observed, that the complaints of the people of Canada with respect to the tenures of land had been recognized and affirmed by the Commissioners themselves in the fourth section of their general report; and yet, although they had stigmatised the passing of the Tenures Act as a measure at once unjust and impolitic, this resolution did not propose to repeal it until certain things should have been done by the House of Assembly in Lower Canada, which, owing to the unfortunate dissensions prevalent in that country, there was very little probability of carrying for some time to come. Such a proposition would only have the effect of postponing indefinitely the repeal of a most unwise and obnoxious enactment which ought at once to be abolished.

regretted, that the Tenures Act had ever been passed, because it was opposed to the principle now acted upon, that the Imperial Parliament should not interfere in the internal and domestic affairs of any of the colonies (having legislatures of their own), unless there were an absolute necessity for so doing. He did not see, that there was any injustice or hardship in making the repeal of the act conditional upon the passing of the other measures described in the resolution.

entertained but one feeling upon the subject—a feeling expressed by the following resolution, which he should move to substitute for that read from the chair:—"That it is expedient at once to repeal the Act commonly called the 'Canada Tenures Act.'"

rose to protest against any further discussion of these resolutions, and to request the noble Lord at once to withdraw them. It was intolerable to have the time of the House wasted, and the business of the country delayed, whilst a parcel of resolutions were discussed which, if carried, would serve only to increase the evils they professed to remedy. Of all the departments of the State the colonial department was the very worst. He looked upon the colonial minister, indeed, as totally incompetent. He directed the whole of his policy on the self-same principle as that pursued for so many years by the Tories. He was only surprised to find that that minister had sufficient influence to drag so many of the Members of that House through the mire with him. He (Mr. Hume) was quite satisfied that these resolutions would be the commencement of a war in Canada. The Canadians would resort to hostilities as soon as they were able, and, indeed, they would be fools if they remained one hour longer under such a system than they could possibly help.

had acted upon the authority of the Canadian Commissioners, and the Colonial office, —which he considered sufficient grounds for opposing the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and for pressing these resolutions upon the attention of the Committee. It certainly did not appear to him, that it was at all necessary that he should be able to explain all the bearings of the subject, to either the hon. and learned Member for Bath, or the hon. Member for Middlesex.

expressed a wish that the noble Lord would withdraw the resolution, and allow the Tenures Act to remain as it was. The only effect of repealing it would be to place all the property in Lower Canada under the power of the predominant party in the House of Assembly there.

thought, that there was much ambiguity in the terms of the resolution. It seemed to him that the impolicy of passing the Tenures Act might well be insisted upon; and he thought the proper course the Committee could pursue was to repeal that Act, reserving all the rights vested under and by virtue of the Act.

proposed the following amendment in this resolution.

"That the House of Assembly in Lower Canada, by withholding the supplies necessary for carrying on the government, have adopted the only constitutional means of obtaining a remedy for their complaints, and the reasonableness of which this House has recognised by affirming the fourth and fifth resolutions; and it is therefore expedient to await the result of the plan about to be proposed by his Majesty's Government for redressing the grievances complained of by the Canadian Parliament."

He had supported all the previous resolutions; but he could not sanction the present resolution, as it was inconsistent with every principle of justice. He trusted it would not be sanctioned by a reformed Parliament. His Majesty's Ministers said that it was necessary to pass these harsh resolutions in consequence of some twenty persons being kept without their salaries. He believed that if the House did not pass that resolution, and at the same time redress was afforded to the admitted grievances of the people of Lower Canada, the House of Assembly would take into consideration the case of those individuals; and if that House refused to do so, then it would be ample time to adopt such steps as were involved in this resolution. He did not think, that the claims of the gentlemen in office in Canada would be satisfied a moment sooner by passing that resolution indeed he believed that the sanctioning of that resolution would render all future conciliation of no avail. By adopting that resolution the people of Canada and the other colonies would be led to imagine that any constitution might be set aside at the will and dictation of any Minister of the crown. He should consider himself justified in resorting to any steps that the forms of the House allowed for the purpose of delay, and thus preventing this resolution being carried.

said, that as this part of the subject had been so amply discussed on former occasions, he did not feel called upon to trouble the House at length. With reference to the arrears of salary due to the civil and judicial officers of Lower Canada, if the Government allowed them to remain any longer un liquidated it would be utterly disgraced. The situation of these officers was most distressing, and many of them could only obtain the means of subsistence by borrowing money on the most extravagant and ruinous terms. He asked if the House of Commons would consent to leave the officers without their salaries? He was sure that it would not. Government had, after mature consideration, determined to take that which they believed to be the most open as well as the most upright course.

thought, that the course pursued by Government was most unjust. The aim and object of it was to attack the constitution, and thinking so he should give his warm and cordial support to the hon. and learned Member for Bath.

said, it was a satisfaction to him to think that, whatever delays might be interposed here or elsewhere, repeated majorities had put it beyond all manner of doubt that on this question the House of Commons had made up its mind. The resolution which the Committee had now to consider was the vital resolution, but it was the natural and necessary consequence of the first. By the first resolution the House had affirmed, that public officers, against whom there was not a shadow of complaint, had been left three years without their acknowledged due. Having made that declaration, would it become the House, would it become the country, to break off without having pro-Tided a remedy for so crying an injustice? and the only way of providing that remedy was by passing the 8th resolution. The Committee had been advised to adjourn the question till reference could again be made to the colony. But what could reasonably be hoped from postponement? Years of fruitless endeavours, volumes of despatches, Acts of Parliament expressly passed, a commission expressly sent out, sufficiently proved, that all the resources of negociation and persuasion had been exhausted; What reason was there for believing that six months more would effect what previous years had failed to accomplish? Was it not much more probable that opposition would be strengthened by apparent indecision, and that at the end of the next six months we should find ourselves in a still more embarrassing situation? But the hon. Member for Ipswich said, that the House had no right to touch the fund from which it was proposed to make up the deficit. He (Mr. Knight) admitted, that the 8th resolution, as far as it went, interfered with the Act of 1831. He admitted the fact, but he asserted the necessity. All the statements which had been made in that House over and over again must have vanished from the memories of hon. Members if they were not convinced that the time had arrived when it became the duty of the Imperial Parliament to interfere. The 8th resolution must not be considered by itself, but with reference to the general question of the Canadas—and what was the real state of the case? Was it not clear that, by whatever means, by whatever stages affairs had been brought to the present crisis, the House of Assembly demanded nothing less than the independent government of the Canadas—that if the Canadas were to remain a part of the British empire, such demands could not be conceded, and that if these demands were not to be conceded, the interference of the Imperial Parliament became indispensable? The House of Assembly had declared that they would never resume their functions till they had obtained all they demanded; such concession's the House of Commons was not prepared to grants The colony could not be left without government. It became, therefore, necessary for the Imperial Parliament to Step in, and fill up the gap which the French party had made. The only consideration which could create a doubt as to the course which it was proper to pursue was, whether or no the Canadas could stand by themselves—whether the time was indeed arrived when it would be advantageous for the colony, were England to bid it farewell? But were the Canadas in a condition to form a substantive state? Would they be harmonious within? Would they be capable of repelling aggression from without? Whoever dispassionately considered the present condition of the Canadas must answer those questions in the negative; and if the Canadians themselves were to ask him the question, and it were consistent with his duty, either as a Member of that House, or as a loyal subject, to give a different answer, for their own sakes, he could not advise them to shake off the domination of England. In the Canadas the French and the English were not sufficiently amalgamated to make the inhabitants of that country one united nation. It was not the voice of a great people calling across the Atlantic for self-government and independence; it was the voice of a section, the voice of the French party, which made up in clamour what it wanted in strength. The common mistake, but a great mistake, appeared to prevail, which on this side the ocean was to regard the Canadians as one united people, all bent upon the accomplishment of the same object. But there was Upper Canada as well as Lower Canada, the former inhabited by our countrymen, the latter chiefly by the French, differing from each other in their wishes as much as in their conduct; and if the colony were left to itself, the first thing that Lower Canada would attempt would be to seal up the mouth of the St. Lawrence, and deprive the British population of their only commercial access to the sea. In what light should we appear if we abandoned our countrymen to such a contingency? Perhaps the true source of the present difficulties was to be found in a measure which was well meant, but which had not been attended with prosperous results—he meant the division of the Canadas into two distinct provinces. They must be blended together before the Canadians can become a nation. But this was beside the present question. The House must legislate for things as they were, and, as the Imperial Parliament was to interfere, he regretted that they were not about to adopt such measures as would relieve them from future as well as from present difficulties. Instead of passing the 8th resolution, he wished they were about to repeal the Act of 1831. The just expectations of Government when that act was passed had not been fu filed—expectations founded on the resolutions of the act of Assembly itself; we should have begun by putting things back exactly into the position which they occupied before the Act of 1831 was passed. We should then have set out de novo, and proceeded to make such arrangements as the permanent welfare of the colony might seem to demand. He knew that the supreme authority of the Imperial Parliament was not to be lightly exercised. It was painful to come to the conviction of the necessity of such an exertion. To warrant it a case must be made Out the justice of which the world and posterity must allow. But such a case had arrived, and, with a full sense of the consideration which was due to a colonial legislature, and a full consciousness of all the possible consequences, he was persuaded that the Parliament had but one course left to pursue, and he trusted that nothing would induce that House to depart from the opinion which it had already pronounced. He admitted that this was one of the most unpleasant questions with which they had ever had to deal, and he should have thought that the vexation and inconvenience by which it had been accompanied would have induced His Majesty's Ministers to take good care that we should never be placed in similar circumstances again; but when they asked the House to consent to the 9tli resolution, he trusted they would at least retain a provision abundantly adequate; for they paid no regard to the lessons of experience if they had not learned by this time that upon an independent civil list depended the peace and prosperous administration of the Canadas and every other colony. After what he had said it was unnecessary for him to add that he should support the 8th resolution.

considered that they must indeed have learned nothing from experience if they were not determined to do justice to their colonies. Experience could have taught them nothing if they had not learned from her that if they refused to do justice to their colonies the colonies would themselves endeavour to obtain it. He did not know that the time had arrived as yet for the Canadians to obtain their rights; but this he was quite sure of, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gally Knight) was, by the advice he had given, co-operating with the Canadians in that resistance by which they might hope to obtain their rights. The struggle and the resistance might come soon enough. He greatly, He sincerely regretted the course proposed to be adopted by his Majesty's Government. There was a strong contrast between the conduct of the same Government towards Ireland and that which was pursued with regard to Canada. He felt exceedingly afflicted to be obliged to oppose the Government on their Canadian policy. He could not consent to vote for the 8th resolution. He thought it unjust, and therefore he must oppose it. He thought it tyrannical, and therefore he must resist it. He knew that it was tyrannical and he hoped it would be effectually resisted. It was admitted to be against principle, and it was said to be only justified by necessity. It was solely and simply grounded upon necessity. Now he denied the necessity; but even if there were necessity, he denied the justice. "The tyrant's plea," it was true to a proverb) "is necessity." He had heard before the same argument used. It had been used to deprive Ireland of her liberties. He had heard the same hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) make a speech to the same effect he had made that night in support of the Coercion Bill for Ireland, and it was upon the same plea—necessity. Could any human being, then, look him in the face and say that there was a necessity for the Coercion Bill? No one could say so. There was nothing in the existing state of Canada to render the course then proposed necessary. What, after all, were they struggling for? If they gave to the Canadians an elective legislative council they would put an end to all disputes. If they granted an elective legislative council there would be no doubt but that perfect tranquillity and complete harmony between the two countries would be secured. The agent of the Canadians in that House was ready to pledge himself to that. [An hon. Member: "That is not the case."] But then the Government would not give it to them. Why would they not do so? They heard talk of a French party in that House. Perhaps this was one of the worst features in this entire matter—the attempt to raise one portion of the people against the other. If the Canadians were not an English party they would now be a portion of the United States. During the American war appeals had been three times made to them to join the Americans. They resisted those appeals. Had they acceded to them, in what situation would they be now? Instead of having not merely the House of Assembly elective, they would have also their governor elective, their legislative council, and every thing else elective. Then how would they be in point of taxation? Instead of having a revenue to pay, they would have a surplus revenue to take back; for that was the situation of the United States. Perhaps the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge did not know that fact; perhaps he was ignorant that the United States had a surplus revenue. The right hon. Gentleman had at one time been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he must be astonished to hear of any such thing as a surplus revenue. He must imagine such a thing to be a mere fairy tale, and yet he could assure the right hon. Gentleman of its reality; the fact undoubtedly being that in the United States there was a surplus revenue. If then, the Canadians had formed a part of the United States, instead of that House taking away their money from them, they could employ it for their own advantage. He was opposed to the impolicy of their attempting to carry on the government of that country for the purpose of advancing the interests of a party against the people. The government party was called the English party. They were not an English party; but they were a Canadian party, that used the power of England for its own selfish purposes. What right, he asked them, had they, to talk of the superior power of the Legislature of England? Ought that to be so? They had intrusted to the Canadian people the power of imposing their own taxation by a legislature of their own; they were to levy their own money, and was not the appropriation of that money part of the same power confided to them? They should rather take away the power of taxation, than insult them, when they had raised the money by depriving them of the power of having any superintendence over it. The simple mode, in his opinion, to get rid of the difficulty was to grant to the Canadians the power of electing their own legislative council! This was no new claim that was made upon them; some of their colonies had it before. It was no novelty. They did not ask for that which other colonies had not. It was only for a royal charter to concede to the Canadians what had been conceded to other colonies. By doing so, they still left to the representative of the Crown all the powers that he now possessed: the veto of the Crown would still remain. That which they sought now to take away, they took from the Canadians only on the plea of necessity. There was only one mode of defending the present proceeding; the only defence for a great violation of principle was necessity. They had in his opinion no pretence for a violation of principle! Who was opposed to them? They indeed talked of a faction opposing them; but he asked them were they not the representatives of the Canadian people? Were they not British-born subjects, as well as those who were of English origin? Were they not, too, the representatives of an overwhelming majority of the Canadian constituency? Were not the majority of the representatives supported by the majority of the people? What was the result of the elective franchise, even according to the mode in which it was managed by the Canadians, and by which a double vote was given to those who were called of the English party,—where, in fact, the votes of two of the French Canadians were equivalent to but one of the English? even with the elections conducted in the same channel, and in the same direction, they found the representatives continue equally opposed to their policy. They stood, then, in that predicament with those who spoke the wishes of the Canadian people. And yet they came out upon the Canadians, and because they (the Government) were the stronger, they took from the people their money. They had the right as the stronger, but they had no other right; and, exercising that right, they ought at least to have tried every possible, every practicable means, before they threw themselves on the plea of necessity. Why not make the change that was proposed? They did not consent to it—they would not consent to have an elective legislative council. The question really narrowed itself to this— would they try that experiment?—would they take that step? No; they chose to set the Canadians at defiance. They had the power at present to do so, but how long they would have that power he did not know, This he at least was convinced of, that, no man who was born in that country, and had a true regard for his native land, but would determine to continue the struggle until he should make it impossible for another country to plunder his own. He was sorry to be obliged to oppose the Government; but he felt it to be his imperative duty upon principle to do so.

referred to the Government despatches of the 24th of December, 1830, the 15th of March, 1831, and 16th of May, 1831, to show that in the rejection of the propositions there was no breach of faith on the part of the House of Assembly. The noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire had stated that there was—he did so in gross ignorance: the press had dishonestly re-echoed the assertion, and it was now from ignorance repeated by the hon. Member for Nottingham. He was surprised at the Under Secretary for the Colonies asserting that there was a dispute between that House and the Canadians. He denied it. There was no dispute between them; but there was a dispute between the Colonial-office and the House of Assembly of Lower Canada. When he put it to the noble Lord not to press those resolutions, telling him that the House of Assembly would not listen to them, the noble Lord said, he could not believe that the House of Assembly would not listen to that which was the deliberately declared opinion of the British House of Commons. When, however, his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater recommended that there should be a delay of six months, then they were told by another Member of the Government, that there was no prospect of any advantage being gained by postponement, that this country had tried concession after concession, and no good had been done. He wanted to know how they were to reconcile these conflicting opinions. The very argument which was urged by the Government in favour of one proposition, was opposed by the Government when another proposition was submitted to them. Then it was said, in favour of these resolutions, that they must get over the present difficulty. Well, let them get over it, as they hoped to do, and where would they be? They would pay the expenses this year, and they would break open the Canadians' strong box for that purpose. What were they to do next year? These resolutions would order the Government to filch from the strong box of the Canadian people a certain sum. It was said, however, that this money was not derived from the people of Canada, but from the casual territorial revenues. The noble Lord, the late Secretary for the Colonies, in one of those bursts of eloquence peculiar to him, while he approved those resolutions, deprecated the idea of infringing the constitutional law passed in the 18th of George 3rd., which enacted that we should never appropriate or apply the revenues of our colonies. He was delighted with that view, because it fell in with his own opinion. The hon. Member for Worcester, another supporter of the resolutions, drew a distinction between the application of funds and the levying of them. We did not levy them, he said; we were only about to apply them; that was to say, if he had a strong box, the hon. Member who had not contributed to it would only come and take certain moneys out of it. He had always thought that the more important question with respect to money was, who had the right to dispose of it? It was of little importance to the Canadians who levied the funds if they, to whom the tax belonged, had not the right to appropriate them. The 47th clause of the 18th of George 3rd ran thus:—" provided always and be it enacted, that the net produce of all duties that shall be so imposed shall at all times be applied to and for the use of each of the several provinces respectively, and in such manner only as shall be directed by any law or laws which may be made by his Majesty, by and with the consent of the Legislative Council and House of Assembly." The preceding clause provided the same thing in almost the same words—that money should neither be levied nor applied without the consent of the legislature of that country. Now, let them remember what they were doing. What lost us the thirteen American provinces? What, but levying and applying their funds without having obtained their consent. The House now proposed to sanction a breach of that law which was passed under the most humiliating circumstances— which was passed after defeat and loss of possession. The noble Lord was suggesting the very step which was taken by his predecessors in office, who lost the thirteen provinces of America. The noble Lord, in effect, told the House that he had no longer any faith in the experience this country had gained, and he was willing to risk the disasters they risked by breaking faith with the colonies. This House had, in consequence of the bitter disasters arising out of the American war, made a contract with the colonies that it would never again attempt to levy any portion of the revenues of the colonies. This House was now about to make a breach in that engagement. It was not the House of Assembly that was about to break faith, but the House of Commons of Great Britain, instigated by the noble Lord, the leader of the House. On the head of the noble Lord would fall the responsibility of these acts. Whatever distress followed, whatever colonies we might lose in consequence of this violent, this flagrant, and, he might use the word, disgraceful breach of faith, posterity would make the noble Lord pay the penalty of it. If he, having before his eyes, all the fatal experience which this country had reaped from the disastrous consequences of Lord North's proceedings, was in that frame of mind in the half century after that, he had cast away that experience—if he Was so blind to the teaching of history that he put his foot in the very track of his noble predecessor—if he was determined to risk our colonial possessions, and to risk them by a violent breach of faith, on his head be the penalty of that proceeding.

was as desirous to promote a reconciliation with the House of Assembly as any hon. Gentleman could be, and if he had the most distant hope that such would be the effect of postponing these resolutions, he would earnestly join the hon. Gentlemen opposite, in soliciting the Government to take that course. But he believed there was no disposition on the part of the House of Assembly of Canada to make any concession; for after a concession had been made to them they had been met by increased and renewed demands, till things had been brought to their present unhappy state. What an absurdity would it not be to ask this country to pay for the service of Canada, the money for that service having been voted by the Canadian Assembly, who, however, were not willing to appropriate it? He would tell the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that in his opinion there was an obvious distinction between levying and appropriating the money. It was not proposed to tax the people of Canada without their consent; the money had already been levied by themselves, and the only quest in was, whether it should remain in the public chest in Canada while this discussion was going on, or whether it should be paid to those who were legally and justly entitled to it? Was there any question as to the right of those parties? And if not, ought the public servants to be made the victims? Was there any reason why the judges, for example, should not be paid? Could the hon. and learned Member for Bath say there would be any justice in making them the victims of the differences which unhappily existed? This was a great constitutional question, said the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who charged the House with violating the Act of 1791. That Act was violated, he would contend, not by this House, but by the House of Assembly itself. The Canadian people were originally content with the constitution of 1791, but they now demanded a change which would amount to a violation of that constitution. He had just received a paper from Lower Canada, which satisfied him that the Canadians were aware that these resolutions, or something analogous to them, would be proposed to the British Parliament. With reference to the prospect of any good being obtained by delay, he begged to ask why did not the House of Assembly, having the hon. and learned Member for Bath acting as (heir agent in this country, instead of passing those resolutions, and having them solemnly entered on their journals—why did they not pass resolutions stating that they would vote supplies for the payment of the officers of the state, and leave the hon. and learned Member for Bath to endeavour to negociate with the Government terms of reconciliation? It was obvious that the hon. and learned Member for Bath had no power to negociate. He had suggested a scheme, it must be admitted; and he would not call it absurd, because that was a harsh term, but he would tell him this, that if it were not absurd, it was one which was inconsistent with the exercise of any authority in Canada by the British Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman was frequently a warm declaimer in support of the rights of the majority; but when the majority was against himself he appeared to be little disposed to admit the principle. Would he say, that this House was a packed assembly, and if it were not, how could he except to the decision of the large majorities which had declared themselves disposed to support the British Government? It had been said, that the citizens of the United States sympathised with the people of Lower Canada; but he was of a contrary opinion. He had never met with an American gentleman, either in London or in Paris, where he was last year, who did not admit, that the French Ganadians were decidedly wrong, and that of all people in the world they had the least cause to complain, having a free constitution, light taxation, and the protection of a powerful government. So far from the citizens of the United States sympathising with them, he believed that in the event of any disposition being shown on their part to call in their aid they would decidedly refuse to interfere at all. There was a free press in the United States; but he would ask, had any of the newspapers of that country taken up the question of the French Canadians?—[Mr. Roebuck, "Yes, hundreds."]—He had never seen one. He contended that the Government, in proposing these resolutions, had not gone beyond the necessity of the case; they had shown a disposition to yield a just redress of all practical grievances; and should the Canadians themselves unhappily refuse to reconsider their resolutions, and to meet the British Government in kindness and conciliation, but attempt an appeal to arms—if they should adopt such a course after the declaration of his Majesty's Government of their willingness to redress all real grievances, to modify the legislative council, and take away all reasonable grounds of complaint, he confessed he could see in such a course nothing but a civil war which would be fatal to the Canadians themselves and to the other party. Nothing short of an infringement of the rights and liberties of a people could justify an appeal to arms. There had here been no infringement of the constitution of the people of Lower Canada? there was in fact no constitution existing there, as the representatives of the people had abandoned their functions. It was the duty of those representatives to assemble again and again, and to urge their complaints in a constitutional manner, to appeal to that House in a constitutional way—to that House constituted as it was of a large majority who were anxious and willing to do justice to every class of the King's subjects, it was their duty to submit their complaints. Connected as he was personally with the colony, and having so large an interest in its preservation, hedeclared most solemnly he would rather see every one colony separated from the British Crown, and constituted, if it pleased an independent state, if it could maintain itself in such a condition, than see them set up such pretensions, and see this country yield to them what was totally inconsistent with the dignity of the Crown, and the supremacy which the British Parliament ought always to exercise over colonies as long as they were not independent. An hon. and learned Member had told the House that he would take every advantage which the forms of the House admitted, to delay the progress of these resolutions: he had menaced the House with delay. He did not know what course the Government meant to pursue, but if he were in the situation of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) they would not now be debating this 8th resolution, he Would not have separated for the Easter recess till every resolution had been passed. He hoped and trusted that the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and those few who acted with him, seeing by what large majorities these resolutions were sanctioned, would consider that they had fully discharged their duty, and that they would not persist in offering a useless and vexatious opposition.

rose to explain. He denied that there was any imperious necessity for the passing of these resolutions. The House of Assembly of Lower Canada had passed a Supply Bill for six months, owing to a curious blunder of Sir F. Head, which made them believe that the instructions to the Commissioners were more liberal than Lord Gosford thought proper to announce. The legislative council threw out this Bill, which had given rise to all the difficulty that had been felt;

would not detain the House five minutes. He saw no use in addressing arguments to the House. The attention of the country had been drawn to this question, the resolutions had not been passed without discussion, the reasons on both sides were before the public, and it was perfectly obvious that nothing could make an impression on the House, and therefore they might as well let this resolution quietly pass. The responsibility fell entirely on his Majesty's Ministers; and he hoped that when the country and the House came to judge more coolly of the matter, they would do justice to those who, in spite of large majorities, ventured to lift their voices against these proceedings. He would venture to say that in a few years these resolutions would be universally condemned as unwise and uncalled for. He had heard a good deal of talk about a rebellion in the colony. Now he ventured to say, that before having recourse to the terrible experiment of a rebellion, the people of Canada would turn their eyes to a country not very far from England, where a very successful, but perfectly peaceable and constitutional plan had been adopted for the purpose of embarrassing the Government, which they believed to be bad. The Government in this instance, was not without blame. The House of Assembly might have committed an error; but the Government should not have taken advantage of that error to call upon Parliament to violate the constitution of Canada, and thus summarily punish a whole people. There was but one course which a sensible Government would have pursued; it should have propounded its plan,—these resolutions if they were proper ones—and should then have sent them out to the colony to see what effect they would produce; if they did not produce the effect desired, then at least the colony would have nothing to say to justify them in their persistence in an unreasonable course, and the Government would thus place themselves in the right in the opinion of all disinterested persons. He regretted that the Government had not pursued this course.

contended that this country had no right whatever to rob the exchequer of the Canadas, and by so doing raise the people to that resistance which must ultimately lead to the separation of the colony from the mother country. When the people of the colony found the Tory faction joined with the administration of the day in carrying these coercive resolutions, would they not doubt the sincerity of that government, who professed themselves anxious to carry out all necessary reforms in the Canadas?

declared that he would support the amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich. He thought the resolutions of the Government uncalled for, and worthy only of that party, the Tories, by whom they were supported.

said, that if he had not risen earlier it was not from any disrespect to the Committee that he had for- borne entering into the subject at issue. The sentiments and arguments which had been brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and others, he must confess did not alter in the slightest degree the view which he and the rest of his Majesty's Ministers had taken of this question. He would not, therefore, repeat his reply to arguments which had before been stated and made no impression on the House.

put the ninth Resolution—"That it is expedient that his Majesty be authorised to place at the disposal of the Legislature of the said province the net proceeds of his Majesty's hereditary, territorial, and casual revenue arising within the same, in case the said Legislature shall see fit to grant to his Majesty a civil list for defraying the necessary charges of the administration of justice, and for the maintenance and unavoidable expenses of certain of the principal offices of the civil government of the said province."

then put the tenth Resolution—"That great inconvenience has been sustained by his Majesty's subjects inhabiting the provinces of Lower Canada and Upper Canada, from the want of some adequate means for regulating and adjust- ing questions respecting the trade and commerce of the said provinces, and divers other questions wherein the said provinces have a common interest, and it is expedient that the legislatures of the said provinces respectively be authorised to make provision for the joint regulation and adjustment of such their common interests."

would take that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary. He wished to know in what position the difference of this country with the United States stood with respect to the disputed line of northeastern boundary? He wished to be informed whether that question had been adjusted, or whether any progress had been made towards an adjustment?

replied, that there had been a great many communications upon the subject between the governments of the two countries, and he could assure the right hon. Baronet that the government of each was animated by a sincere desire to come to an amicable arrangement. He must do this justice to the government of the United States, and to the late president especially, that the central government had laboured under great difficulty with regard to the negociation, from the circumstance of its discretion being limited by certain independent functions belonging to the government of Maine. There had not lately been any written communications on the subject, but many verbal communications had taken place between the government of this country and the American minister here, as well as between the British minister in America and the government of the United States. The whole correspondence upon the subject had been published by order of the Congress in the United States; and, on the publication, the right hon. Baronet would see all the official communications that had taken place upon the subject. He was sorry to say that there did not seem to be any prospect of an immediate settlement of the question.

wished to know if there would be any objection to lay before the British Parliament all the papers that had been published upon the subject in America?

asked whether the state of Maine was in the occupation of any portion of the disputed territory?

thought, that the whole of the territory was at present in our possession, with the clear understanding, however, that neither party was to exercise within its limits any rights that belonged to a permanent territorial sovereignty.

did not exactly see how that arrangement could be made. The land must be occupied by one party or the other. Was he to understand that it was at present occupied by British subjects?

replied, that the district was not inhabited. The territory was chiefly covered with forests, and it was agreed that neither party should cut wood in it until the question was finally settled. As regarded the question put to him by the hon. Member for Middlesex, he begged to state that there could be no objection to produce all the correspondence that took place upon the subject, except that it would be a departure from a very wholesome rule generally acted upon in that country, of not producing any papers relating to negotiations still pending. As the papers in question, however, had been published by order of Congress, he did not see that there could be any objection in placing them before the House.

thought, the noble Lord could not be aware that the government of Maine had passed some regulations which operated severely upon the neglected and destitute condition of the inhabitants of the disputed territory. The noble Lord said, that Great Britain was in occupation of the territory, but that she could not enforce the rights of occupation. The truth was that at that time there were a great number of persons who were cutting down trees, who were peopling the land, and who were called—a large portion of them—citizens of the United States. The population consisted, indeed, of refugees from both sides of the territory—rogues and vagabonds—who found there a safe asylum from the laws of either country.

thought, that the hon. and learned Gentleman must refer to another part of the country, and not to the territory in dispute.

observed, that the tribunal would be composed of a joint committee of the Legislatures of both provinces, sitting at Montreal, and deliberating in common on all matters relating to the interests of both provinces. It was not intended that it should sit as a court of impeachment or a court of appeal, but was to recommend measures for appointing such a court of appeal as should be applicable to both countries.

said, that he believed the noble Lord had a string of bills all tending to mitigate the severity of the Criminal law. Would it not be advantageous to codify them, and to comprehend them all in one statute?

thought that it would be better to discuss the Bills separately. After the Legislature had discussed them, and made any alterations in them that might appear advisable, they might then perhaps be advantageously combined in one statute.

said, he was not aware that the Bills which the noble Lord had charge of would have been brought on that night, and he believed the greater part of the House was equally unprepared for the discussion of them. In the present state of the criminal legislation of this country it was necessary to deal with it effectively and to take a comprehensive view of the nature and effects of secondary punishments. He did not mean to say, that a defective state of our secondary punishments was a sufficient cause why the punishment of death should be increased or continued; but it was absolutely necessary that a complete notion of the effects of both should be had before legislation on the subject was proceeded to. The speech of the noble Lord, in introducing the Bills in question, was condemnatory of the punishment of death as an effective preventive of crime; but it was not more satisfactory in respect to the secondary punishments. For instance, he said that transportation was not an ef- fective punishment. [Lord John Russell: at present.] He also said that imprisonment period was equally so. The noble Lord's speech led to the inevitable conclusion that although the punishment of death was unsatisfactory for the purpose for which it was intended, the punishments of transportation and imprisonment were equally so. What then, was to be done? It was most important, in awarding secondary punishments to be well informed as to those which were likely to prove the most efficient. The noble Lord was bound to satisfy the House on that subject before it adopted his measures. There was a Committee moved for by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Cornwall, respecting transportation, which might lead to some result like that desired in one branch of the subject at least. For several years the state of the prisons had occupied the attention of the Legislature, and in that time, various laws had been passed for their regulation. But in the present state of New South Wales—having outgrown, as it was asserted, its original condition of a penal settlement — it was necessary to ascertain whether the time 'had arrived when the question should be duly considered. He did not object to the second reading of any of the noble Lord's Bills; reserving to himself, however, the right of considering in Committee the extent to which the noble Lord proposed carrying their provisions. If it were decided that transportation to New South Wales was not an efficient secondary punishment, he very much feared too much confidence must not be placed in the substitution of an extended period of imprisonment as a secondary punishment. He was sorry the noble Lord brought this subject on this evening, when it was not expected. An opportunity, however, would offer for its future discussion; and in the present state of public business he was unwilling to delay any proceeding of that nature. The noble Lord, in his speech the other evening, referred to certain documents showing the effect which the mitigation of punishment had already produced with respect to the crime of forgery. Had the noble Lord documents showing that there had been a diminution in the number of forgeries? If he had, it would be a strong justification of the Legislature in proceeding in the same course. Before the Committee on the Bill, he hoped the noble Lord would lay on the table of the House all the information which he possessed with reference to the state of crime, and especially of forgery, not only in the metropolis, but in the provinces.

in the present state of public business, could not defer proceeding with this Bill. On a question which necessarily attracted the attention of the judges of the country, it was highly important that time should be given for the consideration of legislative measures in a state sufficiently advanced for the purpose. With respect to secondary punishments, the right hon. Baronet was perfectly right in stating it to be his opinion, that transportation and imprisonment were far less efficient as secondary punishments than he could wish them to be. That was a question, however, which did not bear quite so much upon the present Bill as the right hon. Baronet seemed to imagine. For he (Lord John Russell) did not pretend, that while the Bill limited the number of capital offences, it would have the effect of limiting the number of executions; the fact being, that although the existing law still retained capital punishments for the forgery of wills and powers of attorney, and although forgeries of wills and powers of attorney had occurred since the passing of that law, not a single execution for either of those offences had taken place. As to the documents respecting which the right hon. Baronet had inquired, he (Lord John Russell) had no others than those to which he had the other evening referred; but he agreed that it was highly desirable to collect all the information possible on the subject; and he would take care that if any existed it should be laid on the table of the House. He believed that the general result with respect to forgery was, not that that crime had diminished since the mitigation of punishment, but it had not increased; and the number of convictions in proportion to acquittals had greatly increased—a circumstance which, in his opinion, would operate very actively in the diminution of the crime. It had been distinctly shown that juries were very reluctant to convict of forgery when the punishment was capital. Before he proceeded with another stage of the Bill, he would take care to give due notice of his intention.

said, there was another point on which he wished to say a word, and that was, to recommend to the noble Lord the suggestion that had been thrown out of eventually combining the four or five Bills, the object of which was the mitigation of punishment, in one measure.

maintained, that the delay which existed in the public business, was entirely attributable to the other side of the House. See their conduct during the last week. The motion respecting Spain, was merely a party question, brought forward for the purpose of delaying the public business. He did not care for the cry of question, whether it proceeded from one side of the House or the other. He repeated, that there was evidently on the part of those who were opposed to his Majesty's Government, a systematic resolution to delay the public business.

suggested, that there should be a clause in the Bill providing that although the capital punishment was repealed, the offence should still be tried at the assizes.

wished the House to give the principle of the Bill further discussion. At all events, he approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. Lennard) that all cases of forgery should still be tried at the assizes.

observed, that if the House objected to the principle of the abolition of death in cases of forgery, they had better throw out the Bill altogether.

said, that the noble Lord seemed to imply, by assenting to the second reading of this Bill, the House would be bound specifically to agree to the abolition of the punishment of death in all cases of forgery. He was not prepared at the present moment to go to that extent; he therefore hoped that, in allowing the Bill to be read a second time, he should not be precluded from making any objections which might hereafter appear to be proper, when the Bill should go into Committee.

was of opinion that the principle of the Bill did not go far enough.

had understood by the noble Lord's former speech that the object of the Bill was to take away from the Secretary of State for the Home Department the power of preventing the execution of capital punishment. He was rather averse from that, as he could not think the sentence of the judge altogether relieved the Secretary of State from the responsibility of advising the crown to carry the sentence into execution.

did not think it proper that the Secretary of State should have it in his power to say—"It is my opinion that such a law should not exist,"—as that which the judges had been already called upon to administer, in a case where they had reported that they could find no mitigating circumstances.

there were 432 capital convictions for burglaries; and, out of these, only one carried into execution. The presumption of law was that, to meet the justice of all these cases, all the criminals should have been executed; but the fact was that the Secretary of State had opposed the judgment of the courts which tried them, and successfully intervened in 431 cases out of the 432. Ought such a power lightly to be abrogated?

The judge under this act, would not be bound to sentence according to the finding of the jury, nor must the sentence be carried, of necessity, into execution. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that if, in this measure, we were making a retrograde movement in the course of consolidation already entered upon, we should be doing something that would be highly objectionable.

did not think the punishment of death should be abolished in any of these cases without much careful consideration and for this reason—that the property of the subject required to be protected by the strong arm of the law; —If death were not inflicted in the more heinous cases, the crime of burglary would be fearfully increased. Very few persons undertook to commit a midnight burglary, who would not, if the exigency of the case required it, commit the crime of murder. He concurred in that part of the clause, which leaves the consideration of the question of carrying capital sentences into execution to the merciful consideration of his Majesty.

did not like vesting discretionary power in judges. He would remind the House, of Lord Camden's dictum on that subject, "that the decision of the judges is the law of tyrants. It is a law unknown — different in different men —casual, and governed by their conscientiousness, their temper, and many other circumstances."

thought the bill would alter the law for the worse. The object ought to be to make the law as certain as possible; but this bill actually offered a strong temptation to murder. Suppose a man to break into a house, and to be nearly taken, he would make a vigorous endeavour to escape and might knock down his antagonist. But doing so, and being seen by a constable, for example, to have put his foot in the house, he would subject himself to the punishment of death. If, to secure his escape, in the first instance, he was to commit murder, his situation would be not one wit worse than if he had only struck the constable, and been taken in his attempt to escape. It could not be the intention of the House to put the two offences on the same footing of punishment; for, if it were, instead of one case of murder, there would, be scores in a year.

objected to the discretion proposed to vest in the judge, though he knew that certain limits in these matters must be allowed to him. But that discretion should be as little as possible; and those limits should be so well defined and fixed, that he should not be readily able to pass them.

said, as far as he could learn, the judges had always exercised the soundest discretion, and given the utmost satisfaction. He doubted the soundness of the principle set up to-night by the Gentlemen on the other side of the House, who thought that, by diminishing the punishment at present attached to the crime, they should materially diminish the number of burglaries. It was a received opinion, that men were acted upon by the hope of reward or the fear of punishment. He thought that the operation of a measure like this would be the reverse; and that there was a vice in its principle. The law affixed the penalty of death to burglary and wisely left it to the discretion of the judge, guided by the facts of the case, to determine the nature of the sentence. They had heard from the hon. Member for South Durham, that out of 432 convictions, in only one case was the penalty of death inflicted, these offenders, then, were under a salutary fear of being punished with death which if anything could, would have prevented their delinquency. In a former Session of Parliament, a law passed, which took away the punishment of death for the offence of sheep stealing. A magistrate of the highest respectability, had, however, informed him that, where they used to lose one sheep, they now, under the altered law, lost ten. In the parish where he resided the offence of sheep stealing has also increased tenfold. The punishment under the new statute was transportation; and he admitted, that that punishment fell with much more certainty on the criminal, than the capital punishment. But the increase of the cases proved that the mitigation of the punishment in no way discouraged the frequency of the offence. They had taken away the fear of death, and had thus diminished the fear of committing the crime. The experience of ages taught our ancestors that it was much wiser to affix a heavy and extreme penalty to burglary, robbery, and violence, and to leave it in the discretion of the judge to mitigate that penalty according to the character of the facts. And he must challenge hon. Gentlemen who talked so freely and so self-complacently about their strong objections to lodging this discretion with the judges, to come forward with authenticated instances—in which those venerable and learned persons had abused their discretionary power. He was prepared to maintain, that they had ever exercised it with the greatest wisdom and humanity. He willingly gave the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, every credit for the purity of his motives in proposing this change in the penal code; at the same time he thought it was a very mischievous alteration, and it was impossible for him to support the noble Lord's proposition.

could not agree with his hon. Friend; for his argument, as to the results which the experience of our ancestors had arrived at, and the expediency of our imitating those results, would go to affix the penalty of death to every offence against person or property, however modified or mitigated by the circumstances attending it. He could not perceive the expediency or propriety of the doctrine which prompted our ancestors to exact the life of a man for robbing another man of his sheep. The question immediately be- fore the House was, shall we diminish the discretion of the judge in apportioning; sentences in criminal cases; however theoretically perfect the state of that law might be which affixed certain punishments to certain offences it would be impossible in practice to confine the discretion of the judge in sentencing for those offences within certain and specific limits. The administration of the criminal law, could not be so administered. If they were to require that the punishment affixed to each offence, as its penalty, should be inflicted in every instance, the law would become of such intolerable severity that the public would revolt at its execution. The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool seemed to think, that the Legislature should limit the discretion within certain defined limits, because of the variety of tempers and feelings, in the different judges; but since he admitted, in the same breath, that some such limits must be allowed, it was evident, from his own argument founded on this variety, that the other part of his proposition, as to laying down certain defined and specific limits, beyond which this discretion should not be carried, was altogether impracticable. He was however prepared to admit, that if practically you were to assign no limits to the exercise of this discretion on the part of the judges, you would be countenancing a practice to the full as absurd and inexpedient as that which your specific limitations would, undoubtedly, introduce.

was far from fearing that the discretionary power of the judges was abused; apprehensive, lest, in regulating or amending the existing law, they should too much narrow its exercise. To the judicious occasions upon which this had been put forth, and the beneficial consequences which had ensued from it, he could speak from personal observation.

said, with regard to the case suggested by the hon. Member for Finsbury, as to the liability which a man would expose himself to, if, being caught in the commission of a burglarious offence, he were to knock down or wound a constable in the attempt to effect his escape; it was merely necessary to say, that that would be a case in which the judge who tried it would certainly affirm, that that was not a case which this part of the law was intended to visit.