presented a petition from Tobago, stating that the planters of that colony had suffered severely from the Sugar Duties Bill, which had exposed them to unequal competition with slave-growing producers of sugar, and praying the House to take their condition into consideration.

rose to present a petition from the House of Assembly of Jamaica, and also a petition from the West India body in this country, complaining of the present position of the colony owing to the colonial legislation and the British Parliament. [The hon. Gentleman was stating the purport of the petition, which alleged that the petitioners were under risk of utter ruin, when he was interrupted by cries of "Order, order!" (the rule on presenting petitions being, that Members may state the purport and the prayer of the petitioners).] If he were not allowed to take the usual course, he should certainly move the suspension of the Standing Order which prohibited unrestricted speaking on the presentation of petitions. [Mr. ROEBUCK: You cannot do that without notice.] He said that he should then, if further interrupted, move that the petition be read by the clerk at the table; and as it was very long, he thought the House had better permit him to state the purport of it.

referred to the rule, and intimated that the hon. Member might take that course.

then proceeded to state that the petitioners represented that the compulsory emancipation of the negroes had been enacted upon three express conditions: first, there should be full pecuniary compensation to the planters; secondly, that there should be a corresponding exclusion of slave-grown sugar; and, thirdly, that there should be full liberty allowed to the colonists to procure free labour for the cultivation of their land. The petitioners stated that all three of these conditions had been disregarded and violated; for that, first, though official commissioners had valued the slaves at 43,000,000 l ., the compensation only amounted to 16,000,000 l .; then, secondly, that the colonists had been exposed to unfair and unequal competition with the producers of slave-grown sugar; and, thirdly, that the colonists had been prevented from procuring free labour, and encountered insuperable difficulties on that account. The petitioners particularly complained of the fatal effect of the Act of 1846, the Sugar Duties Act. They also alleged that the prices of sugar had thus been reduced so low as to be unremunerative; and the professed permission to procure free labour had been rendered practically inoperative by the restrictions imposed by the Govern- ment upon immigration of free labourers into the colony. The petitioners therefore stated, in conclusion, that though they did not question the right of the British Parliament to alter any fiscal regulations, or effect any change in the public policy of the empire affecting them in common with others of its subjects, they submitted that it was inconsistent with justice first to emancipate the slaves of the colony, and then to compel the colonists to compete with the producers of slave-grown sugar, unless so contradictory a policy were accompanied by adequate compensation, not only for the value of the slaves, but for the depreciation of colonial produce; as otherwise the effect must be as completely to destroy the planter's property as if it had been actually confiscated. The petitioners therefore, prayed that the House would take the premises into consideration, and grant them such relief as they justly required.

Petitions laid on the table.

said I am anxious to throw myself on the House for that indulgence which they are always exceedingly kind in extending to those who, like myself, have had the misfortune to have their private and personal relations brought before them. That misfortune, however, has happened to me from no fault of mine; and, therefore, while I throw myself on the indulgence of the House, I ask them to recollect that I have been forced to it by no act of my own. When I repelled an imputation on myself, in the course of last night's debate, in consequence of the acts of others, I was anxious not to mix up that refutation with anything else; but I hoped I might have an opportunity of explaining to the House the imputation itself, which rests on one who was connected with me by ties which no longer exist, but which were of such a nature that the most reverential feelings I have compel me to watch over his honour as I would watch over my own. It so happens, then, that I am obliged to speak of myself and of my relations. It is a thing I am sure the House will do me the justice to say I am not prone to. As it happens, the transactions to which the hon. Member for Bridport alluded last night were to me utterly unknown for years after they had occurred, for I had not been in that relation in which perhaps I ought to have been with those of whom he has spoken. The line of politics I took was decidedly opposed to that of the person alluded to; for while I appeared here as the advocate of Canada, my friends were among the loyalist party in that country. It was imputed to that relative of mine by the hon. Member, that he had taken money for the arrest of a person of whom he had spoken well afterwards, being at the time a Member of the House of Assembly. The facts are these:—My relative, the gentleman alluded to, was a gentleman high in command of the militia. M. Girouard, a person of the highest character in Canada, and I believe a member of the legislature, was, in the height of the excitement of the rebellion in that country, most unjustly charged with high treason. A writ was issued against him. Ho, in great alarm, in consequence of the excitement which prevailed, and of the terror caused by bands of what I can only term ruffians from the other province, frightening the mild and gentle inhabitants of Lower Canada—went to the house of my relative late on a winter's night, and claimed his protection. He received it. M. Girouard was taken into the house of my relative. He was sheltered for the night, and treated as one of the family. Next day, at his own request, he went into Montreal, under the direct personal protection of the gentleman who had received and sheltered him the night before; and when arrived there, he was safely placed from all harm, having gone of his own will to the authorities of the town. When they first came to Montreal, they discovered 500 l . had been offered by Government for the apprehension of M. Girouard. As I have said, my relative was in the direct service of the Crown, not only trusted by every Governor up to that time, but by every Governor since. He is not now in Canada. Well, he said openly at the time, "I intend to take this money." He did take that money, and I am bold to say he applied it to charitable purposes, and that he has not by so doing forfeited either the respect of the constituted authorities or of the people among whom he lived. It so happened that, being in the House of Assembly when the name of M. Girouard was mentioned as being appointed to office by the Crown, my relative got up and spoke highly of him. And then Sir Alan M'Nab rose to ask him if he had not received 500 l . for M. Girouard's apprehension? The answer was "Yes," and there the matter rested. I hope the House will accept this explanation; and, however unhappy I may be in being forced to make it, I have learned one thing from the effect of last night's debate, that—as the only object of such an imputation could be to give me pain—in the words of the proverb, which was then fulfilled, "the wicked"—but more especially the intellectually wicked—"are always cruel."

I hope that indulgence will be extended to me by the House which they gave to the hon. and learned Member, though he had not the courtesy to inform me of his intention to bring this matter before them. The House will remember that what I stated was, that Messrs. Baldwin and Lafontaine, and several others, had been accused of high treason, but were now allowed to hold office. I said, in confirmation of my opinion of Messrs. Baldwin and Lafontaine, that a man publicly accused of rebellion for his reward had been placed in office of high confidence by the Government; and I then mentioned precisely the same facts as those stated to-day by the hon. and learned Member. I stated that a gentleman, a relative of the hon. and learned Member, had received a reward of 500 l . for the arrest of M. Girouard, and afterwards made a complimentary speech when he was appointed a commissioner of Crown lands. I don't know why the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to attack me for that. If I am called upon to answer the hon. Member in regard to the slur he has thrown upon me, all I can say is, that he will hurt no man's fame with his ill word.

Subject at an end.

said, that, seeing the hon. Member for Dorsetshire in his place, he wished for an explanation of the language he had applied to him on the previous evening. Some men had great courage towards those who were not in a position to resent their affront, and very little towards those who were in that position. ["Order, order!"] He did hope the House would throw its protection over him—as he was one who did not fight—and not permit imputations to be cast upon him which he utterly disavowed. He could conscientiously say, that during the time he had been accustomed to move the adjournment of the House, it had always been his desire to act impartially towards both sides of the House. And yet the hon. Gentleman had described him as the subservient tool of the Government. He hoped the hon. Gentleman was prepared to retract that expression.

asked whether the present would not be a good opportunity of testing the value of the proposition submitted to the House the other evening, by referring the case to arbitration?

quite agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesex that that would be the best way. He assured the hon. Member for Salford that at the time he made the observation of which he complained, he (Mr. Bankes) was not aware that he did not fight; and since he had heard it he had a greater respect for him than before, if that were possible. But as the hon. Gentleman did not persevere in the adjournment, his (Mr. Bankes') observation fell to the ground. He said, that if the hon. Gentleman did persevere, he should look upon him as the tool of the Government. The hon. Gentleman did not persevere, and therefore the observation did not apply to him.

Subject at an end.

rose to put the following question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War. He wished to ask, in respect to retired officers of the Army who had received medals for services in the war, whether any order or prohibition exists against their wearing at Royal levees or other public occasions the uniforms which they bore in the performance of the services thus graciously distinguished by the grant from Her Majesty of a war-medal; and if any such prohibition does exist, whether there will be any objection to relax it in the case of individuals who may have received medals?

replied, that the rule was, that officers of the rank of full colonel, or who had received the decoration of the Bath, were allowed to wear their uniforms on the occasion in question; but that officers under that rank, or not so decorated, were considered when they sold out to have definitively left the Army, and were therefore prohibited from wearing their uniforms upon the occasions in point.

, considering the reply to be evasive and unsatisfactory, gave notice that he would call the attention of the House to the subject.

Subject dropped.

asked if the noble Lord at the head of the Government would have any objection to lay before the House a copy of the document commuting the sentence of death signed by the Under Secretary of State in Ireland, which had been read to Smith O'Brien and the other parties convicted of treason.

said, he had no objection whatever to lay on the table of the House the document which had been read to the prisoners under sentence of death, intimating to them that mercy would be extended to them upon condition of transportation for life. No formal document commuting the sentence of death existed; consequently, those persons were now under sentence of death uncommuted, they having refused to accept the commutation.

hoped that the document, whether conditional or unconditional, would be laid on the table before the Bill now in progress through the other House came before them.

Subject dropped.

began by saying that he perceived a great inconsistency running through the speech of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, on the previous evening; for the noble Lord, in the first place, contended that to inquire in 1849 into the conduct of persons in 1837, with respect to their share in the Canadian rebellion, would be an act worthy only of the Star Chamber; and the noble Lord then went on to say, that he would not give his assent to this Bill, or take any steps towards the sanction of the Crown being given to it, until he had received the instruction which the Earl of Elgin was to address to the commissioners under the Act, and which instructions the noble Lord said he was assured would have the effect of excluding from participation in any compensation persons who had been guilty of rebellion. But when the noble Lord was pressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford to give a pledge that sanction should not be given to this Act until he had become assured that compensation would not be given to persons engaged in the rebellion, the noble Lord declined to give that assurance. The hon. and learned Attorney General, also, had been challenged to give an opinion whether it was possible, under the words of the Colonial Act, to exclude from compensation persons other than the two classes of persons specified in the preamble of the Act. The two classes of persons consisted, in the first place, of those who had been convicted of treason in the due course of law; and, in the next, of persons who, having given themselves up into the custody of the sheriff, suffered transportation. What he should like to hear from the Attorney General was, whether the Crown could qualify this Act in any manner, and also whether the Earl of Elgin, in virtue of his authority as Governor, had power to vary the instructions specified in the Act. He could not see what objection there could be to the institution of an inquiry as to whether persons claiming compensation had been implicated in the rebellion or not. Lord Metcalfe, in 1845, had clearly intended such an investigation, for he spoke of the "losses suffered by loyal subjects in the course of the rebellion;" and it was clear that he had meditated an inquiry as to whether the claimants were loyal to the Crown. No hardship could attend such an investigation. By the words of the Act, none were excluded but those who had actually been convicted of treason by due course of law. The Earl of Elgin might easily have given instructions to the commissioners to make further limitations; it was very doubtful whether he had now the power to do so. The preamble of the Act clearly showed that the only exceptions contemplated were in those cases where convictions for treason had taken place. The use of the words, "unjust, unnecessary, and wanton destruction," evidently pointed to the losses sustained by rebels, and not by loyal subjects. But, if the commissioners were to inquire if the injury was "unjust and unnecessary," surely they might also have inquired into the character of the claimants, whether they were loyal subjects or not, or, at least, whether they had been actually engaged in the rebellion. With the exception specified in the preamble, of parties convicted solely of treason, not of sedition, riot, or any minor offence, it would be impossible to exclude any other parties, even those who had come in and submitted to the charge, or those who had escaped from the country without punishment. The seventh section gave the most strictly limited authority to the commissioners, insomuch that no instructions from the Earl of Elgin could possibly alter their course; and the tenth section referred to the preamble, and made it part of the Act. After the commissioners had reported to the Governor General on the amounts to be allowed, there was no kind of appeal; for the fourteenth section imperatively required that the money awarded should be paid. If the commissioners were to have a larger discretion than was specified in the preamble of the Bill, he confessed that he should regard the Act as one fraught with danger. After the statement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that he would not give the sanction of the Government to this Act until the instructions from the Earl of Elgin to the commissioners had been received, he thought it was clear from that admission that the Earl of Elgin had communicated his intention of giving these instructions under the conviction that he had authority to limit the power of the commissioners. With respect to the Act generally, it had caused great disgust in the colony, and was felt to inflict hardship and injustice. Whatever might be the consequence, here or elsewhere, of such a course, unless the Attorney General could give him an assurance that his construction of the Act was an erroneous one, he should feel compelled to vote for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford.

could assure his right hon. Friend that it was not because he was unprepared to answer the questions addressed to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, during the discussion of the previous evening, that he had not immediately followed him in debate, hut because he had thought it desirable that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, who was intimately acquainted with the subject, should first express his views to the House. As it had been his intention last evening, so was it his intention now, not to enter into the general merits of the question, or into the preceding measures of former governors, which had led to the measure now under discussion. He rose merely in discharge of his duty, to answer the questions which had been addressed to him, and to put that construction upon the Act in question which, in his judgment, was the correct one. He felt sure that the House would acquit him of any other intention, in the performance of a bounden duty, than of answering these questions, without reference to the bearing of his reply on one side of the question or the other, his desire being simply to assist the House, with the aid of the little legal experience at his command, in coming to a just conclusion with respect to the scope and intention of the Bill under discussion. Now, the result of the consideration he had given to the Act was, that he did not think it necessarily entitled persons who had been or who were rebels to compensation, for much must depend upon the nature of the instructions given by the Governor to the commissioners. But the first question put to him by the right hon. Gentleman was, whether the Crown could qualify this Act? His reply was, that expressly the Crown could not. The Crown could do only one of two things. It must either give its assent to, or must negative, the Act. If the Crown were so to qualify the Act, it would be an usurpation of the legislative authority of the colony, and of the three estates of the realm. With respect to the second question put to him by his right hon. and learned Friend, whether the Earl of Elgin, in virtue of his authority as Governor, had power to give instructions, varying the instructions contained in the Act, his answer to that question was plain. As the Governor derived his authority from the Act of the Legislature, confirmed by the Crown, if his assent were given to the Act, all the instructions contained in the Act must follow as a matter of course, and the Governor had no power to vary them. It was unnecessary to advert to the oath taken, or to the seventh section, requiring the commissioners to make their award according to the Act; but he would come to the real question before the House, namely, what was the true intention and meaning of the Act. Now, if the Act had enabled the commissioners to give compensation to everybody under all circumstances, the commissioners must give to all claimants. His right hon. and learned Friend said that it was an insult to the dignity of the Crown to call upon it to give its assent to a statute under which compensation was to be awarded to those who had acted against the Crown and the imperial dignity. Now, would the right hon. Gentleman have stated it in the Act that compensation was only to be given to persons who were not rebels? If so, how would he establish his proposition? Would he wait for legal proof that parties were rebels, or would he treat them as primâ facie rebels? As the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown had stated last night, was the burden of proof to be shifted, and was a man to prove that he was not a rebel? But the preamble of the Act was clear with respect to those persons who had been convicted of high treason. On persons being convicted of high treason, their blood became attainted, and, notwithstanding any injury their property might have sustained, they were entirely excluded from the investigation. The Act expressly excluded persons convicted of high treason. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had complained of the constitution of the courts-martial. If courts-martial were established under the Mutiny Act, they must proceed in compliance with the directions of that Act; but the courts-martial which had been adverted to were not courts-martial strictly so called, but they had been called into existence owing to the necessity of enforcing martial law. The rule of common law was this, that whenever the exigencies of the State so required, the Queen in person, or any governor representing Her Majesty, might suspend the operation of the common law, and proclaim martial law. Lord Hale had laid it down, that if the necessity for proceedings under courts-martial could not afterwards be proved, those who exercised martial law might, or might not, be guilty of murder; but the common law clearly provided for the establishment of courts-martial under the circumstances. With respect to the right of creating courts-martial to suppress a rebellion, there could be no doubt. Those who were delegated to preside over the peace in the colonies, might institute courts-martial. With respect to the two classes of persons, those who had been indicted and convicted for high treason, and those who had made a confession of their treason, and had been transported, the moral effect of the law was the same, and they were excluded from participation in compensation. They were equally estopped by conviction or by confession. But the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken when he said that the proviso gave greater effect than the previous words. Then they came to another class of persons—persons who, not being either convicted or confessed rebels, were to be compensated. The Act stated, that the claims in respect to rebellion losses, so far as they had arisen from the total, or partial, or unjust, unnecessary, or wanton destruction of property, should be satisfied; and the right hon. Gentleman said, that under the words of the Act, it might happen that a man who was a rebel might get the benefit of compensation. But so it might have been if it had been expressly enacted, that no man in fact guilty of rebellion should receive compensation. He apprehended there was no question but that the Earl of Elgin had the right of defining the instructions of the commissioners—not to tell them actually what they should do, but to direct their attention to the peculiar modes of ascertaining the unjust, unnecessary, and wanton destruction of property; and that was the most delicate and regular way of excluding those who were not entitled to compensation. No man could safely be said to be properly excluded from the benefits of the Act on mere primâ facie proof; but under the words "unjust, unnecessary, or wanton" destruction of property, much greater latitude would be given to the commissioners, who might very well say they would pause before they went so far as actually to convict a man of rebellion, although they might have their suspicions about it, while they might have little difficulty in deciding that his losses were not such as arose from unjust, unnecessary, or wanton destruction, or seizure. Having stated his views to the best of his ability, in answer to the call that had been made upon him, as to the legal construction of the Act, it was not for him to enter into the general question, or he might have shown, had he had the opportunity, that the course of the Government was the best that could be adopted under the circumstances. But he thought it sufficient for him to have done his duty, by pointing out his own view of the legal construction of the Act under consideration.

thought this question, disguise it as they might, when translated into plain English, was neither more nor less than this—whether or not they should address the Crown to dismiss his noble Friend the Governor General of Canada, to put an end to the Ministry there, and possibly weaken, if not destroy Her Majesty's Government in this country. The question had also been introduced in a most extraordinary way: one right hon. Gentleman had made a speech without a Motion, and another right hon. Gentleman had made a Motion without a speech. In the opening speech, that had no "Q. E. D." at the end of it, the only justification offered for our interference at all was, that this was not a mere local question, but an imperial question; hut the proof of its being an imperial question was never so much as stated or even alleged. It was very true that they had been allowed to draw the inference for themselves; and the logical form in which the matter had been put was this:—Rebellion being an offence against the Sovereign of the whole empire, ergo , it is an imperial and not a local offence; ergo , the question is not a local but an imperial one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford also said, in his notice on the Paper, that he objected to "certain parts" of a recent Act; whereas it was clear, from his argument, that his objections referred to no part of the Bill more than another, but that he objected to the Bill altogether. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] If this was an imperial question, the whole Act was an imperial question. All in that House agreed that the Earl of Elgin was a very able man; all agreed that his talents peculiarly fitted him for the situation to which he had been appointed. He (Mr. Drummond) supposed they had there five hundred gentlemen in that House, and that they were not all remarkably clever men, and fitted to be the governors of colonies. He therefore inferred, without intending offence to any body, that the Earl of Elgin was a cleverer man than the majority of those in that House. Yet the right hon. Gentleman, by this Motion, wished to take the Government of Canada, in a matter of detail, out of the hands of that able Governor, and to convert that House, not into a legislative, but into an administrative assembly, to administer the affairs of Canada. For it was agreed on all hands, that there was a certain class. A, that ought to receive, and another class, B, that ought not to receive compensation; and, after all, it was a matter of detail and of judgment; and pass what law they pleased, it must be left to the discretion and judgment of those who had to carry it into effect. Now, he confessed that it was somewhat extraordinary that two Gentlemen who were—he could not say the heads of parties, but—the two half-heads of two parties, should come forward with a proposition of this kind, they having had on ordinary occasions a professed antipathy to what were called radical opinions and radical measures. Now his (Mr. Drummond's) quarrel with radical opinions and radical measures in that House was this, that they would convert that House into a place of administration; and that was precisely the very thing that these Gentlemen were calling on the House to do now; and therefore he confessed that the only safe course he saw for them to pursue, either as regarded the dignity of that House or of Canada, was to leave the question in the hands of the Earl of Elgin.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had introduced the subject in a very elaborate speech, entering into the whole question with the greatest accuracy, and showing that he was possessed of great ability, and admirable powers of investigation. But still he (Mr. V. Smith) must be allowed to say that the right hon. Gentleman's address was more fitted for a Canadian Assembly debating Mr. Wilson's Amendment, than for the Imperial Parliament discussing whether or not the Royal assent should be refused to the colonial Bill of a colonial legislature. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had answered the right hon. Gentleman's speech, taking up point after point with great energy and spirit; and had met the question manfully, as a Minister of the Crown should meet a question of this character, and had greatly gratified his supporters on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had not concluded with any Motion; hut the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, although he hesitated at first, at last, like a party leader, eager to grasp any opportunity of gaining a triumph over the Ministry, supplied the omission by bringing forward a Motion. A new party move, although perhaps allowable on ordinary occasions, was greatly to be deprecated on colonial questions, especially when they were connected with riotous proceedings. The manœuvre, however, had failed, and the right hon. Gentleman had been doomed to disappointment in his expected triumph. Although there was some ground for the attack of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford—and the question was one worthy of the attention of the House—yet, at the same time, his opening speech was (as the hon. Member for Surrey had said) so much devoted to objections to almost every detail of the Bill, that he (Mr. V. Smith) thought the right hon. Gentleman, with his great colonial experience and acknowledged ability, was bound to submit a Motion to the House on this occasion. He thought that the question before the House opened up a larger and much wider field than the mere question that had been just debated between his hon. and learned Friend opposite and the Attorney General. They were dealing with the most important of all branches of colonial government, namely, what was to be the responsible government of our colonies? The theory of that government, at least, had been explained by the noble Lord when himself Secretary of State for the Colonies; and the doctrine laid down in his celebrated despatch to Lord Sydenham, had been ever since acted upon, and never was impeached in the slightest degree by any succeeding Colonial Secretary. Lord Stanley and Mr. Gladstone, when in office, had never departed from the noble Lord's interpretation of responsible colonial government; and the noble Lord himself last night gave full development to the doctrine now at issue, under the Motion of the right hon. Member for Stamford. The vote for the colonial militia of Canada, on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, in introducing the question, partly grounded his remarks, they were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have to be paid out of the imperial treasury any longer; and when they were about to call on the colony to defray the charge from its own resources, was this a time to turn round and tell the colony that it should no longer have the power previously given to it of acting for itself in its own legislature? It was a singular coincidence, apparently implying that somebody else must have drawn up the Motion for the right hon. Mover, that it contained particular words that, of all others, ought most studiously to have been excluded. They were almost exactly the same as those used in Mr. Robinson's and Mr. Wilson's Amendments to the Bill, proposed in the Canadian Assembly, and rejected, the former by a majority of 46 to 26, and the latter by a majority of 44 to 28. Could, then, a greater insult be offered to the legislature of Canada than for this House to adopt a Motion embodying the very words that they themselves negatived? Ought they to force the majority in that colonial legislature to adopt those very expressions of the minority's suggestions which they had deliberately declared that they would not adopt? That he thought would be a very formidable inroad upon the doctrine of responsible government. And why was the House asked to do that? Because, by a minute and captious criticism of the wording of the Act, the right hon. Gentleman here in Great Britain might be able to find out how in some way the legislature in Canada might not be able, as he conceived, to carry out its own declared intentions. Against that criticism the noble Lord last night quoted from the despatches of the Earl of Elgin and the debates on the question, giving the expressions of Mr. Hinckes and other colonial Ministers; and he must ask, when even in this country they often took the declarations of Ministers for the intentions of the Legislature, whether all these declarations were to go for nothing because they were made at a distance of some thousand miles? Even if the right hon. Gentleman had made good the whole of his ease, still he (Mr. V. Smith) would ask, was the danger of possibly admitting some few, who might have aided or abetted the rebellion, to a share in the compensation, anything at all to be compared with the imminent hazard they must run, by telling the greatest and most important of our colonies, that we would not allow any Act sent home to us from their legislature to receive the Royal assent, unless they would modify every letter and word of the Act to suit our views of what would best carry out the obvious spirit and intentions of its framers? The noble Lord himself had told them last night, that he would postpone his decision on the Act till he had received the instructions to be given to the commissioners; and surely the House, too, could not refuse to pause till it had first seen these instructions before it came to a decision. Let hon. Gentlemen not come to a premature vote to-night, but pause before they adopted a resolution most prejudicial to their interests, and which might plunge the colony into a state and a feeling that they must all deprecate. They had been told of the agitation of the minority in Canada against this Bill; but ought they not much more to dread the agitation of the majority who had adopted the measure, when it was now proposed to tell them that we would not carry out towards them the principles we had for years past assured them should be held as most sacred? He believed that the disgraceful riot which had taken place in Montreal was repudiated by all public men as a demonstration of public opinion. That night they had had the opinion of the chief law adviser of the Government, who, without any feeling of party, had merely pointed out to them the interpretation of the Act; and they had also, on the same side, the opinion of the Earl of Elgin, a man chosen from no party consideration, hut simply selected for his important post on the ground of his great experience, ability, and acquaintance with the forms of that House; and, up to this moment, not a single blemish could be found in his character as a colonial Governor. All that he (Mr. V. Smith) had heard alleged against him was, that he had come down too hastily to give his assent to the Bill after the Assembly had maturely and deliberately adopted it; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had said that he had no fault to find with either the colonial Governor or Government. The right hon. Member for Stamford, however, had blamed the Government here severely for not having meddled and interfered at every step with the provincial legislature. Now he (Mr. V. Smith) had heard a great deal of abuse of the constant and vicious intermeddling of the Colonial Office; but it rejoiced him now to hear it reproached, because the colony and its Governor were left to act freely for themselves; because he approved of the widest and largest discretion compatible with the rights of the mother country being given to the colony, and Earl Grey had steadily acted upon that principle with regard to the Canadian legislature. This question affected our whole connexion with the colonies; the maintenance of our imperial dominion was involved; and there was a danger of separation unless we were more cautious this century than we were during the last. But he called on the House, mainly and chiefly for the paramount reason that they could not wisely, on the ground of the mere details of the Bill, on the ground of a mere legal interpretation of a particular clause that was very likely erroneous, but certainly, as he thought, captious—he called on the House, on that consideration, not to refuse its assent to this Bill. If they were prepared to reject it, let them have a larger and more solid ground for its rejection; but he would earnestly entreat the House to beware how they rejected, without sufficient reason, this Act deliberately passed by the legislative assemblies of Canada.

said, it was not often that he could approve of the acts of the Colonial Government of this country, for in general he had to speak of it in the language of complaint; but on the present occasion he should be wanting in his duty if he did not express his opinion that the Colonial Department, on this question, had taken the proper course, and one that ought to be pursued towards all our other colonies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had himself admitted that he would make responsible government the rule, the only exception to the principle being in the case of imperial questions; but the debate must have convinced the right hon. Gentleman that he had failed to make this out to be a ease coming under his own category of exceptions; for it had not yet been shown in what way the Bill of the Canadian Parliament before them became an imperial question. He (Mr. Hume) was glad to hear the noble Lord at the head of the Government boldly and clearly enforce the position he had formerly laid down in his despatch to Lord Sydenham, and state the determination of his Government to carry out the statesmanlike principles he had enunciated. But there was one point in the noble Lord's speech with which he could not agree. He thought the Home Government had nothing whatever to do with the details of this Bill; for responsible government gave the local assemblies and the local government the power of managing all their own internal affairs, provided they did not injuriously affect the mother country He entirely concurred in the high eulogiums passed upon the Earl of Elgin; and no part of his conduct did he think more highly of than the manner in which he had acted during the late proceedings, where he was so improperly treated, and where the parties ought to have been, as he believed they were, thoroughly ashamed of themselves. But it was precisely because he had so strong a confidence in the Earl of Elgin and his Ministry, that he could not agree with the noble Lord at the head of the Government in requiring first to see the directions to be given to the commissioners for carrying out this measure. He hoped the noble Lord would reconsider that decision, as it must be a humiliating decision in the eyes of the Earl of Elgin, who deserved still greater confidence than the noble Lord seemed inclined to repose in him. The noble Lord, seeing that the Earl of Elgin had already done so much to justify the high opinion justly entertained of him, ought to confer upon him the addi- tional mark of confidence in him and his Ministry by entirely declining to interfere in any part of what was requisite to regulate and carry out the Bill before the House. That was the only point on which he (Mr. Hume) could find fault with the noble Lord's speech, which, with that exception, was a manly and spirited exposition of a statesmanlike policy, and would, he felt assured, be productive of very beneficial results. There was another matter to be considered, and it was this—that those who are now the opposers of those grants had plenty of opportunity, if they wished to object to this compensation. The first application that was made during the government of Lord Sydenham was, that the British Parliament should pay the money; and the noble Lord then at the head of the Colonial Office referred the question to the Treasury. From the letter of Sir Charles Trevelyan, it would be seen that the Lords of the Treasury were of opinion that it was not an imperial question, but merely a local question; and on that decision the noble Lord wrote his despatch—a short one, but very decided. If the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion took the proceedings in Canada into consideration, he would find it there repudiated as an imperial question. It was stated to be a local question: the law officers took upon themselves the responsibility, and let them carry out the measure they had themselves devised. He had seen various instances of the different opinions held by men in and out of office, and here there was an example of it. The party who now raised the outcry were in office when an unanimous address to Governor Metcalfe was agreed to, praying that his Excellency would be pleased to cause proper measures to be adopted in order to insure the inhabitants of that part of the province, formerly called Lower Canada, indemnity for the just losses sustained by them during the rebellion in 1837 and 1838. The very men who are now crying out against giving the money were the parties (then in office—then in the Ministry)—who recommended that, and carried out the steps then taken to give compensation. One thing was certain and most advantageous, that a result of the late proceedings in Canada would be to open the eyes of many who had not heretofore seen the real situation of the country, and the real character of the unprincipled men who had so audaciously arrogated to themselves the reputation of being the only loyal sub- jects of Her Majesty in the province. The worthy representatives of these worthy persons, who had come over to England in search of support, would return to Canada laden instead with the indignant condemnation of every honest Englishman. It was said, the voice of Canada was against this measure; but lot them look to the addresses sent to Lord Elgin from every part of the country. Here was one agreed to at Norwich:—

"Resolved, that this meeting feels indignant at the movements being made to alarm the fears of the people of this province by attempting to make it appear that the Bill before Parliament for payment of the rebellion claims of Lower Canada is to be raised by direct taxation on the people of Canada, a thing they know to be untrue, as the propagators of the same are dishonest."

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridport had charged the Earl of Elgin with appointing persons to office who had been rebels. Those who made such an accusation seemed to have benefited little from history, or they would find that the rebel of Monday would be the patriot of Tuesday, if he were successful. Those men were most unjustly treated as rebels against the Queen. They never had a hostile feeling against Her Majesty, but they had against the faction which was blindly kept in power by the Government for many years. It was against that faction they had contended, and not against the Crown. It was true those men were acting against Her Majesty's troops, but that arose from the circumstance that Her Majesty's troops in Canada were one day called upon to support one system, and on another day another system. He hoped they never would be subjected to that again, and, under the system of responsible government, he hoped Canada, before long, would be able to dispense with British troops to a great extent. He formerly was opposed to the policy adopted with respect to Canada by the noble Lord, but he now thanked him for what he had done. He thought he had acted properly, not only for the honour of England, but for the interest of Canada. Everything he did for the interest of Canada would redound to the honour of the Crown. It was their duty, if they wanted to retain that most important possession, to allow them, as they are now doing, to conduct their own affairs, and bring out their resources for their advantage, instead of being, as they had been, a burden and a cause of trouble. He hoped the House, whether they came to a division that night or not, would support Her Majesty's Government, who had in such a firm and manly manner stood by the principles and acts of those who were in favour of responsible government.

really had not intended to have intruded upon the House, but he could not suffer the speech of the hon. Member for Montrose to pass unnoticed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, who had commenced the debate, had made a most powerful and conclusive speech against this Bill, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had admitted that the Bill justified the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. Towards the close of his speech the right hon. Gentleman himself seemed alarmed at the strength of the position he had himself assumed, and at the strength of the case he had himself submitted, and so spent the last twenty minutes of his speech in blowing off his steam. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's attempts to shake the strength of the case he had himself established, he (Mr. Newdegate) did not believe that the House would gain any further insight into the matter by a prolonged debate. The House was in full possession last night of the general bearings of the question, and no good would be gained by the delay. The hon. Member for Montrose, with that vague indefinite-ness of expression which was so often the characteristic of his speeches, had mixed up in the same category the American sympathisers who were in arms against the Queen in 1837 and 1838, and those misguided rioters who had recently allowed themselves to be betrayed by the warmth of their feelings into excesses which every right-minded man must condemn. The hon. Member for Montrose had also thought fit to class the defenders of Canada in 1837 and 1838 with the rioters of Montreal. He (Mr. Newdegate) begged to recall to the recollection of the House the fact that those who were now stigmatised by the hon. Member for Montrose were the very men whose presence of mind and courage were the most conspicuous amongst those who endeavoured to save the public property consigned by the rioters to the flames. He repeated that those who were foremost amongst the defenders of Canada in 1837 and 1838 were the most forward in support of the Government and the cause of order in 1849. Sir Alan M'Nab had been one of the first to tender his support to the Government; he had given that protection which his known character enabled him to afford to the frightened members of the Assembly, and exerted himself most indefatigably in the endeavour to rescue the valuable documents endangered by the fire. He served his Queen and country with the same determined courage that he exhibited in 1837 and 1838; and yet the hon. Member for Montrose spoke of him as though he had been actuated by motives the very reverse of that loyalty which had been the leading characteristic of his life. He must recall to the recollection of the House the fact that it was Sir Alan M'Nab who, at the head of his gallant volunteers, had repulsed the American sympathisers on all hands, and, in fact, it was he who had given the coup de grâce to the rebellion. He had received the thanks of two of the Governors General—Sir Francis Head and Sir George Arthur. He had been distinguished by many marks of their esteem; while his conduct throughout the last exigency had been blameless; and, if possible, stood still higher in public estimation. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not, however, say he was surprised at the confusion of ideas evinced by the hon. Member for Montrose, because he had also affirmed that the rebellion of 1837–38 was a just rebellion. On the interpretation of that word "just," turned the whole question. If it were a just rebellion, according to the interpretation of the Act by the Attorney General, all the losses incurred by the rebels must be compensated under the proposed Act. The only reservation was that which was implied in the requirement, that the destruction of property should be "unjust, wanton, and unnecessary;" but if it was a just rebellion, the losses occasioned by it must be unnecessary and unjust. It was impossible to place the position of the question more fairly in that respect; and upon this opinion of the Attorney General, the gravest imperial questions were turned. Was an attempt—aided by foreigners—on the part of the rebellious subjects of the Queen, to separate a colony from the Crown, an offence against the imperial authority or not? If anything could constitute such an offence, it must be such an endeavour to separate a colony from the Crown. He would put a question to the hon. Member for Montrose. Supposing this Government in 1838 had determined to retaliate upon the adjacent States of the Union, and had sought forcibly to annex one of those States and separate it from the federal Union, would the Government of the united States have considered that a federal question or not? The cases were analogous, for the American sympathisers did not want "responsible government," hut their object was to separate Canada from the Crown of England, and add another star to the American constellation. There could be no question that was the fact, and yet the hon. Member for Montrose said it was a just rebellion, and that, therefore, every loss inflicted by the troops in repressing that rebellion was unjust, wanton, and unnecessary. If the interpretation put upon those words were admitted, it reduced representative government to an absurdity; because if the Queen and the Government were to have no discretion, it was perfectly clear by the terms of the Act that they must consent to give the compensation awarded to rebels. M. Lafontaine and Mr. Baldwin would, in accordance with their previous conduct, he had no doubt, accept that interpretation; and if it were the proper one, he should like to know how any person could be disqualified, who had not been absolutely convicted of high treason, from receiving indemnity for losses. He could not wonder that the loyal men of Canada should have been deeply irritated at what had passed. The Government of Canada had been at much pains to conceal the expression of opinion against this Bill, which had proceeded from numerous bodies in Canada. They had rumours and reports of numerous petitions against the Bill, but the Government had distinctly refused to give an account of those received by them. They had paraded before the House page after page of addresses to the Earl of Elgin, expressive of the regret which all classes felt at the outrage which had been offered to him as the representative of the Sovereign to whom they were attached; but there was not one given which expressed an opinion adverse to this Bill. He felt, with the loyalists of Canada, that it would be an insult to the Crown of England, an injury to them, and a degradation to the British Legislature, if this Bill received the Royal Assent, and were suffered to pass into a law. He put it to the noble Lord opposite to answer this question—what Act hereafter could be passed by the legislative assembly of any colony which the Crown could consistently disallow? This House and the Crown of England would hereafter be bound by every act of the colonial legislatures. Could anything be more flagrant, than that under the ambiguous terms of this Act, though he denied that they were ambiguous when coupled with the circumstances of the ease—compensation would be given to rebels against the Crown? If the Crown of England were to consent to this measure, what Bill passed by a colonial legislature would it have good grounds for rejecting? It seemed that the doctrine of responsible government had gone to such an extent that the Governor had no discretion, and that the Crown had no discretion when the Act was sent home. The noble Lord said he was waiting until the instructions given to the commissioners came home; but when they did come home, was it the noble Lord's intention to send out an interpretation of the words "unjust; wanton, and unnecessary," as applicable to the losses which were the foundation to the claims that had been submitted to the commissioners? He begged to put that question pointedly to the Government, for on those three words the whole case depended. He should put some other questions to the Government—questions which had been already put in Canada and not answered. Colonel Prince, in the House of Assembly, put these questions to the Government:—

"1. Do you propose to exclude in your instructions to the commissioners to be appointed under this Act all who aided and abetted the rebels in 1837–38?"

To this there was no reply.

"2. Do you propose to exclude those who admit and confess a participation in the rebellion? "

Again no reply was vouchsafed.

"3. Do you propose to exclude those whose admission of guilt is at this moment in the possession of Government? "

Again no answer.

"4. Do you mean to exclude any of the 800 men who were imprisoned for participating in the rebellion, but who were discharged from custody by the clemency of the Governor General, and whose claims for losses exceed 70,000 l .?"

No reply! Colonel Prince then said that he would read the questions again seriatim , or furnish the Government with a copy, and trusted that they would give a reply. M. Lafontaine then said that they had been answered in the debate before. The only answer that had been given before was one given in private by M. Lafontaine to Mr. Jones; and it was that, according to his understanding of the Bill, no distinction could be made. The refusal to answer these questions was not calculated to give satis- faction to the people of Canada. Without justifying what had happened in the smallest degree, he would ask whether they could expect the loyalists of Canada to submit to such treatment? The resumé of these questions is—

"Do you propose to include in your instructions to the commissioners all that aided and abetted in the rebellion of 1837 and 1838?"

He (Mr. Newdegate) begged to put these questions simply and seriatim to the Government; and he also must ask, what were they waiting for? Was it merely for the purpose of putting an interpretation on those three words, "unjust, unnecessary, and wanton?" They had been told that there might he some ambiguity in these expressions; but for any distinct assurance from the Government, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, the House had not advanced one step further towards a satisfactory position. Unless the questions he had put were satisfactorily answered, he should give his vote for the Motion of the right hon. Member, because the intention of the Government, so far as he could gather it, at present was to recommend Her Majesty to sanction the passing of this Bill.

said, that he should vote against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford for various reasons, with most of which he would not trouble the House; for they had been well stated by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in a speech to which he had listened with pleasure, because it appeared to him to be sound in principle, liberal in sentiment, and to prove that the noble Lord was well versed in the true maxims of colonial government. He thought a grave error had long pervaded our system of colonial policy. That error had consisted in the tendency of the Imperial Government repeatedly to interfere in colonial affairs, on the plea that such interference was necessary to protect imperial interests. Under that plea the Imperial Government had at different times interfered in almost every description of colonial question; and the consequences had been well-founded complaint and discontent in the colonies. He believed the colonies would never be well governed and contented until our colonial policy was reversed, and the rule was laid down and strictly adhered to that the Imperial Government should abstain from interfering in colonial affairs, except in cases of grave and well-proven necessity, in which it could be shown that there was immediate danger to the great interests of the empire. Now, had such a case been made out against the Rebellion Losses Bill for Lower Canada? He thought not. He had heard a most able and ingenious speech against that Bill from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. If that speech had been delivered in the House of Assembly of Canada, it would probably have induced him (Sir W. Molesworth), had he been a Member of that Assembly, to vote for Mr. Wilson's Amendment; but it did not in the slightest degree convince him, as a Member of the Imperial Parliament, that he ought to assist in rescinding the measures of the Canadian Assembly. On the contrary, he maintained that the Imperial Parliament could not rescind that measure without being guilty of what appeared to him to be equivalent to a breach of faith. And he held that such a breach of faith would, on imperial grounds, be a greater evil than any compensation to a few rebels which might happen under that Bill. He maintained that the Rebellion Losses Bill for Lower Canada was but the legitimate sequel to previous measures, and the necessary consequence of the instructions given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the late Government (Lord Stanley) to Lord Metcalfe, in 1844. In consequence of those instructions. Lord Metcalfe had proposed to the Assembly of Canada a Bill for compensating rebellion losses in Upper Canada; that Bill had been passed with a pledge that a similar measure should be introduced for Lower Canada, and the present Rebellion Losses Bill for Lower Canada was a fulfilment of that pledge, which had been given both by the House of Assembly, by the Governor, and therefore virtually by the Imperial Government. He held, therefore, that no blame could attach to the Earl of Elgin for fulfilling that pledge, and that if the Imperial Parliament rescinded the measure in question, it would be a flagrant breach of faith on their part. These positions could be proved beyond a doubt by the papers presented to the House, and to which he begged to call the attention of the House. In 1838 an ordinance had been passed in Lower Canada appointing commissioners to inquire into losses occasioned by the rebellion, and in 1839 an Act had been passed extending the provisions of that ordinance. The commissioners who had been appointed had made five reports; when, for reasons he would presently state, their operations were closed before their inquiry was terminated. The claims arising under the three first of these reports amounted to about 21,000 l .; they were approved of by Sir John Colborne, and paid out of the funds of the provincial treasury. Those funds being exhausted. Lord Sydenham was unable to pay the claims arising under the two last reports, and it was for that reason that he had put a stop to the operations of the commissioners before their inquiry was terminated; at the same time he had recommended that one of those claims should be paid out of the military chest—that was, out of imperial funds. It was worthy of remark that the Canadians and their Governors had been most anxious to make the empire pay for losses occasioned by the rebellions. They had argued that the question of compensation for rebellion losses was an imperial and not a local question, and that these losses should be compensated out of imperial funds. Every Secretary of State for the Colonies had been of the opposite opinion: first, the Marquess of Normanby, then, Lord John Russell, lastly, Lord Stanley—each had maintained that the question of compensation for rebellion losses was a local and not an imperial question, and that the compensation should be paid out of local and not out of imperial funds; and they had told the colonists that if they would pass measures for that purpose, those measures would be sanctioned by the Imperial Government. For some time the colonists had been very unwilling to adopt this recommendation, and had persisted in considering the question to be an imperial one. The consequence of this delay had been great and well-founded complaint on the part of the colonists. In a despatch dated April, 1844, Lord Metcalfe had transmitted to Lord Stanley a petition from certain inhabitants of Lower Canada, praying for compensation for rebellion losses. Lord Metcalfe assured Lord Stanley that their "prayer was entitled to earnest consideration," that "no one could question their claim," that "it was much to be regretted that so much delay had taken place in doing justice," and that "there was little prospect of any better result, owing to the disinclination in influential parties to provide the requisite funds." He had however a "faint hope, bordering on despair, that the local legislature might hereafter be moved to make the necessary appropria- tion. "In reply to this despatch, in order to overcome "the disinclination of influential parties," and to move the local legislature, Lord Stanley made the suggestions contained in his despatch of May, 1844. In it Lord Stanley used the following words:—

"I find that in Upper Canada an Act was passed with the intention of providing indemnification, by 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 of both sections of the provinces were submitted in one application to the House of Assembly, they might receive favourable consideration, and be compensated by debentures."

That noble Lord concluded his despatch by saying—

"As there are no hopes of relief from imperial funds, I think it right to offer you the suggestion, leaving it entirely to your discretion to act upon as you think proper,"

What was the meaning of this suggestion? The House should bear in mind that the state of things in Upper Canada with regard to rebellion losses was analogous to that of Lower Canada. In Upper Canada commissioners of inquiry had been appointed, awards had been made, and some of the claims had been compensated; but there had not been sufficient funds to compensate all the claims. The only difference between Upper Canada and Lower Canada had been, that in the upper province the commissioners had terminated their inquiry; in the lower province they had not finished it. Therefore, the meaning of Lord Stanley's suggestion had been virtually to say to Lord Metcalfe, "You want to compensate certain rebellion losses in Lower Canada; in order to induce the Assembly to comply with your wishes, propose to them at one and the same time to compensate rebellion losses in both provinces." This had been done as far as practicable. A Bill was passed in 1845 for paying 40,000 l . for rebellion losses in Upper Canada. Another Bill was passed for the payment of the claims arising under the fourth and fifth report of the commissioners for Lower Canada; and as those commissioners had not finished their report, the House of Assembly had unanimously agreed that—

"An humble Address should be presented to the Governor General, praying that he will be pleased to cause the proper measures to be adopted in order to ensure to the inhabitants of Lower Canada indemnity for just losses by them sustained during the rebellion of 1837 and 1838."

That address was agreed to before the passing of the Rebellion Losses Bill for Upper Canada; and the only meaning that could be attached to it was, that there should be a Rebellion Losses Bill for Lower Canada analogous to that for Upper Canada. He maintained, therefore, that to such a measure for Lower Canada the House of Assembly was pledged by its address. The Governor was pledged by his having proposed a Rebellion Losses Bill for Upper Canada, and the Imperial Government was pledged by having assented to that Bill. Now, the Rebellion Losses Bill for Lower Canada was the fulfilment of these pledges. There was no difference in principle between the Bills for the two provinces. The chief difference that he could discover between them was, that the terms which defined the kind of rebellion losses to be compensated, were more comprehensive in the Bill for the Upper Province than for the Lower Province. In the Upper Province, claims were to be investigated and compensated—

"in respect of any losses occasioned by violence on the part of persons in Her Majesty's service, or acting or assuming to act on behalf of Her Majesty's service, in the suppression of the said re-hellion, or for the prevention of further disturbance, and all claims arising under or in respect of the occupation of any houses or premises by Her Majesty's military or naval forces either imperial or provincial."

These terms were certainly more comprehensive than the words of the Rebellion Losses Bill for Lower Canada, which only provided that losses should be paid—

"so far only as they may have arisen from the total or partial, unjust, unnecessary, or wanton destruction of the dwellings, buildings, property, and the effects of the said inhabitants, and from the seizure, taking or carrying away of their property and effects, provided that none of the persons convicted of treason, or who were transported to Bermuda, shall be entitled to any indemnity."

It must, therefore, be acknowledged with reference to the terms of the two Bills, that there was less opening for compensating rebels under the Bill for Lower Canada than under that for Upper Canada. If this were acknowledged, then he had proved his position, that the Rebellion Losses Bill of Lower Canada was the fulfilment of a pledge given by the House of Assembly and the Governor General at the instigation of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and in virtue of the doctrine laid down by successive Secretaries of State for the Colonies, that compensation for rebellion was a local and not an imperial question. He held, therefore, that a refusal to agree to this Bill would be a breach of faith on the part of the empire to the colony. He attached great importance to the vote of to-night, not merely on account of Canada, but as a test of sound principles of colonial policy; for he held that it was of paramount importance to our colonies that the House and the Imperial Government should cease to believe in their own omniscience and infallibility in colonial matters; that they should be persuaded of their necessary ignorance of those matters, and should not venture to rescind the decisions of the representatives of a great colony on the pleas which had been urged in the course of that debate.

denied that Lord Stanley, in his despatch referred to by the hon. Baronet, had at all raised the question of the right of rebels to participate in any compensation which it was the intention of the Government to confer upon the loyal subjects of Canada. He believed that Lord Stanley would have rather severed his right hand from his body than have penned a despatch calling upon the lamented Lord Metcalfe to lend himself to any such proceeding. The hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat had contended that the Bill for Upper Canada gave a wider scope to the parties to be compensated than that for Lower Canada. It was, however, perfectly impossible to wrest the meaning of that Act to any such purpose as that of the compensation of rebels. The just fears of the Canadians were excited at the time of the passing of the Bill with respect to the intentions of the Government. The loyal colonists had witnessed the repeated rejection at the hands of the Colonial Office of all their applications and recommendations for a just recompense and compensation to those who in the cause of the Crown in Canada had hazarded the loss of all they possessed. They saw in the case of Colonel Fitzgibbon, who so ably repulsed the American sympathisers at Toronto during the rebellion, that all the efforts of the colonists to obtain not merely compensation for his losses, but even remuneration for his services, had been rendered useless by the conduct of the Colonial Office. Twice the Legislature of Canada had passed an Act for compensating him, and twice the Government of this country had refused to sanction the measure; and up to this time that officer had neither been compensated for his losses, nor remunerated for his services. M. Lafontaine and Mr. Baldwin, who had been so active with respect to this measure, were themselves rebels. [Mr. HAWES: No, no!] A sum, however, was set upon the head of Mr. Baldwin; and yet he had since that time been appointed to the office of Attorney General, under the present Governor of Canada. Almost the whole of the loyalists had been dismissed from office, and their places supplied by those who took part in the rebellion. Mr. M'Leod had, up to this time, received not a farthing, either for his services or for the sufferings which he endured during that long and memorable imprisonment of which he was made the subject by the Government and mob of the United States. All the applications on the subject had been, as in the case of Colonel Fitzgibbon, rejected by the Colonial Office. Could they wonder, then, that the loyal people of Canada, knowing that the avowed purpose of the Act for the union of the two Canadas was to destroy the old French laws and the old British party, by fusing into one assembly the French and English representatives, and that the effect of the measure would be what its advocates intended, should have been led to regard with more than usual suspicion this new Bill for compensating rebellion losses which had been brought in by such men as Mr. Baldwin and M. Lafontaine? It entirely depended upon the conduct of the local executive as to the effect which this Bill would have with regard to the compensation of rebels. During its discussion in the House of Assembly an endeavour was made to procure from the Government a distinct statement of their intentions in bringing forward this Act. They refused, however, to give the required information, and all the Members of the Government voted with the majority against the Amendment. The present Canadian Ministry, true to their principles, when they got into power, resolved to put money in their purse. The question which the House now bad to consider was, whether the Colonial Office, representing the Crown, as he regretted to say they must still consider it to do, had acted rightly in leaving to a single individual in Canada so much discretion. The noble Lord the Prime Minister told the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, that he could give him no assurance that the rebels of Lower Canada would not be compensated for the losses which they had suf- fered during the rebellion; and in consequence of that refusal the right hon. Member for Stamford had moved his Amendment. The reason which the noble Lord gave for not conveying that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman was wholly beside the matter, for it did not follow that because the Government could not give a guarantee that not a single rebel should be compensated, they should not do all in their power to prevent rebels from being rewarded. Of course the law was always open to evasion, do what they would; but the noble Lord should not by his silence permit a construction to be put upon the Act which justified the compensation of a single rebel for what he did in 1837. At present the dilemma was presented to them of either coming in collision with the Canadian Legislature, or of basely submitting to the Colonial Office and those Canadian agitators who had obtained the confidence of that office. A middle path was, however, offered by the Motion of the right hon. Member for Stamford, and he should certainly vote for the disallowance of a Bill the avowed object of which was a gratification—for he scorned to call it compensation—for rebellion against Her Majesty. He was concerned to think that, in the course of this debate, no one had spoken on the behalf of Her Majesty's Government who had said one word against the rebellion of 1837, or one word in favour of those by whose assistance that rebellion had been put down. At present the loyal population of Canada wished to maintain the connexion with this country; but he feared that the policy of Her Majesty's Government, if persevered in, would infallibly conduct them into the camp of those who desired the separation of the Canadas, and the concession of independence. There were now 40,000 persons in Canada, enrolled in Hunters' Lodges and other secret societies, whose object was the annexation of Canada and the other provinces of British North America to the United States. It was in order to avoid all participation in so signal an infamy that he should give his vote for the Amendment.

would strictly confine himself to reference to facts connected with the present condition of Canada. He should lament very much if the Bill went back to that colony unsanctioned by the Government, because he believed it would create discontent and dissatisfaction in the minds of all those who were friendly and faithful to Her Majesty's Government. It had been the misfortune of that country to have early had planted in its soil a few overbearing British individuals, who had gradually acquired an influence over its administration, and this influence was strengthened in their families by a compact. Down to 1830 there were only two Governors General who were not, to some extent, under that influence—namely, Sir J. C. Sherbrooke and Sir James Kemp. The latter gallant Officer set out with a determination to do justice between all parties, and to listen to nothing that should emanate from the compact, or from any faction. The people of Lower Canada were always considered as an alien people by the self-called British party, and their very religion was presented by the British grand jury as a nuisance. No man lamented more than he did the rebellion of 1837–8, on account of the people of Lower Canada, who were, generally speaking, a loyal people, but who had been influenced by a few demagogues to believe that they were oppressed by the mother country, when in reality the oppressors were the British faction, and a few French-Canadian agitators. The pretended motive of the latter was a good one, that the Canadians ought to demand a measure of self-government for themselves. Such government has, much to the honour of the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, now the First Lord of the Treasury, been given to the Canadians. Now, if the present Bill was disallowed, it would go to the extent of declaring to the people of Canada that although they had a controlling and responsible Government in Canada, notwithstanding that, they would be deprived of its exercise when it suited the Home Government to do so. He was convinced that the sentiments stated by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, on the previous evening would be received with the greatest satisfaction by the people of Canada, with the exception of a few disappointed persons who were mainly instrumental in fomenting the recent disturbances. He did not believe that any large number of the inhabitants of either Upper or Lower Canada were in favour of a union with the United States. Montreal, the focus of disturbance, being contiguous to the few discontented parishes in Canada, was the cause of the riots in that city. If the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Stamford were adopted, it would be tantamount to a declaration that the Ca- nadians should not have self-government. The object at issue was, were Canadian rebellion losses to be compensated out of Canadian funds, not out of the imperial funds of the empire at large? He considered that Canada should pay those losses. Few persons were aware of the difficulties that beset the administration of a colonial Governor. In Canada, however, the present responsibility was thrown on the legislature; and to reject the Acts of that legislature would be to drive the people into despair. It would extinguish the principle and practice of self-government. As the Act of the majority of a legally constituted legislative body, the Earl of Elgin had no option but to accept the Bill in question. It was said that the people of Canada desired annexation to the United States; and the cultivation of the American side was pointed to as proof of the difference in favour of the Government of that country. But it should be borne in mind, that one-seventh of the lands on the Canadian side of the St. Lawrence belonged, until lately, to the Church of England; that those sectional sevenths lay uncultivated, for no one would take them on lease when lands could elsewhere be bought at very low prices; and it should be also recollected that it was only lately the Canadians had had self-government. If the Canadas were annexed to the United States, all the Customs' duties, and the proceeds of the sales of lands, would go for federal purposes to Washington. Now, those monies are all expended for public purposes in Canada. If the Bill in question was rejected by Her Majesty's advisers, it would, he repeated, give just cause of profound complaint to the people of Canada. He approved of the course about to be taken by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Australian provinces, because it was analogous to that which they had taken towards Canada. He did not anticipate any abuse of the money voted by the Bill, for he was sure the Canadians would look well after its expenditure.

said, that if the assumption made in one part of the hon. Member for Glasgow's speech was to be granted, the rest of it was utterly unnecessary; for if it could be made out that the Act which they were now discussing was simply of local importance, no person would wish to interfere with it. It was not the Act itself that he complained of, and wished to interfere with, but its am- biguity of language, which left it open to misinterpretation. He rose with considerable pain on this occasion, because he wished to state the reasons why he himself, and several of his friends, would feel compelled not to vote for the Motion before the House, though heartily condemning and deeply deploring the policy of the Crown. The reason why he could not vote for the Motion was simply that it came too late. An Address was now moved to the Crown to do that which it ought to have done long ago. The Earl of Elgin ought in the first instance to have refused the introduction of the Act without sufficient guarantee in the Act to prevent the possibility of rebels receiving any portion of the compensation. He (Mr. Adderley) would venture to say that Mackenzie himself would be one of the first recipients of this compensation. Only conceive the feelings of men who, having lost sons or fathers in the rebellion, were taxed to pay compensation to such men as Mackenzie. It was true that M. Lafontaine could not be termed a rebel, but he was only more fortunate than the rebels in being their inferior in courage and boldness. The Act would be misconstrued by the commissioners. If there could be a guarantee given that the Act would be carried out bonâ fide , he would not object to it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University had clearly shown that the amnesty did not obliterate the rebellion. What was now to be done? What was the Imperial Parliament to do? This Act was, based upon the precedent of other Acts, which, it was said, were pledges that this Act would be passed. The former Acts, however, said that the compensation should only be given to loyal subjects; but as the word "loyal" had been left out of the present Act, the necessary inference was, that persons were to be recompensed who were rebels. He would say this, that if they could safely induce the Crown to suspend its consent until the wording of the Act was altered as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, he would vote for the Motion; but he feared that it would be utterly impossible under the circumstances of the case, as it would go forth that it was a rejection of the Act. It was too late, and such a step would be dangerous to this country and the colonies. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said that such instructions would be given to the commissioners as to carry out the intentions of the Earl of Elgin—that was, that rebels should not receive compensation. Why, was not that a flat contradiction to his own argument against the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford? The noble Lord said to apply any test would be to establish a kind of Star Chamber inquisition; and yet he proposed that such instructions should be given to the commissioners as would require tests as to rebellion to be applied. He (Mr. Adderley) could not but express his strong censure of the policy of the Government in this matter.

felt there was something that had not yet been fairly brought before the House, and that was, the manner in which the question had been put before the House. The hon. Member for Staffordshire had said the question came too late before the House; but for his life he could not see how it could have come earlier. He entreated the House to look at the question in its historical bearing, in order to see how Canadian affairs had reached their present lamentable result. The question of indemnity in the case of a rebellion which had become a civil war, in itself implied much acerbity, heartburning, and difficulty; and with respect to Canada might be impolitic while the provinces were disunited. But a Bill of Indemnity having been passed, and Upper and Lower Canada having been united, then it was no longer a question between Upper and Lower Canada, but whether the united provinces should pay the losses sustained on account of the insurrection. The people of Upper Canada were indemnified for their losses; but there was some difficulty with respect to Lower Canada, in discriminating between those claimants who were loyal, and those who were otherwise. In the Bill introduced to indemnify the people of Lower Canada, special instructions were inserted, to the effect that all persons convicted of rebellion should be excluded from any share of the proposed compensation. Those instructions were received by the Canadian House of Assembly with great ill-will. They said—

"We will receive no instructions whatever. We have allowed the money of the united provinces to go for the compensation of Upper Canada, on condition that the same compensation should be allowed for Lower Canada; and we must now reject the instructions that you propose, be- cause they are inconsistent with an implied agreement."

Then came the question—"Who were the rebels?" The answer of Earl Cathcart was thus given by Mr. Secretary Daly—

"In making out a classification of persons (entitled to compensation) on the 12th of December last, it is not his Excellency's intention that you should be guided by further instructions than those furnished by the decisions of the courts of law."

This limitation was fixed, not by the Earl of Elgin, but by Earl Cathcart, in February, 1836. That was the time for the House to decide whether that limitation was a proper one. If it were objectionable, the grounds of objection should have been then stated; but it was unwise to bring forward objections now, because a minority of the colony had created an agitation against the Bill. Was it possible for the House to call upon the Crown to reject such a Bill as this, sanctioned by such a majority in the Canadian legislature, without seriously endangering the connexion between the two countries? Those whom such a course would provoke, were the parties least bound to us by birth and habit and other ties. But by agreeing to the Bill, the House would in effect say—" We wish to make the amnesty real, and truly to unite the two provinces." Let not hon. Gentlemen go on making this distinction (independently of that constituted by a conviction) of "loyal" and "disloyal," rebel, and attached to British authority; that was still believing in rebellion and not in the amnesty. Canada must be attached to us by the tie of the consciousness of her own interest; otherwise we could not hold Canada, and the question of separation could be only one of time. He hoped, therefore, the House would sanction a Bill approved of by the majority of the people of Canada, assented to by the Earl of Elgin, and supported by Her Majesty's Government.

Sir, in the few observations I shall address to the House, I shall endeavour to avoid going over the ground occupied by those hon. Members who have preceded me. I think the question has been very much narrowed during the debate. The question to be considered is not whether we shall or shall not endeavour to reverse the principle of responsible government, but whether, by adopting the resolution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford, we shall be acting contrary to that principle. The noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government said, the other night—and I am sure he is not opposed to the principle of responsible government—that in his opinion there were cases in which it was the duty of the Government of this country to interfere in the decision of a colonial legislature. Was not the present one of those cases which would justify the Government in advising the refusal of the Royal assent to the Act of the Canadian legislature—nay, was it not the duty of the Government to do so? And if that were so, did not the matter become an imperial rather than a local question, in which the Government were called upon to interfere by advising Her Majesty's veto to the Act? The question, then, we have to consider is, whether this is one of those cases that will justify the Government of this country to interfere with respect to what has taken place in Canada, and advise Her Majesty not to give Her consent to the measure in question. Now, Sir, it has been admitted, I think, by the noble Lord, by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and by Her Majesty's Attorney General, that if this Bill becomes the law of the land, rebels must inevitably be compensated for the losses which they sustained. Then I put it to the House whether, if that be the case, the Government are not justified in advising Her Majesty to put Her veto on this Bill? The noble Lord says the difficulty he entertains is, that it is impossible to draw the line between the loyal man and the rebel. But is it not easy, in the case of those 400 men who were taken with arms in their hands, to decide whether they are entitled to compensation or not? But the noble Lord says that many of those men were not rebels, that they were loyal in their hearts, but that they were forced to act as they did by the fear and intimidation of others. Why, Sir, if they had not courage enough to stand by their country in the hour of need—if, under such circumstances, they were intimidated by a handful of men—I cannot concur with the noble Lord in regarding them as honest men. But the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield said, that many of those men with arms in their hands were merely going out on a shooting excursion, and that he himself when a boy had gone out with his gun on his shoulder to kill whatever game came across his path. But I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he ever went out with 800 men for that object; and if in doing so he ever mistook a red coat for a stray duck? But the noble Lord went on to say—

"I think it would be a great hardship on a man who might have been a rebel eleven or twelve years ago, to make him, after that time had elapsed, prove himself at this time of day to be a loyal man."

I say that if he be a loyal man, and has been subject to suspicion, he will invite inquiry into his character, and he gratified for the opportunity of removing that suspicion, and clearing his character from all imputation. But if, on the other hand, he be a rebel, I cannot agree then on the hardship of the case, because. I think it right that a man claiming compensation for his losses sustained during a rebellion, should show that he himself had nothing whatever to do with that rebellion. The hon. Member for Montrose, whom I do not see in his place, made one of the most extraordinary assertions that I believe even he ever made in this House. He said that the rebels of 1837 and 1838 were no rebels at all. I cannot in 1849 consent to agree on that point with the hon. Gentleman; hut if they were not rebels, I ask him whether he is prepared to support a Bill which includes those who were convicted of rebellion? If he is, then that proves the hon. Gentleman to be incorrect, and that he chooses to he so. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield says that the Bill does not go far enough. I agree with him that the Bill does not go far enough. But what is it that he complains of? It is that the Bill confines the compensation to those whose property was wantonly destroyed, but it does not extend to those whose property was not wantonly destroyed. I agree with him that the Bill does not go far enough, but for this reason, that while the rebel whoso property was destroyed can claim compensation, the loyal man, who said to those who were maintaining the honour of our country—" Enter my house—make use of it and all my property as you will for the service of the Queen "—that man cannot obtain compensation. I agree with him on that ground, and that is the reason that I ask this House not to agree to this Bill until it is amended. For these reasons, and because I think it is only fair for the people of Canada that the Governor should not approve of the Bill, I shall vote with my right hon. Colleague. I do not see my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford in his place, hut there are those who, I have no doubt, will be kind enough to inform him of what I am going to say. I cannot sit down without noticing the taunts he threw out last night on the conduct which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford has thought fit to pursue. He said that that conduct was extraordinary; and that the House was not prepared for the course which we then took. Sir, I think that the conduct of that right hon. Gentleman was extraordinary, and I much doubt whether the House, after that very brilliant speech that he made, was not surprised at the result. He commenced his speech by saying that he should not follow it up by any distinct Motion, because he was unwilling to excite animosity, and to irritate the feelings of Canada and of this country. The noble Lord, in answering the right hon. Gentleman, told him that in the expression of his opinions in that House on this subject, he had done everything to increase the hostility and to embitter the feelings of the people of Canada. And what would have been the natural answer of the right hon. Gentleman to that allegation? He ought to have said, "I regret that I feel myself forced to admit the truth of that allegation; hut I felt that I was obliged to express those opinions in order to put an end to a Bill which I believe to be dangerous to that country; I felt that it was necessary that I should show the House the injustice of an Act which would compensate the rebellious, and thereby inflict ruin and disgrace upon the people of Canada." But to expose the loyal people of Canada, in that eloquent speech which has not been answered, because it was unanswerable, the injustice which this Act will inflict upon them, and at the same time to refuse, not only to remedy, but to make any attempt to remove that grievance—such a course, I agree with the noble Lord, and I think the House will he of the same opinion, is indeed likely to increase the acerbity of the feelings of the loyal portion of the people of Canada. It is not surprising that the course which my right hon. Friend has thought fit to pursue should be drawn into contrast with that pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. We were anxious, as far as possible, to refrain from all expressions that might exasperate the feelings of the people of Canada. We were willing to join with them cordially in an attempt to defeat a measure that we disapproved of. We did not, however, make any bitter speeches. Sir, the hon. Member for Surrey taunted my right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford with having made a Motion without a speech. I think, Sir, that that was an unfair taunt—the sarcasm was uncalled for—I think that my right hon. Friend did make a speech, which was very pertinent and very sensible. Well, Sir, then we did endeavour as far as possible to avoid increasing the animosities existing in Canada; but at the same time we did think that we could not, entertaining the opinions that we do—having heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford—having heard the answer of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that he could not give an assurance that even if rebels should by possibility be compensated under this Bill, the consent of the Crown to the Act would be withheld—we could not, under such circumstances, give our consent to this Act, which we believe to be derogatory to this country, and inconsistent with the great principles of justice—which we believe will tarnish the honour of the Crown, and will be a violation of the sacred duties of the Government; and, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford proposed a manly, open, and straightforward resolution, which, I fear—as I do not see him in his place—my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford does not intend to support.

agreed with the noble Marquess who had just sat down, that occasions might arise in which it might be necessary for the imperial authority to interfere in the proceedings of colonial legislatures; and if he (Mr. Labouchere) believed that the Bill which they were now discussing had been—as represented by the Opposition side of the House—intentionally framed with the view of insulting the British Crown, and deliberately affronting that portion of the population of Canada which particularly distinguished itself in suppressing rebellion in Canada, or in expelling external invaders over the frontiers of Canada, he should be prepared to advise the rejection of this Bill at all hazards. But he confessed that it would be with the utmost difficulty and reluctance that he could bring himself to believe that that was a faithful description of this Bill. When he considered that it was finally agreed to in the House of Assembly of Canada by a majority of 47 to 18—a majority, be it recollected, not composed exclusively of the representatives of Lower Canada, or members representing the inhabitants of French descent, but representing also, as he believed, an actual majority of the inhabitants of upper Canada, being that portion which was occupied by subjects of British descent—he should tremble for British connexion with the province of Canada, if he could persuade himself that such a Bill was intended as an insult to the British Crown, and, as he had before said, he should be prepared, at all hazards, to vote for its rejection. He believed that the connexion of Canada with this country was most essential to the interests of both countries, and that it was one which neither part of itself had a right to dissolve. But they were not bound to maintain that connexion on terms dishonourable to the mother country; and he would rather see that connexion severed than see it maintained on terms of that description. But the more he considered this Bill—the more he had listened to the arguments that had been brought forward during the protracted discussion which had already taken place—the more he was satisfied that there was not the slightest ground for bringing a charge of that character against the conduct pursued by the great majority of the representatives of the Canadian people. He begged hon. Gentlemen to recollect under what circumstances the Bill was brought forward. This question had not now for the first been introduced into the Canadian legislature by the present constitutional advisers of the Earl of Elgin; on the contrary, the principle of this Bill was first sanctioned by an Act passed by the House of Assembly for indemnifying losses sustained during the rebellion in Upper Canada. Allusion had been made, at an early period of that evening, to that Act; and he must say that if there was any just ground of complaint as to the manner in which the present Bill had been drawn up—if there really was anything vague in its terms—such a charge might with far more justice be brought against the Act passed for compensating rebellion losses in Upper Canada. He begged to call the attention of the House to the language of that Act, than which, in his opinion, nothing could be more vague, indefinite, or general. He referred to the Act passed to amend and enlarge a former Act of the Legislature of Upper Canada with regard to rebellion losses. This was the way in which the provisions of that Act were enlarged:—

"And be it enacted, that the powers vested in and duties required of the said commissioners under the said Act shall extend, and be construed to extend, to inquire into all losses sustained by Her Majesty's subjects and other residents within that part of this province to which the said Act extends, from the first breaking out of the said rebellion to the passing of the said Act, and the several claims and demands which have accrued to any such persons by such losses in respect of any loss, destruction, or damage of property 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, in the suppression of the said rebellion, or for the prevention of further disturbances, and all claims arising under or in respect of the occupation of any houses or other premises by Her Majesty's naval or military forces, cither imperial or provincial."

Now, nothing could be more vague or indefinite than those words. That Act did not, as the Act which the House was now discussing, specially exempt those persons who had been convicted of high treason. [Mr. HERMES: That Act was merely the extension of a previous Act.] Yes, hut that previous Act which is extended was not more definite in its language. There was nothing in that Act which would warrant them in taking so dangerous a course as the rejection of the Act which they were now discussing. The hon. Member for Warwickshire has reproached my noble Friend the First Minister of the Crown for saying that he should wait for the instructions which the Earl of Elgin proposed to issue to the commissioners under this Act, before my noble Friend advised the Crown to sanction it. Now, that was not the way in which my noble Friend made his statement. What my noble Friend said was this, that the necessary time must elapse before the Act came over in the usual course at the end of the Canadian Session, when the Crown would be called upon to express an opinion upon it; that in the interval the instructions of the Earl of Elgin to the commissioners would come over to this country; and my noble Friend did not express any doubt that those instructions would be such as to warrant him in advising the Crown to sanction this Bill. Notwithstanding the length of this discussion, he (Mr. Labouchere) could not help thinking that the question which the House was really called upon to decide lay within a very narrow compass. They all admitted that there should be a responsible government in Canada, and also that this Bill for the compensation of rebellion losses was a proper and a just measure. There could be no difference of opinion between them on the subject. The question which the House had to decide was, whether this really was such a Bill as, upon the very face of it, was not of such a character as would warrant them in approving of it. Unless they were satisfied that it was so grossly improper that they ought to interfere, there was very great danger in that House attempting to make a Bill on this subject for the Legislative Assembly of Canada. He must confess that, notwithstanding the great authority and ingenuity of the right hon. Member for the university of Oxford, and the right hon. Member for Stamford, the alterations which they suggested with reference to this Bill were open to quite as grave objections as any which could be urged against the Bill in its present shape. All he (Mr. Labouchere) contended for was this, that it was merely the duty of the House respecting this measure to take care there was nothing in it which implied an intention to reward rebels for losses sustained by them in rebellion; and that if there was no such intention, they had no right to interfere with this deliberate act of a colonial legislature. He should not be speaking the truth, if he said that he did not think it possible that after the lapse of twelve years, persons who during times of great excitement and confusion in Canada might have been more or less mixed up accidentally, from timidity or other causes, in rebellious movements, might obtain compensation under this Bill. But the people of that colony, and especially the loyal portion of them—those who were most attached to British connexion—had a deep interest in drawing a veil of oblivion, as much as possible, consistently with honour and justice, over those transactions; and his belief was, that, notwithstanding all that had taken place—notwithstanding those disgraceful riots at Montreal, in which no respectable party could have taken part, and in which the loyal inhabitants had acted in a manner to demand his hearty gratitude—notwithstanding all that had occurred, he believed he might truly say that this country and Canada had reason to rejoice that this measure had passed. For his own part, he had taken care that nothing which had fallen from him should in the slightest degree increase the excitement now existing in Canada upon this subject; but he had heard with regret many expressions in the course of this debate which were calculated to have an opposite effect. He thought it was not becoming the wisdom of that House to defend the conduct of any particular class in Canada with reference to this measure. Let them leave the various parties to these squabbles in which they indulged, and which, as in this country, were the natural result of a free constitution. That House owed it to the great empire of which they were the guardians, not to mix themselves up in an unbecoming manner in colonial disputes. The noble Marquess who had preceded him had repeated an objection which had been made by some of his hon. Friends, that this Bill did not go far enough, inasmuch as it did not in all cases provide for the payment of losses sustained by the loyal inhabitants of Canada. He (Mr. Labouchere) was not lawyer enough to say whether the noble Marquess was correct in that view of the Bill; but he should certainly doubt its correctness. He should have thought that, considering the term "just claims," and the whole phraseology of the Bill equitably construed, a loyal subject could not be debarred, under the circumstances to which the noble Marquess had adverted. But supposing the Bill was not complete, and that it did not go far enough, it was not for that House to make a new Indemnity Bill for the people of Canada. The people of Canada were the only proper judges on such matters. They had no right to interfere with the funds of the people of Canada. If he could have any doubt as to the decision of the House on this question—if he thought that the House would adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford—he, for one, should contemplate the result with the gravest apprehension and alarm. He believed that such a course would be regarded by the great body of the people of Canada as a deliberate affront to their representatives—as an imputation upon their loyalty and good faith which they did not deserve; and that they would feel that that House, upon the most trifling and inadequate grounds, had exercised that authority which, in extreme cases, he would be the last to deny they had a right to exercise, but which, in order to be maintained, must, he contended, be rendered compatible with colonial liberty, and be reserved for the most clear, distinct, and extreme cases. He denied that any such case had been presented by the right hon. Gentleman. All those hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in this debate, had expressed what he was sure was a well-grounded confidence in the wisdom and general qualifications of the Earl of Elgin for the government of Canada. He did not believe that an intelligent and high-minded Englishman, such as they all knew the Earl of Elgin to be, would lend himself to a mere faction, run counter to the opinions of the great majority of the loyal inhabitants of that country, and inflict an insult upon the Crown, and an outrage upon the feelings of those who had been the best defenders of the cause of order in Canada. He (Mr. Labouchere) therefore hoped that the House would, by a large majority, reject the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman; and he trusted that he had sufficient confidence in the good sense, and genuine loyalty, and real attachment to this country, of the great body of the people of Canada, to be convinced that even that portion of its inhabitants who might have been opposed strenuously and firmly to the Bill on which the House was then deliberating, would feel that, in the course which the Imperial Legislature had taken, they had been actuated by no other desire than to fulfil honourably and truly those high functions which the constitution of this great country had imposed upon them, namely, not to interfere upon slight and inadequate grounds with the free action of the constitutional privileges of one of the noblest possessions of the British empire.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not always been so fastidious about the independence of the Canadian legislature as he was at that moment. He (Mr. Bankes) agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that imperial interference should be rare, and only exercised in cases which concerned the empire at large; but he could not forget that the right hon. Gentleman had originated a Motion directly interfering with the Canadian legislature in the instance of the Canada Corn Bill, against which he (Mr. Bankes) voted, though he concurred in the general policy of the question. Whatever might be his private feelings, he would not engage in hostility with a provincial Parliament if a large principle was not involved, such as came directly before them in the present discussion. Ireland had been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield; but if they now set the precedent for giving compensation to rebels, might they not at some future day be called upon to do in Ireland what the hon. and learned Member asked them to do in Canada? He did not object to amnesties for the past; but when it came to be compensation for treason, he feared that the only result would be the revival of animosities, which it was the wish as well as the interest of all parties should be buried in oblivion. The question had in that instance been brought under their notice under peculiar circumstances. A right hon. Member of that House, distinguished for his powers of oratory, and for every other attribute which could win distinction in that House, had stated his objections to the Bill; and so forcible were they felt to be, that another right hon. Member had felt it his duty to take the opinion of the House on them by moving an Amendment. Looking to the objections of the right hon. Member for Oxford University, and to the answers which had been given by the Government, he felt that the present was one of those rare occasions when the House would be justified in addressing Her Majesty for some pause, in order that nothing should be done without a full and clear interpretation of the scope and intention of the measure. Under these circumstances he could not but suppose, while admitting to the fullest extent that such interposition should be rare, that a case had been made out which justified some delay on the part of the Crown in giving its assent to the Act of the colonial legislature. With regard to the question whether he, as a Member of the Imperial Parliament, was justified in interfering in this matter, and in interposing with the colonial government, he could not but remember that there had been occasions in which the Government had not shown that determination to uphold law and order even in this country. He had read in the correspondence which was published in the autumn of last year, referring to events which occurred when Lord Melbourne was in office, that the secretary of that noble Lord was charged therein with writing a letter to a person—["Oh, oh!"] Yes, he contended that that was a question analogous to this, which was the remuneration of traitors; and he replied, when he was asked how it could be looked upon as an imperial question, that there was a time when this country was in the condition of Canada, and even subject to a control and an interference which might have been dangerous to the State, and to the safety of Great Britain; and he had seen it stated in print, and in a manner which induced him to believe that the statement was true, that when the Reform Bill was in course of agitation, there was a certain secretary of the Prime Minister who was in communication with parties with the view of authorising and exciting large bodies of men to march up to London from the provinces for the purpose of carrying that measure by force. That time had passed by, it was true, but such things might again occur; and if they were now to adopt the principle of remunerating traitors—and he found that persons who had advanced doctrines dangerous to the State had been remunerated, and were in possession of advantages as the reward of the course they had pursued—he said that was an imperial question, and as such he submitted that he was justified in supporting a Motion, the object of which was to check in the colony what he would also endeavour to check in this country, and to preserve the authority of the State. In his opinion it would be dangerous to assent to a Bill having the immediate effect of encouraging traitors and conspirators either at home or abroad. He gave the noble Lord at the head of the Government credit for having at heart the interests of the empire and the Sovereign as much as he had; but before he could give his assent to a measure such as that under discussion, he must require from the noble Lord a distinct assurance that traitors should not be compensated under it.

Sir, I quite feel that the argument has been exhausted on this subject, and yet I am unwilling to give the vote I intend to give without a brief explanation of the grounds upon which it rests. I promise the House to condense as far as I possibly can the argument I have to address to them. And, in the first place, I must say I did not put that construction exactly on the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford which was put on it by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last. I did not consider the Amendment to be merely an address to the Crown, to come to no hasty decision with respect to any modification of this Bill. I understood that Amendment to be substantially this—to pray the Crown not to assent to this Bill until certain Amendments moved by the minority have been made in it. The Motion of my right hon. Friend, whether intentionally or from inadvertence, is, as was remarked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, identical with the Amendment moved by the minority in the House of Assembly of Canada in the course of the discussion upon the Bill, Consequently that which the House of Commons is called on to affirm is substantially this, that the measure approved of by the majority shall not have effect until the majority shall adopt the amendments submitted to their consideration by a small minority and then negatived. It is impossible to conceal from ourselves that if we accede to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, we are about to enter on a conflict of no small danger—a conflict in which we ought to engage, if the honour of the Crown imperatively require it. But before we engage in it, let us maturely consider what will be the nature of it, and what are the circumstances under which we are called on to enter upon it. We have before us a measure which provides for a certain appropriation of the funds of a great colony of the British empire. At a former period it was proposed that the compensation provided by this Bill should be made from the imperial treasury. That proposal was rejected. The present measure does not comtemplate any appropriation of the revenue of this empire. It proposes an appropriation of colonial funds to colonial purposes. The measure so proposed has been affirmed by a majority of the Legislative Assembly of the province—a majority of no less than 47 to 18. I am unwilling to refer to the character and constitution of that majority, because the act of the majority is that which, under ordinary circumstances, ought to prevail. I say under ordinary circumstances, because I am perfectly willing to admit that, if the honour of the Crown require the exercise of that authority, of which there is no question, it is an authority to be exercised; but I say that, under all ordinary circumstances, the act of the majority ought to be conclusive, without reference to the peculiar character of that majority. If you analyse the particular portions of that majority, I find it is not composed exclusively of representatives of a particular class. We are told that of that majority 31 representing Upper Canada voted on the question; and that of the 31, 17 voted for, and 14 only against, the Bill; that of the Lower Canadian Members of English descent, 10 in number, 6 voted for, and 4 against. Consequently, whether I refer to the extent or to the constitution of the majority, I cannot but think that this is an element for our consideration deserving serious attention. I consider it a perfectly different question whe- ther the amendments proposed in the Assembly of Canada should be assented to, or whether, as they were not assented to, we ought to try to give effect to them after the measure is passed. It may be, that we might be of opinion that the proposal of Mr. Wilson in the Canadian Assembly was a reasonable amendment; and it may be that had we been members of that Assembly, it would have met our concurrence. But as that Assembly which had jurisdiction has given its decision, some of the men who approved of the Amendment may object to give effect to it by means of an extrinsic authority. The proposition for advising the Crown to reject or destroy the measure will not have the support of the whole of the minority. The Earl of Elgin calls your attention to this remarkable fact, that two members of the minority who took a very decided part against the measure, and were active in proposing amendments, were among the foremost to contend that the principle of responsible government ought to be maintained, and to declare that they would not be parties to any advice being given to the Crown of Great Britain to reject or destroy the Bill after it should have passed. The minority opposing the Bill, and friendly to material amendments in it, has not been unanimous in the opinion that it ought to be rejected by the Crown. They distinctly maintained that, having passed the Canadian legislature, it was not a Bill on which the minority ought to prevail, and that it was a Bill which ought not to be destroyed by the Crown. That Act so passed has received the concurrence of that authority who is deputed by the Crown to guard the honour of the Crown, and to promote the general interests of the colony; but with the interests of the colony to maintain also not only its connexion with the mother country, but to maintain that connexion on the only firm basis on which it is worth maintaining—the honour of both parties and their reciprocal good will. It would be most painful to me if I were called on by a strong sense of public duty to take any line which would imply reflection on the Earl of Elgin. I recollect the commencement of his career. I recollect the sanguine expectations which were formed by his first Parliamentary efforts. All these expectations have, I think, been fully realised. Those who heard the first speech the noble Earl made in Parliament—men of all parties—concurred in regarding it as a distinguished omen of a future career, honourable to himself and useful to his country. He was selected for office by the Government with which he was politically connected. He discharged in Jamaica, under circumstances of great difficulty, a very high and important office. He conciliated the confidence of those over whom he presided, and of the Government for whom he acted; and the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown stated that the sole reason for his selection for the more important government over which he now presides, was the experience of his success in the administration of affairs in Jamaica. My firm belief is, that a nobleman better qualified for high trusts could not be found. Looking to his correspondence, considering the extreme difficulty of his position, my belief is that he acted from no other motive than a sincere desire to do his duty towards the Crown and the colony over which he presides. My conviction is, that he has acted with great firmness, with great resolution, with great impartiality; that he gave his entire confidence to the Government which was supported by the majority of the Assembly—that he dissolved the Assembly upon their advice—that when the majority of the new Assembly transferred their support to other parties, he then, under the principle of responsible government, selected for his Government those who had the confidence of the majority, and gave them, on the same principle on which he had acted with reference to his former Government, his cordial support. I should deeply regret if considerations of public duty should compel me to take any line which would imply reflection on one whose high honour and integrity no one can doubt. Considering the opposition he has encountered, the outrages which have been offered to him, I greatly fear that an erroneous construction would be put upon the performance of that act of duty, and an announcement made to the colony that the conduct of the Earl of Elgin was virtually disallowed. No risk of misconstruction ought to prevent us from discharging our duty in rejecting the Bill, if the interests of the country, and the honour of the Crown, should require us to take such a course. I can see that a great part of the difficulty which the Earl of Elgin has had to contend with was of earlier date than the difficulties connected with his own Government. The hon. Member for Staffordshire assumed it as a fact, that in every preceding Bill the claim of the "loyal" inhabitants only was admitted; whereas, in the present Bill, for the first time, the word "loyal" was omitted. I assure my hon. Friend that he is mistaken in that. This is not the first time the word "loyal" has been omitted as a qualification for "inhabitants." If you look through the papers, you will find a remarkable distinction between the case of Lower and Upper Canada in the earlier part of these transactions. Lower Canada in 1839 and 1840 was governed by ordinances. In the case of those issued by Sir John Colborne, the compensation for losses sustained during the rebellion was confined to the "loyal inhabitants" of Lower Canada. Concurrently with the issue of those ordinances, an Act was passed providing compensation in Upper Canada. "Loyal inhabitants" was omitted in that. In the case of Lower Canada, the ordinances contained the expression "loyal inhabitants," and provided compensation for them alone. In the case of Upper Canada, the expression "loyal inhabitants" was omitted, and the expressions "certain inhabitants" and "sundry inhabitants" were substituted. In a second Act, amending the first, which was passed in Upper Canada, the word "loyal" was omitted, and the claims of inhabitants generally were admitted. If you observe the oath which applied to the commissioners in the two eases, you will find that, in the case of Upper Canada, it declared that they were to make compensation to the "inhabitants," according to the terms of the Act. In the case of Lower Canada, the oath administered to the commissioners required that, when they were acting under the ordinances, they should provide compensation for the "loyal inhabitants." The legislatures have been united. An address was presented to the Governor General that he will act on the precedent of Upper Canada, and provide compensation on the same terms. That was not acted upon by the Government here, who preceded the present. When the present Government came into power, they fulfilled the address which had been moved; and the question now is, have they materially departed from the terms or principles of the Act which they have now cited as a precedent, and which they found provided compensation for the inhabitants of Upper Canada? If that precedent is disregarded, will not the contrast be invidious? In judging of the case of Lower Canada after the case of Upper Canada has been already provided for, will it not be peculiarly invidious if the Act we reject contains no provisions materially at variance with those contained in the Act which applies to Upper Canada? It may he asked, why did not some one give the Earl of Elgin a caution on this point? Why did no one make him aware that there was no distinction made between loyal and disloyal inhabitants, or urge that the honour of the British Crown was concerned, and that the claim of the loyal only should be admitted? What took place in Lower Canada? Lord Metcalfe appointed a commission. Earl Cathcart assumed the Government. A secretary was appointed to that commission, and issued instructions with respect to a certain classification which was to he made. The secretary of the commission puts a question hearing on that matter to Mr. Daly, the Provincial Secretary. The answer conveyed by Mr. Daly is—" it is not the Governor's intention that in classifying the persons who shall receive compensation, you are to adopt any other principle of classification than that which was to he drawn from the evidence furnished by the sentences of the tribunals." In consequence of these instructions, the commissioners originally appointed by Lord Metcalfe proceeded to make their award. Under these circumstances, does the honour of the Crown require from us the extraordinary intervention which is proposed? Shall we control the discretion of the Crown in this stage of the proceedings, by interposing our advice? Shall we assume for the popular branch of the Legislature that responsibility which now rests with the Crown, and properly belongs to it; and shall we take upon ourselves the duty of advising the Crown to suspend or annul this Act? My opinion is, that it is a much wiser course to leave the matter to the discretion and the responsibility of the Crown, and not enter into a contest with a popular assembly in Canada, which, if the Motion should be entertained, I for one, see to be inevitable. At the same time I cordially agree with my right hon. Friend in the sentiment he expressed, that it would be much better for us to dissolve our connexion with a colony, however important and however powerful it may be, than to maintain it at the expense of the honour of the Crown. I must also say that I feel a deep sympathy with those gallant men who did stand by the Crown in the hour of difficulty during the rebellion of 1837. I am not surprised at the sentiments on this head to which my right hon. Friend gave utterance. It would, indeed, be most unwise in us to confound the distinction between loyal and disloyal men. I acquit those loyal men who stood by the Crown in 1837 and 1838, who resisted the American invasion, and the efforts made by the rebels to dissever the connexion between this country and Canada, of any participation in those outrageous and disgraceful acts which have recently occurred in Montreal. I am sure there is not a man in this House, whatever view he may be inclined to take of this question, who does not repudiate any connexion with those disloyal and disaffected men who had insulted the Governor General, and committed acts of incendiarism; and I believe that that very party in Canada whose loyalty I most applaud and admire, and whose past exploits in vindication of British connexion I never shall forget, is as little responsible as we are for the acts of the persons to whom I am referring. This, indeed, has been proved by the address of that party to the Governor General, in which it cordially placed upon record the expression of its indignation at the outrageous acts which had been committed. But at the same time, whilst I admire the fidelity with which this party has adhered to the British connexion, I cannot consent to our making ourselves partisans in regard to Canadian politics. Our only hope of maintaining the connexion permanently, and with reciprocal advantage to the mother country and the colony, rests upon our acting on that principle on which the Earl of Elgin has acted—that of maintaining strict impartiality between the opposing parties. It is said that we are about to make compensation to rebels. I know that that is the point with respect to which many Gentlemen will, with honest feelings, give their votes. It is said that the two exceptions which are introduced into the Act of the Legislature of Lower Canada constitute the difference between it and the Act of Upper Canada; and it is contended that the exceptions, in point of fact, constitute the rule, and compel the admission of the claims of all rebels who do not fall within the two categories. Now, we have the positive assurance of the Earl of Elgin that there was no intention on his part, or on the part of the promoters of the Act, to encourage rebellion or treason in Canada. In that assurance those with whom the Governor General has acted have concurred. We have the declaration of his Lordship's Attorney General, M. Lafontaine, that those parties had not the slightest intention of doing what has been attributed to them. But what says the Earl of Elgin? He says that in the Assembly—

"It was answered that the principle on which the Bill was framed had already been acted upon in Upper Canada,"—[weigh these expressions]—" and that Parliament, by its unanimous vote, had given a pledge that it should likewise be applied to Lower Canada; that it was notorious that much property belonging to unoffending persons had been wantonly destroyed in this section of the province during the rebellion; that it was false to affirm that the measure was intended for the benefit of rebels; that, on the contrary, all convicted rebels, as well as those who, having confessed their guilt, were sent to Bermuda, were expressly excluded."

Does he limit the exclusion to them? He goes on—

"And that for the rest, the commissioners appointed under the Act would be bound, under the sanction of an oath, precisely in the same way as the commissioners for Upper Canada had been before them, to examine minutely into the justice of all claims preferred before them, and to apportion the indemnity according to the true intent and meaning of the Act."

If that be so—if the manner in which the principle of the Act of Upper Canada has been applied is an indication of the manner in which the principle of the Act is to be applied in Lower Canada—if the commissioners are to determine upon claims in the latter province on the same principle on which the commissioners have settled claims in Upper Canada—I appeal to you, whether it would be wise in us, with the limited information in our possession, to draw this invidious distinction between Upper and Lower Canada, and to tender advice to the Crown which would impose upon it the obligation of adopting a different course towards one province from that which has been pursued towards the other, and against which we, although cognisant of the fact, made no objection. In addition to the assurance of the Governor General, we have that of the noble Lord at the head of the Administration, that the decision of the Government is at least suspended until the instructions which are to be received from Canada shall arrive. Her Majesty's Attorney General, also, having been appealed to to give us the legal construction of the Act, stated, as a lawyer, that, on considering the preamble of the Act, he was of opinion that the exceptions introduced into it did not necessarily limit the discretion of the commissioners. If, then, the same latitude be allowed to the commissioners of Lower Canada as was given to the commissioners of Upper Canada, I deprecate the adoption of a course by this House which would establish a distinction between the two provinces. As I said before, I would not confound the distinction which exists, both in moral feeling, and according to the technical rule of law, between loyalty and disloyalty. I would deprecate the day when the House of Commons should be unwilling to give due credit to men who, in time of difficulty and danger, rallied under the British standard for the protection of British interests; but I cannot allow that feeling, warm and cordial as it is, to influence me to vote for a resolution which I believe would prove destructive of the principle of representative government in the colonies—which would constitute a precedent for constant interference in the affairs of possessions with whose local concerns we are but imperfectly acquainted—and which would cloud the prospect I trusted was opening of a long, permanent, and cordial connexion with a colony, in the welfare and prosperity of which England ought to feel the deepest interest.

Sir, before I make the few observations with which I shall trouble the House upon the question before it, it is well to correct an important error into which the right hon. Member for Tamworth inadvertently fell at the conclusion of his speech. The right hon. Baronet quoted a passage from Lord Elgin's despatch, as if it expressed Lord Elgin's own opinions, whereas it was, in fact, only a portion of an able and perspicuous summary by Lord Elgin of the arguments advanced on both sides of the question. [Sir R. PEEL said, that he did not intend to read the passage as if it contained the Earl of Elgin's own words.] That point having been set right, I must say, that, after having listened to all that has been said this evening, I cannot understand why the debate was adjourned last night. I am still of opinion that the question might then have been satisfactorily settled. The opinions of the three most considerable parties in the House had been represented by three of their most distinguished Members. That section of the House, too, which had taken an active part in Canadian discussions during the last fifteen years had had an opportunity, through an able organ, of stating their views; and, to render the debate complete, an accomplished and amiable Gentleman, whom they all respected and regarded, the hon. Member for Elginshire, and who was nearly connected with the Governor General, had also addressed the House. The case appears to me, after all we have heard, not to have lost its original simplicity. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth has told us that under a system of constitutional government the opinion of the majority should be conclusive in ordinary circumstances. Who denies that proposition? The right hon. Baronet, warming up in the course of his address, told us that he thought the principle of constitutional government in Canada was dependent on our vote to-night; and the right hon. Member for Northampton had also declared that the question at stake was whether or not there should be constitutional government in Canada. The question at stake is, whether the Queen shall exercise her constitutional veto or not. If the opinion of the majority is to be always conclusive, how could there be such a thing as the exercise of a veto? It was surprising that a question of the propriety of exercising the Royal veto should, even with the ingenuity of debate, he perverted into a case involving the continuance of responsible government in Canada. Whatever may be my opinion as to the circumstances under which the Canadian constitution was first framed, I say frankly, that that constitution being established, nothing could be more impolitic, or, to my mind, more unprincipled, than for the House of Commons to adopt a course which would, directly or indirectly, prevent it from having fair play. I am so much impressed with the importance of this principle, that I listened with much interest and with some alarm to an intimation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, who seemed to anticipate the expediency of severing the alliance between the two Canadian provinces, and forming the whole provinces of British North America into one federal union like that which was shadowed forth to us a few nights ago with respect to Australia. I have the impression that that is a scheme which should not be adopted without very mature consideration; and I am confirmed in that apprehension by reading the resolutions that were passed at a very large public meeting recently held in Frederickton, New Brunswick, denouncing this very Bill, the fate of which we are now discussing. Certainly, if one might form an opinion of the feeling of the province from what took place at that meeting—a very considerable public meeting, mind you, convened and carried on by the most distinguished inhabitants of New Bruswick—I would say, that at this moment there is no great inclination for a federal union on the part of that province with Canada. Therefore I think that the united province of Canada should be permitted fully and freely to enjoy the constitution which it adopted some years ago, and which we ourselves thought proper to sanction. The question before us, therefore, is not the existence or non-existence of the constitution of Canada, as has been asserted, among others, by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who appealed to us tonight on the subject. In listening to that right hon. Gentleman, I was reminded of a speech which I heard from him about ten years ago on a subject of a congenial nature—I was reminded of that eloquent harangue which he delivered when he came forward and called upon the House to abrogate the constitution of another colony. I mean the constitution of Jamaica. Who could suppose that the right hon. Gentleman, who feels so alarmed and indignant that we contemplate the possibility of Her Majesty exercising the constitutional functions which it is not disputed She possesses, only ten years ago came forward and absolutely proposed to suppress that responsible government of which he spoke so highly to-night—to abrogate by wholesale and by one measure a constitution of a most ancient, powerful, and loyal colony? No one can for a moment maintain that it is not the constitutional privilege of Her Majesty to exercise her veto of suspension. That privilege is recognised by the people of Canada themselves. But the most remarkable thing about the whole affair is, the extreme delicacy which seems to actuate Ministers when the case of a colony is before the House. Would that they were in the habit of applying the same sensitiveness to their foreign relations! Those noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen whose nerves would not allow them to counsel their Sovereign to exercise, if necessary, a constitutional function, because, forsooth, it would be an interference with a colony connected with ourselves, are busying themselves in every quarter of the world, and interfering in all sorts of affairs in countries with which we have no connexion. There is hardly a Government in the administration of which they have not some hand; and in Spain even they absolutely instructed their envoy to call upon the Ministers of that country and recommend them to study public opinion. With respect to the case before us, I think it a very simple one. We are not going to attack the constitutional privileges of the Canadas. We are bound by policy and by honour to maintain—and I hope it is the feeling of all parties that we ought to maintain—them in the full enjoyment and the full exercise of their constitutional rights. The case before us is simply this—is there or is there not a scheme produced and promulgated under the constitution granted to them, which affects the honour and grossly tarnishes the credit of the Crown of England? Is there or is there not an animus in the conduct of the Ministry of Canada, at this moment, which is hostile to those interests which it concerns the honour of the Crown to see should be justly dealt by? Here is a case which the House may as well be made acquainted with, and which has only become known to myself, at least in detail, within the last hour. I allude to the case of Colonel Chisholm. Colonel Chisholm is one of those gallant gentlemen to whose high qualities the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth has just done justice. During the unhappy rebellion he arrested a well-known traitor, named Finlay Malcolm, for whose apprehension a reward of 250 l . was offered. It so happened, however, that being a man who thought himself sufficiently rewarded by the exercise of his loyalty and the fulfilment of his duty, he did not claim the reward of 250/. But the circumstances of Colonel Chisholm, unfortunately, are not so prosperous at this moment as they were ten or twelve years ago. It is probable his fortune has been affected by some of those economical experiments which, according to the Earl of Elgin, your own great authority, have not a little contributed to the disaffection of the province of Canada. Hearing that the whole question of rebellion losses and rewards was to be reopened, this gentleman addressed the Government of Canada, and courteously reminded them that they stood indebted to him in the sum of 250 l . for recognised services. He made no claim for interest, as I find the rebels invariably do. What answer did he receive from the Canadian Government? I will read you the reply of the Colonial Secretary to Sir Alan M'Nab, who interested himself in behalf of this gallant officer:—

"Secretary's Office, Montreal, March 28,1849.

"Sir—I have the honour, by command of the Governor General, to inform you that his Excellency has had under his consideration in Council the petition (transmitted with your letter of the 5th inst.) of Lieutenant Colonel George Chisholm, praying for the payment to him of 250 l . offered by the Government in December, 1837, for the apprehension of Finlay Malcolm, Esq. His Excellency directs me to state to you, for the information of the petitioner, that the alleged claim of Mr. Chisholm having been allowed to lie dormant for so long a period, cannot now be entertained. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant, "J. LESLIE, Secretary."

This was the answer which Colonel Chisholm received at the very time when the Government of Canada were recognising claims of an equally old date—the only difference being that the claimants in those cases were not loyal men, but rebels. I said just now, that I was indisposed in every way, in consequence of the disagreeable events which have occurred, to entertain for a moment the project of remedying the existing evils, however pressing they maybe, by dissolving the union of the two provinces. I consider that to be a very coarse and bungling expedient. I cannot but remember that the scheme was devised by eminent statesmen, to whom I give credit for ampler knowledge and deeper consideration of the subject than I can claim for myself; and though I may have more limited information and less power of thought than they, I still see in that union the elements of success and prosperity. And why do I see in it those elements of success and prosperity? Because, although Lower Canada, from the amount of its population and other circumstances, may, by combining with the disaffected party in Upper Canada, have the power of occasionally creating some political inconveniences, yet I see, in the quality of the population of Upper Canada, and in the circumstances which must occasion a rapid increase of population in that country, a remedial agency which must ultimately prevent those inconveniences from being too much felt. But that very conviction only impresses me the more with the importance of our avoiding, under all circumstances, the permitting any party in Canada unreasonably to triumph over the other. It is very possible that, supported by the Ministry, and by a majority of the House of Commons, the party now dominant in Lower Canada may, for a brief space, fill all the high offices in the State—may for a brief space treat loyal men like Colonel Chisholm in the manner I have just stated to the House; but all this time, remember, that the population and power of Upper Canada will be increasing in a ratio far beyond the population and power of the lower province—all this time the feeling of vengeance will be cherished by the conviction that they have been unjustly treated by a Sovereign to whom they were faithful, and a country whom they served too well. All this will be acting upon the minds of those men; and I ask you in what situation will the Lower Canadians be when the wheel turns round, and the Upper Canadians have the power, which you cannot, according to their constitutional scheme, prevent them from attaining? It is all very well to talk about the opinion of the majority being conclusive under ordinary circumstances. It is all very well to come forward and say that the question at stake is the question of responsible government. These are empty phrases, fit only for debating clubs—fit only for boys—and not for practical men; men who have a knowledge of circumstances and details, and whose position in this House renders them responsible for the policy they recommend. I say that the situation of the two provinces, according to the system you are now fostering and encouraging, is one which must lead not only to bitter feelings and violent passions, but to deeds of violence, and blood, and disaster far more terrible than any that have yet occurred. But have you no remedy in this difficult and delicate position? You have a power reserved to you in that very constitution which you laud so highly; and by a wise, politic, and temperate exercise of that power—by mediating between the contending parties—you may insure the prosperity of their country, as well as the greatness of our own. I see nothing in the course you are pursuing, whatever may be your plea for it, but a course that is unwise, impolitic, crude, and perilous. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and others, have introduced into this debate the case of Ireland. Now, I have contemplated, as every Gentleman has contemplated, what would be the consequence if a repeal of the Legislative Union were to take place between England and Ireland, without the severance of the political tie. No one can for a moment doubt what would be the effect of such a scheme upon Ireland. With absolute internal independence there would, of course, be a party to assert, and, if possible, to enforce, external independence. In all the high places, the repeal party would necessarily be the holders of office. The system of legislation which must then prevail in Ireland, would not favour, but rather discourage, emigration from the sister isle. They would oppose it as necessarily tending to disturb the balance of the two rival parties. To the minority this might be mortifying, might be galling in the highest degree; but it would be perfectly constitutional, and, much as we might regret the position of that minority, it would be impossible for us to interfere. But suppose the dominant party were to announce their intention to provide some compensation for the descendants of that generation which had been less fortunate than themselves in obtaining the results which they enjoyed: suppose, for instance, they were to propose a compensation for the descendants of Emmett, or of Mitchell and Meagher? There must be a rate in aid for the purpose. The rate in aid would extend to Ulster. After what we have seen of the feeling of Ulster recently in respect to rates in aid for much less offensive purposes, I can scarcely suppose that Ulster would not then feel that the moment had arrived when it must take up a position. Well, then, suppose the dominant party called upon England to pour its regiments into Ireland to raise a tax to remunerate the descendants of the "United Irishmen?" You might come and vindicate your proceedings by constitutional maxims. You might tell us the opinion of the majority must be conclusive. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton might make a plausible speech, and tell us the question at stake was not the indemnity of any individual, but the system of responsible government. All this you might do; but I ask you, at the same time, would you not be destroying the empire, and perilling the kingdom? I cannot go into the case of the precedent of Upper Canada as an authority for the law which has been passed in Lower Canada. It is too late to enter into those details. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, then, I will enter into them. ["No, no!"] Well, then, very briefly, but I will make one observation. I am told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth—in fact, it is the foundation of his main argument—that the word "loyal" was not inserted in the law of Upper Canada; and Gentlemen, one after another, the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark, and men who have given considerable con- sideration to the subject, found one of their main arguments in the circumstance that the compensation law for Upper Canada was wider and less restrictive than the law which was passed for Lower Canada. And why was it so? Because there were no rebels in Upper Canada. Because the inhabitants were all loyal. There are four or five cases to the contrary which you brought forward, some of which you have yourselves given up, but all of which resolve themselves into payment for commissariat supplies. Those are the only cases for the indemnity of rebels you have brought forward. Since this discussion has commenced, I think I can mention it from memory, I have seen a despatch of Sir John Colborne, the commander in chief at the time, in which he distinctly lays it down that all persons who furnished supplies to the troops, without reference to any part they might have taken in the rebellion, or their conduct otherwise, were to be repaid for those supplies; and of the five cases you have brought forward of rebels indemnified in the upper province, four resolved themselves into commissariat payments for commissariat supplies, and the other was a ludicrous error—the case of Dr. Duncan, which the right hon. Gentleman last night destroyed. There was this distinction between the two provinces, which explained the difference in the preamble of the two Acts, that, in fact, there were no rebels in Upper Canada. We know from Sir F. Head's celebrated despatch how much military force was required to suppress the rebellion there. The disturbers were Americans. There were no indigenous rebels. It was unnecessary to limit the indemnity to loyal persons, for there was no other class that could be contemplated. So much for that precedent. We have been told in the course of this discussion—in fact, considerable emphasis has been laid on it throughout the whole of this debate—that public opinion in Canada has been demonstrated in favour of the Governor General in a very remarkable manner. According to my view of the question before us, we have nothing to do with these details, and the very Gentlemen who insist on them so much are the very Gentlemen who say, "We do not want to have the party politics of Canada introduced into the debate." No sooner have we agreed to this position, than they consistently refer to the addresses voted to the Governor General, and which Her Majesty's Ministers with such sedulous care have placed on the table. I admit these are points which have nothing to do with the question—that we ought not to go into the details whether the inhabitants of this county, or that township, are of opinion that the Governor General acted rightly or not. I think the case is a simple case, as I said from the beginning. The question is, whether Her Majesty should be advised to exercise constitutional functions on account of extraordinary circumstances, and those extraordinary circumstances being, in our opinion, the reward of men who had rebelled against Her Government. Some of you call that a local question, and some of my friends treat it as an imperial question. It is both, but more than either, because it is a national one. I should have been perfectly willing, if I had made any observations yesterday, in the course of ten minutes to have placed that question before the House; and if I have referred to details which I think you all have unnecessarily introduced into this discussion, it is because I know you have introduced those details to influence public opinion; and if you think they are elements which can influence public opinion, it is my duty, if it be in my power, to show that they are utterly worthless. Here is a volume on the affairs of Canada. It is the fourth section of papers which contain the great bulk of the addresses to the Earl of Elgin. A Minister of the Crown quoted this evening passages in answer from the Governor General to one of those small constituencies who addressed him. It was from the answer to the address from the Victoria district. Let me just refer to a passage in that answer. The Earl of Elgin says—

"It is my firm belief that they did not intend, in passing this Bill, to countenance rebellion, or to compensate the losses of parties guilty of the heinous crime of treason, but to make provision for the payment of claims arising from the wanton and unnecessary destruction of property."

If that is the opinion of the Earl of Elgin, it is only the opinion which, by the Motion the right hon. Gentleman brought forward, we wish to support him in. We are offering no slur to the Earl of Elgin by this Motion, because all we are going to call upon you to affirm is this passage in answer to the address from the Victoria district, quoted by one of Her Majesty's Ministers. But that is not the point to which I wish to call the attention of the House. What I wish to do is to show you how these addresses have been produced. I am not going to fall into that too much used habit of decrying the expression of popular opinion. I think the right of petitioning is not only most valuable, but exercises great influence in this country; and no popular opinion is more fallacious or more to be deprecated, and which hon. Gentlemen should take every care to remove and enlighten, than that petitions to this House are of no effect whatever, but are thrown on the table, and are thought of no more. But I hold that when public opinion seeks to express itself by extraordinary though constitutional methods, it should do so by public meetings, fairly and constitutionally held. How have the meetings in Canada been held? Let me read a letter, written on the 2nd of May, from Montreal, by a very celebrated, or at least very notorious, person. It is as follows:—

"Montreal, May 2, 1849.

"Sir—You doubtless will have heard that after the insults to the person of the Governor General, the burning of the Parliament House, and destruction of the property of the citizens, certain disaffected men have petitioned Her Majesty to recall Lord Elgin for having acted up to the constitution in sanctioning measures which had been concurred in by the other branches of the Legislature.

"Not to address the Queen under these circumstances, praying her Majesty to maintain Lord Elgin at the head of the Government of Canada, would be to declare that responsible government is no more desired; it is therefore to be hoped, that you in particular, and all those, whatever otherwise be their political opinions, who, like you, appreciate the advantages of possessing free institutions, will sign and cause to be signed the petition to the Queen, of which a printed copy is herewith addressed to you.

"You will cause it to be signed by every one, if possible, after which you will please address it to the honourable the Secretary of the province with all possible speed.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant,

"WOLFRED NELSON."

In consequence of that instruction, a variety of addresses were forwarded to the Secretary of the Government, but there was no instance of a public meeting having been held. Here, for example, is the town of Co-burg, which is entirely devoted to the Governor General and his policy, and signed by 653 signatures. Since this debate commenced this evening, I have received this letter from Coburg, addressed to the same gentleman. Sir Alan M'Nab, whose acquaintance I am not so fortunate as to have the honour of possessing; but who is one of those distinguished and gallant men to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth so justly offered the meed of his approbation. The statement is rather long: I will give the result. There never was any public meeting held at Coburg; and all the male inhabitants above 21 do not amount to 653. They all signed this document, and the number amounts only to 210. This is important; this must not be confounded with our criticisms on petitions on our party questions, because I think both sides, perhaps, are open to criticisms of that kind. The remedy is soon found, and the effect is not very great; but the effect is very great when these surreptitious documents are printed in the Royal Gazette , and then in their official form transmitted to us by the Secretary of State, and give a foundation to solemn admonitions from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Why, all these documents are very well as far as they go, no doubt; but, considering the manner in which they have been got up, the very meagre result of this congratulatory conspiracy, and the pompous manner in which these addresses have been introduced to our notice, they may fairly be described as about as much rubbish as was ever introduced to this House. I will now say a word as to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stamford. I have heard that Amendment severely criticised; but no one has ventured to say that it was an informal, unconstitutional, or irregular proceeding. There was a Gentleman, indeed, last night, who complained that it had not appeared upon his breakfast table. I can easily conceive that this hon. Gentleman, preparing his mind early in the morning for the due discharge of his senatorial duties, might be surprised that a Motion should be proposed of which he had not been informed by the usual machinery. But it is quite a new thing to say that no Motion should ever be made without a formal notice upon the Paper. This Amendment followed as a matter of course upon the question before the House; and I say, that due notice having been given that one of the most eminent Members of this House was about to bring forward the affairs of Canada, and the Prime Minister having fixed a day for the discussion at a considerable interval from the announcement of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the university of Oxford, it is perfectly idle to pretend that the House has been taken by surprise. It could only be proved that they were taken by surprise by supposing that we were the most incapable of all men—that we were utterly uninterested in public affairs—and that we were coming down here at this great imperial and not local crisis to hear a powerful exposure of your maladministration, and a most unsatisfactory refutation of these charges by the First Minister, and that then, forsooth, we were to go to dinner and do nothing. Sir, I doubt not that hon. Members near me will persist in the course they have taken, and that they will unanimously support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. You may give up your colonial empire, as you are advised to do by some Members of this House. You may, if you choose, destroy the surest sources of your wealth and the most certain support of your power. Do it, if you will. I will not enter into that question now. Sacrifice, if you will, the wealth of the nation and the power of the Government to the economic phantasies of the hour. Do so, but at least do this—if the empire of England is to fall, and to fall by our votes, at least do not sacrifice the national honour or the Royal word.

(who rose amidst impatient cries for a division) said, that he hoped the House would grant him a very few moments. He had no intention of going into the merits of the question; but he wished to state, first, why, and how far, the debate of the evening had confirmed him in the opinion that they wore justified in not having allowed a division to take place on the preceding evening; and, secondly, the grounds upon which he was prepared to defend the vote he was about to give. He thought the debate of that night alone proved how necessary it was that they should not have come to a decision on the preceding one. He agreed in the assertion, that upon a question affecting imperial interests, upon which great excitement had been produced amongst a large and most respectable portion of the community of the colony, they were bound to listen to the expression of those colonists' opinions. And he thought it would have been indecent to have come to a decision at once upon a Motion of which no notice had been given, in the absence of many Gentlemen well calculated, by their experience and knowledge, to take part in the debate, and who could not have taken part in it, or recorded their opinions with their votes, had the division been pressed upon the first night of the discussion. They had seen that night how necessary it was to protract the debate. They had seen that they even still came to the consideration of the subject without sufficient grounds for being confident of the accuracy of the division. The noble Lord the Member for the city of London had repeated the words used by a Minister high in office in Canada, in which he expressed his opinion, and pledged his honour, that the measure was not intended to compensate rebels. They had all read the answer of the Earl of Elgin, that the measure was not intended to compensate rebels; and if those opinions were conclusive as to the manner in which the measure would be ultimately carried into effect, he agreed that it would not be an imperial question, but a local one. It would remove the question from the Imperial Parliament, because it would remove the imperial question whether rebels were to be compensated for their rebellion. But, when they came to look into the Act itself, they found words that so little bore the interpretation put upon the measure by the Governor General, that it was difficult to reconcile them with the declared intentions of it. It could not be doubted but that it was impossible for the commissioners to narrow the scope and intent of an Act of Parliament; and what then became of the assurance of the noble Lord, that by the instructions to them he could rectify any doubt or misgivings the House might entertain on the subject? The noble Lord had stated, with respect to the terms of one proviso referred to by the right hon. Member for Stamford, that a loyal man whose lands and houses were taken possession of by the rebels, and whose houses were destroyed in the dislodgment of the rebels by Her Majesty's troops, could not claim compensation, because his property could not have been "unjustly, unnecessarily, or wantonly" destroyed. And the Attorney General, with great candour, having destroyed all hope that might have been left of the evil being prevented by the instructions of the noble Lord, proceeded in a lucid and able manner to state his views of the probable working of the Act. But he (Mr. S. Herbert) must say, although he did so with all humility, that he could not but regard the hon. and learned Gentleman's view an impossible construction of an Act of Parliament. And although they had all the solemn assurances they had heard from the Government, still, if the letter of an Act to a man's ordinary sense appeared at direct variance with them, then he said it was most important that they should have a pledge from the Government that no pre- cipitate assent would be given to the measure. Until such explanation should be received, and such instructions, if they could be drawn, should be drawn, or until some learned Gentleman in Canada, on whom properly devolved the duty of interpreting the law, should have given an opinion that appeared to men in its ordinary sense to have some better foundation than that of the chief law adviser of the Crown at home, then he should say that a case had been made out for delay, and that looking as he did on the Motion—which he confessed he did not consider well worded or well drawn up for its purpose—but looking on it as not pledging the Government by any means to disallow the Act, but as asking for delay till further explanations were received from a country where Acts were loosely worded, and still more loosely acted on—he would support the Motion as coming nearer his views than any other course did, although he could not say he liked its present shape. He must be allowed, too, to say, that until the instructions referred to by the noble Lord were laid before Parliament, and not only so, but had received its deliberate consideration, he thought it would have been a wiser and more politic course for the Government to have entirely postponed forming their opinion on the question; and, feeling that if he voted against the Motion, his vote might be construed into supporting the Bill, although with some difficulty and reluctance in arriving at such a conclusion, he had yet made up his mind to vote in favour of the Motion.

Sir, as I have not addressed the House since the Amendment was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford, and only answered a question last night with respect to the adjournment, I must ask the House to permit me, not certainly to enter into a lengthened argument on this question—that has been sufficiently discussed; but to call attention to two or three points which, as it seems to me, ought to be borne in mind before we come to a decision on this question. Sir, before I state anything with respect to the main question on which we are to divide, I think it right to take some notice of allegations that have been made, chiefly by the hon. Member for Bridport, but which have been followed by others, affecting the character of persons holding office in Canada. I do not think it right that assertions should be made affecting the character of persons holding those offi- cial situations, without proof and ground being given for the charges. The hon. Gentleman, as I understood him, stated that M. Lafontaine and Mr. Baldwin were persons notoriously guilty of treason—that they were avowed and confessed rebels. Now, I believe that the fact with regard to the first of these gentlemen, M. Lafontaine, is, that at the time of the insurrection in Canada, he was in this country—that a warrant was issued out against him—that he returned to Canada, and the warrant was never acted upon—that no proof was ever attempted to be given of his participation in any treasonable or insurrectionary proceedings. With respect to Mr. Baldwin, I never heard that there was any charge.

Was not a reward of 500 l . offered for the apprehension of M. Lafontaine?

I never heard of it; but let me observe that the hon. Gentleman stated (as I understood) to the House, or wished to convey to it the impression, that lately for the first time M. Lafontaine and Mr. Baldwin were honoured with the confidence of the Queen's Representative in Canada, and that they now held office for the first time. I think it necessary, therefore, to state, that in the month of November, 1842, it appears by the London Gazette that M. Lafontaine was appointed by the Queen as Attorney General, and Mr. Baldwin at the same time, I think, as Solicitor General, by Lord Stanley, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies. I say, then, whatever have been the accusations that hon. Gentlemen have thought it necessary to bring forward for the purposes of the present debate, that my Lord Stanley must no doubt have been satisfied of the incorrectness and falsehood of those impressions, and that the gentlemen whom he recommended to hold the highest offices in Canada were loyal men to whom these offices could safely be entrusted. Now, Sir, with regard to the main question on which the House has to decide, and on which I think the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last has not sufficiently reflected, the question is—and I wish to state it clearly and with perfect fairness—the question is this, that there having been passed Bills and Acts for indemnifying persons who had suffered rebellion losses in Upper Canada, there has now been passed an Act for indemnifying persons in Lower Canada; and the question is, whether the representatives of the Crown having consented to these former Acts, the Ministers of the Crown never having advised their disallowance, there is such a difference between these previous Acts and the present as to make it right, and not only right but necessary, on the part of the advisers of the Crown, and on the part of this House, they having allowed the confirmation of these former Acts, to stamp the Act with disallowance? Now, Sir, on that point the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth founded his argument, and showed, as I thought, that with respect to these Acts there is not any essential difference; but with regard to restrictions, that there are more restrictions and conditions in the present than there were in the former Acts. I listened to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire to see what answer he would attempt to offer to that argument, and to see in what point he would prove this Act differed so much from the former Acts, that the honour of the Crown was involved in disallowing this Act, while these other Acts were not to be blamed, but were passed rightly and with a due consideration to the honour of the Crown. But, in fact, I found that he entered into no argument whatever. But he gave us an illustration with respect to the heirs and descendants of Emmett and Meagher, and others guilty of high treason in Ireland; just as if this Act was intended to give persons in Canada indemnity for such acts of rebellion. It may be made an argument, that it is possible that persons guilty of rebellion may receive compensation under this Act. That is the utmost length to which the argument can go; but to say that the Act is expressly intended for the purpose of rewarding persons guilty of rebellion, is to confound two things totally and essentially wide as the poles asunder. Now I readily admit that it might be very possible that there should be an Act passed in Canada to which it would be necessary for the advisers of the Crown to refuse their sanction and proceed to disallow it. If, for instance, this Act had been an Act by which compensation should be given to those who were sent out to Bermuda for their loss in being sent out there, I think that that would have been an Act to which the Crown could not consent. Therefore I don't regard the principle of responsible government as implying that every Act passed in the colony ought to be consented to by the Imperial Government. But when no possible allegation can be made, but there is merely the vague assertion that the former Act was for the loyal, and that this is for the rebellious, I am not justified in giving any advice to the Crown founded on such vague suspicions, for which no proof whatever can be given. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, who began the debate this evening, endeavoured to controvert the assertion made in Canada, that certain persons guilty of rebellion received compensation under the former Act; but I believe it is quite certain that two or three persons at least, who were first outlawed, but were afterwards pardoned, did receive compensation under that Act. It might be said that the compensation was only given for furnishing supplies to the Queen's troops; but I do not think that answer, if compensation was given, could prevent its being truly considered that, even although it was given on these grounds, there was an evasion of the spirit and intention of the Act. Well, if those who had taken this ground had utterly failed to make out that there was any real difference between this Act and the former Acts, excepting that this one is more restrictive than the others; and if no compensation can be given under this Act, excepting for losses inflicted unjustly, unnecessarily, and wantonly; if destruction of buildings, from which the rebels fired at the Queen's troops, and cases of that kind do not come under the Act—if such be the case, and if, therefore, this House has no good reasons to suppose that rebels would receive compensation under this Act—I ask, what is it that it is now proposed to do by this Motion? Is it that it is proposed to you to defer your decision, and wait some time longer? Nothing of the kind. What really is proposed to you is, that the Royal assent should not be given to this Act. I have no doubt but that the Motion means, looking at the peculiar nature of the constitution of Canada, that this Act should be hindered from coming into operation, and that therefore it should be disallowed by the Crown. Now, what is the Amendment? It is to amend the Canada Act in such a way, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton has observed, as to make it agree with the Act as it would have been framed had the minority of the Canadian legislature carried their proposition. Now, I ask the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who is going to vote for this Amendment, how does he imagine it possible for that intention to be carried into effect? You say that if the majority of the House of Commons differ with the majority of the legislative assembly of Canada, and agree with the minority, that you will give such advice to the Crown, that the Crown shall be obliged to disallow the present Act, and disallow any Act which does not conform with the intentions of the minority. Now, how does any one suppose that the Canadian Government—that the Earl of Elgin, or any of his present advisers, could bring in a Bill into the Canadian Assembly to carry out this principle of the minority? Would it not be considered by the majority of the Canadian Assembly that flimsy reasons had been given to reverse the decision to which they had come—to say that the forty-four who voted for the Bill as it stands, and who voted against the Amendments, should have their opinions overturned, and that the view of the twenty-eight members of the minority should be carried? They would consider it, with such reasons against them as have been given in this House of Commons, an evasion of their legislative powers to admit your proposal. What is it that you really say? Why, you are going to propose, in fact—there having been compensation and indemnity voted by the legislature of Canada for the sufferers in Upper Canada—that there shall be no compensation or indemnity voted for the sufferers in Lower Canada. ["No, no!"] I say that is the question. Well, then, you say you will agree to compensation and indemnity being voted for the sufferers in Lower Canada only on such and such conditions; but you are not going to introduce a Bill into this House to make the people of Canada pay on your own conditions—you are not going to do that, as the only way of carrying such measures would be by proposing it in the Canadian Assembly. Now, I cannot conceive that any man of the slightest spirit and honour, belonging to the majority of that assembly, could introduce such a Bill. Well, then, if there is no Bill of that kind, this Bill is not to be allowed to come into operation. You then say, as I have already stated, that there shall be no compensation or indemnity voted for the sufferers of Lower Canada for rebellion losses. And what, give me leave to ask, will be the effect of that? Why, as M. Girouard observed in the Canadian Assembly—

"It is but fair, if compensation and indemnity are due to the rebels of Upper Canada, that compensation and indemnity should be voted for the French Canadians in Lower Canada; and I ask you, therefore, what will be the feelings among all the French Canadians of Canada, if there shall be compensation for the one, and none for the other? Will it not be said that compensation has been awarded to the inhabitants of Upper Canada, because they are of English descent, and that no compensation or indemnity will be awarded to the French Canadians of Lower Canada, because they are of French descent?"

Now, I ask this House whether that will not be the interpretation that will be put on this question? Let me again urge upon the House, that we are not now considering, as some Gentlemen seem to think we are, a Bill in Committee in this House, with respect to which we can deal as we please, and where you may find some definition which satisfies your own mind, by which rebels may be excluded, and none but loyal men have compensation. However desirous you may think the definition, however just you may think it, you cannot force that definition upon the Canadian Assembly; you cannot persuade them that it is a just or a wise definition, or that it is a definition upon which they can act. Now, the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last says that he entertains the highest respect for the unsullied honour of the Earl of Elgin—that he would be sorry to do anything to throw a doubt on that unsullied honour. Now, the Earl of Elgin says, openly, plainly, and publicly, that it is not the intention of this Act to compensate rebels; and that if it had been the intention, he, as the head of the Government in Canada, never would have consented to it. I think if this Amendment were carried, it would be tantamount to a declaration that you have no belief in that solemn declaration of the Earl of Elgin—that you put no faith in these words—that you believe what he said was false—that he had no intention of acting upon these words; and such must be the direct opinion of every impartial person who considers this question; but, at all events, for my part, I say, believing, as I do, in the unsullied honour of the Earl of Elgin—believing that the Legislative Assembly and the Council of Canada, together with the Earl of Elgin, form an efficient legislature for Canada—believing that, in the present instance, they have considered the interests of Canada in such a manner as not to tarnish or impair the honour of the majesty of this country—I think the best way in which I can support the character of the colony—in which I can support the responsibility of the Executive Government—in which I can support the due legislative independence of the Assembly of Canada, is to give my vote against the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, believing, as I do, that it is one that would seriously impair the connexion between this country and that noble province, and one that would seriously endanger our future relations with every colony in which there is a responsible government established.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 291; Noes 150: Majority 141.

Resolution agreed to.

The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock, till Monday next.