Sir, I take this opportunity, as I stated I would to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the other night, of making some inquiries with respect to the probable progress of public business; and, in doing so, I hope the House will permit me to refer to a document before Parliament as one of the principal reasons why I have thought proper to institute them. It appears, by a Parliamentary return of the business of last Session, that in the month of Juno there were nineteen Public Bills introduced, of which thirteen passed; that in July there were thirty-eight public Bills introduced, of which twenty-six passed; and that so late as in the month of August there were forty-two Bills introduced, of which thirty-five passed; so that, in those three months, ninety-four Public Bills were introduced, of which seventy-four passed; and the greater proportion of those seventy-four passed in the month of August. I believe it is the feeling of the House, and I am sure, from having acted with the noble Lord at the head of the Government on the Committee on Public Business, it is the feeling of Government, that it is by no means desirable the general conduct of business in this House should afford a premium to precipitate legislation. At this moment I observe that the Government have introduced, during this Session, sixty-four Bills, of which thirty-two have passed this House, two have been withdrawn, and thirty still remain upon our table. As this is nearly the middle of June, and as we can form some conception now how the probable remainder of the Session may be occupied, I think it not impertinent to inquire of the Government what are their intentions with respect to those thirty Bills which still remain on the table? At this moment there are on the table eleven Government measures relating to Ireland, of which six only have been road a second time. Those Bills are as follows:—Dublin Improvement Bill, Poor Relief Bill, Qualification of Voters Bill, Elections and Polling Places Bill, Estates Leasing Bill, Dublin Rates Collection Bill, Dublin Newgate Bill, County Cess Bill, Municipal Corporations Bill, Turnpike Roads Bill, and Punishment for Assault Bill. I will remind the House that already fourteen measures relating to Ireland have been passed during this Session. And after that I think I may legitimately inquire of the noble Lord whether it be his serious intention to proceed with some of those Bills—for example, the Qualification of Voters Bill, or the Election and Polling Places Bill, which is connected with the preceding? The noble Lord will, I am sure, agree with me that the subject of these measures is of the highest interest and importance. Hon. Gentlemen, even those connected with Ireland, will also, I think agree with me, that not only is it of the greatest importance that those measures should not be precipitately passed, but that of all possible periods the present is one when legislation on such subjects is least necessary and expedient. This is a point, however, on which I will not now dwell, but I think the House will agree with me that it is of the highest consequence that Bills of such importance should not be introduced at the fag end of a Session; and therefore I hope the noble Lord will feel it consistent with his duty to tell us explicitly whether he intends to proceed this Session with the measures to which I have particularly adverted. There is another group of measures on the table connected with Scotland. I am not very familiar with the details of those measures, but they appear, on the face of them and by their very titles, to be measures of very great interest. There are at this moment six Bills relating to Scotland on the table in their first stage—the Lunatics Bill, the Public Health Bill, the Police of Towns Bill, the Pupils' Protection Bill, the Marriage Bill, and the Registration of Births, &c., Bill. I think it not unreasonable to inquire of the Government—and I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House must take an interest in the inquiry—what are the Scotch Bills they intend to proceed with, and when they will most probably do so? But besides those two important classes of Irish and Scotch Bills, there is a third, a more numerous and still more important class—which I will term Miscellaneous Bills, and when I read their titles to the House they will see in a moment they are upon subjects of universal interest in many instances, in all of very great importance, and that there is nothing which would be more to be deprecated than that a House, few in numbers, and at the end of the Session, should be called upon to legislate upon them in a hurried and uninformed manner. These Bills are as follows:—the Clergy Relief Bill, Charitable Trusts Bill, Administration of Justice in Metropolitan Districts Bill, Ecclesiastical Commission Bill, Joint Stock Companies' Act (1848) Amendment Bill, General and Quarter Sessions Procedure Bill, Stock-in-Trade Exemption Bill, Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Bill, Loan Societies Bill, Marriages Abroad Bill, Railways Amendment Bill, India Desertion Bill, and last, but not least important, the Australian Colonies Bill. Now, I think we may very fairly inquire which of those thirteen measures the noble Lord intends to proceed with? It certainly is of great importance that the House should understand whether, for instance, the measure—the Australian Bill—of which copies were distributed only today among hon. Members, is really to be proceeded with this year or not. I, for one, should greatly object to a measure of that importance being introduced at the end of the month of August; even late in July I don't think it should be introduced. I should be very sorry if that were to take place which happened last year—that a Bill should be sent up to the other House on the 1st of September—a fact which appears by the return to which I have already referred. There is another point on which I would ask some information from the Government. I would ask the noble Lord whether he has taken into consideration any method by which that spirit of precipitate legislation to which I have referred, may be retarded and prevented for the future? I know well that the noble Lord, when he acted on the Committee on the state of public business, gave his attention to this subject, and that he is animated by a sincere desire to prevent these evils. I would ask him then if he has any objection to support a regulation which should define the term for the introduction of Public Bills similar to that we have already adopted for the introduction of Private Bills? I am persuaded that unless we come to a resolution of that character, we cannot get rid of the inconvenience. I am willing to admit that such a rule should not apply to continuing Bills, or to Bills which a political emergency might lead the Government to adopt. But it should apply to Bills which relate to questions on which, with a fair prescience of public affairs before Parliament has met, or before the Session is advanced, the Government might feel that they were called on to legislate. These are the inquiries I think it necessary to make—first, because we ought to have a fair statement of what course is intended to be taken with respect to the measures brought before Parliament this year; and, secondly, because I thought these remarks might in some measure check the tendency to pass laws at a time when the House is attended only by a few Members, and when public business is conducted in that hurried manner which we all so much deplore.

begged to observe that there was another Bill which had been promised at the commencement of the Session which had not yet been introduced, for the amendment of the grand jury system, and which might he made to work advantageously in aid of the Poor-law Bill. He wished to know if the Government intended to bring in that Bill? He hoped the noble Lord would not be induced to abandon any of the Irish Bills on the table of the House, for they were all of great importance to Ireland; or be induced, by what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite, to indicate any intention of cutting short the Session.

said, that if the hon. Gentleman was going to make any other inquiry respecting any Bill, he was at liberty to proceed; but not comment upon it.

said, he was about to ask the noble Lord another question. From information he had received from Ireland of a most indubitable and unqualified character, he was sorry to learn that the potato disease had broken out again in several parts of the country. He, therefore, wished to know if the noble Lord was prepared to bring forward any other measure to meet the distress in Ireland, which, though great at present, was likely to be quadrupled before the end of the year.

Sir, I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Buckinghamshire, that we ought to endeavour, if possible, not to take measures of great interest and importance at so late a period of the Session as the month of August. I agree with him, that it ought to be our endeavour to prevent the introduction at that period of any Bill likely to lead to much discussion; but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman who has spoken last, in entertaining any apprehension of the Session being prematurely brought to a close, or of hon. Gentlemen being dismissed to their homes before they are willing and ready to go. So far, however, as the conduct of business is at present concerned, I may remark to the hon. Gentleman opposite that there were in the course of this week four hundred and eighty Members who voted upon a division—a number which, taken along with that of the hon. Members who are in London, but who were unable that night to attend, shows that there are upwards of 500 Members still in town. It cannot, then, at present be said that there is such a want of attendance as to prevent measures from being satisfactorily considered in the House. For these reasons, then, and others, I would postpone any reply to the inquiries of the hon. Gentleman, at least with regard to several of the measures to which he has alluded. I will endeavour, however, before the 1st of July to state, as respects these measures, what is the course which we propose to adopt. Instead, however, of referring to the Bills in respect to which I can give some information in the order in which the hon. Gentleman has alluded to them, I shall first refer to the business with which we propose to proceed immediately, and then I will refer to the measures with which we cannot proceed during the present Session of Parliament. Now, as to the former class of Bills, the House will naturally expect that the Irish poor-law should have precedence. We have already gone into Committee on that measure; it stands for discussion to-night; and if we should not make much progress with it in the course of this evening, we propose that it shall stand first for Monday next, and that we should proceed as fast as the House will allow in discussing the various points of the measure, and the various propositions made in respect to it. I do not say at present, in answer to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that we have any particular measure in contemplation with respect to the failure of the potatoes in Ireland, or to any famine which may occur. Our general accounts go to show that although in some cases the potato disease has reappeared, still that these instances do not justify serious apprehensions. There are some other measures with regard to Ireland which have been introduced by my right hon. Friend the Irish Chief Secretary. There are the Municipal and the Collection of Rates Bills, and also another Bill referring to a question much agitated and debated, with respect to the corporation of the city of Dublin, and with which I think it necessary to deal. Next, with regard to Scotland, there are the Marriage and Registration Bills, which have already passed through the other House of Parliament, and are now ready for consideration here. I trust that the House will take these Bills into consideration, because, admitting that there are Bills with respect to Ireland of considerable interest and importance which must be entertained, I do not think that it would be just to exclude Scotland from her share in the time which still belongs to us. There is also a measure which has come from the other House—a measure which is not properly a Government one, but relating to a subject of such vast importance that I think it will he the duty of Government to pay every attention to that Bill, with the view at least of passing a measure upon the subject. I allude to the Bankruptcy Bill. It is a very extensive and voluminous Bill; but I understand from the noble and learned Lord, its originator, that the greater part of that volume consists of consolidations and re-enactments of what is already law; and with respect to that part of the measure, the House will probably not think it necessary to pay particular attention. I should propose that that Bill be read a second time on Monday, and that it be then referred to a Select Committee of Gentlemen who are connected with the bankruptcy law, and with the practice of trade; and I trust that in a short time this Committee may pronounce such an opinion as to the proposed changes of the law and the distribution of offices, that we may come to a satisfactory result with the measure in question. There is a matter, with regard to one Irish question, in respect to which it will be necessary to ask the House for a vote in Supply. There appears to us to be a necessity for postponing the opening of the Irish colleges, an event which was fixed for this year, but for which this year does not appear to be a desirable period. The new arrangement will require a slight alteration in the existing law; and we also propose at the same time to take the full estimate of the expense, half only having been hitherto voted in Committee of Supply. The Ordnance Estimates, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, have not yet boon taken, and these will occupy some time. In respect to the measures which I do not propose to go on with in the course of the present year, I can state at once that I will not propose to proceed with the Bill for the Qualification of Voters and the Polling Places (Ireland) Bill. I think that these Bills, proper and necessary as they are, rest yet upon considerations and principles of a different class from those which the House has hitherto had under consideration. I do not think it expedient that any such new class of questions should be raised. With respect to the Lunatics (Scotland) Bill, it is not intended to persevere with the measure during the present Session. As to the other Bills to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, I should say that, although they are numerous, and appear to show that there is a great amount of business under consideration, they are many of them either Bills for continuing former Acts, or for extending and amending in a short form former Acts which have been passed. In the months of February and March, such measures would not probably excite much attention in this House. With respect to other measures, I am unable to say at present what may be the feeling of the House with regard to them; but I do not think that the great importance of those Bills should be assigned as a reason for abandoning them in the month of July. I think that if the opinion of the House generally is that these Bills are sound in principle, and require but trifling alterations, it would be for the public benefit that they should pass. I do not think, if such a general feeling exists, that the absence of Members from this House at that period of the Session affords a valid reason for surrendering those Bills. But whether there is that general feeling with respect to those measures must, of course, depend upon the introduction of them. I do not think I need more particularly allude to those measures, as before the end of the month I shall be able to state the intentions of the Government with respect to them. With respect, however, to the suggestion of the hon. Member, that public measures should not be introduced after a certain day, as is the custom with private Bills, I certainly cannot assent to his views. I feel as strongly as any one the evils under which we have now been suffering for some years, of having important measures brought in in the month of August, when neither in this House nor in the other House of Parliament there is a sufficient attendance of Members to give the proper consideration to them. I feel, also, the evil of Members of the two Houses being kept away from those duties in their different counties which are often of as much consequence as the duties which attach to them in Parliament. But I really think that if we were to make any rule by which no public measures should be introduced after a certain date, we should soon find the inconvenience of it; and that the House would frequently have to violate it. To allude, for instance, to questions relating to the peace of Ireland. I trust it may not be my painful duty, during the remainder of the Session, to have to introduce any measures of a restrictive nature with respect to that country; but if any necessity should arise for such measures, it would be quite impossible to adhere to any rule of the kind when circumstances imperatively required their introduction.

I have now only further to say, that there are some other measures which will have to be introduced, but which I do not think Parliament can pass in the course of the present year. The most important of these is a measure to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who introduced the Navigation Bill to this House. It is a measure supplementary to the Navigation Bill, and will be an Act for the better regulation of the laws, and for the general better management of the mercantile marine of this country. Although I cannot hope that that measure will be passed during the present Session, I nevertheless think it desirable that the House should be in possession of the views of the Government with respect to that measure, and I also think it of importance that the parties most affected by it should have full time to consider it. I do not think it necessary now to make any Motion on the subject, having stated as fully as I can what are the views of the Government with respect to public business for the remainder of the Session.

understood the noble Lord to say that it was not his intention to persevere with a measure for improving the franchise in Ireland during the present Session, although the noble Lord made no such reservation with respect to measures of coercion. But there was a question of deep importance affecting that unhappy country—he meant the Landlord and Tenant Bill. Private Members of the House had been prevented from bringing in a Bill on the subject; and he begged to ask the Government whether they were not prepared to do something to settle that vexed question, which in the opinion of those who knew Ireland well, was at the bottom of all the social distractions and miseries in that country, and the cause of much of the bloodshed they had had to deplore. He should like to be informed whether any steps would be taken with respect to that subject during the present Session?

observed that a measure had been prepared on this subject last Session, and had been referred to a Select Committee. The Government had not been able to press that Bill in the course of the present Session, and he did not think there would be time to give due consideration to a measure of so much importance. With respect to the measure for improving the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, it was now before the other House of Parliament. If any private Member were to deal with the matter, he thought the hon. Member for Rochdale was the person most entitled to the attention of the House.

begged to suggest to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire the propriety of laying on the table of the House the specific resolution he intended to move on bringing forward his promised Motion. It was desirable that the House should know whether the corn laws and the navigation laws and other topics would form an element in his Motion.

Subject dropped.

observed, that from what had taken place in the other House of Parliament, it would appear, with respect to a certain message said to have been delivered from the Government of France to that of England, that the communication had not only taken place verbally, but in writing. The noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs had stated that by to-day he would be prepared to state how far he could consent to produce any document bearing on the subject.

I will lay before the House to-morrow that communication which I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman as having taken place between the Pope's Representative at the Court of Paris and Her Majesty's Government, and also the reply made through our Ambassador at Paris; and from that reply the hon. Gentleman will see the views of the British Government on the Roman question. With respect to the communications which have taken place between the French Government and the Government of this country, as to the views and intentions, and the course to be pursued by the French Government with respect to the affairs of Rome, I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House will see that, considering the state of things at present existing at Paris—considering that the French Government is being now interrogated in the French Assembly with respect to these matters—I think my hon. Friend and the House will be of opinion, as I certainly am of opinion, that it will be more proper and fitting to abstain from laying those papers before the House—papers professing to contain the views and sentiments of the French Government. I think it will be better that the French Government should be left to state its own case to its own Parliament, and that any explanations which might be desired in this House should be postponed until after the French Government has stated its own case.

thought that the noble Lord, by his answer, had placed the House in a somewhat unfortunate situation. He was afraid that the impression would be left on the public mind that we were implicated in these transactions. What he desired, was such a declaration as should free us from the suspicion of having been at all mixed up in the atrocious proceedings of which Rome was the theatre.

said, he thought it was desirable that any opinion should be suspended until the production of the papers. After that had been done, his hon. Friend might found any question on them he thought proper.

was anxious to know whether the noble Lord intended to qualify his denial that England had given any sanction, direct or indirect, to the French expedition against Rome?

I do not mean in any way to qualify the statement I made, that Her Majesty's Government had no participation whatever in that expedition to Rome.

Subject dropped.

wished to know whether it was the intention of the hon. Member for Montrose to press his Motion with respect to British Guiana, on the Motion for going into Supply, to-morrow. Such a course was unusual, especially as it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-morrow evening to bring forward his budget. On this particular subject, he thought the hon. Gentleman would see reasons for not bringing forward the Motion during the present year. A Committee had been sitting on the subject of British Guiana, and the effect of their decision on the colony could not yet be ascertained. He had received, only yesterday, a long letter from the Governor of British Guiana, in answer to certain inquiries which he made of him before he left this country, and he stated that he had paid most serious attention to the constitution of the colony; but as he had not sufficiently matured his opinions, he did not think it proper to give them in an official shape. He (Lord J. Russell), at the same time, conceived the views contained in that letter were of very great importance, but did not think it advisable at present to lay them before the House, more especially as the views of the colony in the present state of the question were not then known. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his intention of proceeding with his Motion.

admitted that it was an unusual circumstance to make such a Motion on going into Supply; but he was placed in an unusual situation; and probably the history of the British colonies did not record an instance of anything like that which was now taking place in British Guiana. A dispute between the constituted authorities and a Government officer had been twice referred to the decision of the House of Commons. A Committee, to whom the question had been referred, had in reality come to no decision at all. He wanted the House of Commons to pass a law, aye or no, showing the colonies the situation in which they were to be placed. By despatches up to the date of the 30th of April, it appeared that Governor Barkly and the constituted authorities had come to a complete stop, the Governor having put a check to discussion in the Combined Court, and all the supplies having been stopped. The declaration of both parties in the colonies was, that they should await the decision of the House of Commons. The packet would sail on the 16th, and he thought it most extraordinary that the Government should not be prepared with some answer, one way or other. In the present distressed state of the colony, he appealed to the justice of the House of Commons to come to some decision on the subject. The supplies of the colony had been stopped since September: not one shilling of the public money had been legally received, the colony was in a state of confusion, and, in fact, without a Government. Unless the noble Lord would consent to fix a day on which the Motion should come on, he must persevere to-morrow, as the case in question was one of crying injustice, and should be dealt with without delay.

observed that the noble Lord had referred to the subject of the new constitution. The question which the hon. Member for Montrose meant to bring forward referred to the violation of the present constitution, and he thought the hon. Member was entitled to have a day fixed for bringing on his Motion.

said, he could not see why he should be called upon to put off important measures to enable this question to he brought on. Perhaps the hon. Member for Montrose could prevail upon other Members of the House having Motions on the Paper to waive their right in his favour.

said, he thought it would be very inconvenient for the House to be left in doubt as to the course which the hon. Member for Montrose intended to pursue to-morrow. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had declined to give up a Government day, and had suggested to the hon. Member to use his influence with others who had a vested interest in the Order of the Day to waive their Motions. Perhaps the hon. Member would state whether he intended to bring on his Motion or not?

said, that as the question to which he was about to draw attention involved nothing less than a gross violation of the constitution of a colony, and as the Government declined to give up a day to him, he should certainly persevere with his Motion on going into Supply.

You will bring it on?

Yes.

Subject dropped.

begged to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the correctness or incorrectness of certain allegations which had appeared in one of the journals of to-day, with respect to deaths which had recently occurred in the Ballinasloe union. The question was one of the greatest importance to Members of that House. It was of the first importance that, in transacting their business after the close of the Session, and after their duties in Parliament had ended, that they should not be misrepresented in the public journals when in discharge of duties, performed in conformity with the order of Committees of the House of Commons. He therefore begged leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention had been drawn to a paragraph contained in one of the leading journals of this country—he might say one of the most distinguished among the journals of this country—which attributed what it called "the horrors of the union of Ballinasloe" to the way in which the poorlaw was administered by a noble relative of his, the Earl of Clancarty? The paragraph stated specifically, that those horrors were the result of the poor-law as administered by the Earl of Clancarty; the board, also, having thought proper to restrict the use of outdoor relief, as much as lay in their power.

said, that he had seen a letter in one of the newspapers, the Times , from a gentleman travelling in Ireland—a gentleman well known as a correspondent of the paper in question—referring to the state of the town and workhouse of Ballinasloe. But he had not collected from that letter that the slightest charge was made against the Earl of Clancarty. On the contrary, he understood the letter to give the greatest credit to the Earl of Clancarty for the manner in which he had discharged his duties. He believed there was no man in Ireland who deserved greater praise for the admirable manner in which he discharged every social and public duty than the Earl of Clancarty.

Subject at an end.

asked whether the Ecclesiastical Commission Bill was to he proceeded with? The question had been before the House three or four years; a commission had been appointed and reappointed last year; they had come to a unanimous report, on which this Bill had been founded; and it was probable it would pass with very little trouble, and no opposition whatever. He did not doubt the assurance already given by the noble Lord that the Bill would be proceeded with, and begged to apologise for putting a question which might imply a doubt; but there were such doubts entertained out of the House.

said, this was one of the Bills on which he had wished to reserve giving an answer when the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had asked his question. Could he be assured that that Bill would pass with very little trouble and no opposition, he should have no hesitation in proceeding with it. But the opinions he had heard did not quite confirm that anticipation. However, if he found there was a general feeling that the Bill should be agreed to, he would certainly proceed with it; but he would give no explicit assurance. If, on the other hand, he found that opposite opinions were entertained on the Bill, he should be obliged to take a different course. He must therefore reserve till a future day any positive statement on the subject. He might take that opportunity of answering a question which the hon. Gentleman had put on a former day, as to the course which would be taken by the Bishop of Durham for dividing the living of Bishop Wearmouth. The right rev. Prelate's first impression had been that it was not possible to carry out the proposed arrangement without applying to Parliament for increased power. However, on coming to London, and consulting with his legal advisers and others, he had been told that it would be possible, by a scheme to be approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and afterwards by Her Majesty in Council, to carry into effect the arrangement he proposed for a better distribution of the livings of Bishop Wearmouth. A draft of the scheme had been prepared, to be submitted to the Council, and if Her Majesty were advised that the course was one that should be adopted, it would be approved by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and by Her Majesty in Council; but before that time the hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of seeing the draft of the scheme proposed. Subject at an end.

would call the attention of the House for a few moments to this Bill, which had come back from the other House. Had the Lords' Amendments been of any importance, he should have felt it his duty to propose that they should be printed, and a day appointed for their consideration. But when he stated how few and trifling they were, he trusted there would be no objection to dealing with them at once. The only Amendment deserving of notice related to a point already discussed in that House. In the original Bill, it was proposed not to alter the law relating to the manning of British ships, which required three-fourths of the crew to be British seamen. Afterwards a proviso had been introduced in the way of relaxation, allowing any number of foreigners to be employed where there was a certain proportion of British seamen to the tonnage. Gentlemen intimately connected with the shipping interest had represented to him that this relaxation, though entirely permissive, would be objectionable to the shipping interest; and, as the proviso was intended solely for the relief of the merchant service, he had withdrawn it, on the understanding that they did not wish for it. However, on further consideration, the same gentlemen who had applied to him to strike out the proviso were of opinion that it should remain, and they requested a noble Lord in the other House to reintroduce it. This had been done; and he hoped the House would have no difficulty in agreeing to it. He would therefore move that the Lords' Amendments to the Navigation Bill should be taken into consideration.

was sorry that the Lords had made such very slight Amendments in the Bill; he would rather have acquiesced in much larger changes. However, he perfectly agreed to such alterations and amendments as had been made. He wished to interpose no unnecessary or trifling objections in the way of this fatal measure; the opposition to it had been from the beginning frank, honourable, and straightforward; and he deeply lamented that they had not been able to obtain its rejection. He should never cease to lament its passing; and he hoped the time might not speedily arrive when those who proposed it would bitterly repent having done so, and of having carried it successfully through both Houses.

thought it would be better to provide for our ships being well manned by a bonâ fide enactment than by a mere proviso. Every day accounts were arriving of losses of ships at sea; and it was impossible to prevent this unless they were sufficiently manned.

wished to know whether the Government intended to bring in any measure to relieve the shipping interest from the duties which now pressed upon them?

said, that he hoped in another Session to lay a Bill on the table of the House for the regulation of the light-dues.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to relieve the shipping interest of the duties on timber and marine insurance. It was not enough to say that a Bill was to be brought in. What they wanted was, to have a Bill passed which should relieve the shipping interest of this country of those burdens of which they complained.

said, that he did not recollect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself to remove the duties on timber and marine assurance. He was anxious that the shipping interest should be relieved of any burdens of which they could justly complain.

On the Amendment relating to the number of men to be employed in vessels being read,

said, he should divide the House on this Amendment.

said, that the words of the Amendment were exactly the same as those in the Bill originally brought into the House, and which were struck out after some discussion. As the matter was of little importance, the power being altogether permissive, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide.

said, he believed this was the clause which the right hon. Gentleman took out, at his request, in Committee. It was to remove an impression which existed in the minds of seamen, that it was necessary to have four or five seamen on board for every 100 tons. He had been speaking to a captain, who explained to him the great mischief which this impression had created. He believed that the clause, if struck out, would leave the law as it was. What he desired, was to remove the false impression that five seamen were necessary for every 100 tons. He should prefer not to have the clause inserted, but he would not divide the House, or make any opposition to it.

declined dividing.

Amendments agreed to.

Sir, the vote just read affords an appropriate opportunity for the observations I am about to make on a question of vital interest in relation to Canada, because it partly in itself implies, and partly serves to remind the House of the full extent of the responsibilities devolving upon us in virtue of our relation to that colony. We have not merely to consider in regard to it the general doctrine of the necessary supremacy of the mother country over a colonial dependency, but we have also to recollect that, in regard to Canada, the responsibilities connected with the fulfilment of the first duty of a Government—namely, the maintenance of public order, are responsibilities which are discharged, not by the people of Canada at their own cost, but by the people of England, under the auspices of the Crown, and under the sanction of the British Government. I mention this, Sir, because it has an important bearing on the question I am about to discuss. And now, with respect to the course that I am about to take, I have placed on the Votes of the House nothing beyond a general intimation that it was my intention to call the attention of the House to certain parts of an Act which has recently passed through the provincial legislature of Canada, and has received the assent of the Governor; and it being obvious that the intention to draw the notice of the House to such an Act implies, in some form, either scruple or objection, it may have appeared strange to many, that I have not added to that notice some distinct Motion that I would submit to the House on the present occasion, in order to challenge the expression of its opinion. And I think it due to the House that I should shortly explain why I took the course I have done. I do not think I could have placed on the Votes of this House any Motion containing my own view of the case, and of the course the Government ought, in my opinion, to have taken with regard to this question, without provoking on this occasion something, perhaps, of warm and heated discussion, or at all events, without doing prejudice to what I am anxious, above all things, to secure—namely, a calm, dispassionate, and impartial discussion on all questions of public policy, and especially on questions with which are allied important facts like those that are involved in the question before us. Other reasons, to which I need not refer, may have induced me to pursue my present course; but I may truly say that the main reason that has weighed with my mind has been the desirableness of our having something like unanimity of sentiment in Parliament with regard to this question. Because, surely none in this House are so much the slaves of party feeling but that on national questions they would wish us to have a Parliament of united, rather than of divided, views; and if this remark applies to all national questions in ordinary times, much more does it apply to such questions in times of general disorganisation; and if it applies to all questions at that period, much more does it apply to questions affecting the proceedings of a colonial legislature; because I hold it to be a sound principle, admitting of but rare exceptions, that if England is to interfere, with any rational prospect of advantage, with the legislative proceedings of a colonial Parliament, in order to secure that prospect of advantage, it must be united and not divided England that undertakes such interference. Therefore, in order to do what may in me lie towards that end, and in order, at all events, not to prejudice the question by any premature excitement of political feeling, I took the liberty some days ago of communicating to the noble Lord at the head of the Government my purpose, the course of argument I meant to take, and the course I would endeavour to recommend to the Government; but I placed on the books of the House no more than the general notice which hon. Members will have seen. And if unhappily it should appear, as the result of this discussion, that that general agreement in sentiment which I so ardently desire does not prevail, but that there must be difference of opinion, and that ulterior steps must be taken to bring this matter to an issue, I hope that at least we shall show that we have been desirous, as long as we could, to maintain a union of opinion on a matter of the highest delicacy, and greatest imperial consideration. I trust that the miscellaneous discussions of the last two hours have not so far exhausted the attention of the House, but that you will be pleased to favour me with your indulgence in relation to this question, not on account of any claim I can make on your attention, but on the ground of the deep importance of the considerations which it involves; for I will venture to say, that although the theatre of action may be comparatively contracted, yet the question really does involve the very first principles and duties of a Government, and does touch the very foundations of all social order. Now, Sir, I intend, so far as it depends on myself, entirely to pass by any discussion of the conduct of the Earl of Elgin. I may have occasion to refer to statements that he has made—I must, I am afraid, express a view in important respects, perhaps, differing from him; but I shall carefully abstain from giving any judgment on his conduct; and that not mainly on account of the warm personal regard I bear for himself, or my admiration for his distinguished talents—because I do not think on questions such as these personal feelings ought to draw us aside from the strict line of public duty—but I shall do so, because my impression is that on the Earl of Elgin has been laid an undue and excessive share of responsibility; that the Earl of Elgin, standing alone and single-handed, as the representative of the Crown, has been called upon to do more than any man in that position, without the distinct aid and clear guidance of the Government at home, could properly discharge. Sir, I may be wrong in that view, but I have drawn from the declarations of Gentlemen connected with Her Majesty's Government the impression to which I have now given utterance. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, on a recent occasion, expressed in this House his opinion that it was not for this House to interpose in the consideration of any legislative measure that might be proceeding in Canada until that legislative measure had reached, so far as that province was concerned, its completion. He said that, pending the discussion in the colony of the measure, it was not for the British Parliament to interfere; and I put upon that declaration the construction that if it was not for this Parliament to express its opinion on these proceedings, neither was it for the Secretary of State, in his view, to give any authoritative directions with regard to them. Therefore I was led to the impression that, according to the doctrine of the Colonial Department, as it now exists, the business of a man occupying the position of Governor General of Canada is to judge for himself in regard to all measures submitted to him by his advisers on his own responsibility alone, and that his conduct is in no way to be influenced from home, until he has transmitted such measures for the confirmation or disallowance of Her Majesty; and I was further confirmed in that belief in regard to the Earl of Elgin, by an earlier declaration of the hon. Gentleman, made on the occasion of a Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark, when the hon. Gentleman used these expressions:—

"Not only has Canada local self-government, but responsible government, which has never been enjoyed to such an extent as it has been since the time of the Earl of Elgin."

Now, so far as responsible government, in general terms, is concerned, I think Canada has possessed it before the time of the Earl of Elgin; and I am at a loss what construction to put on the words of the hon. Gentleman, unless it is this, namely, that the rule is now established that the Earl of Elgin is not to refer for directions on any question of colonial legislation to the Secretary of State at home, but only at the last stage, and in reference to the ultimate question whether the assent of the Crown shall be given or withheld. Indeed, as much has been avowed during the incidental discussions that have taken place on this subject, because it was impossible to believe that the Earl of Elgin would have taken upon himself that responsibility; and Parliament, and I may say the country also, have been amazed when we have been told again and again, on the receipt of intelligence of the resolutions of the colonial legislature on the Bill at all the various stages of the measure, that no despatch or official communication had been received from the Earl of Elgin. And that the Secretary of State did not know what was going on in the legislature of Canada, could only arise from the relations between the Secretary of State and the Governor General being placed on this footing, that whatever might be the nature of the question that came before him from the local legislature, the Governor would have to deal with it on his own individual responsibility; and therefore I should not think of calling him to account for any step he may have taken under such circumstances. I think his position an impracticable one, rendering it impossible for him to adequately discharge the duties he owes to the colony on the one hand, and to the Crown of England on the other. Then, if I am right in supposing that the Earl of Elgin has been virtually prohibited from referring home for instructions with regard to proceedings in the colonial legislature, I think, as a question of general policy, the conduct of the Government involves a very grave and serious error, and becomes a fair subject of Parliamentary discussion; because I think the first duty of the Home Government should be to interpose a check on the action of the colonial advisers of the Governor, and enable him to apply at home for guidance, when a question is before the local assembly not merely affecting local but imperial interests, and involving the honour and dignity of the Crown of Her Majesty. I think that the local legislature of the colony should be left free and unrestricted in its action upon questions purely and entirely having a bearing upon the local interests of the colony; but we ought to draw the broadest and most marked distinction between questions of a local and imperial character; and with regard to imperial questions, instead of being postponed till the resolutions and deliberations of the local legislature are concluded, and are sent home in their ultimate shape to receive the sanction or disallowance of the Crown, I think that reference to the Home Government ought to be made at the very first moment, and before public opinion may have been appealed to in the colony; and that at the first moment it ought to be ascertained how far the Queen's Ministers at home think it necessary to fetter the discretion of the colonial authorities, and how far they may freely move in the path to be trodden on by them. I shall pass by many points of high, but still I think of local, interest, which must receive, in the main, a local solution. For instance, there is a question with regard to the appointments made for the Legislative Council, and they have evidently exercised a vital influence, and it is impossible to believe that they could have been made without the intention of their exercising a vital influence on the passage of this Bill. I pass by that as a question which I think connected in the main with the Government of Canada, which it is unnecessary to discuss on the course that I would now advise Parliament to take. I pass by all questions connected with the Canadian Government, and the unhappy and disgraceful riots that took place in the capital of Canada, simply making this single remark, that the parties implicated in these riots, whether they wished it or not, must be the very best friends of the measure obnoxious to them; and if it eventually should pass into a law they must be considered to have contributed in the highest degree to that issue. And, Sir, I am sorry to see that the greatest injustice has been done to gentlemen of the very highest respectability in connexion with these riots; a gentleman named Moffatt, so far from being disposed to offer a factious opposition to the present Ministry of the colony, I understand to have retired from the representation of Montreal to make room for a member of the present Ministry. I believe that a very considerable reaction has been caused in Canada, and it is very desirable that it should be known there that the universal disgust which the rioters have caused in the province has met with a corresponding feeling on this side of the Atlantic, and that nobody excuses or palliates their conduct upon any pretence whatever. There is another question, and that is with regard to the mode in which this 100,000 l . to be levied under this Act is to be charged on the province. That, however, is a question for the local parties; but we have nothing whatever to do with approving or condemning the proceedings of the local parties in Canada on the ground that they are meditating or effecting injustice towards one another. Because the constitution provides the limits within which they may obtain protection, and within the limits that it affords they ought to use, and no doubt they will use, the ligitimate means. I confine myself wholly to imperial considerations, and the reference that I may make to proceedings of persons or parties in Canada shall be wholly incidental and subsidiary to the end I have in view. I admit in the freest manner, and without the slightest hesitation, that the onus entirely rests with me to show why, in departing from what I believe to be a most sound and healthful general maxim, I should call on the Government, and in the face of Parliament, to take a particular course in respect to an Act that has passed through the Parliament of Canada, which may not be the most acceptable course to the majority of those who voted in the legislature of that province. The rule I shall recommend, I state not on my own, but on a higher authority—an authority written in calmness and quietude by the noble Lord opposite when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and having no reference to the present difficulty, which might have given a bias to his judgment. On the 14th of October, 1839, writing to Lord Sydenham, after laying down that the colonies ought not only to be conducted for colonial purposes, but by colonial authorities, he says—

"But there are cases of internal government in which the honour of the Crown, or the faith of Parliament, or the safety of the State, are so seriously involved, that it would not be possible for Her Majesty to delegate her authority to a Ministry in a colony,"

It is on the ground, then, which the noble Lord has given me, that I ask Parliament to direct its especial attention to this question; and although I desire no higher authority than that, yet I observe that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is not now in his place—I mean the Member for Sheffield, who is known in this House as having, beyond all others, through good report, and evil report, to have advocated the principles of colonial freedom—in his recent work on the government of the colonies, lays down, evidently without the slightest intentional reference to this question, the principle abundantly, I think, and sufficiently to cover the rule upon which I would now proceed; because he, in speaking of the constitution of the United States of America, uses this language:—

"All that relates to war and peace, to armies and to the navy, to treaties and other communication with foreign nations—all that regards treason and attack upon that sovereignty known to the nations—all these things, which appertain to the Imperial Government of England, appear to come under the cognisance of the Congress as regards the United States."

This is an incidental authority, and I value it the more because it is a perfectly impartial opinion, given without the possibility of bias; and I must say that the rule I suggest rests not only on the authority of the hon. and learned Member and of the noble Lord, but lies deep in the very nature of things, and rests upon the very foundations of common reason and common sense. The questions which it is necessary for us to ask ourselves with regard to this Bill, as I view the matter, are these three:—First, is the Act of the Canadian Parliament, now before us, and entitled—" An Act to provide for the Indemnification of Parties in Lower Canada, whose property was destroyed during the Rebellion in the years 1837 and 1838;" is this Act—I will not say passed for the purpose, but—intended to embrace within its purposes of indemnification persons who bore arms against Her Majesty's forces during the rebellion in 1837 and 1838? The second question is, presuming such to be the case, can it then be said that the subject involved is a local or an imperial question? And the third question is, if such be the case, if the question raised by the purposes contemplated in this Act be an imperial question, is the course proposed, namely, the indemnification of those who bore arms against Her Majesty's forces during these rebellions, consistent, or is it vitally at variance with the honour and dignity of the Crown? Sir, with regard to the second and third of these questions, I pass them over altogether at present without notice, because, on the hypothesis arising under the first question, namely, that the indemnification of rebels is intended, I have no doubt but that the issue there raised is one of imperial interest, or that the course proposed by the Act, and put forward for our sanction, is a course inconsistent with the honour and dignity of the Crown. Therefore, I ask, is it intended by this Act to embrace the indemnification of rebels? And here I shall use ordinary language in an ordinary sense; for rarely have I seen a public discussion on a great national question carried on with such strange and sophistical arguments. For really we are told that some rebel may creep in here and there, and we cannot provide against it, and a different construction from that ordinarily understood is put upon the word "rebel." As if it were some profound problem, requiring the highest skill of the metaphysician or the mathematician to be called in to determine a point of great nicety—as if it were a difficult matter to say whether a man who took the field against the Queen's forces was a loyal man or a rebel! I use words in their ordinary sense; and I know you cannot take infallible precautions in any Act, either here or in Canada, against the accidental perversion of its provisions to purposes other than those intended. But the question for us to decide is, whether, regarding the fair scope and intention of the Act as it lies before us, it is intended or not for the indemnification of rebels? Let us have plain "Aye" or "No" to this question. Well, then, I must look to the Act itself, and partly to evidence extraneous to the Act. The title of an earlier Act of Indemnity used the adjective "loyal" with reference to the parties to receive the proposed compensation; but of course no inference can fairly be drawn from the omission of the word "loyal" in the present Bill. But this Act begins—

"Whereas on the 28th day of February, 1843, an humble Address was unanimously adopted by the Legislative Assembly of this province, and by them presented to the Right Honourable Charles Theophilus Baron Metcalfe, the then Governor General of the same, praying 'that his Excellency would be pleased to cause proper measures to be adopted in order to insure to the inhabitants of that part of this province, formerly Lower Canada, indemnity for just losses by them sustained during the rebellion of 1837 and 1838.'"

Here, the first question that arises is—what is meant by "just losses? "—[Mr. HAWES: Hear, hear!]—for certainly a more extraordinary phrase never found its way into the proceedings of a legislative assembly. If I must invoke the aid of the critics and grammarians of the House, I must understand by this phrase losses fairly and justly incurred by the parties, and therefore losses or penalties which they justly deserved, and such as certainly could not, by any possibility, entitle them to receive pecuniary or other compensation. That, however, cannot be intended by the Act. We must understand by the phrase "just claims arising in respect of losses," and, therefore, I shall treat the phrase "just losses," in this document, always as equivalent to the terms I have just named. After mentioning the Address, and the commission consequent upon it, the 'preamble goes on to state that inquiries under the commission took place; that the powers of the commission were insufficient for its making complete inquiries; and that it was necessary, in order to redeem the pledge given by the adoption of that address, that further measures should be taken, both for levying money and for conducting the inquiries to a definite issue:—

"It is necessary and just that the particulars of such losses, not yet paid and satisfied, should form the subject of more minute inquiry under legislative authority, and that the same,"—

and here comes the qualification, because they are not, as I think, "just claims arising in respect of losses"—

"so far only as they may have arisen from the total or partial, unjust, unnecessary, or wanton destruction of the dwellings, buildings, property, and effects of the said inhabitants, and from the seizure, taking, or carrying away of their property and effects, should be paid and satisfied."

The term "just losses" I will not say governs, but runs through the whole of the Act. It is to make further inquiry into these "just losses" that the commissioners are to be appointed, and it is to satisfy them that debentures are to be issued; and to come to a proper decision, the House must keep that phrase continually in view. Well, Sir, if this had been an Act stating that all just claims arising in respect to losses are to be satisfied, I must confess that I would have regarded such an Act with no suspicion or dislike. I believe there is a case for an Act of that kind; for I am told that churches in Lower Canada—one church, at least, if not more—were destroyed, and properly and necessarily destroyed, during the rebellion, having been occupied by the rebels as a fortress; and nothing can be more just than that, when a church is the property of the community at large, proper compensation for its destruction under such circumstances should be paid. And I rather believe that when a number of Roman Catholic chapels were destroyed during the rebellion in Ireland, they were restored at the public expense. But the Act of Parliament does not contemplate the payment of all those just claims—it does not contemplate the satisfaction of all those just claims; and as my hon. Friend cheered when I read the qualification, I would remind him that they only allow them to be satisfied in case they arise out of the unjust, unnecessary, or wanton destruction of property. There is a certain limit of the losses to be satisfied, and, so far from giving me a more favourable view of the Bill, it raises a suspicion in my mind respecting it; for I say, if the indemnification of loyal subjects be what you contemplate, it is not necessary for the loyal subject to show that the destruction of his property was unnecessary or wanton. Suppose the house of a loyal subject was in the way of military preparation, and, being in the way, it might be necessary to destroy it. Then it was not unjustly, but most necessarily, destroyed; however, that does not take a hair's breadth from his claim for compensation. Therefore, when you say that unnecessary destruction of property is to be compensated, that is one of the grounds that induce me to believe that, in the strong language adopted, there is more than meets the eye. If it were a simple measure for the indemnification of the loyal inhabitants, there was no necessity to introduce this qualification, that the losses should be unjust or unnecessary. The commissioners, I apprehend, have no discretion under this Act; all they have to ascertain is the description of loss sustained; and the commissioners have not, in my view of it, any authority to limit the legal sense of the Act. Now, we come to the proviso that was introduced into the resolution before the Bill came before the Canadian senate. To that proviso I mean to call the attention of the House, for it has a most important bearing upon the whole construction of the Act. In the first clause it is provided—

"That none of the persons who have been convicted of high treason, alleged to have been committed in that part of this province formerly the Province of Lower Canada, since the 1st day of November, 1837, or who, having been charged with high treason, or other offences of a treasonable nature, and having been committed to the custody of the sheriff in the gaol of Montreal, submitted themselves to the will and pleasure of Her Majesty, and were thereupon transported to Her Majesty's Islands of Bermuda, shall be entitled to any indemnity for losses sustained during or after the said rebellion, or in consequence thereof."

The obvious intention of that proviso is to exclude from compensation all those convicted of rebellion or of treason, or all those who (having submitted themselves) were transported—and about one hundred persons, I understand, would be excluded in that manner from the operation of the Act. However, there is a single point connected with this proviso and the convictions to which it refers that should not altogether escape the notice of the House. These convictions were not convictions in a court of law properly pronounced, but were convictions in courts-martial; and if there be any defect in the conviction, in point of justice or in point of strict formality, it is no conviction at all; and if that conviction be no conviction at all, this proviso is no proviso at all. Now, by what authority were those courts-martial elected? What authority is there in the united kingdom or its dependencies that can elect a legal court-martial? Is there any authority but the authority of Parliament that can give strict and legal validity to the sentence of a court-martial? Was the authority of Parliament given beforehand to these courts-martial, or afterwards? I have searched in vain for it through the laws on our Statute-book with regard both to the permanent and temporary government of Canada. I find no ratification given to those sentences of courts-martial. I dare say the matter was under the consideration of the noble Lord at the head of the Government when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he can set me right if I am wrong; and if the parties convicted before it should raise the question, we cannot be sure that this proviso is of any validity with respect to 96 out of 104 persons that were convicted in the courts-martial, as contradistinguished from the eight persons who submitted themselves, and were transported to Bermuda. Whatever may be the opinion of the legality of these courts, as the lawyers of this country may determine, it is important to see the view taken of their legality in Canada. It is the opinion of the party that is now dominant in the legislative assembly and in the Council of Canada—their avowed and undisguised, and, I have no doubt, their honest opinion—that the courts-martial were illegal. It was professed on many occasions, and I have it in the most succinct form. In a petition of M. Lafontaine, attorney general of one of the divisions, and holding the office of leader of the council, presented in 1839, he says, "We deem ourselves also bound to denounce to your honourable House the illegal exercise of martial law;" and, therefore, you will observe that the gentleman who is now the leader of the Canadian Government, and likewise chief law adviser of the Earl of Elgin, gave it as his opinion that the proclamation of martial law was illegal—consequently, courts-martial were illegal, and the convictions in them were illegal; and consequently, that proviso which relates to them is good for nothing. I pass on from that to see what is the construction a judge would put on this Act if the commissioners said to a party—"Those losses are not just losses, and you are not entitled to compensation." Suppose that party brought an action against the commissioners, and on coming before the judge who was to try the action pointed to the Act and said, "Observe this proviso—where is the force, where is the value of the sentence? see if it be good for anything." The proviso is good for this—it shows the animus of the legislature. The persons who were convicted of high treason and sent to Bermuda would not be excluded from the Act except for that proviso, and, à fortiori , all those not convicted of high treason and sent to Bermuda must be regarded as coming within the benefit of the Act. So far as I am able to ascertain, from better judges than myself, the probable construction of the Act would be that the intention of the legislature was to include within the benefit of the Act and qualify for compensation all persons, whether rebels or not, who were not convicted or transported. Now, let us apply this case. I have seen printed within the last few days a list of claims that was made in the year 1846, and amongst the claims described there are a few that are sufficiently instructive; for instance, there are two claims where the names of the claimants are not given, and there are 400 claimants under the two claims where the parties claim for guns taken and not restored. The parties were coming forward for compensation for guns lost in unsuccessful actions with Her Majesty's troops. Those guns were taken away and not restored; and is that a proper case for compensation? Mr. Hincks, a leading person in the Ministry of Canada, having called on me, I mentioned the case to him, and I asked if those parties would be compensated? He said not; but his opinion is of no more value than mine. It would depend upon the construction of the Act when the case came before the commissioners. The parties would show their property had been destroyed (I have no doubt that the soldiers did not return the guns); and if the action took place when the rebellion was virtually suppressed, it would be said that it was not necessary to destroy the guns; and a thousand arguments might be used to show that when the troops got the upper hand the destruction was unnecessary. And what I think, on looking to the Act, is, that those parties would be entitled to compensation for guns which they lost in an unsuccessful encounter with Her Majesty's troops. You may be able to show that the case I have stated is not sufficient to embrace the whole question; and, instead of founding it on any particular illustration, I shall put my argument on a broader basis. The question I want to raise is, whether those persons took part, by overt acts, in the rebellion. I don't want to follow the principles of the law of England—I don't want to scrutinise men's consciences, or raise up a history of their politics, which may, from implication or connection, give rise to tyrannical proceedings against persons when party feelings run high. I speak of overt acts, and of persons who took part in rebellion, and I want to know if those parties who took part in rebellion are on that ground to be disqualified from receiving compensation. I think we must look a little to evidence extraneous from the Act itself, the Act being ambiguous. I might prove to the House my diligence, or at least my anxiety to be diligent, by quoting all the conflicting statements I have seen on this vital question. If I look to the declarations of the leading men of Canada, I have the declaration of the speaker of the legislative council, one of the Governor General's advisers, who says—

"It was only the intention of the Government to pay the just losses of innocent individuals. It was not the intention to pay rebels."

That statement was perfectly satisfactory if it stood alone; but he goes on to say—

"In the Lower House the Ministry had again and again stated that the intention of the Bill was not to pay rebels. Let them issue their commission, and then, if they pay rebels let them be treated as they deserve. "

[An Hon. MEMBER on the Ministerial benches: Hear, hear!] My hon. Friend cheers me. Now, I ask him, does he believe that the act of bearing arms in rebellion would be a disqualification from receiving compensation or not? [An Hon. MEMBER on the Ministerial side: I do.] He docs, then. It is of that I wish to be assured, and it is that I will take every means in my power to ascertain. I shall next call attention to the opinions expressed by Mr. Baldwin, in the House of Assembly, on the 27th of February. He says—

"There were several points in the measure which required consideration; the first of them was, the class of persons who were to be compensated. It was never intended by the present measure to pay the losses of persons engaged in the rebellion, any more than it was the object of the Members opposite to pay them by the measure they introduced. And with regard to the property, some of it had been destroyed in opposing the troops, and it never had entered into the head of any one to pay for it. Then there was the property of persons who had not only been engaged in the rebellion, but had been convicted: it was never intended to pay for it. He did not believe that by the commission, or instructions which were issued by the Members opposite, it was intended by them to compensate such losses; they clearly showed that they did not. They had only used the same terms as the Members opposite; and he would ask with what fairness they could put a different interpretation upon the present resolutions from what they put on their own? Was it fair to those who were obliged to carry out the measure which they had left unfinished? "

He goes on to say—

"It was not intended to pay the losses of parties who were actually in arms, but it was obvious that when the line of demarcation, marked by the decisions of the tribunals, was passed, they embarked on a sea of difficulty. He entirely agreed with the remarks of his hon. Friend from Norfolk. As a matter of policy it would have boon wrong, after the Act of Amnesty had been passed, and would have been impolitic, unjust, and disrespectful towards the Queen's Commission."

The same ambiguity I find in the Act appears in the declarations of the persons who were responsible for its introduction, and who ought best to understand its sense. Here is the declaration of another Gentleman, to which I have pleasure in referring. It is the opinion of Mr. Jones, a person who has the character of being independent of party connexions. He says—

"He had come into this House predisposed to support the Administration, professing then to be, as he was still, a liberal in his opinions."

He then goes on to say, that he had interviews with a leading member of the Government, being anxious to get through the web of sophistry and ambiguity that surrounded it at the real nature of the case. He took the sensible course of waiting upon the Prime Minister, to ask him what the intention of the Act was, the Prime Minister being also prime legal adviser. He says—

"As the hon. Member (Mr. J. Morris) to whom he had alluded had thought proper to advert to a statement made to him personally by the hon. Speaker, which he said induced him to support the Bill alluded to, he (Mr. Jones) would advert to what took place between himself and another hon. and distinguished Member of the Government, at a private interview, in contradiction to what the hon. Member had stated as the views entertained by the Administration, expressed to him by the hon. Speaker, At the interview he referred to, after considerable conversation on the subject of the Indemnity Bill had taken place, and considerable difference of opinion arisen between them in respect to it, in order that he might not mistake the views of the hon. Member of the Government, he (Mr. Jones) had named three or more persons whom he and that distinguished Member of the Government both knew to have been engaged in overt acts of treason and rebellion, that they were persons who had taken up arms to subvert the Government—he asked him if those individuals would be entitled to indemnity under the Bill. That hon. Member of the Government was too honest and too honourable a man to attempt to deceive him; he therefore answered him candidly and frankly, that they could make no distinction, and consequently those persons could not be excluded from being indemnified for their losses, if they had sustained any. He should not have adverted to this circumstance had he not deemed it necessary to do so, to meet the assertion openly made by the hon. Speaker from his place in that House, and the statement of the hon. Member who had based his opinions upon the information he had personally received from the same hon. individual."

I will next refer to the highest authority on the subject. I find that the Earl of Elgin, in his answer to an address from the district of Victoria, says—

"I am bound to say, in justice to the large majority of your representatives by whom this Bill was sanctioned, that it is my firm belief that they did not intend in passing it to countenance rebellion, or to compensate the losses of persons guilty of the heinous crime of treason; but that their purpose was to make provision for the payment of claims arising from the wanton and unnecessary destruction of property [but whose?]—which is the cruel, though perhaps inevitable, accompaniment of civil warfare—claims which had been already recognised by the deliberate Acts of preceding Parliaments and Governments. Under this conviction I assented to the Bill, and in this spirit only could I ever consent to the Executive Government to give effect to it."

If you take the first part of the declaration it is satisfactory. It appears from it that it is not intended to compensate persons guilty of the heinous crime of treason. If you took the language of that part alone, you would suppose that those who bore arms against the Queen's troops would be utterly disqualified; but when the Earl of Elgin says it is necessary to make compensation for claims occasioned by the wanton destruction of property, I must think that the compensation is to be given on the ground of there being a wanton destruction of property, and not with respect to the character of the party claiming. I hold that a person in arms against the Queen's troops is utterly disqualified by his own act. I have nothing to do in such case with the inquiry as to whether the property is wantonly destroyed. He who takes arms against the order of society has no right to invoke its laws. He goes beyond the limits of the law, and has no right to ask for a remedy in a court of justice. He has no right to ask you to see if the destruction of his property has been wanton or not wanton. He labours under a personal disqualification, and you must decide on the fact—Did he bear arms? Perhaps the general bearing of the passage I read would be, that it was not intended to compensate those who bore a part in the rebellion; but in a paragraph in the Earl of Elgin's despatch to Earl Grey, he refers to the address in 1845 presented to Lord Metcalfe, and he says—

"In order that the scope and purpose of the address thus unanimously voted, and of the measures taken by the Government upon it may be properly understood, it is necessary that attention should be directed to the following circumstances. Ordinances were passed by the Special Council in the years 1838 and 1839, under which the losses of these loyal inhabitants of the province whose property had been destroyed while they were supporting the Government, had been ascertained and reported upon. It was, therefore, clearly the intention of the Government and Parliament, in the proceedings adopted at this period, to extend the indemnity beyond that limit."

Is that so, or is it not? The Earl of Elgin's statement, I think I will be able to show, is not an accurate statement. It is not true that all the losses of the loyal inhabitants were then reported; for if you refer to a letter of Lord Sydenham, you will find that he put an end to the proceedings of the commission in consequence of insufficiency of funds. But in the Earl of Elgin's despatch, you have stated that the loss of the loyal inhabitants has been already reported upon and ascertained. He says the Government of 1845, as he thinks, intended to extend the limit beyond loyal inhabitants; and I want to know how you can exceed the limit of loyal inhabitants, and exclude those persons who took part in the rebellion. There is one other proof of the intention of the Bill to which I must refer; it appears to me of the simplest kind, and I should greatly depart from the principle I laid down, and greatly belie my desire to bring out the facts and true meaning of the case, if I did not advert to it. That I find in the character of the amendments to the Bill that were submitted to the Assembly during a part of this discussion; and I think, from the spirit of those amendments, and the divisions that took place on them, there is afforded the clearest evidence of the views of the legislature. There was an amendment that referred to parties in any way implicated in the rebellion; and I am afraid that under such words as these, men's politics might be inquired into, if they had made intemperate speeches, and if their conduct had tended in any way to produce the rebellion. I think the House of Assembly was right in rejecting an amendment that would produce an inquisition into anything but the actual proceedings of the parties. But a Mr. Wilson proposed an amendment which, setting aside all sophistry and ambiguity, brought the question to issue. The words of the amendment were, "that all the words after Bermuda be left out, and the following inserted, 'nor any person who aided, assisted, or abetted the said rebellion shall be entitled to any indemnity.' "Those words referred to overt acts alone. They avoided all reference to political conduct—they defined the line that a Government should take who wishes to sustain its honour, and not put a premium upon disaffection; but that amendment was rejected. When we hear so much of the overwhelming majority by which this measure was sanctioned, it is right to mention that the amendment, though lost by a considerable majority, was not lost by a majority that was against the others, but by a majority only of 44 to 28, in the present Assembly of Canada. I have now said what I think it is necessary to say on the evidence we had of the scope and intentions of this Bill, and I am brought by it to the conclusion, that although the construction of the Act may be to some ox-tent ambiguous, yet there was an evident intention, on the part of the framers, not to treat a participation in the rebellion as a disqualification from indemnity; and although the language of the Act may leave it open to doubt whether they have given full effect to their intention, yet, altogether considered, it is too probable that the Act itself, when it conies to be put in practice, would be construed and acted upon in the sense I describe. If I could avoid coming to the conclusion at which I have arrived—if I could honestly have adopted a different belief from that which I entertain, it would have saved the necessity of noticing the proceedings on the floor of the House; but, viewing it as I do, I think it is a case for notice here. If it appears probable that it is intended to give compensation to rebels in consequence of the losses they have undergone in and through their rebellion, that is a case (so long as free institutions exist amongst us) to which we never should refuse our consideration. An objection to making the distinction I propose is, that you cannot tell who are rebels and who are not, it is so long a time ago. I will not take upon myself to prescribe the legislative machinery for determining who were wrong or who were not. I think that is a matter that properly belongs to the legislature of Canada, and it would be an undue and ungracious interference with their functions if we were to undertake to point out the legislative means by which the fact is to be ascertained whether a man assisted in the rebellion or not. But if it is to he made a matter of serious argument that the difficulty of ascertaining who are rebels is so great that you will not inquire into it at all, but receive all the claims in hulk irrespective of that question, it is either an attempt to palm upon us a delusion, or it is the act of men labouring under a great delusion. This was not the first time such a question was raised, or that rebellion losses were under discussion. We have the Canadian ordinances already existing; in 1838 and 1839 Acts were passed for the purpose of dealing with those questions, and affording compensation to the loyal inhabitants. There then was no difficulty in dealing with it, and those ridiculous and captious objections were never invented until it was necessary to serve a purpose by obscuring the aims and objects of certain parties. In the case of Ireland, in the same way, three Acts were passed to give compensation to the loyal subjects of the Crown, for the losses they had suffered during the rebellion; and with respect to the cases of the claimants, a jury was empanneled by the sheriff to try the question of fact. That mode might be adopted in Canada, or the person claiming compensation might be called upon to make an affidavit that he did not bear arms to take part in the rebellion. There is nothing unconstitutional in that; at the same time it is not for me to point out the precise means by which it should be done, but the whole matter is perfectly plain, and it has been done over and over again without difficulty. Be that as it may, I stand on the principle that any person claiming public money is himself subject to the onus of proving that he is qualified to receive it. I doubt if a man of the largest experience can quote to me a case in which the public money was paid in the nature of indemnity or compensation without your throwing on the party that got it the onus of proving that he was qualified to receive it. But there is another mode of dealing with the question. There are gentlemen in Canada who say that every man is innocent until he is found guilty; and as the parties have not been found guilty, they are not rebels. That is a straining of the legal doctrine; but the argument is answered by the observation I have already made, that the universal practice in paying public money is to throw on the recipient the proof that he is entitled to receive it. An Act of Amnesty has passed, and that places every man, in the eye of the law, as if he had not rebelled. But what does that mean? An amnesty may be said to arise from the past: it certainly covers the past, and prevents a man from being called to account for anything he may have done at the period to which the amnesty refers; but it does not cast the veil of oblivion over the past—it does not sustain the application of the rebels for any claims they make in consequence of losses they have incurred from their acts of rebellion. I now come to another matter, on which great stress is laid; it is, that the sense of the people of Canada being in favour of the measure, it is not for us to question it. I look with the greatest respect to the opinion of the people of Canada, and regard it as conclusive within their own sphere—that is, in all matters that properly belong to the province of a colonial legislature; but even if the sense of the Canadians were pronounced in favour of the measure (a case I believe the furthest possible from the fact), that is not a sufficient reason for our refusing to inquire into it. I cannot admit that the sense of the people of Canada is to limit the criterion that ought to be taken on imperial questions, and involving the highest imperial considerations. If this question involved local considerations only, I would bow to their opinion at once; but as it involves imperial questions, here, and here only, can it receive its final decision. I am anxious to avoid identifying myself with any of the colonial parties, for nothing can be more opposed to the development of true liberty in the colony than that we should identify ourselves with parties there—and I will endeavour to avoid doing that; but I cannot deny that my sympathies are with the men in Canada who think that those persons who took part in the rebellion ought not to be compensated. That is my opinion; but I will endeavour to avoid saying anything offensive or disgraceful to one party or the other. Looking to the conduct of the legislature, I consider that the division on Mr. Wilson's amendment affords the true test of their opinion, for on the second or third reading of the Bill, Gentlemen who had constituents claiming compensation would be placed in a difficulty if they refused to read a Bill that gave them compensation. On the division on Mr. Wilson's amendment, there were 44 against it, and 28 in favour of it; and that, if carried, would have excluded all rebels from compensation. The Earl of Elgin refers to the majority from Upper Canada on various stages of the measure; but on analysing the division on Mr. Wilson's amendment, it will be found that of 35 Upper Canadian Members who voted on the occasion, 13 voted in favour of the Bill and against the amendment, and 22 in favour of the amendment. There was, therefore, a large majority of the Members of Upper Canada who voted in favour of the measure; and it is undoubtedly true, that among that majority are to be found many who in their general temper and politics are most favourable to the Administration as it at present exists in Canada; but, on the other hand, there are some six or eight Gentlemen who were the habitual and steady supporters of the Government upon every other occasion, who were then found acting with the opposite party, and who ranged themselves against their friends to vindicate what I think to be the honour of the country. So far, then, with respect to the sense of the legislature of Canada. But what is the sense of the country? What is the sense of Canada as expressed by the petitions and addresses to the Governor General? I am sure that the Governor General of Canada, and Her Majesty's Government, following the course of the Governor General, have shown no disinclination to attach due weight to these opinions and addresses, because I think there are about forty pages consecutively of papers just laid upon the table of the House, of petitions and addresses, many of which are literally and word for word the same, all detailed in the most imposing manner, and paraded, I might almost say, before us, so as to produce the utmost effect of which they were capable, all those addresses being addresses to the Earl of Elgin, and I think addresses with about 15,000 signatures in favour of the policy of the Earl of Elgin's Administration, and generally expressing confidence in them. But the most remarkable fact is, that even among all these addresses, presented to the Earl of Elgin, for the purpose of supporting his Administration, I am not sure that there is more than one or two which expresses in terms its approval of this Bill. From that circumstance I am compelled to draw the inference, that although many who signed these addresses might have been favourable to the Bill, yet they knew that it was a bad question upon which to test the public feeling of the country, and that therefore they suppressed the mention of the Bill, and gladly fell back upon their general political and party associations, in order to obtain the signatures of the 15,000 or 16,000 persons to addresses from the different parts of Canada, expressing confidence in the Earl of Elgin's Government; but they could not venture the risk of losing these addresses by embodying in them anything like an approval of the Bill. There is, however, one large address from Montreal, and several from different parts of the country, expressing great admiration of the character and talents of the Earl of Elgin, and, generally speaking, commending what they call the constitutional course which he has pursued ever since he accepted the Governor-Generalship of Canada; that, I suppose, has reference to his conduct in giving free scope to what may be called the principle of responsible government. There is another most remarkable fact in connexion with these addresses, which is, that scarcely any of them are represented as having been agreed to at public meetings convened for that purpose. How are we to account for that? The gentlemen from whom the addresses proceeded are those who have ever been the most eloquent in favour of perfect publicity in all public proceedings. In this country we know there is always a great difference in the weight attached to petitions presented from public meetings, and those which emanate from other sources. I might quote as an illustration of this, the case of petitions which were presented from Liverpool on the subject of the navigation laws, one of which was no doubt signed by very respectable parties, but it was not got up at a public meeting, while the petition in favour of the measure was got up in that manner. There is always in this House a great deal of "see-sawing" with respect to the respective value of petitions presented upon any subject, as to the mode by which they may have been got up. When there is a strong popular feeling which sets in one direction, it takes effect in the form of petitions agreed to at public meetings, and, generally speaking, those meetings convened under the constituted authorities: when there is a feeble popular sentiment, and one which has not confidence in itself, then, generally speaking, the petitions wander from house to house, or are only submitted to some select committee, and the result depended upon is the number of the signatures; but such petitions could not be said to represent so accurately the sense of the community. Is it not a remarkable fact, if it be as alleged, that the popular feeling is so greatly in favour of the measure, that there is scarcely an account of a petition proceeding from a single public meeting among the whole of the forty-three pages of addresses which have been presented to this House? I have gone through the whole of them patiently and diligently. I may possibly have omitted some of them, but in the whole of my examination I have only been able to extract four which have so proceeded. The first is from a meeting held in the parish of St. David's, which describes itself as being agreed to at "a general meeting of the freeholders of the parish." Now, the freeholders of a parish, I apprehend, do not tell much as against the whole of Canada. The second is from the parish of St. Antoine de la Baie, which is stated to have proceeded from a "public meeting duly convened by public notice." The number of signatures to it is twenty-four. That is not of very much weight in favour of the measure. The third is from the Bathurst district, agreed to at a public meeting called on requisition by the sheriff. The fourth is from Glengarry county, proceeding from a public meeting convened by a formal and most numerously-signed requisition. There were some two or three petitions adopted at what they call "public meetings," but generally speaking these petitions appear to have proceeded from private individuals, and the signatures to them had been obtained without the originators of them venturing to appeal to public opinion on the subject. I exceedingly regret that the Earl of Elgin has not done quite independent justice to the petitions from the other side. There are forty pages of addresses, really enough to tax the patience of any mortal man. Forty continuous pages of those addresses—many of them word for word the same—have been presented to us; but where are the addresses on the other side? Were they so few? Were they so insignificant? Were they merely "hole-and-corner" petitions? Where is the notice of them? Why not let us have forty pages of them? Would it not have been more like fair and impartial justice for the Government to have given us them, rather than give us all on one side of the question? Are we to look up to the Government as advocates of the question? Is it not rather the duty of the Government to lay the whole of the case before us, and make a full and frank exposition of the whole merits of the question? The Earl of Elgin, in his despatch, says, with respect to these petitions—

"A considerable number of petitions against the Bill were sent up from different parts of the country, the great majority addressed to me."

One of these petitions from Kingston, signed by 300 persons, is given to us. I have no doubt the Government are not in possession of any other. All the authority and weight of those petitions is therefore completely lost to us. All we know is that a considerable number of petitions were presented against the measure. This is a matter of some importance, as, in the absence of official information, we are compelled to refer to information not of so authentic a character. I am told, however, upon very good authority, that the number of petitions against the measure was far greater than of those in its favour. We have seen already that the friends of the Bill did not venture to appeal to the tribunal of the public of Canada; but the allegation made to me by two or three most respectable authorities is, that the opponents of the Bill, in almost every instance, made their application either to the mayors or the sheriffs, to convene the meetings—that they met under their auspices—that the whole community were invited by public notice to attend—and that in every instance they carried petitions against the Bill, in most cases unanimously, and in every case where there was opposition, by large majorities. I have seen a list which has been collected of addresses against the Bill, with of course imperfect means, from Canadian newspapers in this country, and it is stated of very many of them—I cannot state the number exactly—that not only were they petitions adopted at public meetings, but at public meetings of counties, towns, and parishes, as the case might be, regularly called under the auspices of the local authorities, and in the face of the constituted Government. I entirely demur, therefore, to the assertion that the sense of the people of Canada has been expressed in favour of this Bill; and I say, that if even it were so, it would not conclude the matter of a Bill which involved imperial considerations. This is one element of importance in the case; and without going at all into the question of whether one party is right, or another wrong, and looking only to the expression of the opinion of the people as a matter of fact, I do not hesitate to affirm, that although I have no doubt the majority of the inhabitants of Lower Canada may be in favour of the Bill, I have every reason to suppose that with respect to the inhabitants of Upper Canada, the public sentiment in general is opposed to the measure we are now discussing. The third and last argument which has been urged in favour of the measure is, that there have been anterior proceedings upon our part of such a nature as virtually to fetter our discretion in dealing with this question, and that these proceedings have been partly in Upper and partly in Lower Canada. Now, Sir, I will take first the case of Lower Canada. In that province there was an address presented in the month of February, 1845, to Lord Metcalfe. There was, however, nothing in that address which would involve compensation for the losses of rebels. Even if that letter was ambiguous in its terms, there was no ambiguity in the commission issued by Lord Metcalfe. The terms of that commission were such as it was quite impossible for any person, whatever might have been his bias, to misunderstand. In that commission it is expressly stated by Lord Metcalfe—this was, I believe, one of his last acts—that the several persons named in the commission were

"To be commissioners for inquiry into the losses sustained by Her Majesty's loyal subjects in that part of the province of Canada which formerly constituted the late province of Lower Canada during the late unnatural rebellion."

I cannot help reflecting with great satisfaction, in a matter of this kind, involving such deep interests, that the last act of that distinguished nobleman should have resembled all which had proceeded from him—that in all his public career he had but one thought and one desire—that of discharging, under difficulties almost unparalleled, and while he was suffering the extremity of physical torture—duties the most arduous, but at the same time the most honourable, to his Sovereign and to his country, in which he showed all the wisdom of the statesman; but with the wisdom of the statesman as brilliant a courage, although different in kind, as any hero had evinced in the battle-field. After this commission had been issued, ambiguous language began to be used. I have not had an opportunity of hearing from a noble Lord who is now in this country what is his construction of the subsequent proceeding which took place in Canada; but I do not believe that those proceedings imply, or that there really was any intention of admitting the qualification of rebels to a compensation for any losses they might have sustained during the rebellion. There is no doubt, however, but that ambiguous language, very shortly after the death of Lord Metcalfe, began to mark the official communications. On the 12th of December, 1845, the commission issued by Lord Metcalfe was sent to the commissioners, and they are instructed in very clear form in the first instance—

"Carefully to classify the cases of those who may have joined in the said rebellion, or may have been aiding and abetting therein, and distinguish them from the cases of those who did not."

But, on the 27th of February, 1846, a change came o'er the spirit of the dream, and Mr. Daly addresses a letter to the commissioners, in which he states that—

"In making out the classification called for by your instructions of the 12th of December last, it is not his Excellency's intention that you should be guided by any other description of evidence than that furnished by the sentences of the courts of law."

It is urged by those who are the advocates of the present measure, that they have done nothing more than was previously intended by Mr. Daly and his colleagues, to mark off and prescribe those who had been convicted in the courts of law, and that the principle of the measure is extended in order that it may include those who, when convicted, were transported to Bermuda. Now, let us see what is to be said upon the other side. When Mr. Daly, in whose veracity I place the fullest confidence, was over in this country, he expressed a desire to call upon me and give me his explanation of his letter of the 12th of December, with respect to the classification of the cases, and of the statement which had been made, that he wished to classify those who were engaged in the rebellion into those only who had been convicted in courts of law and those who had not. I think it fair to state that the explanation which he then gave me, as to the difference between the letter of February and that of the 12th of December, fully bears out my opinion that compensation to rebels was never intended by any previous Act of the Government. I think it would be well if the House had the whole of these two letters before it. In the first letter of February, it is stated that the commissioners are to inquire "into the losses sustained by Her Majesty's loyal subjects during the late unnatural rebellion." In the letter of the 12th of December, the commissioners were told—

"You will accompany your report on the claims investigated by you with such remarks as may be necessary to a perfect understanding of the matters entrusted to your investigation, in order that the same may be submitted to the provincial legislature at its approaching Session."

Now, this was entirely contrary to the letter of the 27th of February, which stated distinctly—

"His Excellency considers that you have no power as commissioners to call either for persons or papers; and that you must, therefore, be satisfied with such general evidence as the claimants may produce, or as may enable you to form a general estimate of the losses they have suffered. The object of the Executive Government in appointing your commission being merely to obtain a general estimate of the rebellion losses, the particulars of which must form the subject of more minute inquiry hereafter, under legislative authority, his Excellency cannot regard it as necessary that you should travel to the country parts of the district to obtain such particulars,"

Well, now, suppose a man came forward and said, "I claim such and such a sum of money"—suppose he chooses to say that he is a qualified claimant, the commissioners have no power to cross-examine him, to call for any other evidence: it was impossible for them to complete the classification. But Mr. Daly said, "we thought it necessary to have this preliminary classification;" and there was no presumption, from any of the letters of Mr. Daly, that it was the intention of the Government to compensate rebels. Mr. Daly stated at that time, upon the part of his colleagues, they being then the responsible advisers of the Governor General, that they had not contemplated the payment of those who had been engaged in the rebellion. I should add, so far as Mr. Daly is concerned, that while I place the most implicit reliance upon his statement, I confess that it remains unsatisfactory that language of so ambiguous a character should have entered into the subsequent proceedings, or should have crept into public documents of so important a character upon this occasion. But while I make these observations, I must still maintain that, even if it were true that a body belonging to a party in Canada had done any more than reopened what had been done by another party previously, we have nothing to do in the last resort with the views of either the one party or the other upon matters where the imperial honour is concerned. These proceedings were not legislative proceedings. They were never known or heard of in this country until long after they had taken place. They were purely of an executive character, and in no degree pledged the Crown or the Legislature of this country. With respect, Sir, to Upper Canada, it is said that an Act was passed there with the view of compensating the rebels—convicted rebels—traitors—those who had gone through a court of justice; and, that being so, it would be injurious in the last degree to procure the application of a rule to Lower Canada less favourable than that which was applied in the upper province. I admit that I should feel the greatest difficulty, and it would in no degree diminish the dissatisfaction and feeling of pain and disgust with which I should contemplate the sanction of authority to such a law, if I were sure that such an intention had existed. But, Sir, this Act did not contemplate the payment of rebels; and we have the most conclusive evidence that a rebel was never paid. Now, with respect to the Act, let us see what was its effect. The first Act which was passed was in 1838 (1st Vic, c. 13) which authorised the appointment of a commission to investigate the claims of certain inhabitants of this province for losses sustained during the late unnatural rebellion. The terms of that Act, certainly, did not appear to contemplate the compensation of rebels. The second Act (2nd Vic, c. 68) provided for the payment of those claims. The third Act (3rd Vic, c 76) extends the provisions of the former Act, not only to losses in the rebellion, but to losses sustained in the province by American sympathisers, who had inflicted great loss upon the province during the rebellion. The 5th Vic, c. 39, which was passed in 1841, was passed for the purpose of amending and extending the former Acts, and it empowered commissioners to inquire into losses—

"Occasioned by violence on the part of persons in Her Majesty's service, or by violence on the part of persons acting, or assuming to act, on behalf of Her Majesty,.…. or in respect of the occupation of any houses or other premises by Her Majesty's naval or military forces either imperial or provincial. "

Happily, we have a perfectly authoritative exposition of the meaning of that Act. It is perfectly plain that there were certain classes of losses arising during the rebellion, in consequence of violence used by persons in Her Majesty's service, which ought to be compensated, but whether from the military chest, or by a charge upon the revenue of the province, was another question. But there cannot be a doubt but that, in cases where parties had been induced to surrender their houses to damage and destruction in order to facilitate military operations, the parties ought to be compensated. There is a letter among the papers first laid before us, in answer to an address from the House, from Sir Richard Jackson, then a law adviser of the Governor in Canada, defining the purpose of this Act, The letter refers to the case of a Mr. Isaac Smith, whose house had been destroyed by the military. Mr. Smith was a man of undoubted loyalty, and he gave up his house in order to facilitate the operations of the military, and he subsequently claimed compensation for the damage done to his property upon that occasion. With regard to the province of Lower Canada, there was no provision made for any such compensation. Sir Richard Jackson stated, with respect to that case—

"Lord Sydenham directed a Bill to be introduced into the Legislature, to provide for the liquidation of all claims of this nature in Lower Canada, as had previously been done in the upper province."

There was, therefore, no foundation whatever for supposing that an Act had ever been passed in Canada with the intention of compensating rebels. But another statement had been made by those who were in favour of this Bill—that rebels had been compensated under the Government of Upper Canada. I should say, if such a circumstance had occurred, either incidentally or through the necessary infirmity of human legislation, we ought no more to hold the Legislature responsible for it, than we ought to consider the Legislature of this country responsible for an error in the Bill respecting the corn laws, in the year 1842, under which it happened that a man, introducing his corn between the lapse of the old Act, and the period of the new law coming into operation, recovered 20,000 l . of the public money, which was returned to him. But I say that, according to the best evidence in our possession, the whole of this part of the case completely disappears. I have in my hands evidence which appears to me perfectly conclusive on the subject, but which I have only received this morning. I believe the allegation that the rebels bad been compensated in Upper Canada was made by Mr. Hinckes. That gentleman, as inspector of public records, was officially cognisant of all the various sums which had been paid for compensation, and he produced all the cases which he could discover. I believe there were but five—at least I have not heard that there were more than that number. [Mr. HAWES dissented,] Then I say if there were more, we ought to have the particulars of these cases; and I say that we ought also to have the assurance that those cases were contemplated by the law before they could be of any avail as an argument in favour of this Bill. The object of the Act was totally different from that. Now, it appeared that during the rebellion the troops passing through the towns of Canada, being in want of supplies, and not having money, gave notes of hand to the people for the provisions which they obtained. These notes, respecting commercial transactions entered into with the parties, were generally paid without inquiry as to whether the holders were rebels or not. I do not think those notes came under the operation of the Act at all. The words of the Act do not authorise the commission to entertain questions arising out of those transactions. I dispute the legality of the acts of the commission in paying the bills run up by Her Majesty's forces. Their duty was to compensate rebellion losses, and not to pay demands arising from such a course of proceeding. Now, it is very singular that with respect to those five cases which have been produced, I have been furnished with the details and particulars of each, and it appears that Mr. Hinckes has been misled and deceived all through the affair. Unless other parties are telling gross falsehoods, Mr. Hinckes has been most grossly deceived, and has made himself the involuntary instrument of spreading the grossest errors upon this subject. Now, Mr. Hinckes gives the names of five persons—Mr. Malcolm, Mr. Hall, Mr. Buncombe, Mr. Hagerman, and Mr. Tooke. His allegation is, that Mr. Malcolm and Mr. Hall were convicted traitors. Now, on the other hand, I am told by Mr. Cayley, that neither of those persons were convicted traitors, that it is quite true they went into a court of justice, but, instead of being convicted, they were acquitted. The payments made to them were not, therefore, for rebellion losses; but the two sums, one of 37 l ., and the other of 24 l ., were given to them as satisfaction for their claims for supplies, which came under a category altogether different. With respect to Mr. Duncombe, the allegation of Mr. Hinckes is, that he was a fugitive from justice, and that he claimed and got 500 l . as compensation. I have here a letter from Mr. Ingersoll, one of the commissioners of compensation himself, dated March 20, 1849, in which he states that Mr. Duncombe never was paid, and not only that he never was paid, but the compensation was never claimed. It was perfectly true that he was a rebel and a fugitive from justice; he never received a farthing, and never claimed it. The mistake arose in a very ludicrous manner. It appeared that a reward of 600 l . was offered for his apprehension; that the reward was claimed; and that this claim for Mr. Duncombe was mistaken for a claim by that gentleman. With regard to Mr. Hagerman, Mr. Ingersoll has informed me most distinctly that he was tried but acquitted. Not being convicted, he was reinstated in all his rights and privileges as a free-born subject of Her Majesty. The last case is that of Mr. Tooke, who, Mr. Hinckes said, had been convicted of high treason, and sentenced to be hanged. The answer of Mr. Ingersoll is, however, as conclusive as anything could be upon that point. Mr. Tooke, according to that gentleman, never made any claim whatever, and I need scarcely add, that he never received anything. I may state that, so far as anything in the nature of definite evidence was before the House, there was not the slightest shadow of ground to suppose that any person who had been convicted had received any compensation, and that even the allegations of compensation having been made for rebellion losses was perfectly insignificant, and altogether with respect to a distinct and separate class of cases. So far, therefore, I think I have disposed of the objection to which I have referred—that we should not proceed in this matter, because we cannot distinguish the rebellious from the loyal inhabitants of the country; that we should not proceed because our own discretion has been virtually fettered, if we have any regard to consistency, by the proceedings which have already taken place in Upper and in Lower Canada. No one of these three objections now reciains to fetter our discretion, or to absolve us from the great duty incumbent upon us to effect, if possible, some settlement of this great question. In so doing, due regard must be had not only to imperial interests, but also to the honour of the Crown. What I contemplate, then, is this. When we are told that we cannot distinguish in every case who may have been a rebel, or who may not have been, I should propose that every man who applies for compensation should produce primâ facie evidence that he had not taken any part in the rebellion. I hope that that is both plain and intelligent; and I would also suggest that the fact of the claimant having taken any part in the rebellion shall be in itself a disqualification for receiving compensation in respect of losses incurred during that rebellion. I do not wish to ask for anything beyond what regard to the first principle of public honour seems to me to require. I cannot find words strong enough to express my conviction of the height and strength of the obligation which is now imposed upon us, to see that those principles are fully satisfied. And now I do not propose to ask the noble Lord opposite to advise Her Majesty to disallow this Act, because it appears to me that there is a course which may be taken which is a much milder one, and which at all events will testify to every impartial mind the anxious desire of this House to avoid anything which can look like narrow or mistaken views upon this subject. I ask the noble Lord to give us the assurance, if he can, that under this Act, as it now stands, the rebel is not to be compensated. I use the word "rebel" in its plain meaning. I do not mean merely that the convicted rebels shall not be compensated. I mean that the men who are known to have taken part in the rebellion shall not be compensated, and that there shall be reasonable and primâ facie evidence—such evidence as an affidavit might supply, or such evidence as may easily be suggested by other modes—that the parties did not take part in the rebellion before the House became recipients of the public money. That is one of the alternatives that I should propose. I should be most gratified if the noble Lord could give me that assurance. Of course whatever may be the assurance of the noble Lord as to his intentions, the judges in Canada will only give effect to the law as it stands, in spite of any construction which he may put upon it. I am, however, advised that all this measure is really open to the construction, however clear may be the intentions of its framers, that it may include within its purviews some persons who are notoriously known as rebels. I ask the noble Lord, therefore, if he can, to give us a distinct, responsible, and authoritative assurance, that if, upon the best advice given to him—for of course he has at his command the best legal advice in Canada—the provisions of this Act would not extend to the payment of those who took part in the rebellion—if the noble Lord cannot give that assurance with respect to the Bill as it now stands, or that its effect will not be to qualify for receiving compensation in respect of certain losses incurred by those who bore arms against the troops of Her Majesty in 1837 and 1838—I do not hesitate to say that the mildest measure we can take, and which will satisfy the justice of the case, will be to obtain from the noble Lord the assurance that the Crown will not be advised to issue the Order in Council authorising the proceeding under the Act for the purpose of giving effect to it at present—for I observe that all the subsequent proceedings are in the discretion of the Governor General, but that it will be suspended until an opportunity shall have been given to the legislature of Canada to amend that Act in another Session, by providing that no compensation for losses sustained during the rebellion of 1837 and 1838 in Upper and in Lower Canada shall be paid to persons who then bore arms against the troops of Her Majesty, or otherwise took part in the rebellion. I hope the noble Lord will be inclined to accede to that demand. What will be the issue of the struggle going on in Canada, I know not. I earnestly hope that it may be such as may be for the happiness of the people of that country; and if it be for their happiness, I am sure that we can have no reason to desire any other issue. It is possible that this measure and the struggles connected with it may lead to the entire dissolution of the Canadian union. I can conceive that it may eventually lead to a general union of the North American provinces, into which the two divisions of Upper and Lower Canada would enter; and, for my part, I should rejoice if some such result should ensue. I should rejoice if these ill-omened beginnings should end in placing on a firmer footing the connexion between this country and the colonies, while it diminished the charges which this country has at present to bear, and secured and consolidated our colonial empire. But if the noble Lord says he cannot give us that assurance—if the construction of the Act is to be left to the courts of law—and if the legislature of Canada is to be invited to adhere to their own acts, what will follow from that refusal? Constitutional expedients are not thereby exhausted. I think it would be premature to say what course should be adopted; but I will say that under no circumstances whatever, that I can contemplate, could I for a moment consent to be a party to any other than constitutional means of redress. I am deeply convinced that the Queen has no interest in obtaining from the people of Canada a coerced obedience. What I require is, that the people of Canada should pronounce their judgment on every question in which Canada is concerned, having the issue clearly before them, knowing what they are about, and keeping in view imperial interests and imperial honour; but a coerced obedience I should not be willing to accept, either from Canada or from any other of our colonies. Any obedience which is rendered to the Throne of these realms must, to be useful and honourable, depend on the free and unbiassed judgment and inclinations of those who pay it. But, then, I must say that there might be questions connected with the honour of the Crown here, which would impose upon us the duty of looking to what the honour of the Crown requires, without reference to the course which the feelings and wishes of the people of a colony might induce us to take. I am not prepared, be the consequences what they may, to be a consenting party to advising the Crown—as might be done by the tacit acquiescence of Parliament—to assent to any act of a colonial legislature which I believe to be essentially dishonourable to imperial rights. There may be some who look on the honour of the Crown as a mere phrase—a phrase involving no substantial or intelligible idea—who think it is a romance, or possibly regard it as a plea urged for persistence in bad ends, when pride or shame forbid you to take the manly course of avowing that you have done wrong. In that sense I have no respect for the phantasm or mischievous dream of national honour. When I speak of national honour, I mean something very different. When I speak of the honour of the Crown, I mean neither more nor less than a faithful discharge of the duties of Government, for the honour of the Crown consists in that; and one of the first duties of a Government is that which appertains to the maintenance of public order, and which requires you to draw a clear line of distinction between those who rise up against the Government, and endeavour to overturn it by violence, and those who respect its laws, and who are ready to support it with their lives and substance. But if you obscure that line of demarcation—if you allow the loyal man and the rebel to be confounded—if you pervert the principles of mercy, which makes punishment lenient, and erect them into a law against the principle of justice, which determines between right and wrong, then you sin against the honour of the Crown, and abandon the most sacred duties of a Government. And now let us consider what the effect of an opposite course—a course opposite to that which I hope will be taken—will be. In what position do you intend the troops who are quartered in Canada to stand? They are there not merely for the purpose of repelling foreign aggression, but for the purpose of maintaining the public peace. The noble Lord at the head of the Government told us, the other day, that there were only two constables at Montreal. There was an error in that statement; but, at the same time, there is not the slightest doubt that the statement was in substance so far correct that the police force of Montreal was ludicrously small, and that the main support of the owners of property in that city is to be found in the gallant soldiery of England. But in what a position do you make that soldiery stand, if one year they are called out into the field, to deal around them wounds and death on those who are rebels, while in the next year they see those persons qualified for public compensation or reward? Cousider what may take place in the colony under circumstances like these. In a colony where party spirit runs high, and political changes, owing to the alternate preponderance of one party over another, are very rapid—for I am told that in Upper Canada no two Assemblies in succession for the last twenty years have represented the same political party—the reins of power are alternately thrown into the hands of one party and then the other. If these unhappy riots had lasted more than a day—if the banner of rebellion had been unfurled, and the troops had been called upon to act, I must remind the House, passing over the painful feelings with which these gallant men would have discharged their duty, that they would probably have done great injury to property, and in another year these rioters in Montreal might have come forward for compensation. And so, as the scales of political influence incline, one party may become rebels, and the gallant army of England is to stand by and execute the orders of the advisers for the time being of the Governor General. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!] I say that ought not to be. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman deny that that portion of the army of England which is quartered in Canada is virtually under the control of the Ministry of Canada, which depends for its existence upon a majority in the House of Assembly? If that be the case, it follows as a matter of course that we, who are the natural guardians of their honour must be prepared to exercise a voice on all questions where we think that honour is involved; and I say that to leave the troops in this country under the control of local authorities for local purposes is detrimental to the character of that army, and seriously injurious to the interests of the empire. I yet have a hope that the noble Lord may be disposed to grant the demand which I have made. If I have seemed in what I have said to presuppose a hostile decision on the part of the noble Lord, I am sure that nothing will give me more pleasure than to find that I have been arguing without an antagonist. I am anxious to the last degree that all parties in this House should act together on a question of this kind. When we are not united, there is but a choice of evils. The state of this House, in which the elements of party are so disorganised, is so far satisfactory to me on this occasion, that it removes the suspicion of party combination on this high and imperial question, question and tends to procure for it a dispassionate consideration. I make my appeal, therefore, to the noble Lord, but I also make an appeal to Parliament, reserving to myself the right of judging whether any and what ulterior measures will be necessary; and I am confident that Parliament—I trust with the Government and under its guidance, if not, then without the Government—will do its duty on this important question to the Crown of England, and will do all that is required in order to maintain untarnished the lustre of that diadem which is the brightest and most distinguished in the world.

Sir, I derived much consolation from the commencement of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, when he said he wished not to propose any particular course this evening, as he was desirous that the tone of Parliament upon this subject should be an united tone, and he did not wish to make any proposition which would call forth division of sentiment. I had hoped that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would have been in accordance with that no doubt sincere desire which he expressed, and that he would have given utterance to sentiments in which the Government and the Members of this House might have generally concurred. But, Sir, as the right hon. Gentleman went on, I found I was doomed to be disappointed in that expectation; and I am now obliged to say, that if anything could aggravate the unfortunate dissensions existing in Canada—if anything could embitter the feeling of hostile parties towards this country—if anything could revive a violence of contest which we might have hoped was abating and sinking into oblivion, it would be the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman tonight. He has stated—and he has stated most ably—the ease of one party. He has stated every particular which is favourable to the views of that party now in opposition in Canada. He has supplied the arguments which have been wanting in Canada; he has filled up the defects which appeared to common eyes in the case they have made against the Administration of Canada; and he has endeavoured most ingeniously to meet and to overcome every argument which appears strongly in favour of the course the Governor General has adopted. I must say in the outset, however, that I entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman—and it is indeed in conformity with the sentiments I expressed in a despatch written, I think, some ten years ago—that there are cases which must he left to the decision of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. There are cases where the honour of the Crown and the safety of this country are concerned, and in such cases it requires the utmost temper in the colonies, and the utmost temper and firmness in this country, in order to prevent differences from being pushed to a collision which might be fatal to the connexion between the mother country and the colonies. I fully admit that there are such cases; but when the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that he considers the Earl of Elgin has received some instructions from the Government of this country by which he is debarred from asking the advice and direction of the Crown upon questions which affect imperial policy and the national honour, he is totally mistaken in that unwarranted assumption. Neither to the Earl of Elgin, nor to any other Governor of a province, has been committed any other than that general discretion, which must belong to a person in a chief situation in a great possession of the Crown, to judge what are the cases which, however important, are of a local importance, in which he thinks the honour of the Crown may be affected, and in which he considers it necessary to ask the direction of the Government in this country. If the Earl of Elgin, in pursuance of such a discretion, had conceived that to be a mere local matter in which the honour of the Crown was concerned—if he, acting upon his own judgment, had acted in a manner by which that honour had been affected, and the national dignity and the national safety had been impaired, our course, however painful, would be that of disavowing the act of the Earl of Elgin, seeing that his judgment had been erroneous, and that we could not advise the Crown to confirm the decision at which he had arrived. Sir, however painful that course, I trust I should not shrink from taking it if my duty rendered it necessary to do so. But if we believe, as we do believe, that the Earl of Elgin has rightly consulted not only the interests of Canada, but the interests of this country and the honour of the Crown—if we believe he has been guided by a knowledge of the feelings of the people of Canada, and, at the same time, by a loyal and patriotic attachment to the country of his birth and the Sovereign he is bound to serve—I say, if such is our opinion, we should be the basest of men if we were to desert the Earl of Elgin on this critical occasion; and if we were not to take upon ourselves any share of responsibility which this House may think fit to east upon us. It is not, therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman chooses to imagine, in pursuance of any instructions fettering the Earl of Elgin, and placing him in a position in which it is not fitting to put any Governor, but it is in the exercise of his ordinary discretion that he has acted; and it is in pursuance of our duty that we propose to act in deciding upon the conduct of his Government. With respect to this transaction, the right hon. Gentleman began with the Act which was recently introduced, and he only went back by way of answer to allegations which might be made to the former Acts that had been adopted in Canada. I think, hawever, it would have been the fairer and better way to have begun with those Acts, as, in fact, upon those Acts I think depended the conduct of the Ministry who were the advisers of the Earl of Elgin. I cannot conceive that a Ministry, knowing that the finances of Canada were not flourishing—knowing that many persons were suffering under commercial distress—knowing that the recollection of the rebellion could not but excite bitter feelings—would have introduced a Bill upon the subject of indemnity for rebellion losses, unless under a strong sense that it was impossible, consistently with their duty, to do otherwise. What are the circumstances under which the recent Act was introduced? After the rebellion of 1837 and 1838, a Bill was introduced in Upper Canada, giving compensation for losses caused by the rebels. In a subsequent Session another Act was introduced to amend the former Act; and when Lord Sydenham was Governor of the united province, an Act passed for the purpose of giving compensation, to a certain amount, to persons who had suffered losses during the rebellion. In some of these Acts it was provided that the losses to be compensated should be only losses caused by the rebels. The persons who were to receive such indemity were not, as the right hon. Gentleman would have us now suppose, persons strictly defined as having taken no part in the rebellion; they were only persons inhabitants of Upper Canada. When these compensation Acts had passed (omitting all discussion on what I think was a very futile objection, taken in Canada, that the indemnity was charged upon certain tavern licenses and other sources of revenue, and not on the general consolidated revenue of the province), it was obvious that the course taken, of voting a considerable sum, and of having paid a considerable sum, for rebellion losses in Upper Canada, would raise the question whether or no any such losses should be compensated in Lower Canada, the other part of the united province. After these Acts with regard to Upper Canada had been passed, without any notice having been taken in Parliament with respect to them—the only objection that I made to one of them being that there was a claim upon the imperial funds, and not upon the local funds—the consideration arose what should be done with regard to the further claims which it was obvious would be raised. What I am going to quote from is a despatch of Lord Stanley, dated the 8th of May, 1844. Lord Stanley says—

"I find that in Upper Canada an Act was passed with the intention of providing indemnification, by the means of debentures, for a certain number of persons who had sustained losses by the rebellion, but which Act, if I am rightly informed, never went into operation. It has been suggested to me that if the claims from both sections of the province were submitted in one application to the House of Assembly, they might receive favourable consideration, and be compensated by debentures."

Therefore, so far as regards claims for compensation from the lower province, the suggestion appears to have been made in these general terms by Lord Stanley, when Secretary of State, and to have gone from him to Sir C. Metcalfe, then Governor of Canada. After this we find that commissioners were appointed to ascertain what were the claims which might be made in Lower Canada. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted certain instructions given to the commissioners of inquiry who were to ascertain these claims. I find, as he quoted, that on the 12th of December, 1845, the administrator of the Government having appointed certain persons to be commissioners of inquiry, said to them—

"You will, in the performance of the duties devolving upon you under the present commission, carefully classify the cases of those who may have joined in the said rebellion, or may have been aiding and abetting therein, from the eases of those who did not; stating particularly, but succinctly, the nature of the loss sustained in each ease, its amount and character, and, as far as possible, its cause."

The commissioners inquired through their secretary what were the powers conferred on the commission to establish the classification required by the instructions, and they were told, on the 27th of February, 1846—

"In making out the classification called for by your instructions of the 12th of December last, it is not his Excellency's intention that you should be guided by any other description of evidence than that furnished by the sentences of the courts of law."

Now, the right hon. Gentleman tries to get rid of that answer by saying that no doubt there had been a change in the spirit of the councils; that, whatever Lord Metcalfe had thought and done, with that spirit of firmness and loyalty which distinguished him, the Government then existing in Canada had departed from his intentions. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not say so. I said nothing about intentions.] The right hon. Gentleman said there was a different spirit, a change in the spirit of the instructions. Now I cannot see why Earl Cathcart is to be put in this invidious contrast with Lord Metcalfe, or why it is to be supposed that he was less anxious to preserve the loyalty of the province than Lord Metcalfe had been, for an officer of more distinguished loyalty, one less disposed to favour rebellion, or one more fit to be entrusted with any matter in which the honour of the Crown is concerned, could not well be found, I believe, in the service of Her Majesty. But, Sir, what seems to me to have been the case is this—that the general instruction given by Earl Cathcart was intended to distinguish those who had aided in rebellion from those who had not, but that when the commissioners of indemnity endeavoured to carry that instruction into effect, they found it was impossible to make such a distinction without an inquiry, which would in fact be a new trial of all the persons who were charged with taking part in the rebellion. Now that is in fact the consideration which governs this whole case. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of what was done under the Indemnity Acts of 1839 and 1841, and he says it is not true, as was alleged by Mr. Hinckes, in the Assembly of Canada, that certain persons who received indemnity were engaged in the rebellion. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I never said so.] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had been so informed by Mr. Ingersoll, who was one of the commissioners. [Mr. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord is not stating what I said. I said by Mr. Cayley.] Well, then, Mr. Cayley was the informant of the right hon. Gentleman. But I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say—and in that I cannot be mistaken—that he went over three or four of these cases mentioned by Mr. Hinckes in the Assembly, and he found it was not true that they were the cases of persons guilty of rebellion—[Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!]—because in more than one case these persons had been tried and acquitted. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so, especially with regard to Mr. Hagerman.

wished to observe that the noble Lord spoke of what he had said, as if he (Mr. Gladstone) had made a statement from original or direct knowledge on the subject. With regard to Mr. Hagerman, he had drawn his information from a letter which the noble Lord had in his hand. He (Mr. Gladstone) had said that, from the fullest and latest evidence before him, there was no reason to believe that any person who was a rebel had been compensated.

proceeded: I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that with respect to that part of the case he had received information this morning which convinced him there was an entire mistake with respect to some of these persons—that certainly with respect to Mr. Hagerman he had not been convicted of rebellion, but had been acquitted. Now, the point to which I wish to bring this question is not whether Mr. Hinckes was right or wrong, but to show the House the difficulty of making the distinction upon which the right hon. Gentleman insists. Mr. Hinckes said openly in the House of Assembly that there were persons who had been guilty of rebellion who had received compensation under the Upper Canada Act; that he found it on record in his own office, and in the offices of the Government; and he instanced Mr. Hagerman, who he said was commissary-general of the rebels. He also mentioned other persons who had been convicted. Now, what was the real case with regard to Mr. Hagerman? If I understand the right hon. Gentleman now, he admits that Mr. Hinckes was totally mistaken—that Mr. Hagerman was a person who was not convicted, but who was acquitted. But then, I say, Mr. Hinckes was not a person to make that assertion in the Assembly, whether it was correct or not correct, without going at least upon public fame, and upon a general belief that Mr. Hagerman had been commissary-general of the rebels, and that another person whom he mentions had been a lieutenant-general of the rebels. I say, then, cannot you apply the same test with respect to the persons who are now to claim compensation? If these persons come forward and claim compensation, the right hon. Gentleman says, "They are rebels—or they aided in the rebellion." Well, they deny the charge. They say it is not true—that public report may have accused them, and that every one hitherto may have believed the charge; but they deny it, and they ask for the proof. What would the right hon. Gentleman do then? Would he go upon public fame, stamping these persons as rebels, and refusing them a trial? Or, if he would not do that, would he have a trial for high treason in 1849 with respect to transactions which took place in 1837? Would the right hon. Gentleman say, "I ask for primâ facie proof that these men are not rebels?" Is it to be borne that men who declare themselves to have been loyal, and who say, perhaps, that they got out of the way at the time of the rebellion, from fear that the rebels would destroy their property, or that from intimidation they did not appear to join the King's forces, are to be obliged now, in 1849, to go into a regular proof that they were loyal men in 1837, and that no act of theirs can be construed into an act of rebellion? Because that is what the right hon. Gentleman asks. He does not even give to these parties the chance which a person accused of high treason before a court of law has; for such person on being placed at the bar says he is not guilty, and is not bound to say a word more. Take the case of any one brought to trial for rebellion in Ireland last year; if the judge had said to him, "You must bring forward primâ facie proof that you were not in that insurrection," the accused would have replied with indignation, and the whole audience would have echoed his indignant expressions, "I am not bound to prove that I am not guilty; it is for the prosecution to bring forward their witnesses and proof, and until proof is given against me, I am an innocent man." Such would be the right of a man, as I before observed, who, in 1840 or 1841, it was proposed should receive compensation for rebellion losses in 1837 and 1838; but only imagine all the present claimants for rebellion losses being brought to the test he had adverted to eleven or twelve years after the occurrence had taken place, when it might be very possible that their nearest relations, that all those with whom they consorted, and who could have proved that they were not rebels, were dead or gone, or removed to some other country, so that they were deprived of means of giving that evidence which the right hon. Gentleman requires of their innocence. So much, then, with respect to the Acts which were passed with respect to Upper Canada, and so much with respect to the correspondence which had taken place in 1845. After that time there appeared to have been a report of the commission, in which the commissioners stated numerous claims with respect to this subject, but observed that those claims might be reduced, and that they thought the sum of 100,000 l . would compensate all the real losses which had taken place. It appears to have been, so far as we can tell, the intention of the Government of that day to proceed upon those statements, and it does not appear that anything else was to have been the test with respect to loyalty than that which was suggested in the statement of Mr. Daly, the secretary of the Council—namely, that those were to be considered as rebels, or as having aided and abetted in rebellion, who had been so found guilty by courts of law. After this, the Ministry who had then the general government of affairs in Canada became weakened, and made an attempt to form an association or coalition with the heads of the French Canadians. The negotiation to that end did not result in any coalition of the kind, and ultimately the Earl of Elgin consented to a dissolution with a view to strengthen the Government. The result was not successful, for the great majority of those sent to the Assembly were hostile to the then Administration. On the meeting of the Assembly, when it was found that the great majority were against the Ministers, the latter resigned, and, according to the doctrine of responsible government, the present Ministry succeeded to their places. Now, it was obvious that this matter relating to compensation for rebellion losses was the question which would be pressed on the Ministry. The former Ministry, at the suggestion of the Secretary of State, had proposed that there should be an indemnity for losses in Lower Canada as well as in Upper Canada. With respect to the making of a classification of claims under the previous commission of inquiry, the Secretary of the Government had declared that the only line to be taken was to separate those who had been found guilty in courts of law from those who had not been found guilty. Accordingly the same principles—first of granting fair indemnity for the rebellion losses in Lower Canada, and, next, of making a general distinction between those who had been and those who had not been found guilty, were adopted by the existing Ministry in Canada, and a measure was prepared with the view of carrying out those principles. The right hon. Gentleman, who, I must say, urges most ingenious arguments with respect to every allegation made on behalf of this Bill, says that those who had been found guilty by courts-martial could not be said to have been legally convicted; but, as far as my recollection of the circumstances of the time serves, I believe that Sir J. Colborne proclaimed martial law in Canada, and when martial law is proclaimed the courts-martial established do not require the previous authority of the Crown, but are formed under the common law. Therefore those proceedings and sentences would be lawful under the authority of Sir J. Colborne's proclamation. If such were the case, the difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred could not arise; but I must observe that, with a view to obviate objections, the existing Ministry in Canada did establish more restrictions and conditions in the Act respecting Lower Canadian losses than were imposed with regard to Upper Canada. The preamble of the Act states that—

"It is necessary and just that particulars of such losses not yet satisfied shall form the subject of more minute inquiry under legislative authority, and that the same, so far only as they may have arisen from the total or partial, unjust or wanton destruction of the dwellings, buildings, property, and effects of the said inhabitants, and from the seizure, taking, or carrying away their property and effects, should be paid and satisfied; provided that none of the persons who have been convicted of high treason alleged to have been committed m that part of the province formerly called Lower Canada, since the 1st day of November, 1837, or who, having been charged with high treason or other offences of a treasonable nature, and having been committed to the custody of the sheriff in the gaol of Montreal, submitted themselves to the will and pleasure of Her Majesty, and were thereupon transported to Her Majesty's island of Bermuda, shall be entitled to any indemnity for losses sustained during or after the said rebellion, or in consequence thereof. "

With respect to the first part of the preamble, the right hon. Gentleman says, there might have been a destruction of property which was just, and that compensation for such a loss would, under the words, he shut out; but that only showed that the terms, with respect to compensation, were more restricted and confined in their limits, and might exclude, as I admit to the right hon. Gentleman, some claims which would perfectly justify compensation. With respect to the second part of the preamble, it is evident from the words, that the allegation that persons sent to Bermuda could claim indemnity on the ground of having been taken away from their families and suffered loss thereby, could not be supported, and that any such claim must be refused under the Act. The Act goes on to say, that certain commissioners should have 100,000 l . in debentures for the purpose of satisfying those just claims, but they are to be bound by the preamble of the Act. Now, the question arises whether that preamble, or whether the clauses of the Bill, should have gone still further in limitation or description; and whether any of the amendments proposed in the Committee of the whole House, or afterwards during the course of the Bill, should have been adopted by the legislature of Canada. With respect to that question, I must say, that however it might be a question in the Canadian Assembly, I do not, at least for myself, feel bound to say whether every one of those amendments ought to have been rejected by the Canadian Assembly, or not. It is no part of my duty to say, that the majority were perfectly right in every instance. What I have to look at is whether the Act when passed infringes on the honour of the Crown, or does that which is unjust to the empire, or to the loyal men of that province. Whether Mr. Wilson's amendment should have been adopted or not, is not the question I am disposed to argue, any further than to say that the onus was placed on all those who proposed amendments, to show that there could be any test by which rebels, or persons aiding rebels, could be disqualified from compensation, unless it was some definite formal proceeding, such as the sentence of a court of law, or the sentence of a court-martial, or the fact of transportation to Bermuda. All these tests are clear and definite, and the Ministry in Canada had no hesitation in adopting them. With respect to other tests, if made equally clear and definite, there is no proof before the House that they would not also have adopted them. They always declared that it was their wish not to compensate rebels for losses in consequence of the rebellion; but the House must see, as regards the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, that when you come to apply some one test, you are obliged to say, then, that you will not, in 1849, investigate the conduct of any man twelve years ago, or bring up against him, after such lapse of time, perhaps some act done in the midst of terror and alarm, for the purpose of marking him out as not a loyal man in 1837, although for the last ten years his conduct may have been perfectly loyal and peaceable. I say you had better reject the Indemnity Bill altogether than attempt such an investigation as this; for what can it do but establish in Canada what has been properly called a Star Chamber inquiry, and divide classes, villages, and families, and mark out and brand a certain set of men, after long inquiry, as rebels, distinguishing certain others as having the sole quality of loyalty? If we were to attempt some hundreds of trials for high treason, and were in this way to investigate each man's misconduct, the peace of the province would be utterly destroyed, and all chance of these classes living together in harmony—all chance of their being considered, as I have no doubt they are, loyal subjects of Her Majesty, would be precluded by such an inquiry. What is the general fact, as far as I believe it, and as far as the evidence of the time established it, with regard to the rebellion in Canada? It was an insurrection fomented by some very artful men, among some very ignorant part of the population. The great mass of the population were averse to that insurrection. The great mass of the French Canadians, led very generally by their religious teachers, abhorred the horrors of civil war and rebellion. At the same time there was a great popular spirit of discontent: the rebels for a few days obtained possession of a part of the country; and many persons, acting under terror, did, though unwilling to participate in rebellion, certainly appear to give a countenance to it—a countenance which they had no reason to give from disposition, but which was compelled by that alarm which is always excited when armed bodies take possession of peaceable districts and raise the standard of rebellion. I say, believing those persons in their hearts to be loyal, believing that if they did not actively resist they nevertheless entirely disapproved of these rebellious proceedings, I would not now attempt an investigation into their conduct, and make them prove a primâ facie case, not only that they were not actually in arms, not only that they were not convicted of treason, but that they were in no way aiding and abetting the rebellion which then took place. I am obliged to presume, then, seeing the conduct which the Earl of Elgin has pursued, and bearing in mind the declarations of the Ministry in Canada, that, however well intended these amendments may have been, there were objections to them which were either valid, or which appeared to be valid, to the majority of the Canadian Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman says, with respect to one amendment which he favours, that of Mr. Wilson, that there was a division on it of 28 to 44, being not so great a majority in favour of the Ministerial plan as appeared on other questions; and I think that there was a majority of the representatives of Upper Canada in favour of that amendment. Without disputing the accuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on the subject, I would observe, that after that amendment was negatived, the original question was put, when there appeared a greater majority in favour of it than that by which the amendment had been negatived; and when the Bill came to the third reading, instead of those persons who voted for the amendment saying that in consequence of its rejection the Bill was so objectionable in compensating rebels that they would vote against it, there was, on the contrary, a great majority in its favour, the division being 47 against 18 for the Bill as a whole, though none of the amendments referred to had been inserted in it. A majority of English descent voted in favour of the Bill, and it was only a minority of English descent that voted against it. Some time after the Bill passed the Assembly, I believe the Speaker, who was one of the Legislative Council, made these observations:—

"It had been maintained, that according to the instructions contained in the Governor General's commission, he ought to have reserved the Bill as one of an extraordinary and unusual character. No doubt such instructions were contained in his commission; but how could the Bill be considered one of either an extraordinary or an unusual character? Had there not been Bills of a similar character passed by the Parliament of Canada? Had not one been passed for Upper Canada, of which the Lower Canada Bill was a true transcript, and to which no opposition was made? And the 40,000 l . voted for the payment of the losses in Upper Canada, in 1845, was taken from funds which had previously belonged to the provincial funds, and yet it was never suggested that the veto of the Sovereign should be put on that Bill. Was it, therefore, consistent, because another Administration had passed a Bill for the very same purpose as the one passed for Upper Canada, and which had not been opposed, for hon. Gentlemen to come forward and call it a Bill of an extraordinary character, and that it ought to have been reserved for the pleasure of Her Majesty? It was unfair to proceed with such an opposition; and he was afraid, in spite of all that hon. Gentlemen might say, that the opposition to the measure arose from the fact, not that they were going to pay rebels, but because those who were to be paid were French Canadians. ["No, no!"] He maintained that the Bill was only to pay the just losses, and it was based precisely on the same principle as the Bills which had passed the Parliament for the payment of the just losses sustained by persons in Upper Canada. The principle and the circumstances of the two measures were exactly the same; and the Ministry had passed their word of honour that no rebels would be paid, and had even consented to some alteration in the Bill for the purpose of doing away with the belief that rebels were to be paid. In spite of all this, hon. Gentlemen still maintained that it was their intention to pay rebels; but he would again assure them, on his own responsibility as a member of the Administration, that rebels were not to be paid."

Such was the explicit declaration of one whom I believe to be a gentleman of honour and character, and who belongs to the Ministry in Canada, and who uttered a sentiment to which he pledged the Ministry as well as his own honour. This, be it observed, was after the Bill passed, and after all those amendments to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred had been rejected. Again, the Earl of Elgin, being informed that some Bills required the assent of the Government, proceeded to the House of Assembly, and then gave his assent, as Governor General, to this Bill; and, in answer to an address afterwards, the Earl of Elgin stated his views in the following terms:—

"Even if the measure of indemnity to which you refer had been more objectionable than it is, it would still have been the duty and interest of all lovers of true freedom and of order, which is amongst its most valuable fruits, to protest against the outrageous assaults on the fundamental principles of constitutional government for which it has been made the pretext. But I am bound to say, in justice to the large majority of your representatives, by whom this Bill was sanctioned, that it is my firm belief"—

[He desired it to be observed that the Earl of Elgin was at the time in daily communication with the advisers, promoters, and authors of this measure,]

"—that they did not intend in passing it to countenance rebellion, or to compensate the losses of persons guilty of the heinous crime of treason; but that their purpose was to make provision for the payment of claims arising from the wanton and unnecessary destruction of property, which is the cruel, though perhaps inevitable accompaniment of civil warfare—claims which had been already recognised by the deliberate Acts of preceding Parliaments and Governments. Under this conviction I assented to the Bill, and in this spirit only could I ever consent, as the head of the Executive Government, to give effect to it. "

This is the public declaration of the Earl of Elgin. The right hon. Gentleman has pronounced a just panegyric on Lord Metcalfe. Let us do all honour to the dead. The memory of Lord Metcalfe deserves to be respected; but let us not be unjust to the living; and I will say that, when the Earl of Elgin pronounces those sentiments, he does not mean to leave himself an opening for evasion—he means to act in the spirit of his declaration, and to do all in his power to carry into effect the views he expressed that it was not intended to compensate the losses of persons guilty of the heinous crime of rebellion. For my part, speaking in the name of the Government, I have perfect confidence in the integrity and justice of the Earl of Elgin; and I believe that the words he has pronounced he will carry into effect by the acts he will sanction. Of course, with respect to the mode of carrying out this Act, much will depend upon the instructions to be given, and upon the commissioners to be named. It is the Earl of Elgin's own wish, I believe, that before any formal act is done here, the instructions which he proposes to give to the commissioners should reach this country. We have not yet received the Act in such a shape that the Queen in Council could be advised to give any decision upon it, either to carry it into operation or otherwise; but I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is our belief—and that belief we mean immediately to communicate to the Earl of Elgin—that it will be our duty to leave this Act to its operation—that we shall do so in the confidence that those instructions will be framed in the spirit of the declarations which he himself has made—and that therefore we do not doubt that when these instructions arrive they will be such as to enable us to advise the Queen to give Her entire approbation to the Earl of Elgin's proceeding. I do not, therefore, in any way mean to disguise the course that we intend to pursue. I cannot believe such a thing—though it is within the verge of possibility—as that those instructions should be quite contrary to the statements which the Earl of Elgin has made, and the assurances which he has given; but concluding, according not only to all probability, but to what I should say is nearly a moral certainty—we shall be in possession before a very long time of the Act in a formal shape, and of the instructions which will be given in pursuance of it. Under those instructions I have no doubt that the directions will be such as to compensate losses caused wantonly and unjustly during the course of the rebellion. That any instructions can be so framed, as to prevent any person who may have in any way countenanced this rebellion from receiving compensation, without going to the danger and difficulty, and I may say the torture of new trials for high treason, is what I confess I do not believe; I believe that all that can be done—all that regard for the honour of this country—all that respect for justice—all that sound judgment can require, will be done by the Earl of Elgin in his capacity of Governor General. I have no reason, from any partiality to the Earl of Elgin, to take up his cause especially, as in any way involved in what his conduct might be. We found the Earl of Elgin appointed by Lord Stanley to the Government of Jamaica; the despatches, some of them produced in this House, others that came to our official knowledge with regard to his conduct in Jamaica, struck us as showing remarkable ability; as showing him a man who, placed in a high and responsible situation, I think his first public office, at once seized upon the main points which required his attention as Governor, and directed himself to the administration of that colony in a manner to promote its welfare, and to serve the interests of the Crown. Being struck with these marks of ability. Earl Grey advised Her Majesty to appoint him to the still more difficult situation of Governor General of Canada. Since he has been Governor General of Canada, I may say that everything he has done has confirmed the opinion that he was a person fit to be entrusted with great power to exercise great responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that the province of Canada is not represented by the votes of its Legislative Assembly. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not say a word of it.] The right hon. Gentleman argued for some time that there were petitions and addresses showing that, in fact, there wag a very strong opinion on the other side, and that that might be the prevailing opinion in Canada. It has occurred to me to argue in this House, when parties have asked for a dissolution of Parliament because this House carried repeal of the corn laws, that this House, chosen by the people of this country, was competent to perform any act of legislation, and that you had no right to call upon the Crown to look for any other representatives than those whom the law pointed out as such. Still, it was within the power of the Governor General of Canada, if he had thought that the Assembly did not represent the people of Canada—that opinion was the other way—that this Rebellion Losses Bill had excited so much indignation and disgust that a different Assembly would be chosen—it was perfectly in his power to refuse his confidence to his present Ministers, to change his Ministers, and to dissolve the Assembly. Why, Sir, what reason had he to do so? In the case to which I have just alluded, we had unmistakeable symptoms with regard to many Members of this House, that their constituents did not agree with them in the view they took of the measure then under consideration. But with regard to Canada, I have examined—I have asked, whether any Member for Upper Canada has been called upon by his constituents to resign—whether his conduct has been disapproved by large numbers of them, and he has been told that he has misrepresented them on account of his vote upon this question, and I find nothing of the kind. At least, if there may have been some single instance, I find, with regard to the great body who have voted for this Bill, that they seem to be as fully in possession of the confidence of their constituents as at any previous time. The opinion of the Earl of Elgin is, that if he were to dissolve the Assembly he should have another returned with the same majority, and representing the same sentiments; but he would not be in the same position. If the Earl of Elgin were to make that mistake, and to change his Ministry, and then to find that the Assembly adhered to his present administration, he would have caused vast ill-feeling and dissension, all the heats of a contested election, and, in the end, have to take back the Ministry he had rejected for the sake of this measure. At all events, the Earl of Elgin, I think, was a sufficient judge of these matters, and he has declared that that is not his intention, that he has made up his mind not to dissolve the present Assembly: but, at the same time, the Earl of Elgin is willing to encounter the disapprobation of Her Majesty if we should think fit to give advice to that effect, and to submit in that case to the penalties which would follow such disapprobation. I have seen it written by a person indeed who ought to be some authority, that we might disallow this Act, and yet give our full countenance and support to the Earl of Elgin. The Earl of Elgin, I believe, would consider such a course out of the question. He would say that if this Act were disallowed, he was unfit for his situation of Governor General of Canada. But I could not, as things at present stand, so far as I am at present informed, advise the Crown to proceed to the disallowance of this Act. I feel—I feel very deeply, the excitement which has been caused by it. I believe that the opponents to this Bill founded their objections on feelings and arguments which no doubt appeared to them valid, but that they have carried their opposition to a point that has raised an excitement in Canada, which they themselves see with great regret. I observe that all the best of them speak in terms of indignation of the outrages committed, the insults offered to the Governor General. I trust, therefore, that however much excitement may have been caused by this Act, these Gentlemen, whom I believe to be men of loyal sentiments, some of whom I know were advisers of former Governors General, and comported themselves as men who had the interests of their country at heart, will, when this present excitement shall be over, endeavour so to avert the evil consequences that may flow from it as to prevent any lasting and permanent discord arising in Canada from this source. The right hon. Gentleman has adverted to the course he thinks it would be necessary to take if it were a question between contending the colony and sacrificing the honour of the Crown. I am happy to think that in the present instance no such choice is required. I believe we shall consult at once the honour of the Crown and the interests of Canada by supporting the Earl of Elgin in the course that he has taken. I trust that the different parties in Canada, whose dissensions are not of yesterday, who have carried on these bitter contests for many years, will feel that whatever imperial interests may be involved in this question, it is still more for the interest of Canada that she should be allowed to pursue her course of destined prosperity, undisturbed by the effects upon commerce, upon agriculture, upon industry, of these violent agitations. Such was the lesson which my lamented Friend, Lord Sydenham, endeavoured to teach in all the provinces of North America. He always said—" Whatever your party differences may be, you are, by pushing those differences to an extreme, risking the loss of that great social prosperity which is your lot if you can but carry on those differences within the bounds of constitutional conflict and legal moderation." I believe now, if such is the course of the opposition party in Canada, if they do not attempt to transfer to this House the differences which have already taken place in Canada, that Canada—this question over—is destined to see her prosperity gradually recovered, and, once recovered, continually augmented. I believe her situation is such, that the inhabitants of Canada need not envy any other country any institutions it may enjoy. I believe, under the British sceptre, they may enjoy as much freedom and as much happiness as can be the lot of any people on the face of the earth. Unhappily, the difference of race is one main element of these dissensions. It may be that hereafter a more general federal union, such as the right hon. Gentleman has alluded to, may be the means, by admitting other parties, of diffusing over a greater space these dissensions, and thereby weakening their force. But however that may be, I feel upon this occasion, that, anxious that this Bill should be Carried out in the spirit avowed by the Earl of Elgin and by one of his chief advisers—anxious that the Earl of Elgin should be allowed the full liberty to act according to his own views of what is necessary and advantageous to Canada—I should be weakening the authority of this country and of the Imperial Parliament over Canada, and not assisting but impairing the honour of the Crown, if I were, by any distrust, by any direct mark of want of confidence, or, what were still worse, by half-expressed suspicions, to deprive the Earl of Elgin of that support to which I think he is fairly entitled. I must leave the right hon. Gentleman to pursue the course he thinks fit. I should be sorry, indeed, if he should think it necessary by a mere formal Motion to test who those are in this House who think that this is a case in which, if you abide by responsible government, you are bound to allow the Act of the Canadian legislature to come into operation, and those who would fetter and restrain the liberty of the province by disallowing an Act to which, as I think, although there may be much criticism made upon it, there is no valid and sound objection. Believing and trusting that a straightforward and direct course is more likely to pacify than any tampering with the difficulty, I have declared at once the course that the Government means to pursue.

, in explanation, mentioned that since he spoke, Mr. Hinches had sent him a note, stating that in two of the five cases he had referred to, those of Malcolm and Hall, the parties might not have been tried, but they left the province and were outlawed. Malcolm was pardoned by Lord Sydenham, and Hall by Lord Metcalfe. Mr. Hinckes went on to say, that he did not mention the name of Tooke, but that Cooke was sentenced to be hanged for high treason, and pardoned—one of those who received the payment which had been mentioned. As to the fourth, Hager-man, it was alleged by Mr. Ingersoll that he was not convicted. Mr. Hinckes stated in his note that he thought Hager-man was convicted, but at all events he defended a civil action on the ground of the goods in question having been received by him as commissary-general of the rebels. With respect to the fifth case, that of Dr. Duncombe, it was explained in Canada; it was an error.

said, it would be unpardonable in him to trespass for any great length upon the House after that had been already stated in the debate by his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University, and by the noble Lord opposite; for the question had now been brought to a point at which some judgment might be formed as to the course which it would be most wise to pursue. His right hon. Friend had detailed all the circumstances of the case with so much accuracy and with such fidelity that it would be absurd in any one endeavouring to follow him to do otherwise than refer to his elaborate and excellent speech. But the question which his right hon. Friend had raised had been met by the noble Lord with anything but a logical or close answer. The noble Lord had put forward a great number of very general, and some of them very captivating, phrases, but had not, in the whole of his speech, brought the question to that point upon which the House must be satisfied before they would allow this matter to rest in the position in which it now stood. The noble Lord had in one respect, indeed, almost said enough to justify him (Mr. Herries) in closing at once with his assurances of the sentiments and disposition of the Government, and in leaving the question without further opposition or discussion. The noble Lord had nearly come up to the object of the argument of his right hon. Friend, but because he had not quite reached the point which alone ought to be satisfactory to the House, therefore he (Mr. Herries) was obliged to continue this debate. The noble Lord had taken great pains to establish the fact that it was not the intention of those who had prosecuted this measure in Canada, or of the advisers of the Crown in Canada, or of the Governor General, to pay, under the provisions of this Bill, indemnification money to rebels. Upon that point he held that the opinions of his right hon. Friend had been fully met by the noble Lord; for he (Mr. Herries) understood him to have declared that, in his judgment, it would be a great departure from propriety and justice that rebels should be indemnified for losses sustained in a rebellion created by themselves, and indemnified out of the money of loyal subjects. No doubt, if the noble Lord would carry that principle into execution, and would adopt such measures for the purpose as would remove all fear and doubt upon the subject not only here at home, but from the minds of the loyal inhabitants of Canada, which had been so cruelly disturbed by apprehensions to the contrary, he would at once silence all discussion in this country, and allay all the animosities and heartburnings in the province. But the noble Lord had stopped short of that; and it was to be feared that the noble Lord was not prepared to go the length of declaring that the Government was determined that the Act should not be carried into effect in the sense in which those who were so deeply interested in the matter in Canada believed it was to be interpreted, and believed also that without some special interposition of the Government in this country, or of the legislature in Canada, it must invariably, consistently with the terms and provisions of the Act itself, be carried into execution. That was the point to which he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The whole of the latter part of the speech of the noble Lord was calculated to convey a different opinion. It went to impress in the strongest manner upon the minds of Members, the conviction that those persons were wrong who entertained the belief that under this Bill the persons who were themselves concerned in the rebellion were to receive indemnification for their losses. Yet, looking at the provisions of the Bill, it seemed to follow, as of the strictest necessity, that all persons having sustained losses during the rebellion under the circumstances therein described, who could not be included within the category of exceptions specified in the preamble to the Bill—that is to say, "who had neither been convicted of treason nor committed to jail, or transported after having submitted themselves to justice"—would by virtue of the Act be entitled to compensation, whether engaged in the rebellion or not. Upon this very material point—rendered especially so by the opinions expressed by the noble Lord—he would take the liberty of addressing himself more particularly to the Attorney General, as the principal law officer of the Crown, who had no doubt carefully perused the Act and the papers connected with it, and he would appeal to that hon. and learned Gentleman to declare, whether if the Act were left in its present shape to pass into execution—and he doubted the authority of the Crown to modify, although it might altogether refuse its assent to the Act—any power would exist to put any other construction upon the principle by which the distribution of the indemnity money was to be governed. The noble Lord said, that further communications from the Earl of Elgin might be expected, and some account of the instructions he intended to give to the commissioners who were to carry the Act into effect. He (Mr. Herries) believed that, under the Act, the Governor General had no such instructions to give; and that was the point to which he desired to direct the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General, for he thought that the Governor General could not, by any instructions, vary the strict directions of the Act. It appeared, no doubt, to be the desire of the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the instructions of the Earl of Elgin should be of a kind to prevent the application of the Act in that sense in which those who had been so much exasperated in Canada did believe that it must be carried into effect. This was a point of the utmost importance. There had been an attempt to answer some few details in the speech of his right hon. Friend, which were comparatively insignificant, and into these he would not go. But the main question was one of the gravest and most difficult which, perhaps, the House had ever been called upon to decide. It was nothing more nor less than this—whether they would permit, under an Act concerning the intentions of which there existed this difference of opinion, a measure to be carried into effect, which, if strictly administered, would, he was confident, strike at the very foundations of all good government. It was neither more nor less than this—whether they would deliberately approve of a principle which was calculated to sever all the bonds of political allegiance, and to stifle every feeling of loyalty and attachment to Government in any community? It was this—that those persons who had been engaged in a rebellion should at the end of a certain period—it mattered not how long—notwithstanding their participation in it, receive indemnification at the hands of those who had been engaged in suppressing that rebellion. If they suffered this, how could they expect to allay the animosities and heartburnings which had prevailed? Did they expect they were so to be stopped? Did they expect that loyal men who had made enormous sacrifices and exertions to uphold the power of the Crown, would have their loyalty confirmed by seeing others rewarded whose rebellion and treachery had only been successfully opposed and frustrated by those exertions and sacrifices? So far from it, they would be laying the foundation for perpetual and enduring differences. The noble Lord would permit him to call his attention to the absurdity—he used the word in its logical relation, and of course not personally to the noble Lord—to the absurdity of his argument on this subject. The noble Lord said, "We do not intend that rebels shall be paid." That was one of the noble Lord's propositions, and he seemed perfectly conclusive upon it. But he said, at the same time, that it would be monstrous to attempt to investigate or try who was and who was not a rebel in 1837 and 1838. How, then, without any examination, would the noble Lord avoid payment to rebels? There was now on the table of the House a long list of claimants for indemnification, and among these appeared the names of a great number of persons notoriously concerned in the rebellion; many of them avowedly upon the very face of the document having been in prison for the share which they took in it. Were the claims of these persons to be admitted? According to the noble Lord they were not; but according to the plain wording of the Act they could not be rejected, if the facts alleged were substantiated, and the parties did not come within the exceptions of the statute. But supposing the view taken by the noble Lord to be correct, a very little consideration would satisfy the House that to carry into effect the avowed intention of the Government, some inquiry must be entered upon, and it must be decided by investigation who was and who was not a rebel in 1837 and 1838. An assembly like that must not be told that it was out of human power to make these discoveries and discriminations. It was clear, if it was to be decided that certain persons were not to be admitted, such investigations must be entered upon, and such distinctions made. Suppose a man had been in prison, but not convicted. According to his (Mr. Herries') interpretation of the Act, that man would have a title to indemnification just as much as the most loyal subject. In what way, then, did the Government intend to meet that difficulty? He was far from being disposed to cast blame upon the Earl of Elgin, or to enter into any of those animosities, divisions, and heats, which had prevailed in Canada, or to augment them by any word from him. But this much he would say, notwithstanding some undue imputations which had been cast abroad, that there had prevailed on that (the Opposition) side of the House since the first time they had been alarmed by information received from Canada, a most cautious forbearance from any expression of opinion, one way or the other, which might have been construed into a disposition to promote any of those party feelings. But now he was prepared to state his belief that the great blame of all that had occurred in Canada rested not upon the Earl of Elgin, but upon the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government. He looked to the dates. He found that early in February the resolutions upon which this Bill was founded had been introduced in the Canadian legislature. In the course of the discussions which took place on those resolutions, motions had been made and divisions had taken place by which the points now at issue had been fairly and fully mooted, and contested between the opposite parties. These had clearly exhibited the grounds and the extent of the deplorable irritation which the measure had given rise to. About the 19th or 20th of March information of these proceedings was received in this country. He asked, then, what was the duty of Her Majesty's Government upon the receipt of that first intelligence of the introduction of this measure, of the effect it had produced, and of the consequences that were likely to ensue? What was the course a considerate and prudent Government would have adopted under these circumstances? The noble Lord opposite prided himself, and the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Government prided himself, in an especial manner, upon having used no interference; and the noble Lord dwelt upon the merits of the Earl of Elgin in carrying out, without advice or direction, and entirely uncontrolled, this measure of which information had been received by the Government here in March. It appeared to him (Mr. Herries), that the first duty of a Government, upon receiving such information as that—information of a measure teeming with danger to the peace of the province of Canada—would have been to give distinct advice and recommendations to the noble Earl entrusted with the government of that province. If the Government had been of opinion that it was wise to persevere in a scheme which manifestly on the face of it led to the compensation of rebels—if they had been of opinion that there was no mischief in that determination, they would have been right in giving their advice to the Earl of Elgin to continue in the course which had been adopted. But if they held the other opinion—which from the speech of the noble Lord, it was now known they did—that such a course was not wise, but that it was advisable to do exactly the contrary, then was it not the duty of the Government forthwith to have warned the Earl of Elgin so to modify the Bill, or through his council to consent to such modification of that Bill, as to remove all possible misconstruction and objections on the part of those who were opposed to it? If the most influential of those who had opposed the measure had received the assurance that rebels were not to receive compensation, they would have been perfectly satisfied. No mistake was so great as to represent those persons as opposed to compensation. Compensation and indemnity they were willing to grant cheerfully, and to pay their share of the burden. Their objection was to that which it now appeared the noble Lord himself objected to—namely, that this Bill should be made applicable to the cases of those against whom they had stood opposed in arms at the time of the rebellion. Those persons were entitled to have received such assurances. Could the Governor General, or could the Government in this country, by issuing any instructions or making any arrangement through the commissioners, now alter the provisions of this Bill so as to make it applicable only to loyal persons, and those who had not been engaged in the rebellion? The disposition of the Government was evidently to effect some such modification in the operation of the Act, and thereby to obviate those consequences which appeared to be inevitable if the plain and literal construction of its provisions were adhered to. Such being the contradiction between these enactments of the Colonial Assembly, and the views and intentions of the noble Lord, he (Mr. Herries) was at a loss to see how Her Majesty's Government could escape from the dilemma in which they were placed. Did they stand by the existing provisions of the Bill, and express themselves satisfied to abide by it? No; they professed to rely upon the further steps to be taken by Lord Elgin, whereby the Act might be subjected to some material changes in its operation. Now, if the Government would say that such being their expectation they would take care to avert the obnoxious consequences of the measure by instructions to that effect addressed to the Colonial Government—he said, if they would come forward now and make such a declaration as that—they would allay the animosity which now prevailed in the provinces, and remove the doubt and anxiety which were felt at home. But no; what from the ill-advised conduct of the Canadian Government in introducing the Bill, and what from their obstinate refusal to give any satisfactory answer to the four or five questions which had been put to them on this point—a point, above all others, on which they ought to be explicit—this House and the country must still be in difficulty to understand the course the Government at home meant to pursue. It was true that when the Bill had passed, the authorities in the colony said they did not mean to apply the indemnity to the rebels. The speech of M. Caron, the president of the Legislative Council, when the Bill had passed, distinctly declared that his colleagues were opposed to the thought of remunerating rebels. But that was too late. During the progress of the Bill they obstinately refused to give any satisfaction, or to offer such a definition of the word rebels as would show the party opposed to the measure that the construction they put upon the preamble might be avoided. Adverting to the attempts which had been made to justify the Act upon the ground of precedent, he maintained that every argument used to show that it was conformable to former measures introduced by the Canadian Government, had failed; and his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford had already made that case too clear to require again to be exposed. Nothing could be more different than the provisions of this Bill from those of former Bills passed by the Legislature, either of Upper or of Lower Canada. The first which was passed by the Legislature of Lower Canada, was distinctly confined in its operations to loyal subjects, the word loyal being sedulously employed to prevent any misconception on that point. The Bills passed in Upper Canada were formed in the same spirit; the same words were used by Lord Metcalfe, and the last document which emanated from him upon the subject; and it was not till after the Administration of Lord Metcalfe had terminated that the new phraseology was introduced which had thrown so much doubt upon the language of this Act. But, however, this was clear, that all satisfaction was steadily refused throughout the progress of the Bill in Canada; and when the Earl of Elgin expressed in such strong terms as had been quoted by the noble Lord his abhorrence of the supposition that rebels should be remunerated, the Bill had passed, and he did not point out in what way he proposed to avoid the consequences of its positive provisions. He, therefore, should put it to the Government, and he should expect an explicit answer from some Gentleman, how they would be able to avoid the provisions of this Bill? He (Mr. Herries) had had the opportunity of consulting some very eminent and experienced lawyers upon the construction of the Act; and he said, upon their authority, he was confident the Government could not avoid the operation of the Bill by instructions applied, either here or in Canada, and that they could not hope to escape the payment of the rebels by any administrative directions in Canada—the means on which the noble Lord at the head of the Government seemed to rely. The noble Lord, when he addressed the House, spoke, although doubtfully, as if it were still open to him to take steps to avoid those consequences to which it was now clear that the noble Lord himself was strongly opposed. He seemed also to entertain some expectation that the Canadian Legislature would amend the Act; but the better course in his (Mr. Herries') opinion, would be for some hon. Gentleman to make a distinct Motion on the subject in this House, unless the noble Lord consented to give them such an assurance as that which he had already asked him to give. [ A cry of "Move, move!" from the Opposition benches .] In compliance with the call which was made upon him, he would therefore take it upon himself to make such a Motion; and he would conclude by submitting to the House an Address, praying Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to withhold her Royal assent to an Act passed by the Canadian Legislature, to provide indemnification for losses sustained by persons in Lower Canada, from the rebellion in 1837 and 1838, unless Her Majesty shall receive a satisfactory assurance that no person who has been engaged in aiding or abetting the rebellion should be permitted to participate in the indemnification. He fully relied on the sincerity of the declaration of the noble Lord, that it was neither the wish nor the intention of Her Majesty's Government that any of those parties should participate in this indemnification; but thereupon arose the question—in what manner could they now best proceed in order to prevent it? No course appeared to him to be so effectual as that which he was about to propose. If the execution of the Act were suspended by the interposition of the Crown, no material difficulty would arise in establishing distinctions under a more wise and explanatory statute, whereby indemnity would be withholden from rebels. Among the long list of claims already put forward under the provisions of this Act, there was a very great number concerning whom, upon the face of the documents now before the House, there was ample evidence that they ought to be excluded from all participation in it. For instance, to illustrate this, it appeared that some 800 persons, and upwards, were imprisoned for aiding in the rebellion. Sir John Colborne wrote home, stating that most of these were taken with arms in their hands. Those persons were imprisoned; all of them could be identified; and it so happened that of this number rather more than 400 appeared on the list of applicants under the commission, the whole of their names being detailed in the papers before the House. They were all parties to the rebellion, and some 70 or 80 of them were convicted by courts-martial. In his humble opinion, the noble Lord had removed the doubt suggested by his right hon. Friend as to the construction to be put upon these sentences by courts-martial; and he considered that they must be admitted to be legal convictions within the meaning of the Act. But setting aside these cases of actual conviction, and those also who, by the terms of the Act, were excluded as having submitted themselves to justice, or having been transported—some seven or eight individuals only—the remainder of these 800 rebels were included in the list. [Mr. HAWES: Of claimants?] Aye, not only of claimants, but of valid claimants, as he (Mr. Herries) asserted; and he would challenge the hon. Gentleman to show upon what possible ground within the terms of the Act, the indemnification could be refused to them. This point was rendered more clear and conclusive by the papers tardily produced, after repeated applications, by the noble Lord, showing the proceedings of the Canadian Assembly in Committee on the resolutions for the Bill. From these it appeared, that the special exceptions from all claim to indemnity were not contained in the original resolutions. They were introduced, after much discussion, as an Amendment, and they manifestly had the effect of positively extending, to all parties not specifically thereby excepted, the unrestricted benefits of the indemnity granted by the Act. He again had to express the hope that the noble Lord would give them the assurance that means would be taken to avoid the evil which he had pointed out, and which would naturally follow from the unmodified operations of the Act. If such should not be the case, he would move—

"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, 'an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to pray that Her Majesty will be pleased to withhold the Royal Assent to an Act of the Canadian Legislature, intituled, "An Act to provide for the indemnification of persons in Lower Canada, whose property was destroyed during the rebellion in 1837 and 1838," without, and until, Her Majesty shall have received satisfactory assurance that no persons engaged in, or having aided or abetted, that unnatural rebellion, shall be admitted to participate in the indemnification so to be granted.' "

rose to second the Amendment, and, in doing so, he could not help calling attention to who were the parties forming the council of the Earl of Elgin. Looking back to the years 1837–38, he found that some of those parties holding high office had been accused of treason, or had been compelled to leave the country for fear of being charged with treason. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Hear, hear!] Among those, he found that Mr. Baldwin, the present Attorney General, and M. Lafontaine, the Solicitor General, had been compelled to leave the country. He asked the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who no doubt remembered the names of all those who had been brought into office to the prejudice of the loyal inhabitants, if that were not the case? No doubt he would remember the case of M. Girouard, as he believed it was a relation of the hon. and learned Gentleman who received a reward of 500 l . for arresting him. Yet that person afterwards got up in the House of Assembly and praised M. Girouard, who was made a Commissioner of Crown Lands; and when Sir Alan M'Nab asked him whether he had not received 500 l for the arrest of that person, he replied, "Yes, he had; but he had changed his opinion with respect to him." He asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether this party was not a relation of his? He paused for a reply. [Mr. ROEBUCK: I will answer you.] He had no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman would answer him with the same frankness with which he used to come to the House and defend the rebels of Canada. He would read to them the names of parties connected with the affair of 1838, who now held office: there were Mr. Baldwin, Attorney General; M. Lafontaine, Solicitor General; M. Valliere, Chief Justice of Montreal; and a brother of M. Papineau, a Commissioner of Crown Lands, and his son received an appointment of l,000 l . a year. Nay, more, one gentleman had a good appointment given to him, but when it reached Canada it was found that he had been hanged for treason! He was not advocating the cause of any particular party, but he must say that it was a matter of regret that the Government forgot their friends, and made the loyal inhabitants feel that the only result of respecting the authority of the Government was to be overlooked, while places were found for those men who had acted against the loyal inhabitants and the Imperial Government. He was sorry to have to state that the Earl of Elgin had, on three different occasions, advocated measures which he (Mr. Cochrane) considered most pernicious. The first of these measures was one totally uncalled for, and had been rejected by the Assembly—namely, to increase the number from 84 to 150. The next thing of which he complained was one equally uncalled for—the bringing back to Canada of that arch-traitor Mackenzie. He went back, and stated that he did so with the approval of the Governor, of the Crown, and of the Assembly; but such was the feeling in the colony against him, that he was compelled to leave it again. The third measure of which he complained was the one they were then discussing, and which had been brought in by the Earl of Elgin, under the advice of Mr. Baldwin and M. Lafontaine; and he (Mr. Cochrane) deeply regretted that he had done so. They could not expect to have peace and tranquillity in Canada, if they carried on their business in the way it had been—in fact, it could only lead to disaffection. The inhabitants looked to the mother country, and they could not expect quiet when they saw that rebellion was at a premium—that the only way to succeed in life was to be a rebel. They were, in fact, acting upon a policy which would not leave a loyal man in the country.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Sir, I thought that we were about to discuss this question in that calm, considerate, and honourable style which usually distinguishes Gentlemen in this House. ["Order, order!"] Oh, I can't for an instant suppose that the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House does not classify himself as one of the order to which I have alluded. I had hoped that the spirit in which we were to discuss this matter, was that which distinguishes honourable men acting as opponents in political life. I supposed, that when treating a subject of this sort, that if a man were to be accused, it would be for his own acts—that if I were to be accused, it would be for my own acts—the acts for which, and for which only, I am responsible—not for the acts of other persons living 3,000 miles away, and whom it is not my duty to blame, inasmuch as they are not now in existence. What have I to do with what my friends have done? Have I done aught that any man in this House—in this country—that any man anywhere, can dare to tax with being infamous, or even dishonourable? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridport has said that I came to the bar of this House to defend rebels. That is not a true statement. ["Oh, oh!" and "Chair, chair!"] I repeat it—it is not true. I came here on a petition to the House of Commons, signed with my name as the authorised agent of the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, and I appeared at the bar to argue, in the character of their agent, against a particular Bill then lying on the table of the House—a Bill which went to destroy the constitution of which that assembly formed a part. The persons I represented constituted the House of Assembly. I represented them; and I say that it is not true to state that the House of Assembly of Lower Canada were at all, or at any time, rebels. Suppose that there were some rebels. ["Hear, hear!"] What! Have we not been called on in this very assembly, a few days ago, to issue a writ in place of a person whom I don't wish to oppress now that he is a fallen man, but of whom I may surely say that he is a convicted rebel, and that he was turned out of the House. [Mr. B. COCH-RANE: Expelled.] No, he was not expelled; but does that fact affect the character of the House of Commons? Grant that there was a Member guilty of high treason; would any person representing this House be considered as being the advocate of rebels, because Mr. S. O'Brien has been convicted of high treason? I appeared at that bar as the representative of the body I have named, and I will repeat now what I said then, that all their acts were not only legal, but that they were distinguished by peculiar prudence, care, and reverence for constitutional law. Yes, not an act of theirs was impeached on any ground which could touch them. Their demands were constitutional and prudent, and they were such that every one of them has since been conceded. They demanded of the House the power to regulate their own concerns, the power to determine on their own taxation, and the mode of appropriating their own money; and I repeat, that every demand which they made, with the exception of the constitution of the Legislative Assembly, was granted by the House of Commons. I challenge cavil or question of this statement. And now I have a right to ask of the hon. Gentleman opposite on what authority he chooses to say that I was the advocate of rebels? I have a character to maintain as well as he has. It is as dear to me as his can be to him. What is mine I made; I owe nothing to any man; and what I made I vindicate. To say that I have been an advocate of rebels! Why, Sir, in the strongest words which I can here use—words not so strong as to infringe upon your rules; for I will take care not to be called to order by you, Sir, because I respect you and the House—but in the strongest way, and with a much deeper feeling at bottom than the mere expressions ordinarily imply, I deny the truth of the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Nay, more, I would say, had that assertion not been uttered in the House of Commons—[" Chair, chair!"] No, I am not yet out of order. Had that assertion been uttered by any man not clothed as the hon. Gentleman is, with the protection of the House—[ Cries of "Oh, oh!" drowned the remainder of the sentence]. The discrimination of hon. Members is far too nice, I say. Here you listen to my character being assailed; but you have not the candour to hear the accusation characterised by those terms which are and ought to be applied to an imputation which is not true. [" Oh, oh!"] I repeat, the imputation is not true. The hon. Gentleman has made a statement without first looking for proper evidence to support it. He ought to have looked for that evidence. It is a criminal proceeding to make charges against any man's honest character, without sufficient inquiry into the evidence; and I charge the hon. Gentleman with not having made that inquiry. And now I am going to argue the question. It is one in which I feel deeply. I long represented a large body of the people of Canada. I have seen the principles which, as such, I advocated, gradually find their way in this and the other House. The people of Canada are now enjoying the constitution which I asked for them at that bar. How did this come about? A noble Lord was commissioned by Her Majesty to make inquiries into the state of the Canadian Government. He wrote, in a report, which has since become celebrated, of "responsible government." That meant that the proceedings of the Canadian Administration should be subject to the approval of the majority of the House of Assembly. You passed here an Act by which you united Upper and Lower Canada, hoping thereby to avoid certain difficulties which you feared from differences of race. Well, lately an Act of the Canadian Parliament was passed, which goes to this: Certain losses have been sustained by the inhabitants of that country. These losses were incurred in an open rebellion of a certain portion of the population against the Government of this country. The losses fell alike upon the innocent and upon the guilty. In Canada there was no means of obtaining compensation for those losses save by applying to the House of Assembly. Such an application was made, and the colonial parliament decided that compensation should be granted to persons who had suffered certain losses. That Act, in my opinion, does not go far enough, And here I may, while I think of it, answer a question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He asked whether any instructions given by the Governor General to the commissioners would alter the operation of this Act of the colonial Parliament? I reply "No." But what are the regulations laid down by the Act? Certain persons have suffered losses. First, the Act describes the species of losses which it contemplates, and then points out certain persons eo nomine who are not to be compensated. But, as I said, the general terms do not go far enough. The Bill says that it was necessary and just that the particulars of the losses should form the subject of a more minute inquiry under legislative authority, and that the loss occasioned by unjust and unnecessary and wanton destruction of property ought to be fully paid and satisfied. The general description is, that the losses must have proceeded from unjust, unnecessary, and wanton destruction. Now, that does not go far enough. Suppose a purely honest and loyal man to have had his house destroyed by converting it into a necessary fortification. Under the words of the Act he could not claim relief. But take the other side—suppose a man whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridport would call a rebel—I have been called a rebel, or very near to it, to-night myself—but let that go; suppose him, if you will, a rebel. He may say, "My house has been wantonly destroyed; an enemy of mine came when I was absent—when I was a hundred miles away. He took a torch; he put it to my house and my barn; he burned both —the former over my family's head." Now, that is what I call wanton destruction of property; that man can therefore claim his loss, and it is no answer to that claim to say that he is a rebel. I have justified that portion of the law, and I justify it now. I ask the House of Commons, and I ask the country, if, since the years that have passed since 1837, there has been no accusation against him—if he has been subjected to no trial—I ask if you are justified in accusing him of being guilty of high treason? I say you are not so justified. That man is guiltless until he is convicted. It was a matter of policy whether the Government should give compensation at all; but having determined to do so, it is not in the power of Parliament or of the Government to retract. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford says that he would have commissioners to inquire whether or not these persons are rebels. Is that right? Is it right that you should empower commissioners to say that a man, without having been put on his trial, is guilty of high treason? Can you, I ask, at this time of day, when these people have sprung up about you—can you on a sudden call on these people to be tried, because in some person's mind or other there is a belief that they are guilty of high treason? The right hon. Gentleman says that numbers were taken with arms in their hands, and that that is a proof that they were rebels on the occasion. I deny the assertion altogether. I know that thousands of men have been incarcerated who were as guiltless as the right hon. Gentleman himself; and he must know that in a time of such excitement as that, when one party is in the ascendant, that the rules by which persons are incarcerated are not very particularly inquired into, or much nicety used in the execution of them. I could mention the case of men who have been incarcerated—I could mention the case of one M. Vigor, a person who must be known to this House, an honourable man, 75 years of age, who was kept in prison several months during winter in the terrific climate of Canada, where the thermometer often fell 33 degrees below zero, and was at last turned out of prison without being allowed a trial on the charges alleged against him. He was kept in the prison of Montreal on the charge of being a dangerous man: the Habeas Corpus in such a case was suspended—but when the time came round for him to be tried, they said, "No, we will not try you;" and they turned him out of prison. [ Laughter .] It is a laughable case, no doubt. But let us apply the rule of the right hon. Gentleman to that case. The party incarcerated was taken with arms. Why, everybody is armed there. Everybody has a rifle or fowling-piece on his shoulder. I remember myself—I was a boy at the time—that I never went out without either one or the other. [ Laughter .] Do hon. Members know that what they are dealing with in this spirit of levity is English dominion? Aye, and I am a man who wishes to support English dominion. But do they know that they are about to see the prophecy fulfilled, that that pseudo-loyalty of 1837 is just that which is now found to be the most dangerous characteristic in that country—do they know that it is just that loyal party of whom hon. Gentlemen opposite are the great patrons and supporters? I say that the Motion of to-night is dangerous to English supremacy. The principles of America are now so strong, that do what you will the majority of the country must govern. But there is that other party who are now acting in resistance to the majority, who are acting in that spirit which at the present moment is the terror of Europe. For what is that we now see throughout the disturbed nations of the world? It is the minority resisting the determinations, the grave and serious resolutions, of the peaceful majority. [ Laughter .] Aye, I am speaking of a country in which are rife the dreadful anticipations that the minority will rise against the majority constituted by the law. It is that dreadful spirit which has led to the present results—it is that spirit which the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, unintentionally on his part, I fully admit, is calculated to keep on foot. As sure as the sun will rise to-morrow, such a Motion will tend to keep up that spirit of opposition—to give heart to and strengthen it—and tend to a resistance to those determinations of the majority on which I say good government can alone rest. Sir, I say we are acting unwisely in now investigating the conduct of part of the Canadian Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to point his charges against the Government of this country. Why, Sir, the Canadian Assembly at this moment is by the constitution actually beyond your reach on this occasion. What they have done has been sanctioned by the executive authority previously to the commencement of the legislative function, and now having gone through them, and the present Bill having had the acceptance of the majority, and having received, as far as its principle is concerned, the assent of the Crown, the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a moment for interposing the veto of the Crown, and for preventing the wishes of the people from being carried into effect. And what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? He fears that the property of persons, not loyal subjects in 1837, whose property was wantonly destroyed, may succeed in obtaining compensation from the Canadian people for the loss of property so wantonly destroyed. That is a possible danger, of which I admit the existence under the Act. A man who was disloyal in his heart in 1837, whose property was wantonly destroyed, may in the year 1849 receive compensation under the Act. Now that is the sum and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. But, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman put altogether out of sight the many dangers attending the course he now recommends. He recommends that the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown should pledge himself, the House, and the country, not to allow this Act of the Canadian Parliament to become law, unless he can get a guarantee from the Canadian Parliament that no human being who had disloyalty in his heart should, after the wanton destruction of his property, receive compensation under that Act. Why, it is utterly impossible to draw the distinction. You must either resolve that there shall be no compensation, or you must take the line drawn by the Parliament of Canada. But I go on a step further. I say it is not only impossible to draw a better line, but that if it were it would be highly dangerous and impolitic to attempt it, and thus run counter to the wishes of the people of Canada, as expressed through the constituted authorities. The right hon. Gentleman then says there is great excitement in Canada; but has he not seen excitement in another part of the British empire? Has he not heard of excitement in Ireland? and would he recommend to this House to abstain from a line of policy which it might think wise and prudent, simply because there was great excitement in that country? But, Sir, I deny the assertion altogether. There is not that excitement in Canada of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks. There was excitement in certain portions of Montreal; but, looking at the numerous addresses to the Earl of Elgin, as marking the feeling of the great body of the people, I say that excitement does not exist. The right hon. Gentleman then says that it is a question of races. I deny that assertion. The question of races has nothing to do with it. I stated the other day that the majority of English people in Upper and Lower Canada were in favour of this Bill; and I say that to talk about races is idle. The question of races is totally irrelevant. It is simply and totally a different question. I will tell you what is the question. In both Upper and Lower Canada, for many years, a small party, not the majority but the minority, were enabled to domineer and govern, with the assistance of the Colonial Office. But the Colonial Office, this House, and the country have grown wiser. They have now given them a constitution, and the Colonial Office has given the Governor instructions by which the majority of the people, in place of the minority, shall rule in Canada. But the minority, long accustomed to domineer, hate to lose their hold. Deprived of their power, they become angered, and take everything as an insult, and rise in this sort of fury against the majority—taking advantage of the ignorance of the multitude, as in the recent case at Montreal. They also take advantage of this most monstrous outbreak in Montreal to apply to Parliament to retrace its steps, and transfer from the majority to the minority the power which it ought to retain—a power which, if so transferred, will certainly endanger English supremacy in Canada, and pave the way for a recurrence of those events which characterised the year 1837. The gigantic Republic of America, in that spirit of independence which the offshoots from this country derived as their dearest birthright, has shown its determination to be governed by the law and by the majority of the people. It is a spirit which, if we endeavour to put down in any portion of the continent, might not unnaturally be expected to lead to a repetition of those terrible events which the world witnessed in 1776. We acknowledge ourselves that the colonies rose against injustice, that they rose in defence of a just cause; and when Lord Chatham said that "they had rebelled, and he thanked God that they had rebelled," the world was not prepared to witness the result of the course which the colonies found it necessary to take. Sir, I do not desire to gee the lesson repeated. I want to retain our colonies—I want to see them loving and respecting our rule, and that they should be impressed with the generous spirit in which we govern them—I want that no narrow policy, no such unhappy interference, should shake that respect and love which I am hold to say they are happy to owe and feel towards English dominion in that country. I hope, Sir, so far as my opinion goes in this House, that this expression of it calmly and deliberately may not be weakened by the somewhat excited state in which I began. Whilst reasoning upon the matter, that spirit of indignation—for such I confess it was—has cooled down, and I do hope that, for the honour of this House, and for the sake of the opinion which the world holds of us as a generous people, we shall not hear any more of those imputations.

explained. He had no intention of casting an imputation upon the hon. and learned Member when he stated that he had appeared as the advocate in that House of some persons who had appeared in arms against Her Majesty s forces

desired to approach the consideration of the question in that spirit of calmness and impartiality which its importance demanded—it would be difficult to exaggerate that importance. On the tone of the discussion, not less, perhaps, than on the decision to which the House might come, might depend the tranquillity of Canada. It was, therefore, far too important and momentous a question to be made the subject of a mere party struggle. It would have been well, indeed, if influential parties out of doors, the reputed organs, for instance, of two important sections of this House, had thought it right so to approach it. They, on the contrary, and more especially that journal which was the reputed organ of the party of which his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford was so distinguished an ornament, had not scrupled, in ignorance, he must hope, of the real state of the case, for, if not in ignorance, then with a most unfair and culpable suppression of the facts, to assail the Canadian Ministry and Parliament in the fiercest strain of acrimonious invective; and for weeks past had endeavoured to prejudice the Governor General of Canada in public estimation, by directing against him every expression of bitter personal attack, and calumnious misrepresentation. They had done what in them lay to aggravate the difficulties of a position already sufficiently difficult, and he wished them joy of their success—nothing doubting, now that the facts of a plain tale had put down malice, hut that they were by this time heartily ashamed of the rabid nonsense with which on this subject their columns had been disfigured. He thought the question also too important to be made the ground on which the battle should be fought which was to decide between the merits of the policy of protection on the one side, and the demerits of the system of free trade on the other. At the same time—and it was one of the disadvantages under which the Government in Canada laboured—it was difficult altogether to exclude from our minds the consideration of the merits or demerits of those systems of policy. Because every one at all acquainted with the state of feeling at present existing in Canada, must be aware that the discontent and irritation unhappily existing in the minds of many persons in that country, and for the manifestation of which this Rebellion Losses Indemnity Bill had furnished a pretence, producing results as disgraceful to the instigators and actors in them as they were deplorable in themselves, were greatly aggravated by the distress and suffering in which the system of free trade, adopted by the mother country, had involved Canada, as it had involved Jamaica and other colonies of the Crown; and he feared he must add many of the most important interests in the parent State. He had no intention of now entering into a discussion of that policy; but it seemed to him most necessary and essential that this should be borne in mind; because, if the House was led to attribute Canadian discontent to the adoption by its legislature of the Rebellion Losses Indemnity Bill, and thought that by disallowing that Bill, and condemning the policy of the Governor in sanctioning it, contentment could be restored to all parties in Canada, his belief was that they would be altogether mistaken. His conviction, on the contrary, was, that such a course would be attended with the most disastrous results, and entail those very evils which all parties professed their desire and anxiety to avoid—a continued and increasing discontent—the loss of all reliance on the impartiality and integrity of purpose of the mother country—and the possible attempt to work out the system of constitutional government, which you had professed to bestow, and which they are determined to maintain, by the aid of other means and other allies than those which the constitution suggests. Now, a clamour had been raised against this Rebellion Losses Indemnity Bill as if it were now heard of for the first time, and as if Lord Elgin was the first Canadian Governor who had tolerated the introduction of such a measure. It had been represented as an insult to the Imperial Government and to the loyal inhabitants of Canada; and, acting on the approved principle of "Give a dog an ill name and hang him," its opponents had changed its title, and instead of a "Rebellion Losses Indemnity Bill," we are told we have to do with a "Rebels' Reward" Bill. He found it so represented and designated by such enlightened guides of public opinion as the Morning Post and Morning Chronicle , whom it was refreshing to see rowing in the same boat, and making common cause in this worthy attempt, through an attack on a Colonial Governor to storm the Colonial Office. Their unanimity was wonderful. Nothing was too bad for this recreant Governor—immediate recall—perpetual exclusion from the service of the State—that was the least of his deservings—even the rioters received their praise; at any rate they had not been blamed by them for the summary punishment which they had so bravely inflicted. It would be consolatory for him to know that such opinions were not shared by those within these walls, whose opinions they were presumed to represent—more consolatory still to know that they were not shared by the vast majority of the loyal inhabitants, both in Upper and Lower Canada. Now, with all respect for such high authorities, the very reverse of all they represented was the fact; and when the excitement of the moment had passed away, men would wonder at the misconceptions into which they had been led, and at the monstrous injustice and flagrant dishonesty of the faction which had sought so to misrepresent it. Now, without referring to the indemnity of losses incurred during the rebellion in Lower as well as Upper Canada, previous to the union of the provinces—and on the wisdom of that union he would express no opinion—he was averse to it at the time, but it was one thing to make and another to dissolve it—it would not be denied that the provincial Acts, chap. 76, 1840, and chap. 39, 1841, while the Government was administered by Lord Sydenham, appropriated a sum of 40,000 l , to indemnify the sufferers in Upper Canada. No one could imagine that, such claims having been thus recognised in one division of the province, they should not be considered and recognised in the other. Accordingly we find Sir Charles, afterwards Lord, Metcalfe, urging on Lord Stanley, then Secretary for the Colonies, in March, 1844, the petition and claims of certain Lower Canadians for similar relief; and we find Lord Stanley himself, in the month of May following, suggesting that the applications from both sections of the province might be submitted in one application to the Assembly, when they might receive favourable consideration, and be compensated by debentures. Subsequent to this we have the Acts 8th Vic, c. 72, 9th Vic, c. 65, and 10th and 11th Vic, c. 33, in the years 1845–46 and 47; of which, the first provides for the claims of Upper Canada; the second, for certain claims in Lower Canada; and the third, adds a farther sum of 3,613 l . to the 40,000 l already appropriated to Upper Canada. During all this period, if he mistook not, the party now in opposition formed the government of the province. After the lamented death of Lord Metcalfe, we find Earl Cathcart, who succeeded him as administrator of the province, in communication with the commissioners appointed by his predecessor to investigate claims to be compensated under the head of rebellion losses; and, up to the year 1846, at any rate, the papers on the table prove that the subject, now the pretence of such fierceness of patriotic denunciation, and such loyal zeal for imperial honour, was quietly and steadily proceeded with by successive Ministers under successive Governors, without exciting, either in Canada or in this country, even a whisper of disapprobation. It would not, therefore, he trusted, be again said that this was a measure brought forward by the Government of Lord Elgin for the first time. The fact was, it was a measure inherited from their predecessors, and one which they were bound to take up even if their own natural sympathies had been all the other way. But it was known that their sympathies were favourable to it, and it suited certain parties whom the results of the last election—an election called for by themselves, and conducted under their own auspices, had compelled to relinquish office—a thing disagreeable in older countries than Canada—to found on this circumstance their opposition to a measure which, in their own hands, had appeared to them liable to no objection. They knew for certain that those sympathies were opposed to the domination of the family compact; it suited them to represent them as favourable to those who had pushed their resistance to that domination to the extent of a wicked and most foolish rebellion, and such a measure in their hands would be neither more nor less than a measure to reward rebels at the cost of the loyalists of the province. But before such conclusion was adopted, it would be only fair to look at the Act itself, and to compare its provisions, not only with the Acts which had preceded it, but with the instructions to the commissioners appointed by previous Governors under or with reference to those Acts. It would appear from such a comparison, not only that the present Act did not go beyond those which preceded it, but that it was, in fact, much more precise and guarded in excluding from compensation all those against whom a charge of having participated in the rebellion could be fairly established; and if this were so, it would appear what the true character of the opposition really was. It was an opposition got up by those who would willingly have gone the same or greater lengths to have answered any purposes of their own; and it was consequently an opposition as unfair, factious, and unprincipled as was ever had recourse to by any party seeking to obtain power at the cost of the peace and tranquillity of their country. The House was aware from the papers on its table that a commission was issued by Lord Metcalfe, in December, 1845, to inquire into rebellion losses in Lower Canada. By the instructions addressed to those commissioners, of the same date, by Mr. Daly, they are directed—

"Carefully to classify the case of those who had joined in the said rebellion, or been aiding or abetting therein, from the case of those who did not."

The commissioners being at a loss where to draw the line indicated in this part of their instructions, applied, in the month of February, 1846, under the administration of Earl Cathcart, for instructions which might furnish them with a rule for their guidance in the execution of their duties; and on the 27th of the same month the following instruction, explanatory of, and supplementary to, their first instructions was addressed to them:—

"In making the classification called for by your instructions of 12th December last, it is net his Excellency's intention that you should be guided by any other description of evidence than that furnished by the sentences of the courts of law."

Now, the limit seemed narrow enough, and, certainly, left a wide door open for the compensation of those whose conduct during those unhappy troubles would justly have excluded them from any claim. Not a word was, however, then said of "rebels' reward," of imperial disgrace, of insult and injustice to Canadian loyalists. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford was then, he believed, Secretary for the Colonies; and he could not but feel surprised at the extraordinary susceptibility which his right hon. Friend had exhibited on these points since the accounts of the proceedings on this Bill had reached this country, for he found no remark or remonstrance on his part in regard to them up to the period of his quitting office. He appeared, as Colonial Secretary, to have died and made no sign. The leisure of opposition had allowed him doubtless to take a juster view of the matter; and were he again in office, and instructions similar to those of Earl Cathcart again to issue, it could not be doubted but that he would visit them with his prompt and severe animadversion. He must say, however, that his right hon. Friend appeared to him, on this occasion, to have indulged in the operation of splitting hairs, and had applied to their examination glasses not only highly coloured, but possessed of a strong microscopic power, which had not only discoloured the objects of his examination, but invested them with proportions infinitely more formidable than could be discovered by the unaided vision of common sense. He would have the House believe that a drop of the waters of the St. Lawrence was charged with all those formidable creations of animal life—all those indescribable monsters which the microscope revealed to us, waging an internecine war in a drop of our own beautiful and ill-used Thames. Fortunately for the Government of Canada, and doubtless to the infinite satisfaction of his right hon. Friend, the present Bill is liable to no such imputation. Not only are persons against whom sentence was recorded carefully excluded, but, by the very terms of the preamble, all those, though untried and unconvicted, whose losses were occasioned by their own misconduct, or by participation in the proceedings of the rebels, were, as it appeared to him, effectually excluded. The preamble recites, that such losses only shall be compensated as are "totally or partially unjust (unnecessary) or wanton." Now, no loss incurred in resistance to the Queen's authority, or to the troops engaged in restoring it—no loss incurred in furthering the rebellion—could be called either "totally or partially unjust, unnecessary, or wanton." The commissioners to be appointed for their investigation are to be appointed by the Governor on his responsibility; they are to conduct their inquiries under the solemn sanction of an oath that they will decide according to the true intent and meaning of the Act. Responsibility must rest somewhere, and confidence must be placed somewhere; and, if there be honesty either in the commissioners or the Government, it would be impossible, under the terms of this Act, that losses incurred in furthering the cause of the rebels could for a moment be held as fitting objects of indemnity. But it has been argued that a malus animus is to be inferred against the Canadian Ministers, the authors of this Bill, because they refused to adopt amendments offered by their opponents, which tended to mark more distinctly the line of exclusion. This argument may have weight with those who have persuaded themselves that those Ministers are in spirit and inclination averse to British connexion, and in their hearts repudiate their allegiance to the British Crown. But as he (Mr. Cumming Bruce) believed that, having obtained the redress of all those grievances which caused the feelings of alienation and discontent which broke out into open insurrection in 1837 and 1838, they are now to the full as loyal and as much attached to British connexion as any other inhabitants of Canada—as much so as they proved themselves in 1775 and 1812, when they showed their readiness to resist American invasion—he attached no weight to this argument. Had they agreed to adopt those amendments, they would have agreed to a vote of censure on themselves, and would have acquiesced in the inevitable inference that the Bill, as originally introduced by them, was intended to have the effect alleged by their opponents—was intended to compensate, not rebellion losses, but rebels. They repudiated any such injurious inference. The Bill, as they had introduced it, was intended to exclude, and did in terms exclude, all claims which could be fairly objected to. The amendments pointed at an inquisition into men's thoughts, and one which must have had the effect of reviving all that irritation, all those feelings of hostility which had unhappily existed between the people of British and French origin in the province. It had been the object of British statesmen, ever since the insurrection was suppressed, to allay and soothe those feelings. With that object an amnesty had been granted even to those who might justly have been punished. It was the duty of the Ministry and of the Government of Canada to resist any proposal tending to nullify the amnesty, or to revive those feelings it was intended to allay; and it seemed to him (Mr. Cumming Bruce) that the Canadian Ministry would have ill discharged their duty to their Queen, and to their countrymen in both sections of the province, if they had agreed to amendments which merely went to effect, in an ungracious and hostile spirit, what the Bill, as they have passed it, really does effect in a manner as effectual, and far less objectionable. But the determination of the Canadian Ministry was approved by a largo majority of the representatives of the Canadian people—not by a majority composed of the French Canadians alone, but by a majority of the representatives of the British population both in Upper and Lower Canada. But it was said that the Parliament, though elected only eighteen months ago, and under the auspices of the party now in opposition, did not represent the real opinion of the constituencies, and therefore that, the Governor should have interposed to redress the inequality in the votes of his Parliament; and, by having failed so to interpose, we are told he has laid the foundation of an enduring discontent, from which all sorts of evils are to flow. His (Mr. Cumming Bruce's) belief was, that a discontent, enduring because justifiable, must have been the consequence had he adopted any such course. Where was the proof that the decision was at variance with the opinions of the constituents of the majority? From a pamphlet by Mr. Mackay, which he hold in his hand, he learnt that all the representatives of the more numerous British constituencies voted for the Bill. How did it happen that none of them had, before or since its passing, remonstrated with or censured their representatives? Mr. Mackay stated, that no such manifestation of public opinion on their parts had taken place. The fair inference was, that no such difference of opinion between the constituencies and their representatives existed. His belief, therefore, was, that the course followed by Lord Elgin was the right course, the only one which, under circumstances of the greatest delicacy and difficulty, could have averted the worst results, involving not merely a possible insurrection in Canada, but involving very possibly the interruption of our friendly relations with the United States. You had conceded to Canada the boon of a free constitution, and of responsible government. He said not whether wisely or unwisely. Was that boon to be fairly and honestly carried out, or were you to brand it with the mark of a delusion and a mockery on the very first occasion on which its working might seem to run counter to your own impressions of what it might be right and fitting for the Parliament of Canada to do? He believed that no more fatal error could have been committed than to have impressed on the mind of the Canadian people a conviction, that the responsible government you had professed to bestow on them was a shadow and not a substance, a concession in name only, but wanting in reality and truth. He believed that such a conviction would have been more fatal to you in Upper Canada, and among a population of British origin—a population who know, as it were by instinct, in what true liberty consists, and who worship her with a deep and earnest worship—than even in Lower Canada. He believed that this conviction must have resulted from any arbitrary interference of the authority of the Crown to overrule the decisions of the Canadian Parliament on a question so purely local, and that in its results it would have proved disastrous, if not irremediable. That such were the views of the course which the Governor should take, entertained by enlightened men in Canada among those opposed to the Indemnity Bill and to the policy of the present Canadian Ministry, might be inferred from the opinions expressed in papers opposed to the present Government. In the Transcript of the 13th of April, before the late disgraceful riots had occurred, he found the following paragraph. It was important also as a justification from the charge of culpable remissness brought against the Government for not having been prepared for the outrageous attacks of the rioters; for while such was the language held by the public press opposed to the Indemnity Bill, no such violent and outrageous proceedings could have been anticipated. [The passage referred to was from the Transcript , and stated that, " better twenty such Bills than an interference by the Crown in such a case."] Such he believed to be the sentiments of the great majority of the respectable portion of the British Canadians, even among those most opposed to the Indemnity Bill; and he doubted not that such sentiments would acquire increased strength with every day that elapsed, however that result might be retarded by the tone taken by certain parties and papers in this country, who really would seem to be labouring to excite a war of races, and an insurrection for annexation. Much had been said of the unpopularity which the course he has pursued has drawn on the Governor, in the insults offered to whom, and which these enlightened guides tell us he has richly merited, an insult has been offered to the Majesty of the Sovereign he represents, and by which Her authority has been lowered. He (Mr. C. Bruce) was not disposed to underrate the value of popularity in the case of the governor of a province situated as Canada was—it might greatly facilitate the smooth working of the machine of government; but he believed that the course followed by Lord Elgin would, in the long run, secure the greatest amount of that sort of popularity which resulted from the satisfaction and contentment of those he governed—the only sort of popularity permanently advantageous both to the colony and this parent State—the only sort which he believed it was Lord Elgin's object to acquire. Had he sought mere personal popularity, it might not have been difficult to attain to it. He had but to back up the colonists in their denunciations of free trade—to insinuate to those about him, on his arrival in his government, that he considered the colonists entitled to protection—that in their case it would be hard and unjust to withdraw it; and he would have said most truly. Had such been his line, he would have been popular enough. If, on the other hand, he set himself to stem the tide of self-interest and popular passion—to endeavour to reconcile the colonists to a policy disadvantageous indeed to them, but which he knew the mother country had deliberately adopted, and which he knew, also, would, for a time indefinite, be carried out to the full length, it might be, of a most disastrous experiment—this would not be, certainly, the direct road to personal popularity, but it would be a course at least akin to that highest order of patriotism which involves the sacrifice of self to promote the interest of one's country. The first of these courses would have been inconsistent with his duty to his Sovereign and his country; and he little knew his noble Friend if he could for an instant have contemplated it. The second he has followed. It may be incomprehensible to those who see in politics only a struggle for place, but it will be understood and appreciated by those—he trusted the great majority in the House and in the country—who were influenced by other and nobler motives. He entirely repudiated the defence set up for the Governor of Canada, which would separate his share in, and responsibility for, these measures from that of his Ministers. In giving his sanction to them he had adopted them, and did not wish to escape from his full share in responsibility for measures which he approved. They had denied, and he had denied, that it was the intention of this Bill to compensate rebels. Why should their words be doubted? they were as much entitled to credit as the parties opposed to them. Not that he questioned the integrity of many of those by whom in Canada the Bill had been so zealously opposed. Sir Allan Macnab was one of them. He had not the honour of a personal acquaintance with him; far be it from him, however, to say a word against the motives or the honour of one whose loyalty was unimpeachable, and who had given proofs of that loyalty, which no one who respected devoted loyalty, great energy, and noble courage, would ever forget, or, remembering, speak of save in terms of gratitude and respect. He was unwilling to trespass longer on the indulgence of the House, to which he was already so largely indebted. The personal popularity or unpopularity of a governor might be but small in importance—what really was important in this matter was, that this Imperial Legislature should neither say nor do any thing calculated to induce in the minds of the people of Canada a doubt of the sincerity of your determination honestly to allow them to work out, and reduce to practice, the principle of responsible government, which your own concession of it has for them invested with the character and the force of a passion. Look at the language of his countrymen in the Glengarry district, in their address to the Governor, and say if you can doubt their appreciation of it. He confessed he was proud of that appreciation, because it was an appreciation animated and ennobled by those devoted feelings of loyalty to the Crown, and devotion to the person of our gracious Sovereign, which ever had lived, and he was sure ever would live, in the hearts of true Highlanders. He had deprecated any thing which might induce a doubt of our sincerity, lest thereby the people of Canada might be led to endeavour to work out constitutional government by other means and other allies than those which the constitution suggested; and however confident we were, and justly so, in the loyalty of the great mass of its population, we should not forget that such allies, sufficiently disposed to make common cause with any minority in that country disinclined to the supremacy of the British Crown, were not far to seek. An open frontier, a river easily passed, separated them for hundreds of miles from a powerful people, restrained, as we too well knew, by none of those principles of international law which the comity of older States has recognised as binding upon nations—throughout the various border States of the American Union, it is well known that a design has long been entertained of detaching Canada from England, and that societies exist whoso object it is to effect that separation by whatever means; nor is there any secret in their intentions—the advantages which would result to Canada are a constant topic not only in the American newspapers, freely circulated within the Provinces, but are made the subject of daily discussion in papers conducted by Americans within the province itself. So long as we maintained in their integrity those free institutions, for the maintenance of which the honour and good faith of England was pledged, he had little fear of the effects of such publications; but if we once induced a doubt of our sincerity—if, above all, we appeared to countenance the policy of those reckless and wicked men who talked of the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race, and of "Anglifying" the Canadians; in other words, of treating 600,000 or 700,000 of the Queen's subjects as men undeserving of liberty, whose language and religion were to be suppressed, whose feelings were to be outraged and held of no account, who were to be branded as incapable of loyalty to our Sovereign; then, indeed, we might prepare for that war of races which had been so eloquently deprecated in another place, but which the policy at present so fairly carried out in Canada would, he trusted and believed, for ever avert.

moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."

said, he need hardly say that after the length at which he had formerly trespassed on their attention, he did not rise then to make any observations on the general subject, even though a Motion had been made since he addressed the House; but he rose only to offer a few words upon that Motion, and the position in which it placed him. His right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford had proposed that an address should be presented to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to suspend her assent to the Act of the Canadian Legislature now under the consideration of Parliament. He (Mr. Gladstone) had given a distinct assurance to the noble Lord that, so far as he was concerned, he did not intend to make any Motion on the present occasion. He thought that course was demanded by the importance of the subject. Of course he had no power to limit the discretion of other Gentlemen, but he thought it was the general expectation of the House that on the present occasion no Motion should be submitted. Independent of the impossibility of concluding the debate to-night, he thought it was desirable that some interval should elapse before the House came to a formal vote. He would therefore suggest to his right hon. Friend, if he might venture to do so, to take one of two courses: either that the adjournment of this debate should be moved to this day se'nnight; or to take another course, which would, perhaps, be more appropriate and becoming, taking all things into view, that his right hon. Friend should withdraw this Motion, and that he should give notice of a distinct and substantive Motion for another occasion. He thought himself bound, having already expressed his opinion at sufficient length—he thought himself bound to the noble Lord and to the House to venture to make these suggestions to his right hon. Friend.

would repeat what he said at the first, that he would not press this Motion if the noble Lord would give an assurance to the House that he would carry into effect the intentions and the wishes which he had himself expressed; for he thought that, with such an assurance, not only would this Motion not be necessary, but it would not be advisable; and therefore the noble Lord could easily remove any inconvenience which might arise by giving such a pledge. If the noble Lord did not do so, he must persist in his Motion.

certainly could not accede to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that he should provide a mode by which persons who had been aiding or assisting in the rebellion might be distinguished from all those who were not so. He conceived that if he gave such an assurance, and it were afterwards discovered that some person who received compensation under the notion of his perfect innocence had, in fact, from rumaging old papers or some other evidence which did not now appear, been found to have participated in the rebellion—then he would be charged with a breach of the promise he had given to the House. He believed that if there was to be any mode in which the Canada Bill was to be altered, the right hon. Gentleman ought himself to suggest that mode. He could not, therefore, undertake to give that assurance which the right hon. Gentleman asked for. With regard to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, he certainly did not expect that a Motion would be made to-night on this subject—he did not expect it because the course was most unusual that when one right hon. Gentleman gave notice that he would call the attention of the House to a subject—thereby implying that he did not mean to make a Motion—it was unusual that another Member should on that occasion make a Motion. But as the Motion had been made, he considered, for his part, that it would be most unfair and most unjust if the debate should be adjourned so long as a week. He had no objection that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion, and make another. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, that was not his suggestion, but the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. But if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his Motion, he thought it would be only fair that they should go on as soon as the House assembled again, with a view to conclude the debate. He thought that such a Motion having been brought forward, and having been put from the chair, it was right that it should come to a conclusion. [ Cries of " Divide!"] Well, if the House wished to divide, he had no objection.

rose to disabuse the noble Lord and his Friends of any ideas they might have entertained, that it was the wish of his right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford, or of the Gentlemen round him, either to postpone the matter for a week, or to withdraw his Motion. They had no wish of the kind. Such a wish had, indeed, been expressed to his right hon. Friend, but he was not in any way responsible for it. At the same time he wished to take that opportunity of vindicating the course which the right hon. Member for Stamford had taken, and to show that though it might be unusual, it was by no means irregular. Proceedings of a most important character had taken place in one of the most important colonies of the empire; the attention of the House and of the country had been directed to that colony; and there could be no doubt that the attention of the House of Commons would be publicly called to it on an early and legitimate occasion. What had actually occurred? A right hon. Gentleman, occupying an elevated position in the House, who had held the situation of Secretary for the Colonies, had given notice that he would draw the attention of the House and of the Government to the subject. He had done so in an able and elaborate statement. The Government, represented by the First Minister of the Crown, had afterward risen and stated their case, Was it irregular, then—was it not rather the bounden duty, being thus in possession of the views of Government, elicited by the observations of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, that his right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford should take the course he had done? What could be more absurd than that, after the debate had been carried on by two eminent Members of the House, they were to agree that all this discussion was to go for nothing—that after the case had been stated on one side by a late Secretary of State, and answered on the other by the present First Minister of the Crown, they were to agree that all this should be considered mere idle discussion, and that another day should be fixed for a formal and grave debate on the subject? The course which his right hon. Friend had followed was, in his opinion, the natural and the rational one, and the one that was most convenient for discussion. His right hon. Friend had not taken this step without due deliberation, and he was not prepared to withdraw his Motion under any circumstances whatever.

hoped that the hon. Member for Salford would persist in his Motion for adjournment. He denied that the right hon. Member for Stamford had taken the proper course. The proper and natural course would have been to ask the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford if he intended to found any Motion upon his observations, and if he did not, then the right hon. Member for Stamford should have given formal notice of the Motion he intended to submit. For let it be understood, this was no trifling question. This question, the mail, which sailed for Canada to-morrow, would carry out to the inhabitants of that colony. As for himself, he considered that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was one of the most important colonial questions that had ever been submitted to this House. He contended that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have given notice of his Motion; but he did not mean to say, if a Motion had been proposed, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought it did not go far enough, that he was not entitled to make another Motion going farther. It would be unwarrantable to press on the House of Commons such a proposition without notice, or that hon. Gentlemen who were not aware of it should not have an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the subject by their votes.

said, they would now see what course would be taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, who was so ready to give way when the Government desired it. They would now learn whether he was the tool of the Government or not—[ Cries of " Order!" and "Adjourn!"]—for he (Mr. Bankes) would tell him to his face, however individuals, by their clamour, might endeavour to drown his voice, but they would not succeed, that if he persevered in his Motion it was as a subservient Member acting for the Government; he made that Motion knowing they were dreading a division. His conduct was that of a subservient Member acting at the will of the Government—acting unfairly to the. House, moving for an adjournment when it was the convenience of the Government, and opposing such adjournment when the contrary was the case. The hon. Member could no longer hold the situation which he was desirous to hold, of an independent Member, if he put himself prominently forward on this occasion; he, therefore, called upon him to withdraw his Motion, and let them now take the division. It was true, as was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, that this was an important question. They had had a statement from a late Colonial Secretary, a Gentleman of the highest character. Since, then, they had had a speech from the First Minister of the Crown; and the Members of the House were then as well prepared to come to a division as they could be at any future occasion. They had had an opportunity of hearing also an hon. relative of the Governor General of Canada; and having heard all those statements, he (Mr. Bankes) knew not what further the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton could desire to hear, before he would be prepared to come to a division on the subject. If the hon. Member for Salford would preserve his character for independence, he would not press his Motion. If he did, they should take the division on the adjournment; but undoubtedly it was their wish to come to the division on the main question.

I beg to tell the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that if I am to be a tool of one side or the other, I will stand by my friends [ pointing to the Treasury bench ]. My object in moving the adjournment was, that the debate was not likely to come to a close this evening; but as I have on many occasions before given way when it has been the wish of the House, I am perfectly ready to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Debate resumed.

wished to know from the noble Lord at the head of the Government when the adjourned debate would come on, in case the question was postponed?

really thought that this was a question for the House much more than for him. He did not wish to shrink from a division any more than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire; but he believed this to be a question of very great importance, and it was for the character of the House that the Members of it generally should be aware that there was such a question before them. Those hon. Gentlemen who came to the House after the right hon. Gentleman made his Motion, should have an opportunity of considering the question, there having been no notice of that Motion.

In case the debate is adjourned, will the budget be brought on to-morrow?

In that case the budget would be postponed for a week.

said, it would no doubt, he considered, be very advantageous to have a prolonged discussion on the subject of Canadian affairs, but they must consider the state of public business; and when they were told that the consequences of postponing the question would be the postponement of the budget, no person could sanction it. On this ground he appealed to those Gentlemen, few in number, who wished to adjourn the debate, that they should pause before they pressed upon the House their impressions. The subject was not, certainly, discussed for more than one night; but he thought it was to be the characteristic of the Session to avoid long discussions. How had this question been discussed? It was brought forward by an eminent Member of the House, formerly Secretary for the Colonies, who certainly had full and ample opportunity of expressing his opinion. [ Cries of "Spoke!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford had expressed the opinions of the party with which he is connected; the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, who had a particular interest in this question, and was acquainted with its merits, and who has a locus standi in respect to it, had also spoken. The packet was about to leave England; and considering that the question was admirably debated, and considering that the postponement of the budget would be the consequence of the adjournment of the debate, he must appeal to the House to divide now on the question.

must make an appeal to the House. [ Cries of "Divide!"] He was not to be deterred from the discharge of a most solemn duty. He never wished to place himself in opposition to the opinions of any portion of the House; but he solemnly and earnestly besought hon. Gentlemen to consider the deep interests involved. Let them consider that it was with respect to the interests and feelings of persons removed from them many thousands of miles they were called upon to take this important step. Let them consider also the character of the House, which he would venture to say would suffer seriously there and elsewhere unless their proceedings on a matter of this kind were marked by the utmost deliberation, and by the exercise of the clearest and most dispassionate judgment. There had rarely been a question of a nature more important submitted to the House. It is a question of which the beginnings may appear small, but the subsequent stages may be extensive. He (Mr. Gladstone) had stated what it appeared to him the honour of the Crown demanded; and he would say that both the honour of the Crown and of the House demanded, that every step they took in pressing this matter to its issue should be a step carrying with it the presumption that they had applied their minds in seriousness to the question—that the decision at which they arrived had not been taken in the heat of momentary excitement on the part of Gentlemen who, he must say, had heard little of the debate. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had paid him an undue compliment in respect to his statement that night; but the hon. Gentleman would allow him to say, when he spoke of the statement he had made, and the reply of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as affording, in some degree, a basis on which the House might form a judgment, that he had addressed his statement to a House, he thought, not containing one-eighth or one-tenth part of the Members then present. The predicament of the noble Lord opposite was nearly the same; and two-thirds of those who had heard him did not hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford. He would tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, in all seriousness and good temper, if he were looking for the progress of public business, he hoped he would not force the division that night; for it was not the progress of public business that night or the next they must consider; they should consider how future public business would be affected by a precipitate issue being taken in the affairs of Canada, If they wished to provide for the future progress of public business, he advised them to proceed with de-liberation and caution, and give the whole people of the empire reason to think that they considered and respected their feelings.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had laid himself open to his own charge. His Motion had been made in all seriousness, and he must have expected that his observations would have had a great effect at least on his own party—if the right hon. Gentleman had a party—or, at all events, that it would have an influence on the House. One of the consequences of calling the attention of Parliament to great questions was, that it led necessarily to divisions in that House; but he felt bound to say that this was not the first occasion when the right hon. Gentleman produced effects by his Motions like the present. He would frankly tell the right hon. Gentleman that he had come down under the impression that a division would take place, though he believed that during the debate many hon. Gentlemen had gone away under the impression that no division was to take place.

wished to know if any hon. Member desired to address the House on the question. He saw nothing for which an adjournment was necessary.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 172; Noes 107: Majority 65.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.