than to risk the consequences of the continuance of this fierce conflict? What would ultimately be the result on the subject had been, as he had already said, clearly laid down by the Attorney-general when in 1837 he gave it as his deliberate opinion that even if the non-payment of church-rates were made in law a crime, still it would be impossible to collect them, and the hostility would go on increasing. Was not the hon. and learned Gentleman right in his prediction? Had not that hostility gone on increasing until it had become absolutely the duty of the Legislature to interpose some remedy? In Manchester the resistance had been successful. In Sheffield it had also succeeded. The same result had followed the same exertions in Nottingham, Bradford, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Birmingham, and in most of the large towns in the north. The resistance was not, however, confined to the larger towns—the contagion had spread to the villages; and ere long, if the law was not altered, instead of there being only one victim to church-rates in Chelmsford gaol, there would be a victim in every gaol throughout the kingdom. With such a state of public feeling, ought the system to prevail any longer? He had already stated on Undoubted authority, that the expenses provided for by the church-rates ought to be paid for out of the property of the Church. It might be said that the property of the Church was insufficient. That objection had also been disposed of. But even supposing that the property of the Church was insufficient, who was there belonging to the Church that did not feel that its friends were too much attached to it not to provide for those expenses which were now the cause of so much strife and conflict? There could, however, be no doubt that the property of the Church, under a wise and thrifty management, might be made fully able to bear all its burthens. It was not, therefore, to be wondered at that the Dissenters did think this imposition hard, and that they were determined to employ every means in their power to relieve themselves from this burthen. Be the effects what they might, they felt that their first duty was, to protect their own consciences; and therefore, by every legitimate means in their power,
550
to resist church-rates. Under such circumstances as these, it became the friends of the Church to consider whether they could not have recourse to some other means for the production of the necessary funds rather than church-rates, which were, and inevitably must continue to be, the source of increasing disturbance and conflict. He had been unable to state all the reasons which occurred to his own mind in reflecting on this subject. It was a subject, however, which presented itself in a form so plain and intelligible that, although he had been able only so feebly to advocate the cause, he could not suppose it would be without the sympathy and support of that House, or that there could be any effectual resistance to the motion with which he would conclude—" That leave be given to bring in a bill to relieve Dissenters from the Established Church of England from the payment of church-rates."
Mr. Gillonsaid, he had the more pleasure in seconding the motion of the hon. Member for Leicester, because he felt he was speaking the sentiments of his countrymen in general, and of his constituents in particular. In the assertion of the great principles of religious freedom—in resistance to tyranny over the conscience, whether from civil rulers on the one hand, or ecclesiastical ambition on the other—Scotland had never been wanting; and at the present moment, though not directly interested in a pecuniary point of view in the question before the House, there were no men, not even the Dissenters of Bungay or of Chelmsford, who felt a more lively interest in the relief of the conscientious from a burden craftily, silently, gradually imposed upon the people, as is the case in all instances of clerical usurpations, or who turned with more indignant abhorrence from the specimens of cruelty and oppression, which, in the collection of these odious rates, disgrace the cause of religion in this portion of the island. The more the origin and history of these rates were kept out of view by the clergy, the better for themselves; for the more the subject was investigated, the more would become apparent the avarice and grasping ambition of the dominant sect, and their unscrupulous use of any means, however obnoxious, to increase their own temporal supremacy—a darling object, in pursuit of which public decency and Christian charity were alike violated. He

551
would just allude to the original appropriation of tithes into different parts, for the sustenance of the clergy, the support of the poor, and the maintenance of the altar. That this wholesome division had been altered, was the effect of priestly rapacity on the one hand, and of supine-ness and superstition on the other. On the extensive appropriation of tidies to religious houses, and of the neglect by those houses of every object but their own maintenance in splendour and luxury, the parishioners, unwilling to see their parish churches tumbling to decay, and desirous to protect themselves in their devotional exercises from the inclemency of the weather, subscribed for the repair of the churches; and that which they had thus voluntarily undertaken, it has been ever since the object of the clergy to fasten upon them as a legal obligation. Two facts are clearly traceable in the history of former times, and caused the disputes which then, as now, defaced the fabric of the Christian Church:—First, a purpose undeviatingly persevered in, of arrogating to the ecclesiastical courts a jurisdiction in matters of a civil nature as matters ecclesiastical:—Secondly, a resistance on the part of the people to those aggressions, which has at least in so far been successful, that the right to exact church-rates was never established without the previous consent of a vestry; but the rate once voted, the defaulter was handed over to the tender mercies of the ecclesiastical courts, of whose mode of dealing with them specimens were not wanting. He despised, the mawkish, hypocritical, sensibility which affected the greatest pity and horror at the sufferings of two well-fed sheriffs—to whom, from their appearance not long ago in this House, a little prison diet, had such been their fare, would seem but a wholesome corrective to civic luxury—and which feels no compassion for an honest, an amiable, a conscientious man, who prefers freedom of conscience to freedom of limb, who in his damp cell, his limbs racked by the tortures inflicted by this inquisition of modern days, defies the malice of his mitred persecutor, but whose blood will yet rise in evidence against his tormentor, and cry for revenge on that Church to whose cruel laws he is victim. It is now made quite manifest, on an investigation of the subject, that John Thorogood is kept in gaol not for the purpose of enforcing payment of the
552
rate, but to satisfy the vengeance of the Bishop of London against a Dissenter who refuses to bow down before his authority; that a milder course than that followed was open even in order to obtain the rate, and that of two courses the Church has chosen, that which is the more vindictive and oppressive. Will the Church not consent to try a juster and a milder course? They draw, from the lands of England, to whomsoever they belong, the maintenance of their Establishment. Are six millions annually not enough to support the places of worship, to find the ecclesiastics, to nourish the honourable and reverend scions of the aristocracy who grace the Church by their well-paid labours, without taking the worldly goods, infringing the conscience, or sacrificing the life of the humble Dissenter? Can the Prelates spare nothing from ten and fifteen thousands a year to wipe off this great odium from the Church? They boast, that to their ranks belong the respectable, the wealthy, and the religious of the land. Will they not, in the fervour of their devotion, out of these large possessions with which God has blessed them, spare one little mite to save the sacred edifices of their worship from crumbling to decay? If they do not, no one will believe that it is the money they grudge. The poorest peasant would not grudge his contribution to save and maintain the altar at which he worships; but it was the principles of bigoted intolerance and tyrannical supremacy the Church of England desired to maintain. To the Church belong the edifices; will they not for their support, if for no other purpose, try the voluntary principle. Or is its form of government so obnoxious, that it must in all things necessarily rest on the odious principle of compulsion? A member of the Church, a worthy sample of a Christian pastor, Dr. Oliver, the incumbent of Wolver-hampton, tells me he believes the voluntary principle, in regard to the support o f the Church, if fairly tried, would be all-sufficient. Do you dispute his allegations when he says, that the discussion of the subject of church-rates only tends to create feud, to divide the town against itself, to set father against son, and son against father, to sever long standing friendships, and dissolve mutual ties. "When I reflect," he adds, "that the agitation of this question is little else than

553
an outrage on the public peace of the town, I cannot consent to aim a blow so heavy, a discouragement so great, upon what I consider to be the interests of the Church." Will you listen to these simple and eloquent effusions of a spirit truly Christian? Will you attend to a warning so forcible—so pathetic? Will you ward off from your beloved Church this heavy blow and great discouragement? Will you, in the true spirit of Christianity, follow the example of this holy man, who declares that his motto is peace, and that unity is the word inscribed on the banner which he unfurls.
The Speaker: Before I put the question, I feel it my duty to call the attention of the House to what seems to me to be an objection in point of form. On the 12th February last, in the present Session of Parliament, a motion was made, and the question put upon it, for leave to bring in a bill to relieve from the payment of church-rates, that portion of her Majesty's subjects who conscientiously dissented from the Established Church. That motion was negatived, and I now have put into my hands a motion for leave to bring in a bill to relieve Dissenters from the Established Church from the payment of church-rates. Now, it appears to me, that these two questions are substantially the same; and as the House is aware, that according to the rules, the same question cannot be twice entertained in the same Session, I apprehend that they will be of opinion, that I cannot now put this question.
Motion dropped.

DANISH CLAIMS.
Mr. Cresswellrose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, for an address with respect to the compensation to the Danish claimants.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to order, and observed, that on a similar ground to that on which the former motion had been got rid of, he objected to the bringing forward the present proposition. He would, at once, refer the House to the Standing Order, of the date of February 22, 1821, which stated "That that House would not proceed upon any motion for an Address to the Crown praying that any money may be issued, or that any expense may be incurred, but in a Committee of the whole House, and that the same be declared a standing order of
554
the House." The object of the present motion was to make a grant to certain classes of British subjects for losses which they had sustained; and for this purpose it was intended that the burthen should be thrown upon other classes. However much he might regret the case of the former persons, he could not consent to any proposition like that now given notice of by his lion, and learned Friend. If, therefore, it was necessary for his hon. Friend, the Member for Leicester, to withdraw his motion, he submitted that, in conformity with the standing order, the hon. Member must give another notice of his intention to bring forward this subject.
Subject also dropped.

THE EMBANKMENT OF THE THAMES.
Sir F. Trenchrose to move, that an instruction be given to the Select Committee appointed to consider the petition of the corporation of London relative to the embankment of the river Thames:—
"That they shall consider and report their opinion, whether the formation of a terrace or quay along the banks of the river from South-wark-bridge to Hungerford-market would facilitate the convenience of public communication, and contribute greatly as well to the embellishment of the metropolis as to the health, comfort, and recreation of its inhabitants, especially those who are engaged in sedentary employments, and too often reside in close and crowded and unwholesome apartments."
It was fifteen years since he had brought this subject forward before Parliament, when he received the support of many of the most distinguished Members on both sides, and among others, then present, he saw his right hon. Friend, the Member for Pembroke. An estimate had been made by Mr. Walker, the distinguished engineer, as to the probable expenses of this embankment, and he believed that there was satisfactory evidence to show-that it would not exceed 680,000 l., which amount, there was every reason to believe, would be repaid within a short period; and, at the same time, the metropolis would be greatly embellished, and the means of healthy exercise and recreation would be afforded to the inhabitants of it. Sir Christopher Wren, after the fire of London, proposed a plan of embankment for the river Thames, but neither the circumstances nor the feelings of the time led to its adoption. His present motion

555
was only to direct the Committee now sitting to inquire into the subject. The hon. Gentleman concluded with proposing his motion.
Mr. Haweswould not follow the example of the hon. Gentleman and enter into an examination of Mr. Walker's estimate, as the whole subject was now under the serious attention of the Committee. The question involved the consideration of the navigation of the Thames, and when the attention of the House was directed to the plan of improvement by this or that engineer, it should be considered whether the expense was to be borne by London, or the country generally; and also to what extent private property would be sacrificed. He objected to any proposition of this kind being brought forward in this indirect manner—he should, therefore, oppose it.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that, whenever any party proposed to take steps to make a road, canal, or railroad, they had to give previous notice to all the persons who were interested in the line of road; but the hon. Baronet now proposed to make a line of road along the banks of the Thames, involving property to an enormous amount, without the slightest notification being given to the parties most deeply interested. He knew a tenant who paid 400 l. a-year rental for his present wharf, but if Mr. Walker's plan was adopted, he would be blocked out of his wharf, unless he consented to pay 600 l. a-year more for the new wharf that would be built in front of his present premises. He was convinced that the House would never consent to tamper with private interests in this indecent manner, and would abstain from expressing any opinion on any scheme of embankment until it was regularly brought before it.
Sir J. Grahamconcurred with the hon. Members for Lambeth and Bridport in objecting to this motion; he would, therefore, recommend the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw it.
Sir Matthew Woodwished the House to recollect, that the proposition of his hon. and gallant Friend was not to submit a plan of his own to their approbation, but to induce them to investigate an extensive plan of embankment that had been proposed by an eminent engineer. He could not conceive what possible objections there could be to inquiry. He had felt great interest when he accompanied his gallant
556
Friend, and the Duke of Rutland, and other distinguished persons, in an excursion on the river, with the view of promoting this object. He was satisfied that this embankment might be effected without any serious interruption to trade. He would support the motion.
Lord Robert Grosvenorhoped the House would not consent to any plan for embankment, until they had all the plans and specifications laid before them.
Sir Robert Ingliscould not vote for the motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, because the committee already had the power he wished to give them.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the public were under great obligations to his hon. and gallant Friend for having drawn the attention of the House to the subject; but, at the same time, he thought it would not be expedient to give such an instruction to the committee, not in respect of the plan itself, but in respect of the order of the proceeding in that House. They would be establishing a dangerous precedent. A committee had been appointed, with full and ample power to consider the subject, and to give a special instruction of this kind, would argue a distrust of the committee. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not press his motion.
Motion withdrawn.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Isle of Man; Grammar Schools.—Read a second time:—Borough Watch Rates.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Richmond, from Members of the Church of Scotland, in favour of the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill.—By Lord Brougham, from places in Scotland, in favour of Non-Intrusion; from Medical Practitioners of Renfrew, for Medical Reform; and from Inhabitants of Bridgewater, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of Kinnoul, from Scotland, in favour of the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill.—By the Earl of Aberdeen, from the North American Colonial Association, in favour of the Union of Upper and Lower Canada.— By Viscount St. Vincent, from 400 Boatmen, against the Conveyance of Goods on the Lord's Day.

INDIAN ARMY.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that he had received from the Earl of Auckland the following letter, in return to the thanks of the House, communicated to his Lordship by the Lord Chancellor, in obedience to an order of the House of the 4th of February last.
"Calcutta, May 4, 1840.
"My Lord,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter, transmitting to me the resolutions of the House of Lords of the 21st of February last, respecting the late military operations to the westward of the Indus. These resolutions, with your Lordship's letter, have been published in general orders, and the separate resolutions have been forwarded to the officers whom their Lordships have been pleased to honour by their particular approbation. The great distinction conferred by the unanimous thanks of the House of Lords, will be most sensibly appreciated by all to whom it has been directed; and must be regarded by them as amongst the highest rewards of public service. On my part, I request your Lordship to submit to the House of Lords my grateful acknowledgments of the honour which has been done to me.
"I am your Lordship's most faithful and obedient servant,
"AUCKLAND."
"The Lord High Chancellor, &c."
On the motion of the Lord Chancellor, the Governor-general's letter was ordered to be entered on the journals.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved the Order of the day for a Committee of the whole House on the Canada Government Bill.
The Order of the day having been read,
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, that in rising to address their Lordships on I his occasion, and in pursuance of the notice which he had given the other day, that this bill be committed this day six months, he felt it his duty to state to their Lordships the grounds on which he took this, what might be considered in some degree extraordinary proceeding. It was perfectly true, that he was present when this bill was read a second time, and lie did not rise in his place to offer any objection to the principle of the measure; but when he came into the House he was not aware that the course which was then pursued would be taken. Since that time he had thought it his duty to proceed in the manner in which he was now proceeding, nut consulting any individual, not connecting himself with any party, but acting entirely on his own responsibility, and from a sense of public duty. He was perfectly aware of his own imperfections —he was aware that he had neither the talents nor the knowledge which a Member of that House presuming to address their Lordships on such a subject ought to possess. But he had about him a strong sense of duty which impelled him to avow his conviction, that if this bill were permitted to pass, it would tend to the separation of our Canadian colonies from the mother country. Although he felt incapable of doing justice to the subject, he also felt that the cause was just and right, and he further felt, that if he failed in showing that this bill was dangerous to the union between this country and her colonies, several of those who had already addressed their Lordships were on his side, although they might not be disposed to carry their opposition to the full extent. He, therefore, was not oppressed by the same difficulty under which he should have laboured, if the whole charge of the proof, and the consequences of failure, had rested upon him alone. He might rest contented upon this occasion, in going at once to a vote upon the speeches which had been delivered by his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington), and his noble Friend the noble Baron (Ellenborough) who sat at his left on the same bench. He might,

491
he repeated, be contented to ask for a division on those speeches alone, but he thought it more respectful to their Lordships to take upon himself the task of stating the reasons upon which he founded the motion with which he should conclude. He thought, however, that he might also rest in some small degree on the speech of the noble Viscount who had introduced the subject to their Lordships, a speech not conveying to his mind, whatever it might to the minds of others, that sort of impression which ought to be conveyed by a Minister of the Crown on a subject of so great importance, namely, that it was a measure which the noble Viscount was fully confident was necessary to the safety of the empire. The noble Viscount concluded the latter part of his speech with these words: —
"But whether this union, abstractedly considered, would, with a country which had yet to be settled, be the wisest and the most expedient that could be devised, was scarcely worth discussing, for circumstances were sometimes more powerful than reasons, opinions, theories, and systems."
Scarcely worth discussion ! scarcely worth discussion ! Such observations as those, when the question before the House was whether two great and important colonies should be well or ill governed, seemed so extraordinary, that they must have escaped a Minister of the Crown by the merest accident. [Viscount Melbourne: They never escaped me at all.] He did not quote from memory, but from The Times, which was tolerably correct, he believed, in the reports which it contained of the proceedings in their Lordships' House. However, he took the purport of the observations which fell from the noble Viscount to indicate that grave doubts existed in his mind whether the measure would be beneficial. But to proceed. He would pass over that portion of time and that Act of Parliament which, after the conquest of Canada, divided the province into two portions for the purpose of forming the upper part of it into an English province. Now, he would ask their Lordships whether the prospects of Canada were so materially changed, or the aspect of affairs was so satisfactory in itself, that they would no longer think it their duty to keep that division as it was at present. The country had by no means diminished in she, nor was the population much in-
492
creased, and the French still formed a very large portion of the population, and it seemed to him that the advantage which we had gained by having erected in that country something like an English citadel would be placed in jeopardy by this bill. Now, his opinion was, that no union between the two provinces could be founded on justice. He cared not for the effect of an Act of Parliament, but if an act was to pass to unite the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, it never could carry with it the force of justice. If the bill should pass their Lordships' House, and receive the royal assent, that bill being avowedly intended to secure the preponderance of British influence in the united Legislature, by that very act alone they would perpetuate the dissensions which prevailed, and the French Canadians would never feel satisfied that they would be justly and peaceably governed. But he would take another case, and he would suppose, that the bill was a just bill, and would give equal political rights to all parties in that country. If that were the case, their Lordships would do injustice to the other party. Those who had fought and bled for the connexion with this country, and had contended for its institutions in Church and State, would look upon themselves as deserted by us, and handed over to the tyranny of those who were aliens in affection to them. Under those circumstances he held that it was impossible that their Lordships could pass any measure which should be both just, and at the same time insure a preponderance for British influence. This it was which had induced him to take the step which he had adopted on that occasion. Now, none of the governors of the province, till Lord Durham's time, since 1791, had recommended the union of the provinces, and none of the executive councils had sanctioned it, but had invariably discountenanced it. He was now going to refer to a pamphlet which he held in his hand, which was not of authority by itself, but which he should use entirely as a matter of convenience. He should turn to the opinion of Sir Peregrine Maitland, which was given to the author of the pamphlet, Sir F. Head, in reply to a question put by the latter. The opinion was contained in a letter, which was as follows:—
"Brighton, June 6, 1839."
Sir,—In reply to your letter which I have

493
just received, I have not a moment's hesitation in saying, that the democratic pressure in the House of Assembly, aided as it was by English influence, has been as strong as the Lieutenant-governors of the province have been practically able to resist. There can be no doubt that the union of the two provinces would greatly increase that pressure, and the measure was deprecated by the loyalists of Upper Canada in my time upon this ground."
He would then call the attention of their Lordships to the opinion of Sir Francis Head contained in the extracts from a despatch dated Toronto, Upper Canada, October 28, 1836:—
"The remedy which I fear will be assiduously recommended by the British population of Lower Canada is, that the two provinces should be united and placed under the government of some individual in whose coolness, decision, and ability, they can rely. My humble but deliberate opinion of this project is, that it would produce the effect of separating both the Canadas from the parent state, on the homely principle that if tainted and fresh meat be attached together both are corrupted. So long as Upper Canada remains by itself, I feel confident that by mere moderate government her ' majority men' will find that prudence and principle unite to keep them on the same side; but if once we were to amalgamate this province with Lower Canada, we should instantly infuse into the House of General Assembly a powerful French party, whose implacable opposition would be a dead, or rather, a living weight, always seeking to attach itself to any question whatever that could attract and decoy the 'majority men.' If the Imperial Parliament will now deal with Lower Canada with firmness and decision, there is nothing whatever to fear; if it vacillates, all is gone."
Now, it should be borne in mind that the House of Assembly had never once addressed the Crown or the Colonial Secretary in favour of such a measure as the present, but, on the contrary, had addressed the Crown against it. In a despatch addressed to his late Majesty King William 4th, from both houses of the lower province, dated the 3rd of March, 1837, they said:—
"We are of opinion that such a change would expose us to the danger of consequences certainly inconvenient, and possibly most ruinous to the peace and welfare of this country, and destructive of its connexion with the parent state. This province we believe to be quite as large as can be effectually and conveniently ruled by our Executive Government. United with Lower Canada it would form a territory of which the settled parts from east to west would cover an extent of
494
1,100 miles, which, for nearly half the year' can only be traversed by land, the opposite territory of the United States, along the same extent of frontier, being divided into six states, having each an independent government. The population which Upper Canada contains is almost without exception of British descent. They speak the same language and have the same laws, and it is their pride that these laws are derived from their mother country, and are unmixed with rules and customs of foreign origin. Wholly and happily free from those causes of difficulty which are found so embarrassing in the adjoining province, we cannot but most earnestly hope that we shall be suffered to continue so; and that your Majesty's paternal regard for your numerous and loyal subjects in this colony will not suffer a doubtful experiment to be hazarded, which may be attended with consequences most detrimental to their peace, and injurious to the best interests of themselves and their posterity."
Further, an objecting party to this bill was one who was connected with most important interests in this country—namely, the Church of England. The Bishop of Toronto had opposed the union of the provinces, as also had Mr. Hager-man, a most important person, the Attorney-general of Upper Canada, from whose speech he would read two or three extracts.
"In the vote I am about to give I firmly believe is involved the question of my allegiance, and, as far as depends on my humble advice, the integrity of the empire. Sir, I believe, that the union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada will place in imminent peril the connection of this country with the parent state; and, believing this, I cannot, I dare not, without violating the oath of allegiance I have so frequently and so willingly taken, vote in favour of this measure. But the advocates of the union with these people say, that by that measure, all this will be changed, the Canadians of French origin will become reconciled to the dominion of the British, or, at all events, they will be prevented from giving further trouble. I put no faith in any of those opinions, and I believe, that none of them will be realized. On the contrary, I fear, that an opposite effect will be the consequence. I do not believe, that by showing your intention to coerce or overwhelm them by your superior numbers, you will remove the repugnance they now feel to any association with you; neither is the union likely to be recommended to either French or English, when your chief, if not your only reason for seeking it, is to obtain from their coffers the means of paying your debts. If the question were plainly asked me, why I am opposed to the projected union of the provinces, I would answer by simply stating, that we are safe as a dependency of the em

495
pire now. Unite us to Lower Canada, and that safety is at an end; and I will not assent to any measure that incurs the risk of so great a calamity as separation from the British Crown. And for what are these great dangers to be incurred—these sacrifices to be made? For no other reason than that we are unwilling to encounter the difficulty of paying off a few hundred thousand pounds of debt! The reflections that are awakened in my mind by this view of the subject are, I confess, melancholy and humiliating; and so strongly do I feel the fatal consequences of this measure, that were I permitted to approach my gracious Sovereign, I would, on my bended knees, implore her Majesty to withhold her assent from it."
With regard to the negative proof, he might adduce to show the danger of the course proposed, he should wish to show their Lordships that the traitors were very much in favour of this bill. Those who had been outlawed supported the principle of the union. If that were the case, was it possible to suppose that they did not expect the hands of their party to be strengthened by it—of that party which we had been obliged to put down by the bayonet? And if that party should be so strengthened, what prospect —what hope, could there be that they could govern that portion of the empire? He would now, in addition to the authorities he had stated as opposed to the union, read to their Lordships a signed document which had been written by Sir F. Head on the previous day, on his requesting that officer to give him any information which he might possess on this question. The noble Lord then read the memorandum of Sir F. Head, as follows;—
"It appears, that the House of Lords is called upon by her Majesty's Government to assent to the Canada Bill on the ground that the union of the Canadas is the declared wish of the Legislature and constituted authorities of the two provinces, and, therefore, that it ought not to be resisted. The following facts will, it is humbly submitted, expose the fallacy of the premises, and of the inference deduced from them. 1. The union of the Canadas was recommended by the Queen to both Houses of Parliament, without the Government having previously consulted either Colonel Gore, Sir P. Maitland, Sir J. Colborne, Sir G. Arthur, Sir F. Head, or Lord Gosford, all of whom had practically administered the Government in the Canadas, and all of whom, had they been consulted, would have given their advice against the measure. Lord Seaton and Lord Gosford, if appealed to in the House of Lords, will, I believe, corroborate the above,
496
statement, 2. After the Queen's message had been delivered, the printed bill for the union was submitted by her Majesty's Government to Sir J. Colborne, who, far from approving of it, returned it to the Government with his disapprobation of its contents. If Lord Seaton be asked whether this was or was not the case, he will, I believe, answer in the affirmative. 3. Shortly after Mr. Thomson's arrival in Canada, and shortly after his declaration in favour of the union had been promulgated, Sir G. Arthur forwarded to him a report drawn up by his own Executive Council, in which report the Government project of an union was deprecated in the strongest terms; nevertheless, in direct opposition to this report from Sir G. Arthur's Executive Councillors, Mr. Thomson proceeded with the measure. If Lord Seaton be asked, whether or not he is aware of any such report from Sir G. Arthur and his Executive Council having been submitted to Mr. Thomson, he can, I believe, fully substantiate what I have said. 4. If Lord Seaton be asked whether the recommendation for the union of the Canadas originated with him, he will, I believe, declare that he never recommended it, that he never would have recommended it, and that even now he thinks it a most hazardous experiment. 5. With respect to Lower Canada, if Lord Gosford be asked whether he considers the present Council as a fair representative of the feelings of the inhabitants of the colony, he will, I fully believe, reply, ' that he considers the said Council as a packed jury;' and that in his opinion, their recommendation in favour of the union will be protested against by the Commons' House of Assembly, whenever there shall be restored to it the gift of speech. 6. If Lord Gosford be asked whether he thinks, that Lord John Russell's despatch respecting the future tenure of office, has or has not been the means of intimidating the public officers of Upper Canada to assent to the union, I am confident he will reply in the affirmative, and I believe that Lord Seaton, if asked, would concur in the opinion. 7. With respect to the assertion, that the combined desire of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, of tha House of Assembly of Upper Canada, and of the Executive Council of Upper Canada cannot practically be resisted by the Imperial Parliament, I unequivocally deny it; and I humbly appeal to the records of the Colonial-office to show that as an inexperienced man I not only successfully stood against the demands of all these three authorities combined against me at the same time, but that had I not opposed them, we should have lost the Canadas. What an individual could effect, the Imperial Parliament surely ought not to be afraid to attempt; in fact, the moment the British Parliament admits that its strength is inferior to that of a little colonial Legislature, it virtually casts off its noble colonies, by declaring its imbecility, or rather its incapacity to govern them. The House of

497
Lords is no doubt embarrassed by the progress which the project of the union has made, but the measure breaks down because it has been founded upon inaccurate representations, endeavouring to show that Lord Seaton, Sir George Arthur, the Legislatures, and constituted authorities of the Canadas, are all so strongly in favour of the measure, that their united desire cannot, or at least ought not, to be resisted. The authors of these fallacious representations, and not those who have detected them, will surely by history be held responsible for any effects that may be produced by the rejection of the Canada Union Bill by the House of Lords."
Such were the statements and opinions of a gentleman who, whatever might be thought of the dangers he encountered, or the risks he ran, had done that which always received in this country the greatest praise and the greatest support. Sir F. Head had succeeded—he succeeded in saving Canada. He had now shown that none of the governors, from 1791, downwards, none of the Councils from 1791, none of the Parliaments from 1791, had ever petitioned for this measure; he had shown that in one instance they petitioned against it; and he would show to their Lordships also that the Secretary for the Colonies in the Government of the noble Viscount had no notion of such a proceeding down to the '21st of April, 1837. Under that date the following despatch was written in reply to an address from both houses of the upper province against the union:—
"Downing-street, April 21,1837.
"Sir,—I have the honour to acknowledge your despatch (No. 26) of the 4th ult, in which you transmit to me an address to his Majesty from the Legislative Council and House of Assembly of Upper Canada, deprecating an union between the two provinces Upper and Lower Canada.
"I beg leave to acquaint you, that having laid this address before the King, his Majesty has been pleased to receive the same very graciously, and to command me to observe that the project of an union between the two provinces has not been contemplated by his Majesty as fit to be recommended for the sanction of Parliament. I have, &c.
"GLENELG.''
When he looked at this answer and compared it with the speech made by the noble Viscount opposite on introducing this measure, the impression on his mind was strong that the noble Lord who introduced this measure, and the Government of which he was the head, could not be
498
so satisfied of its success as to introduce it to the notice of Parliament with that feeling of confidence which their Lordships ought to have in legislating on a subject of so much importance. He had shown to their Lordships that the Bishop of Toronto and the Attorney-General of Upper Canada disapproved of this measure—that the traitorous party had given it a sort of negative sanction, and he should now proceed to state to their Lordships who recommended the union. The union was never mentioned as in contemplation till Lord Durham's expensive report was sent in. By the term "expensive" he meant that that report was all they had got for something like a million of money, he believed. He had a great respect for the character of the noble Lord, who was not now present, and therefore he should be cautious of what he said in reference to any subject in which he was concerned. It was said, that they were about to try a measure founded on the principles of Lord Durham's report, and having the sanction of the legislative councils of Upper and Lower Canada. He should first of all call their Lordships' attention to the report of Lord Durham, with a view of showing that that report was not very worthy of being made the guide of their legislation with reference to Canada. However highly parts of that report might be esteemed by some persons, yet in the great essentials of legislation he thought he should be able to show, by the opinions of those who had resided in Canada, that it was not a good and sufficient groundwork for the proceedings of Parliament. Sir Peregrine Maitland was, as their Lordships well knew, a long time in that country, and he had written to Sir F. Head a letter, in which he stated that he had no objection to its being made known that he had expressed a decided condemnation of Lord Durham's report.
"My opinion is," said Sir P. Maitland that it gives an inaccurate and unfair representation of the opinions entertained in the province of Upper Canada, and that it censures ignorantly and unjustly those who have administered the government of that province."
He should next state the opinion of Sir F. Head, who declared in a very few words, that
"The report was a tissue of unintentional errors."
Sir G, Arthur also expressed an opinion

499
unfavourable to the accuracy of the statements contained in the report in his despatches dated April 17 and May 13, 1839. The House of Assembly of Upper Canada had addressed her Majesty in strong terms of disapprobation of the doctrines promulgated in that report. In the report which they humbly submitted to the Queen, refuting at great length all its principal allegations, they said,—.
"That they will apply themselves with calmness, and, they trust, with dispassionate zeal, to vindicate the people of Upper Canada, their Government, and Legislature, from charges that imply a want of patriotism and integrity which they did not expect, and which they grieve to find advanced by a nobleman who had been sent to these provinces to heal rather than to foment grievances, and who certainly should have carefully guarded against giving currency to unfounded, mischievous, and illiberal rumours, for the truth of which he admits he is unable to vouch."
He now came to the next opinion he should cite relative to this report—that of Chief Justice Robinson, who, he believed, was a man of the most distinguished ability and merit, and One who had long served her Majesty faithfully in those provinces. That functionary said in his communication to the Colonial Secretary, published by him,—
"Another object desirable to be accomplished for promoting the security and welfare of Canada is to counteract by whatever measure may seem most effectual the injurious tendency of that report presented to her Majesty by Lord Durham during the last Session of Parliament. I did not hesitate to state officially, immediately upon its appearance, that I was ready, in any place and at any time, to show that it was utterly unsafe to be relied upon as the foundation of Parliamentary proceedings."
Yet this report had been presented by desire of her Majesty to both Houses of the Imperial Parliament, and the Government had upon that report recommended the union of the provinces. He had shown their Lordships that that report was not very worthy of the consideration, which it was wished should be given to it, and that in itself it tended to induce a belief that the union might be successful, when those persons who Were best acquainted with the country thought that the principles contained in it were dangerous and unconstitutional. He now came to the question, by whom was the union supported? By the Council of Lower Canada, and the
500
Assembly of Upper Canada. Their Lordships were now called on to legislate because those bodies had strongly recommended this measure as necessary for the security and peace of the country, and their Lordships must depend upon those bodies as having given an honest opinion. He believed, that it was not an honest opinion; he believed it to be an opinion procured by fraud and coercion; lie believed it to be an opinion which they had been induced to give from various reasons which they in their own minds could not. resist. They had been led to believe, that they would derive great advantages from the union in a pecuniary point of view; they had been led to believe, that the members of that great party which was called Conservative were in favour of the union, or at least thought it necessary; and they had, on the other hand, been led to expect that those who did not agree in the proposition made by the British Government, would, if they were public servants, be dismissed from their offices. They were told, that it was the desire of Her Gracious Majesty that the union should take place, and looking at all the circumstances, he would ask their Lordships what was likely to be the effect of such an intimation on a body which, he might say without derogating from their dignity, rather resembled in power the vestry of the parish of Marylebone than a great legislative assembly? He meant that the population of Upper Canada, not being greater than that of the parish of Marylebone, the representative body of that colony, when put in comparison with the Legislature of this country, rather resembled the vestry of Marylebone than the English House of Parliament. When they used an influence on a body like this, when these parties were told that the Queen was in favour of the union, and that the Conservative party in Parliament intended to support it, and that they would reap pecuniary advantages from it, and that if they did not consent to it Great Britain would withdraw its countenance from them, and that those who were in office would be superseded—when all this was going on practically before their eyes, nothing would induce him to believe that the opinion of these legislative bodies had been honestly obtained. He would proceed to prove it. Where did he find that he was borne out in the statement that a representation had been made to the

501
House of Assembly, that Great Britain would withdraw its countenance from the Canadians if they did not consent to this union? He found it by referring to the debates which had taken place in the Assembly itself, and by seeing what the gentleman who advocated the cause of the Crown in that body had stated in reply to another gentleman who had said, that it was the intention of the British Government to withdraw its troops in a certain contingency. Mr. Sullivan, who was the presiding Member of Sir G. Arthur's Executive Council, and therefore the representative of the Crown, was reported, in reply to the hon. W. Elmslie, who asserted that the troops would be withdrawn from Canada if the bill were not passed, to have used this language:
"He rose for the purpose of correcting a mistake the hon. Member had fallen into, in stating that the head of the Government had said, if the Legislature did not assent to these resolutions, the troops should be withdrawn; and he heartily concurred with the hon. Gentleman in declaring, that had such a threat been made, it was unworthy of a British statesman. But he was happy to inform lion. Gentlemen, and he did so from authority, that no such threat had either been expressed or intended. His Excellency the Governor-general, in converging with the gentleman alluded to, had only put a case thus, that if the people of England, hearing always of our discontent, and of our applications for assistance, and if they also heard of our rejection of the only remedy that seemed open for our relief, might they not say, why should we any longer trouble ourselves with people who will not hear reason?"
An observation like that coming from the Governor-general of the province was a strong step towards saying, "Take care what you are about, my fine fellows; if you do not support us, I do not know whether England will not withdraw its countenance from you." Then as to the notion that it was stated in Canada that the Conservative party would aid and assist the Government in carrying this measure through Parliament, he found it positively asserted in page 36 of the pamphlet published by Sir F. Head.
"To use their own homely expression, it was easy to see which -way the wind blew; and, as the approaching storm was evidently inevitable, many sound and sensible men, who had all their lives been distinguished for their admiration of British institutions, as soon as they were told that Mr. Thomson had declared that 'Sir R. Peel was in favour of the union,'
502
did not hesitate openly to avow, that common prudence and a sense of self-preservation had united in inducing them to shelter themselves in time from its desolating effects."
So much, then, for the gentle measures which were adopted to recommend this measure of union to the Upper Province. Then with respect to the assertion that the prospect of pecuniary assistance had weighed much with the Legislature of Upper Canada, he would only read one short passage from the speech of Mr. Hagerman, wherein he said,
"Neither is the union likely to be recommended to either French or English when your chief, if not your only, reason for seeking it is to obtain from their coffers the means of paying your debts."
Then, with respect to his position that coercion had been practised on the Assembly, the proof was contained in a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Sir G. Arthur, lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada, dated the 16th of October, 1839:—
"I am desirous of directing your attention to the tenure on which public offices in the gift of the Crown appear to be held throughout the British colonies. I cannot learn that during the present or the two last reigns, a single instance has occurred of a change in the subordinate colonial officers, except in cases of death or resignation, incapacity or misconduct. It is time, therefore, that a different course should be followed; and the object of my present communication is to announce to you the rules which will be hereafter observed on this subject in the province of Lower Canada. You will understand, and will cause it to be made generally known, that hereafter the tenure of colonial offices held during her Majesty's pleasure will not be regarded as equivalent to a tenure during good behaviour, but that such officers will be called upon to retire from the public service, as often as any sufficient motives of public policy may suggest the expediency of that measure."
Mr. Poulett Thomson had made a remark upon that despatch in a despatch which he had written to Lord J. Russell, dated December 6,1839, in these words:—
"I had previously received the similar despatch addressed by you to Sir George Arthur, and had directed its publication in the Gazette for the information of all parties concerned. This publication appears to have been attended with good effects."
He put it to their Lordships, whether they could now call the opinion which had been expressed by this little legislative body, looking up as it did to England for support, and biassed as it was by What

503
passed in the English Parliament, a free opinion. He had now shown, first, that all the great men and governors, both of Upper and Lower Canada, for many years, and nearly all their legislative bodies, had not expressed any favourable opinion of this measure of union. He had shown, in the second place, that the report of Lord Durham was the foundation of that measure, and that it was not a worthy document to rest legal enactments upon. He had shown, in the third place, that, according to his belief, the consent of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada had been given under circumstances which would not allow him to call it an honest consent; and he had now nothing to add to prove his case, save that the Legislative Council of Lower Canada had given an opinion in favour of the union, and that Lord Gosford was of opinion, that the Legislative Council of that province was nothing but a packed jury. He said, that that was his case. He said, that they were now legislating in that place for the union of two provinces under circumstances so doubtful, nay, he would rather say, so certain in their consequences, that he, for one, could not be induced to assent to it. If their Lordships could judge from what appeared in the public prints, if newspapers were of any value at any time—and he thought that the noble Lord opposite was of opinion that they were of value, and that well-conducted journals spoke the sentiments of the public mind, for when they did not they were useless as matters of sale—he was sure that their Lordships would excuse him whilst he read an extract from an American paper, in which the editor proclaimed his opinion on the prospect of the Canadas, supposing this union between them took place. The paper from which he should read an extract was the New York Gazette:—
"The Governor-general of the Canadas appears to be acting under specific instructions from his Government, and can hardly, therefore, be considered accountable for this or any other act of his administration. These are certainly affairs with which we, on this side of the border, have no right to meddle. The British Ministry must manage these matters as best suits themselves; but there is nothing unneighbourly, we suppose, in prophesying, as we do, that the British Government will have very little further trouble in defending their North American possessions after a union of the two Canadas, as is proposed, for the Lower Canadians will probably take that
504
matter into their own hands. Her Majesty's Ministers have, for a year or two past, proved themselves the most adroit gentlemen whose acts we ever heard or read of. If their object really be to lose their colonies altogether, this, we have already said, is none of our business."
This went so far as to show that our neighbours in the United States were well aware of our proceedings, and that there was a party among them who thought we were voluntarily contributing to the loss of our own empire. It had been said in another place, that those who opposed this measure must be prepared with another in its place, as the Canadas could not remain for six months longer in their present position. He did not believe, that the latter part of that statement was correct. He believed the very reverse to be the fact. He believed that if the Canadas were left in their present state, not only for six months longer, but also for three years longer, it would tend greatly to their safety and to their ultimate improvement. "You have," continued the noble Earl, "in Upper Canada a fortress of brave and loyal Englishmen, who are ready to sacrifice their lives to preserve the laws and institutions of their country, and who are enthusiastically devoted to the integrity of the empire. Upper Canada was a citadel, and a safe citadel, in a country surrounded by enemies. It was a citadel which you could always fall back upon, and in which you could foster and protect your resources. I believe that if you will only support there a just and a good Government—if you will refuse to listen to the delegations of unknown and insignificant individuals—if you will place confidence in your Governors, and will not receive information from every person who volunteers to transmit it to you—if you will countenance honest and patriotic men, and put aside all Reformers, Radicals, and traitors—you will secure to England that fortress intact, and will never have the humiliation of seeing it taken by storm. I believe that in Upper Canada, you have an impregnable, ay, and an invincible fortress. Then, on its flank, you have New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, settlements as brave and as loyal as any dominions that belong to the British throne. You have the sea open to you on the other side; and then to tell me, that a handful of Frenchmen in Lower Canada can throw us all into confusion, and derange all our valuable interests in British America, is to

505
offer me a statement which no honest Englishman can by any possibility put up with. Never will I believe, if the Government at home is prepared to stand upon the constitution, that we cannot keep Lower Canada in perfect quiet until the time shall come, when it can again be intrusted with an honest representation and an honest constitution; and then, if its inhabitants shall not be prepared to perform their duty towards you—you, my Lords, must be prepared to exercise towards them the duty of a parent state, and to put down that rebellion once mote, as you have put it down more than once already. This is the only cure which will be left to you for these evils, unless you are prepared to lose the Canadas altogether. My Lords, I thank you for the patient and indulgent hearing which you have given me. I never should have undertaken this task, had I not been impressed with the conviction that it is a duty incumbent upon me to raise my voice, and to stand up here, where I have a right to be heard, in defence of my honest opinions; and I assure your Lordships, that no party considerations will ever have the slightest effect upon me, when I think that the integrity of this empire is in danger." The noble Earl then moved that the bill be committed this day six months.
Lord Seatonsaid, that as the noble Earl had referred to the correspondence in which he had expressed his opinion with respect to the proposed union of the two Canadas, he trusted that he might be permitted to offer a few remarks upon that subject at present. It was certainly true that the bill for uniting the two provinces was announced and introduced in this country before any of the authorities in the province —for instance, before either Lord Durham or Sir G. Arthur were consulted as to its policy. It was also true that he had himself felt the greatest apprehension and alarm as to the probable results of that union, and he believed also that every man in both provinces felt the same apprehension and the same alarm. But, as matters now stood, he thought that it would be more injurious both to the two provinces and to this country to defer this bill, and not to proceed with it this Session, than it would be to suffer it to go on. He decidedly thought that their Lordships ought now to go on with this bill, for it appeared that this constitution could not be con-
506
tinued to be suspended, nor could the restoration of the old representative system in Lower Canada be resorted to again with safety. He therefore thought, that in the present state of the provinces, in the confusion which still prevailed there, and with the agitation which was still going on, it would be better to proceed now with this measure than to leave the two provinces in the present state.
The Duke of Wellingtonconcurred nearly in every word which had fallen that evening from the noble Earl, particularly when the noble Earl was stating his own opinions. He did not, however, think it worthy of the noble Earl to read from a paper the argument of another Gentleman, when he was able to state his own case so ably. He was not inclined to depart at all from the opinions which he had given upon this subject on a former evening-, and more particularly not from that part of them in which he had entreated their Lordships not to consent to the passing of this measure on account of the opinion entertained upon it by his noble and gallant Friend on the cross benches, and by another gallant Gentleman who was then abroad, and by the House of Commons, and more particularly by some persons in the House of Commons, in whom it was but natural that their Lordships should repose entire confidence. He entertained opinions directly opposite to theirs. It was his opinion that this measure was entirely dangerous. Even her Majesty's Ministers did not venture to state that they felt confidence in it; and from their taciturnity he said distinctly that they did not feel confidence in it. He said further, that her Majesty's Government would not be able to govern these provinces according to the system of this bill. They should, therefore, seek some other system by which they would be able to govern them; for it was their duty, and it was also the duty of Parliament, to secure to the dominion of the Crown of England those valuable provinces called the North American colonies, which, would all be lost, if the system of this bill did not succeed entirely. Now, the papers which had been produced, and the discussion which had taken place last week before their Lordships, all tended to throw light upon the mode in which the opinion of the legislature of Upper Canada had been obtained; and he looked upon that as an

507
additional reason for her Majesty's Ministers to pause a little, and to give themselves time for consideration before they attempted to hurry this measure through the House. He had stated to their Lordships on a former evening the effect produced in the legislature of Upper Canada ' by the publication of a despatch from the Secretary of State, Lord John Russell, to the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Sir G. Arthur, which was dated the 16th of October, 1839. It was rather a curious circumstance, that the despatch of the 14th of October, which ought to have been sent out with the despatch of the 16th of October, was not published at that time, and he believed, that he might venture to say, from the answer which he had received from the noble Viscount opposite, that the despatch of the 14th of October had never been published at all. He had a paper which showed that the contents of that despatch were known in Upper Canada merely by the receipt of the intelligence from England that that despatch had been laid on the Table of the House of Commons. Well, what happened? This despatch of the 14th of October, which was intended to govern the disposal of the colonial patronage from that time forward, which was written within two days of the despatch relating to the local responsibility of the Government, and which entirely neglected that principle, on the part of her Majesty's Ministers, and declared, that it never should be adopted, in his opinion with great wisdom and propriety —that despatch, he said, had never been published at all, while the despatch of the 16th of October was published, and the Governor-general said, in writing of the publication of that despatch,
"It will also be of service to me in my endeavours to explain to those who cry out for responsible government the extent to which her Majesty's Government wished to go in administering these offices in accordance with the wishes of the people."
But the despatch of the 14th of October had been received equally with the despatch of the 16th. Why was not it also published? There the principle was clearly laid down, but the despatch was not to be shown. Why? He would tell their Lordships. They all knew perfectly well that there were two parties in the province of Upper Canada. They knew this from the despatches of Sir F. Head,
508
from the report of Lord Durham, and from numerous despatches besides. One of these parties was called the "Family compact." It was supposed to be the party in office, and was called the "Tory" party, a party which was most undoubtedly loyal to the Government, and which had enabled Sir F. Head by its assistance to expel the rebels from the colony, and drive back the foreign enemy. This was the party which was to be affected by the arrangement in the despatch of the 16th of October. He begged to observe, that he threw no blame upon this arrangement. He only blamed them for the period at which the publication took place. He maintained, that it was not fair to publish it at that period. The consequence was, that the people of this country did not get a fair opportunity of ascertaining the true opinion of the legislature of Upper Canada on (he subject of that union. The despatch of the 14th of October was not published, because there was another party in that province called "Republican," which was composed in a great part of refugees from the United States, and from this country. This party was in favour of republican institutions, and responsible government. It was this party which had hoisted Lord Durham's flag, and cried out for "Durham and local responsible government." That party, as opposed to the other, which he had before described, would have known what to reckon on, if the despatch of the 14th of October had been published, and would not have been so warmly disposed in favour of the union of the two provinces, had that despatch been published. To influence those who were in office, and conciliate them as much as possible, another despatch was written, but all knowledge of it was concealed from the Republican party, because it would have informed them that they were not in reality to have a responsible local government. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had declared this distinctly enough in his place in Parliament, but the effect of this was nothing as compared with the declaration contained in one of his official despatches. If the Governor-general wanted to put down the cry for "local responsible government," why did he not publish that despatch of the 14th at the same time as the despatch of the 16th of October? Up to the 21st of January nothing whatever was known of

509
it. On that day Mr. Poulett Thomson wrote:—
"I have the honour to forward to you the accompanying copies of addresses received by me on the 13th of December, together with my answer of the 14th of January. It appears to me to be extremely unadvisable to excite the public mind, by making any formal communication on the matter."
The matter here alluded to was "local responsible government." "The opinion of her Majesty's Government is well understood respecting it, and generally acquiesced in." Here was the address inclosed:—
"Your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Upper Canada, in provincial Parliament assembled, pray of your Majesty to inform their House whether any communication has been received from her Majesty's Secretary for the Colonies, with regard to a responsible Government, as recommended in the report of Earl Durham; and if any such has been received, or anything exist from which the opinion of her Majesty's Government can be collected, that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause copies of the same to be transmitted for the information of the House."
The answer was as follows:—
"The Governor-general regrets that it is not in his power to communicate to the House of Assembly any despatches on the subject referred to."
The despatches both of the 14th and the 16th being in his pocket at the time. He would simply ask of their Lordships whether this transaction was a fair one—whether these despatches, having both been in existence at the time, a proper influence had been exercised in respect either of the legislature or of the people of Upper Canada generally? The despatch of the 16th of October was understood to be a despatch distinctly in favour of local responsible government. It was sounder-stood in Nova Scotia, where the Assembly went immediately, and demanded from the Governor the dismissal of his Executive Council. They even went further, and advised her Majesty to dismiss that hon. and gallant Gentleman from her service, because he declined to take the course prescribed. The same experiment had been tried in New Brunswick and Prince Edward's Island. Wherever the despatch of the J6th of October was forwarded without the check of the despatch of the 14th of the same month, it necessarily created the demand for local re-
510
sponsible government. In fact, the inhabitants of these colonies seemed disposed to take the authority into their own hands. He would finish by entreating his noble Friend not to press his motion on the Mouse. He was thoroughly convinced, that happen what might, it was absolutely necessary that this bill should be thoroughly discussed, that the House and the public should understand clearly on what ground they stood in regard to this measure, that it should be fully considered in Committee, and that such amendments should be adopted as her Majesty's Government might think proper to introduce into the bill. After this, if his noble Friend chose to propose his amendments, it would be for their Lordships to consider whether they would adopt them. He entreated their Lordships not to reject this bill if her Majesty's Government persevered in calling on them to pass it. He recommended to them to consider well the opinions of others in another place, of those who had administered the government of the colonies in question, and not to take his opinion, or the opinions of men who, whatever they might know of subjects like this in general, or of his subject in particular, by consulting the returns, could not at all compare, in their knowledge of it, with those who had acquired their acquaintance with the country on the spot. He had shown their Lordships what a serious responsibility would fall on her Majesty's Government, if his suspicions as to this despatch were well founded. If they persevered, under such circumstances, they must be perfectly certain of the success of the measure. But what he earnestly recommended to her Majesty's Ministers was, to take upon themselves the power of suspending the operation of the measure for one or two years, in case such suspension should become necessary. Within the present week intelligence had reached them of hostilities being threatened again on the frontier. A steam vessel had been blown up in one of the American ports on the St. Lawrence by what was called an "infernal machine." As long as anything of this description continued, let them consider how extremely awkward their position would be. They would be unable to carry this scheme into execution, and at the same time would have no legal power whatever to govern the Lower Province.
Viscount Melbourneobserved, that

511
though this bill, and the general project for the union of the two provinces of Canada had received a pretty full discussion on the second reading, yet there was no necessity for the noble Lord to say anything of an apologetic nature for the course which he had pursued on the present occasion. If maturer reflection, or if anything which had occurred since the period of the second reading, had induced the noble Lord to change or modify his opinion as to the merits of the bill, nothing could be more becoming than that he should take the next opportunity to state the course which he had determined to pursue. And as the apology offered by the noble Lord was not needed, neither was his repudiation, at the close of his speech, of the idea that he was influenced by party spirit necessary. The noble Lord had not only referred to the speeches of the noble Duke opposite, and other noble Lords, in the debate on the second reading, in reprobation of the bill, but the noble Lord had done him the honour to refer to some observations which he had made in the course of his opening statement, and founded his objection not on that statement, but on his manner in opening the debate, which he alleged to have shown a want of confidence in the measure, and to have proved, that he did not feel as strongly convinced that it was absolutely necessary for the welfare of these colonies as a Minister of the Crown ought to feel in introducing such a measure. Now he begged leave to state in reply, that he introduced the bill with that doubt which every human being must feel as to a measure of this magnitude. He should hold it monstrous presumption to say, that he entertained no doubt as to the operation of the measure. But this he would declare, that considering all the circumstances of the case, the state of the country, the position of parties, he did in his- conscience believe, that the measure was absolutely necessary, and that the sooner their Lordships adopted it the more likely would it be to be productive of beneficial results. To this he would add, that the fewer expressions of fear they indulged in as to a measure like this, which they were about to adopt, the more likely it was to be ultimately successful. They might thus save what they conceived to be their own credit, but with material injury to the object in view, and detriment to the country. The noble Lord had
512
alluded to some observations which he had made on a former occasion, to which he attached the construction, that he was somewhat indifferent as to the retention of these colonies. Nothing could be further from his real opinion. All that he had meant in referring to former events of a similar character was to show, that by internal discord and dissention, and by violent condemnatory speeches in Parliament, former conflicts had led to disastrous conclusions, and he had warned their Lordships against the repetition of such conduct. He meant also to state, what he afterwards observed, that from all her former losses this country had recovered with wonderful force, astonishing ' energy, and with velocity almost incredible. Yet, wonderful as had been her recovery on those occasions, they were not to derive inactivity for the present from a recurrence to the past. He had wished to warn their Lordships that similar results might again arise, and he had, therefore, entreated them to throw off party feeling, and thus avoid evils which might even be more fatal than those of former times. The noble Lord had also misstated what he had said in another respect. It was impossible he could have stated, that the general principle of Government to be established in Canada was not a fit subject for the consideration of their Lordships. All he had meant to say was, that the general abstract argument against such a principle might be overruled by the particular circumstances of the case. The noble Lord had certainly delivered a very elaborate and a very able speech, but he rather thought the noble Lord had confined himself to points of inferior importance, and had not sufficiently considered the general bearings of the question, and the condition of the Canadian provinces. The speech of the noble Lord was confined to particular matters, to the opinions of the governors of Canada and others, and to the line of conduct which had been pursued by the Government at home, and by the local Governments. One great objection, however, against this measure had been stated by the noble Lord, and if that objection was good, he should consider it fatal. The noble Lord had said, "This cannot be a just measure." He would answer, "It can be a just measure." He would say, that this measure was just and fair upon the whole, and he would add, that if it

513
could not be shown to be consistent with the principles of justice, it ought to be entirely rejected. He himself, as well as those with whom he acted in the Government, sincerely deprecated the principle of pretending with a show of openness to give a fair constitution, when they were in reality giving one of exclusiveness. That was a course he had always deprecated, and to which he had always avowed his hostility. But considering the relative position of the Canadas —considering their population, and considering also their varied characteristics, this he must say was as fair an arrangement as to representation as could, in his opinion, be devised; and he was persuaded that it was only by a measure of this kind and of this character that constitutional Government could be restored in Lower Canada. That was one of the strongest reasons which had induced the Government to propose, and the Imperial Parliament to adopt, this measure. The noble Lord had quoted the opinions of the different governors of Canada. He had quoted the opinion of Sir P. Maitland, which he believed was generally unfavourable to an union, but he did not think that the opinion of Sir P. Maitland on the point at issue was supported by much reason or argument. The noble Lord had then quoted the opinion of a very lively writer, and that gentleman said in his usual lively style that this union was "like uniting tainted and fresh meat." That was evidently a metaphor, and there was not, as their Lordships would allow, much of argument or of resemblance between the objects in the comparison which was drawn. But the same Gentleman went on to say, that if this measure were adopted they would infuse into the General Assembly, to be established, an inveterate host of French Canadians, but unless they admitted the French Canadians into the Assembly they would leave that people entirely without representation, which he could not consider either wise or just. The hon. Gentleman to whom he alluded would not wish, he was sure, to restore the Assembly as it existed before the rebellion broke out, and he contended, therefore, that there was no alternative, unless they retained the present Government, which no one approved of, and which all thought should terminate as soon as possible, but to resort to a measure of this description. The reason upon which Sir
514
F. Head's opinion was founded was, he must say, in his opinion, worth very little. It was indeed strange to observe that no reason was given for the formation of any of the opinions which the noble Lord had quoted. The noble Lord had mentioned the name of the Bishop of Toronto, and as to Mr. Hagerman, the noble Lord had merely said, that it was the opinion of that gentleman that this measure would place the connexion between the Canadas and the mother country in danger. But there was no one reason advanced in support of that opinion, and indeed he had not heard one word uttered in the course of those debates which went to show, that the connexion between the two countries would be weakened by the operation of this bill. There might be arguments for holding such opinions, and he could make such arguments himself, but he had not yet heard one stated by any one who had spoken upon the subject, or who had delivered their opinions upon the measure before the House. The noble Lord had also quoted from a long paper which had been published by Sir F. Head, and which the noble Lord said that gentleman had written at his request. He had no doubt Sir F. Head had very willingly done so, as that gentleman, he believed, would be very glad to write such a paper at anybody's request. The paper which had been published by Sir F. Head had furnished the noble Lord with a sort of brief, from which he had made large quotations. In that paper Sir F. Head spoke of filing bills of discovery against every Government which had existed for many years, and other things of a similar kind. There was, however, one assertion to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention, which was, that Sir G. Arthur's Executive Council had given an opinion against the union. He believed that was not the case, for the only report which that body had made upon the subject had reference to the propriety or impropriety of dissolving the present Assembly, in which report the union was, but only in a collateral manner, alluded to. The Executive Council had, however, after full consideration, come to the conclusion that it would be unwise to dissolve the House of Assembly. The noble Lord, after having stated the authorities against this measure went on to consider what the authorities were in favour of the bill. In so doing the noble Lord had made an observation

515
on Lord Durham's report, to the effect, that it was an expensive document, as it was all which they had gotten for a million of money. He did not know what the noble Lord meant by that observation, but he supposed the noble Lord intended to say that such was the expense of a whole year, for it would be very unfair to attribute any but a very small portion of that sum as the expenses of Lord Durham. The noble Lord had stated the opinions of Sir P. Maitland, Sir G. Arthur, Sir F. Head, and of Chief Justice Robinson and others, in regard to the report of Lord Durham. There were unquestionably many things in that report which he did not praise, and which he did not think were prudent matters to be brought forward, and which he thought it would have been wiser to have omitted, and he therefore did not say, that that report was an impartial authority; but, at the same time, he must add, that it contained much which was of very great value, and which was well deserving of consideration and attention. The noble Lord had attacked the authority of the Legislative Council of Lower Canada and the Legislature of Upper Canada, but the noble Lord could not deny, that the opinion of those bodies had been pronounced in favour of this measure, but then the noble Lord said that that opinion, under the circumstances, was not an honest one. That was strong language to make use of, considering the body in regard to whom it was spoken. The members of those bodies must be respectable persons, and they were the very persons to whom the Government had been committed, and to whom it must in future be committed, and he could not therefore help saying, that the noble Lord had made use of strong language when he said, that the opinion of those bodies was not an honest opinion. It was strong language, to say, that taking into consideration all that might be advanced in support of an union—that on being told the Queen was favourable to the measure—that Sir Robert Peel approved and supported it—that they would derive great pecuniary advantages under this bill —that if they did not vote in favour of it they would lose their offices, under the despatch which had been sent out by his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies—it was, lie must say, going a great way, and expressing but a low opinion of those persons, of their power of resisting
516
Court influence, and of the energy and strength of their characters, to say, that by such considerations they would be debarred from acting with probity, and that their opinion was not an honest one. He was sure their Lordships would not think that the authority of the opinion which those persons had expressed, was in the slightest degree impaired by the statements of the noble Lord—though in some degree, similar to those of the noble Duke opposite. A despatch went from the Colonial-office, his noble Friend at the head of that department thinking that more frequent changes ought to be introduced amongst, the officers of the Government, and they were now to be told, that the Legislature of Canada on receiving that despatch, and on being informed that they might, under certain circumstances, lose their offices, could not give an honest opinion on a matter of this importance. Such a statement was a libel on their own Legislature. What would their Lordships say to that? If all probity and honesty in the Legislative Council was to be overthrown by such a despatch as he had alluded to, how, he would ask, could their Lordships place any confidence in their own decisions or in the decisions of the other House of Parliament, for many Members of both Houses held offices under the Crown? It was impossible that they could do so. The argument of the noble Lord, was the argument of the most violent Radicals of this country, who made on every vote of either House of Parliament similar observations. They found it every day asserted, that on every division of that House or of the other House of Parliament, so many persons voted for or against a measure for fear of losing their offices, or from being under Court influence, and lists of those so voting were every day published. In fact, the argument of the noble Lord and of the noble Duke, in reference to the Legislative Council, was the argument of the Radicals of this country. He contended, that there was nothing in this argument of the noble Lord, which could in any respect impeach the authority on which this measure was recommended. It was not his intention to go into the general argument in favour of this measure, or to reurge upon their Lordships what had been stated in a former debate. He thought this measure was absolutely necessary, and that it was the best which,

517
under all circumstances they could adopt. He would not say, that this was a dangerous measure, because he thought it ought to be adopted, and he was therefore not willing: to make use of any observations which could impair its efficacy or render it more difficult to carry it into operation than it would otherwise be. He did not believe, that it would endanger the connexion between Canada and the mother country —a connexion which he was as anxious to preserve as any of their Lordships. The noble Lord had said, that some one had staled, that if something was not done by the Legislature, the connexion between the two countries could not continue for six months. That was not his opinion, and he had never uttered anything of the kind. It was, however, the universal opinion in this country, and one which had been most strongly expressed in the other House of Parliament, and to which much weight had been attached, and in his opinion wisely, by the noble Duke opposite. It was also the opinion which prevailed in Canada, and he was perfectly sure, that it would be neither wise nor prudent to maintain for any length of time the present Government in Lower Canada. The noble Duke had recommended delay. He was sure, however, that their Lordships must feel that it was of the highest importance that this country should act in this matter with firmness and resolution; that they should present an united and decided front to the people of Canada, and anything like disunion at home—anything like hesitation, irresolution, or doubt, must have the effect of exciting opposition to this measure in the colony, and of rendering its ultimate success more uncertain and problematical. All popular governments were subject to vicissitudes. They were subject to irresolution, to change, to bursts of violence, and to act under the impulse of passion, and where they had a popular Government in the two countries, both at home and in the colony, all those evils would be redoubled, and it was therefore necessary to show to Canada, that under every circumstance she would not be subject to, or suffer by, the changes which might take place at home, and that, under all circumstances, her interests would be considered with calmness, impartiality, and fairness. He would, therefore, say, that if this measure was to be adopted, the sooner it passed
518
the better, and the less doubt and hesitation which attended its passing, so much more likely would be the chance of its ultimate success. He did not then know what the fact was, with respect to the publication of the despatch to which the noble Duke had alluded. He thought, however, it was probable that the first despatch mentioned, had not been published in Upper Canada. He was not aware of the fact at that time, but he would make inquiry into the subject, and, although he wished this measure to pass with as little delay as possible, yet he was most happy to hear the noble Duke opposite state, that its details ought to be fully considered in Committee, more particularly as there were many parts of the bill which, though of minor importance, were essentially necessary to the working of the measure, but which might have escaped observation in the general debates, and which could be altered or explained on the fitting occasion. The noble Duke thought of nothing but of the effect which he considered the Government wished to produce on the Assembly, and if the despatch alluded to was not published, he thought it might be because of the effect it was likely to have had on those Members of that body who were favourable to responsible government. The Governor, however, might have had other reasons, and he might have thought it wise and prudent not to publish the despatch, for there were many circumstances which might have induced him to withhold it for a time. All the principal part of that despatch had also been stated fully in the other House of Parliament. His noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had stated in Parliament all the material parts of the despatch, and the reports of that speech must have arrived in Canada before the opinion of the Assembly was given. [The Duke of Wellington: Will the noble Viscount refer to dates?] He did not know the date of the speech of his noble Friend. He thought, however, that the report of that speech must have been in Canada by the 16th of October, when the despatch was written. His noble Friend, when asked to produce that despatch, had stated, that it was not in his power to do so, but he had not said that no such despatch existed; he had only considered that it would not be prudent to produce it at that time, having due regard to the interests of the country. He would not

519
trouble their Lordships further, and he should only remark, in conclusion, that the noble Lord, who had certainly made a very able speech, had, notwithstanding, in his opinion, laid no grounds for the motion which he had submitted to their Lordships.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that during the two debates upon this subject in their Lordships' House, he had not heard, with the exception of two of her Majesty's Ministers, who were the Cramers of this measure, any other noble Lord address their Lordships, who had not expressed his decided opinion that this bill would be attended with imminent danger to, if not with the absolute loss of, our Canadian possessions. When he heard the noble Baron on the cross bench (Lord Seaton), who was so intimately acquainted with the subject, declare that no application had been made to him or to any of the other authorities in Canada previous to the introduction of this bill —when he heard the noble Earl opposite (Gosford) on a former evening say that he was strongly opposed to the bill—and when he heard the noble Viscount (Melbourne) express doubts as to the result of the bill, he thought he had a right to assume that the noble Viscount had very considerably inculpated himself, and that he ought not have introduced a bill of this kind without having first got all the information which he could have procured upon the subject. If this were a good bill, he must congratulate their Lordships and the country on the fortunate circumstance that the bill of last year was not passed. That bill was founded upon the recommendations of Lord Durham, who went to Canada with certain feelings and prejudices, and upon those feelings and prejudices his report was made. Mr. P. Thomson, in his suggestions to Lord J. Russell, condemned the proposed measures of Lord Durham as incorporated into the bill of last year, and stated, that upon consulting the best authorities in the country, he had not found one who did not disapprove of those measures. If the present bill were a good one, and the opinions of Mr. P. Thomson were correct, then was it a fortunate thing for the country that the bill of last year was not passed. The noble Viscount said, that if this bill were to pass, it was important it should pass immediately. Now, by the bill of last year, the union of the Canadas was not to come into operation till 1842. Again,
520
in the bill of Lord Durham, the members of the Legislative Council were to be retained for only eight years—a principle which Mr. P. Thomson condemned—so that if that bill were founded upon just principles, the principles of this bill must be bad. Lord Durham's bill likewise proposed to cut the electoral district into new forms—a proposition which Mr. P. Thomson said every individual in Canada whom he had heard speak upon the subject condemned. Looking at this, and recollecting the slight experience which either Lord Durham or Mr. P. Thomson had had, might they not expect, if another person in the confidence of her Majesty's Ministers were sent out to govern those colonies, that a third measure would be produced better than either of those two? At all events, they had no security that this was a good measure. The noble Viscount opposite said, that he had heard no arguments from those who opposed the union of the two provinces against that step. Now, he thought it was enough that those individuals who were the best informed upon the subject, he alluded to the noble Baron on the cross bench, the noble Earl opposite, and to every individual of influence in the colony—he thought it enough that they should be of opinion that the union of the Canadas would be attended with danger to induce the noble Viscount to pause before he pressed this bill upon their Lordships. He would also say, that if no argument had been adduced to prove that the union of the provinces was a bad measure, no argument had been advanced to prove the contrary. All the noble Viscount said was, that he entertained doubts upon the subject. He apprehended danger from this bill, because he thought it a measure of gross injustice to the French Canadians, the professed object of it being to prevent them from renewing their own Assembly, and to unite them with another body, by whom they would be overruled. The Government was therefore professing to give to the French Canadians liberal institutions, while they were really binding them hand and foot. The fact of this bill uniting people who were so different in point of taste, habits, customs, religion, and general feelings, at once proved its inaptitude for any good, and, in his opinion, could only have the effect of exciting animosities, ill-will, quarrels, and finally rebellion. He thought that these countries would be better governed if each were

521
allowed to have a separate legislature, and to manage its own affairs; at least that they should be allowed to settle down before their Lordships proceeded with a measure of this kind. If they left Lower Canada under the existing government for a few years longer they would possibly find it advisable to restore the legislature of that country. Let them do that—let them apply the principle to Lower Canada which they had already found so successful in the case of Jamaica, and he had no doubt that the result would be the perfect reestablishment of harmony and peace.
The Earl of Gosfordwished to state, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Earl who had just sat down, that the reasons assigned by those noble Lords who opposed this bill for opposing it, were not those by which he was induced to oppose it. Many of those reasons appeared to him to be rather in favour than against the present bill; but his reason for opposing it was, that the principle of it, from beginning to end, was founded upon misrepresentation; that it was, on that account, likely to be attended with gross injustice, and would, he feared, prove an indelible blot on the Legislature of this country.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that the noble Earl opposite, in staling that, with the exception of two Ministers of the Crown, every noble Lord who had spoken on the subject had opposed this bill, seemed to have forgotten that there was a great preponderance of opinion in its favour, both in that and the other House of Parliament, in the country, and also in the two Provinces which it more immediately affected. The noble Lord admitted he had no arguments to advance against it, and to justify his opposition to it, appealed to the opinion which had been expressed by the noble Lord on the cross bench. Now, surely, the noble Earl could not have listened to the speech of that noble Lord, or he would have observed that if ever a decided opinion had been expressed by any one acquainted with the condition of those Provinces as to the course which ought to be taken respecting them, that opinion had come from the noble Lord. He begged that their Lordships would consider the weight of authority in favour of this measure. There was, in the first place, the Legislative Council of the Lower Province, many of whom had been appointed by the noble
522
Lord on the cross bench (Lord Seaton). There were the English merchants here, together with the House of Assembly in Upper Canada, which had been called together by Sir Francis Head, and to which so much praise had been properly given. What were the authorities against the measure? It was true it had been opposed by former governors, but it should he remembered, that these had been resident in the Colonies before the recent events. Such authorities, together with the natural impatience of the present arbitrary government, which the English residents must feel, were well worthy of consideration. As no other course was proposed, why should their Lordships not accede to that now before the House, and which was in his opinion, under all the circumstances of the case, a just and equitable adjustment? Whatever might be the danger which some noble Lords might see in this measure, it would, at least, secure the great advantages of commercial freedom to the Upper Province and constitutional government to the Lower.
The Earl of Hardwickefelt himself placed in a painful situation in not being able to comply with the request of his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington). He felt himself bound to pursue the course which in his conscience he felt was the right one, and to follow the example which the noble Duke himself had set in adhering to that line of conduct which duty prompted, in spite of any opposition which might be offered.
Their Lordships divided on the original question—Contents 107; Not-Contents 10: Majority 97.
House in Committee.
Clauses of the bill agreed to with a verbal amendment. House resumed. Report to be received.