remained in official connexion with the government. As to the property of the jesuits, it had actually been ordered to be applied to educational purposes, and the only grievance connected with that point now remaining, was, that the estates had been leased to persons other than those whom the Assembly desired to see in possession of them.

Another question related to the crown and clergy reserves. Lord Ripon had declared his readiness to put an end to the old system, and only differed from the Assembly, in wishing to prevent an undue facility from being afforded to poor and improvident purchasers of the waste lands.

The next grievance arose out of the much-contested question of the duties, collected under the earlier acts, and which the Crown had, according to law, the right of appropriating. The committee of 1828 had been of opinion, that these duties should be submitmitted to the appropriation of the Assembly, but they recommended, that this measure should be accompanied by a permanent settlement for the salary of the judges and other functionaries. Government, however, had, in 1831, carried a bill through the Imperial Parliament, which entirely repealed the power of appropriation by this country, and left it to the Assem bly without condition-without stipulation, to dispose altogether of those duties.

They made but a poor return for these concessions. In the year 1833, a supply bill passed the House of Assembly, containing the most unusual conditions, and providing, that the persons holding certain offices should not be allowed salaries, unless they relinquished

other offices. This bill was rejected, on the ground, that these propositions were tacked to a money bill, which, therefore, as a matter of supply, could not be passed in that shape.

In 1834, continued the noble Lord, the Assembly adopted a new course, which had led to the present difficulties. It passed ninetytwo resolutions, some of grievance, some of eulogy, some of vituperation, and amounting, in the whole, to a long and vehement remonstrance, and after spending an entire session in framing it, it separated without passing any supply bill whatever. At this period, the more able and respectable of the party in opposition detached themselves from their former associates, whose violent and aggressive policy disgusted them. Since that time, no supplies had been voted. Sir Robert Peel, in the meantime, became prime minister, and proposed to send out Lord Amherst, not merely as governor, but also as commissioner to investigate and redress grievances. That appointment was defeated by the dissolution of the right hon. baronet's administration.

After making mention of the appointment of Lord Gosford's commission by the present government, Lord John went on to observe, that the demeanour of the House of Assembly remained unaltered, and during the years 1835, 1836, and 1837, the supplies were refused, except on one occasion of a vote for six months, given in so objectionable a manner, that it could not be sanctioned.

The noble Lord then stated the strong objections which he felt to an elective legislative council, which would only represent the passions and violence already ex

isting in the assembly. The evils which would attend the responsibility of the executive council, to the assembly were still greater, and would at once derange the relation in which a colony should stand towards the imperial govern

ment.

Lord John then gave an outline of the intended bill, and proceeded to state what sort of person, in his opinion, should be sent out, in order to carry it into effect. "I think" said he, "it is most important that the person to be sent from this country should be one, whose conduct and character should be beyond exception, a person not conversant solely with matters of administration, but with the more important affairs which are brought before parliament. I think he should also be conversant with the affairs of the various states of Europe; and moreover that it should be implied by his nomination, that we were not at all opposed to opinions the most liberal, and that we were favourable to popular feelings and popular rights. Having said thus much, I know not why I should refrain from adding, that her Majesty has been pleased to intrust the conduct of this affair to one, whom her advisers think in every respect fitted for the charge, namely, the Earl of Durham-and that noble Lord having accepted the office, will proceed, in due time, to perform its important duties."

Lord J. Russell concluded by declaring, that although, in his opinion, a time might arrive when he would not be indisposed "to give the 1,400,000 of our present fellow subjects, who are living in the provinces of North America, a participation in the perfect freedom enjoyed by the mother country," he thought that the day for separation was still at a distance.

Mr. Hume followed in the debate, and entered at some length into a recapitulation of the past and present grievances of the Canadians. The blame of all that was now passing he laid upon the government, and he expressed “his deep regret at the course which the noble Lord had proposed to the house." In the course of his speech, the following remarkable declaration escaped his lips "it was not the man who shed blood, but the man who stimulated him to shed it, who was the guilty party.”

After a few words from Sir James Carnac, Mr. Grote addressed the house. He could not, he said, acquiesce in the proposed address, nor could he concur in the argument adduced to support it; for if that argument were good for anything, it gave conclusive proof of the wisdom of an early separation. If the best system had been pursued in the government of the colony, if so much had been done, and there was nothing to mend nor to improve, what hope could they have for the future, when, even in the most favourable circumstances, matters had become worse and worse, till they terminated in open revolt? But he was not driven to this conclusion, since he thought there was much to blame in our system of colonial government, both in Canada and elsewhere. The responsibility of the failure of the measures which had been taken to adjust the financial disputes, he threw on Lord Ripon. Not content with advancing a claim to the appropriation of the casual and territorial revenues to the purposes of civil government without the consent of the House of Assembly-a claim made by former governors-that noble Lord had thought fit to propose to make them over to the clergyi

a step, which, being considered no less novel than preposterous, only embroiled matters still further. Nor had the other disputes been met with a fairer disposition than the financial. Had they only placed the legislative council in harmony with the feelings of the people, they never would have heard of an elective council. Was it so very difficult to lay their hands upon fit men? From the tone in which the noble Lord had treated the question, and the entire absence of all conciliation which marked his conduct, he foresaw a long series of increasing embarrassments. Ministers should, however, recollect that to put down by force, was not to eradicate discontent. As to the bill proposed by the noble Lord, he meant to oppose it in every stage. He could see no benefit to be gained from severity and coercion. To govern a colony tranquilly, the people must be animated with a feeling of respect towards their governors, and he was sure that coercion would redound neither to the profit nor the honour of the country. For those reasons he must oppose the address.

Sir Robert Peel prefaced his speech by some strictures on the conduct of ministers, in omitting to make a direct and formal communication to both houses of parliament, by a message from the Crown on this subject; a very reprehensible, as it was an unprecedented deviation from established practice. Then, having protested against the doctrine that the manifestation of a rebellious spirit on the part of a colony was a reason for releasing it. from its allegiance, -a principle, which he argued, if applicable at all, must be universally so, and no less at the service of the Isle of Wight, than of Ca

nada; he entered upon the main subject under discussion. He promised his "cordial" consent to the address, because this country had acted with justice and liberality towards Canada. It was impossible indeed to deny that Canada had occasionally just grounds of complaint, but of late years, the affairs of that colony had been regarded as of essential importance, and he had never known an instance in which a mother country had manifested a greater desire to do justice to her dependency. But in supporting the address, he begged that he might not be understood to place confidence in ministers, or to be satisfied with their past conduct. Measures of precaution had, in his opinion, been neglected; after the resolutions of the last year, it might surely have been suspected that some such result as we have seen would have followed. Could anything be more delusive than the hope, that quiet and satisfaction could arise from those resolutions? The military force in the colony should have been immediately increased. He agreed with Mr. Hume's observation, that the blame rested with those who had drawn an innocent and harmless people into a hopeless insurrection; and reminded that gentleman of a letter which, in the year 1834, he addressed to Mr. Mackenzie in Upper Canada, and which contained the following passage"your triumphant election of the 16th, and your rejection from the assembly of the 17th, must hasten that crisis which is fast approaching in the affairs of the Canadas, and which will terminate in independence and freedom from the baneful domination of the mother country, and the tyrannical conduct of a small and despicable faction. The proceedings between

1772 and 1782 in America, ought never to be forgotten; and to the honour of the Americans, and for the interest of the civilized world, let their conduct and the result be ever in view." "Surely," said Sir Robert, Robert, "Mr. Mackenzie might say," I acted on the authority of the hon. member for Kilkenny; visit not therefore this delusion and its consequences upon me, the mere agent and instrument of the hon. gentleman, but rather visit it upon your own member, to whom I gave credit as being then the representative of a metropolitan county."

In replying to these remarks, lord Howick laboured to shew, that the government was not culpable in omitting to back their resolutions of March 1837, with a military force." Regiments" he said were not necessary to put down meetings, they could not stop speeches, nor prevent the adoption of resolutions; neither could troops obtain juries to convict men for seditious practices." On the contrary, one additional regiment, introduced from Halifax, served greatly to increase the existing discontents. Was it not obvious, that if an armed force was not immediately wanted, its arrival, before the insurrection actually took place, would only have extended the exasperation against the government?

Mr. Charles Buller having ridiculed the stress laid by Sir Robert Peel, on the departure from precedent in the omission of a message from the throne; said that the law should be vindicated, and the insurgents put down without parley, unless we were prepared to consent to a separation, and to leave Canada to itself. For his own part he thought that there was not a

shadow of ground for separation. We could not with any regard to the interests of the colony, consent to abandon it. But we ought to comply without delay, with all the just wishes of the Canadians, and the sooner lord Durham repaired to a place, where he was much wanted, the better would it be for all parties.

Mr. Leader complained of being taken by surprise, and offered the government the alternative of adjourning the house, in order to give his friends and himself an opportunity of considering what course they should take, and also of refuting "the many fallacies contained in the noble Lord's speech"-or of encountering a direct negative to the address. His Lordship, probably considering this threat as by no means an alarming one, pressed for the decision of the house, which, divided on the question of adjournment moved by Mr. Leader, Lord John_remarking, that he should conclude that those, who supported the amendment, meant to give a negative to the address. A construction which several members, with some reason, protested against.

On the division there appeared Ayes 28: Noes 188: Majority against the amendment 160.

On the following day, the new bill was presented to the House of Commons, by Lord John Russell. The leading object of it, as stated by him, was to enable the Governor-general and council, (that council not to be limited in number, but of which five should be a quorum)-on the motion of the governor, to pass any laws which might be considered necessary, during the present suspension of the legislature of the province. In addition to these means for

suppressing the insurrection, the Governor-generai would be authorized to grant a general amnesty. The powers conferred by the bill were to be vested in Sir John Colborne, till the arrival of Lord Durham. With respect to the future government of the province, it was the intention of ministers, that the Governor-general should be invested with power to convene a certain number of persons, namely three from the legislative councils of each of the two provinces, and ten "representatives" from each, to form a council, to concert with the Governor-general, as to the measures which might be deemed advisable for the adjustment of the affairs of the two provinces. This was a power that might be given by the prerogative of the crown alone. The persons to be named from the legislative councils would be chosen by the Governor-general, while those "who were to be convened, having a representative character," might of course be taken from the Legislative Assembly; but as in Lower Canada it was almost impossible that the Assembly could be brought to act beneficially, it would be competent to the Governor-general, both in the Upper and Lower province, to hold elections for persons, amounting to twenty in the whole, to concert with him upon the general state of affairs.

Upon this occasion, Mr. Ward censured the conduct of the Canadian insurgents, who had by their violence put themselves in the wrong. At the same time he found fault with the resolutions of March, the effects of which nevertheless had been only what he anticipated. He was ready to give his warmest support to the

plan now proposed by the government, because it was founded on enlarged principles, combining justice to the Canadas with a due regard to the honour and rights of the crown. When he considered the recent conduct of the Canadians, he saw no great objection to the suspension of a constitution, upon which, as their actions proved, they set so little value. measure adopted by England, of appointing a convention with a view to an amicable adjustment, "was one of the greatest moral triumphs ever achieved."

The

Mr. Warburton next followed in a very sensible and temperate speech, though of course tinged by his peculiar doctrines. He began by remarking, that when he last addressed the house, on the subject, he had been reproached (though he took it as a compliment) with coming to the discussion with as much composure, as he would bring to the consideration of a bill regulating weights and measures. He only desired that the question might be approached by others in the same temper. What he wished was, to look at the present state of the Canadas, and not to what it had been. There was no use in recrimination. He was glad to believe that the insurrection was put down, though he could not quite agree in the unqualified praise bestowed on the officers engaged in the conflict. In his opinion, there had been undue severity in the military mea. sures; he understood that houses and barns had been burnt, not only in the heat of action, and under immediate provocation from the fire of the inmates, but afterwards. He then, after repeating his condemnation of the rebellious conduct of the Canadians, pro