1:9rbatrd anti /3rarrebintsd in Parliament. Loan DURHAM'S PROCEEDINGS IN CANADA.
In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord BROUGHAM moved the third reading of the Canada Indemnity Bill. By accident he had be- come the author of the measure, and therefore had no objection tc move the third reading ; though the House would recollect that his in- tention was to pass a declaratory act rather than an act of indemnity; and it was the duty of the person who justified the wrong done to in- demnify the author of it.
The Duke of IVELLINGToN observed, that the motion was a direct consequence of what had taken place on the previous Friday.
Lord DiNstaN felt so strongly on the subject, that he must say a a few words respecting it— It appeared to him to be against common justice that this hill should pass. He Thad attended with the utitioq interest to the debates which had taken ;dace on this bIlbj■Ti, and to the question which arose out of the ordinance of Lord Durham of the :Nth of June ; and he must confess that he came to a clear apd 4cided opinion that the ordinance was perTeetly indefensible on point of new. 44241 It appeared to him, that whatever powers were meant ta be given by their ordships and the other Howe of Parliament to the Governor of Canada, it was never intended that they should be carried to the enormous extent to which this ordinance went. lie certainly felt great difficulty in reconcil- big the proviso which had been introduced by Sir William Follett with the character of the Coercion Act itself; but then it should, on the other hand, be recollected, that great and unconstitutional powers were given by the act, and that fur that reason the greatest possible vigilance should be used in seeing in what way they were exercised. The declaration that all persona should be condemned as traitors on their appearance in Canada was, he was bound to say, one of the most rash and imprudent proceedings which he had ever heard of. He entire!). acquitted Lord Durham of anything like an im- proper motive in this proceeding. He was quite certain that Lord Durham thought to prevent the sown of those persons—nay, that be was fully per- suaded that return they would not, and that as a mere threat his sentence would be perfectly effectual. It seemed to him that this writ not a technical error, but clearly, though unintentionally, a violation of till'. principles. Now with respect to the other part of the case, the transportation to tl.e Bermudas, he was by no means siti-tied that Lord Durham was not jastified in taking this step; and he could not make up his mind on the point until he hail an op- portunity of searching the acts of Parliament. He must say, that he bad the strongest objection to the House declaring what was the law in matters of judicial cognizance, and on questions upon which the court should pronounce their judgment unfettered, after hearing arguments by couusel, the only mode in which such cases should be disposed of.
Of all the unprincipled proceedings which Parliament could adopt, a bill of indemnity was the worst.— He could remember periods when bills of indemnity were introduced to pre- vent persons from undergoing the responsibility of their acts. It seemed to him to be a proceeding at which Parliament ought always to look with the greatest jealousy. The Government, or Parliament, were bound, if they thought the intention of their officers good, or their acts, though illegal, likely to be attended with beneficial results, to indemnify them for the loss which they might sustain in the public service, from the public purse ; but it was unjust to say to a sufft ring and ruined man, " you come for damages for the injury you have sustained in consequence of an illegal act; but you shall not proceed, because we think the person who was guilty of this wrong toward you, acted from bond fide, or prudential, or political motives." It seemed to him, that such a ease involved a violation of principle which ought never to be sanctioned except under the compulsion of the greatest possible and clearest ne• cessity. He had been looking recently to the debates in 1818, and he there found, that when a bill of indemnity was introduced with regard to those who had suspended the Ilabeas Corpus Act, it met with the most spirited resistance; and amongst its foremost opponents was Mr. Lambton. lie had nut the least doubt that if Lord Durham were now in the House he would object to the present bill. They were proceeding to say, that what the noble lord had done could not be justified, without giving him or those with him a hearing. T�hev were roceeding todenclarela_act of Parliamentjthat these persona svertl jag course whielt" tg—t-o-ok. If so, it appeared to him that tliey ought to ,tan' time consequences of t e violation of the law ; and that it was the very worst practice to interfere with the progress of that law. His noble and learned friend (Lord Brougham) had argued that there was a distinction between the cases of a party to a civic suit and of one to a criminal proceeding; for in the latter, the Crown might enter a nolle prosequi ; and, if carried to conviction, the Crown might always pardon the transgressor. But if an injured individual was prevented from prosecuting. the remedy to which he was entitled, this de- fence might be set up for every Magistrate who WAY guilty of an infraction of the law—" It is very true that this officer inflicted great misery and expense on you, but he meant no harm; he did it for thegood of the public, and it is not right to proceed any further against him." lie was in hopes that this bill would have been disposed of; hut, having found it otherwise, be should resist it as one fraught with the worst consequences. Lord Baountissi rejoiced that Lord Denman concurred with him respecting the illegality of the ordinances—
He could not say that he was astonished to find his noble and learned friend condemning such a proceeding. He should have felt bumbled if he had ex- pressed a doubt upon the subject. It was said, by the historian of the worst
part of the most tyrannical acts of a monstrous and:corrupt age—" Innuclit?, 4-ntleptsi, quantquant innocentes, periere." He surely could not expect that his noble and learned friend could for an instant sanction a proceeding which might he thus described. Those whom this bill touched were those who issued tine order and those who acted under it. The first objection of his noble and lamed friend was, that he could not say, until he examined the different acts ender which his authority was exercised, whether the Governor of Canada had the power of transporting persons to the Bermudas. The Governor possessed the power of transportation as to convicts, and not as to eight men who had never been tried. His noble and learned friend had stated, that if these pro- ceedings were of a criminal nature, the pardon of the Crown might be obtained on conviction : but by the Bill of Rights, the pardon of the Crown was no Curr to impeachment. He acknowledged the truth of the doctrine as laid down tw his noble and learned friend as to the injury likely to result from not allow- ing a civil action to take its course ; but he could not look upon the present case as one pessinti exempli, for an act of a similar nature had been introduced with regard to Lord Mansfield, in 1767.
The Duke of WELLINGTON was astonished that Lord Denman had any doubts as to the illegality of transporting Nelson and the rest to Bermuda.
Lord DENMAN said, that supposing Lord Durham acted under the authority of an act of Parliament, he might bejustified ; for many acts relating to the colonies gave such powers as he had exercised.
Lord BROUGHAM replied, that it was in conjunction with the ordi. -lance that Lord Durham issued his proclamation and assumed the power of transportation— Lie knew it had been said, that these men confessed their guilt and petitioned so be transported: if so, the rule was rolenti non fit injuriu. He had read a paper which was called their petition, and what were its contents? " It is true we have resisted an unlawful administration and impolitic government, but don't let your Excellency suppose we therefore admit that we are guilty of re- bellion." A mere complete avoidance of confession than this he had never snarl.
The bill was read a third time, and passed. It was taken to the House of Commons ; where
Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposed, that, the standing orders being suspended, the bill should at once be read a first and second time, and That the discussion should take place on the motion for going into Committee.
Mr. LEADER observed that this was a very summary mode of dealing with the measure ; and he wished to know whether Lord John Russell intended to take the bill as it was, or to propose amendments. Had the Governor.General of Canada condescended to afford the Govern. went at home any detailed explanation relative to the ordinances? The only official or demi-official information on the subject that he had seen, was in the Government paper, the Morning Chronicle of that day, which contained a letter from Mr. Charles -Buller, the Chief Secretary for Canada ; and a more disgraceful and discreditable docu- ment it had never fallen to his lot to peruse.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was not aware that any amendments to the bill would be necessary ; but he would not then speak positively on the subject, as the bill had just been received from the Lords.
After a few remarks from Lord STANLEY, Sir CHARLES GREY, and either Members, to the effect, that by consenting to the first and second reading they were not pledged to the measure, but reserved the right of full discussion for the next day, the bill was read a first and second time.
On Tuesday, the order of the day for "committing" the bill having been read,
Lord Jot re RUSSELL addressed the House. He announced that it was not his intention to propose any amendments, but to take the bill as it was passed by the Lords. Had there been a fuller attendance of Members, and were not the session so far advanced, he should certainly :lave endeavoured to procure from the House a clear and distinct de- claration of opinion as to the extent of the authority with which Lord Durham really was invested. But as Lord Melbourne had been com- pelled to desist from such an attempt in the House of Lords, and as it was not possible in the then thin state of the House of Commons to obtain a declaration which would have the same influence as one made when there was a numerous attendance of Members,—and as, more- over, it was the Attorney-General's opinion that the part of the ordi- nances relating to Bermuda was illegal,—he had, on the whole, come to the determination, though with extreme reluctance, to allow the bill to pass without alteration. Lord John proceeded to explain and defend Lord Durham's right to pass the ordinances which had been so strongly condemned. He maintained that from the first it was intended to in-
vest Lord Durham with extraordinary powers. inisters described tbe Canada Bill as one of an arbitrar and despotic c arm: • o i to us sits the extreme_ ma. • . -d by Lode rou uitzwjjliam. and Ellenborough, who had entered
=4822 sorest it as kmeasure of es---itaordnr:Te-e-Verfty-ai—ircoi—iTei:
• sinneeesoary posverril was now conei actrat by the proviso introduced into the bill on Sir William Follett's motion, Lord Durbutn was strictly bound in his administration of the cri-
rninaTTaw t taj, ce ot the 1, lish courts It was gross y absurd to suppose t at ar lament could have intended so to cripple the authority which had been justly described as approach- 'lug to that of a dictator. But upon this assumption, the illegality of the ordinances was maintained. From reference to what had passed in Parliament, it appeared that Sir John Colborne's powers were not to be so extensive as Lord Durham's ; but what had Sir John Colborne done ? He had sent home a list of ordinances passed by himself and his Council, without any particulars as to the manner of passing them, which were at least as arbitrary and very much to the same effect as Lord Durham's. One was to ' provide for the more speedy attainder of persons indicted for high treason, who bad fled from the province." Another provided, " that in case any person shall be pardoned under this ordinance, upon condition of being transported, or of banishing himself from this province, either for life or for any term of years, such person, if he shall afterwards voluntarily return to this province, with- out lawful excuse, contrary to the condition of his pardon, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death, as in cases of felony." But nobody had thought of calling Sir John Colborne to account. The vice of his proceedings had never been discovered. But when Lord Durham did the same thing, his conduct was denounced as in Now Lord Durham might have avoided all this difficulty—lei htlgtk
unished the rebels with the a m severit
- urer tie present jury law in Canada, be milt have secured juries who would have been satisfied with proof of, single act of rebellion, and then have legally consigned the psis ti to a sanguinary punishment ; ' but Lord John confessed, that hadt;,i Durham so acted, he should have found much greater difficulty than then experienced in defending Lord Durham's conduct. He did tine' that a very bad return had been made to Lord Durham's candid Run; for forbearance from Parliament while he was engaged in perfor's17 his arduous duties. For his part, he was quite ready to share with Durham the responsibility of that noble lord's proceedings • and ,ar le‘ Lord John in conclusion- " I do say, that if the province of Lower Canada is preserved to this on —that if, the insurrection being suppressed, the punishment of death ' be altogether avoided in practice, and we shall be able to restore to Z province the enjoyment of a free constitution,—I do think, that no iovecii,„ that no sophistry—that no accumulation of circumstances—that no bitten,, of sarcasm, accompanied by professions of friendship—(Loud cheers front Ministerial benches)—and thereby attempting to disguise, but not in (mail, guising, the petty and personal feelings which are at the bottom of ell aft, attacks—(Renewed cheers)—will in theleast degree affect the noble earlagOto whom they have been levelled, but that he will have deserved well of hiscosatiTi well of his Sovereign, and well of our posterity."
Lord STANLEY could not understand that the person, whoever he might be, or by whatever motive he might be influenced, who saw 41 he believed to be a gross infraction of constitutional principle, an arbitrary and despotic in an extraordijsary 4eeren, and then at the of the session called the attention off Parliament to such a proceedisi was to be censured for so doing, especially when he came forwards give legal effect to the necessary part of an illegal instrument, and to lay before Parliament the difficulties and the dangers by which Me Government and the Earl of Durham were surrounded. Fur iguana part, Lord Stanley. would not shrink from expressing his own opinion of the unconstitutional nature, if not absolute illegality, of the or. dinances in all their parts. Lord John Russell had made a met unnecessary comparison between the conduct of Sir John Colborne and Lord Durham ; but between the ordinances of Lord Durham NA Sir John Colborne there was this broad, plain, and palpable distinction, Sir John Colborne had selected a Council of Canadians, the major;ty of whom were of French extraction ; and he reconciled the people is his acts, by showing that he was not afraid of the cooperation of the colonists. Lord Durham had adopted a different, but not equally wilt course ; and the consequence bad been those ordinances which were nos the subject of unpleasant discussion. Sir John Colborne's ordinance had not set aside the right of aceased persons to osiel 6jury; Lord )Durham's not only did that but they made return from banishment ea new speeTROT treason. It was contended that Lord Durham bad not exceeded the authority which Parliament intended to bestow upon him, but be bad understood, that the Legislature having been suspended, Lord Durham and his Council were to stand in the place of the Legit. lature—to pass annual supplies. restore necessary_ acts which ma n_a_pirni and perform other I nevetssatialL n.Unnneile_d_tinst a tleanfitis rus,taUolauratited.aly...ordulaty-lawsre. miled,_and ordinary tribunals su ersede — t • e ki el. Sit William Follett's provFo not have had it c emote liflTnTriiitiffiori of the criminal lavvjecau-se_utussfungement.sf.thit. Taiv was anal atia7i: suspected. rt was a strange argument used by o usse , a eca se some members of the House of Lords bad protested against the bill as despotic, that therefore the gfilis nu/ courts of justice must has been understood1-14—e-17en sgs aside, rile (Atli& act suspends d the Colonial-Legislature, and gave the Guyer. nor.General power to appoint and to remove persons who with himself Were to be substituted for the Provincial Parliament ; and surely such an act might be termed arbitrary and despotic, althoughit did not set aside the ordinary courts of justice in the colony. Lofd--Stanley considered it a question of grave importance, whether the persons against whom the ordinances were directed would, now that the ordinances were declared illegal, be permitted to escape without punishment for the atrocious crimes of which they bad been guilty. Even now, he did not think there would be any difficult), in passing a measure to set that point at rest; and not a week ought to pass till the law respecting it was seat rest.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL wished to explain, that he had made no compari.
son between Lord Durham's ordinances and Sir John Colborne's: he bad only said that if the former were illegal, doubts must wise as to the legality of the latter. No doubt, it was desirable to define the powers of the Governor. General and his Council ; but Lord Melbourne had informed him that he was forced to abandon an attempt he had made in the House of Lords to explain the extent of these powers, in obe- dience to the general wish of the House.
Mr. LEADER felt under no sort of obligation to defend " a noble
and learned lord in another place" from Lord John Russell's attack. That noble person was well able to defend himself; and Mr. Leader had no doubt that the defence would make Lord John Russell regret the attack. It was now said that Sir John Colborne's acts were un- questioned; but it was not long since Mr. Leader had called attention to that matter, and asked whether it was not intended to introduce a bill of indemnity for Sir John Colborne: then, however, Lord John Russell had treated the subject with the utmost indifference. The ordinances were not the only illegal acts Lord Durham had committed. An article of the London and Westminster Review had been repub- lished in Canada: this article was written by Mr. John ;Will; and when he mentioned the name of that gentleman, distinguished, like his father, for the highest intellectual attainments, and habits of cautious reasoning, the House would agree with him that the article was not likely to contain any thing inflammatory or seditious : yet the pub• Usher in Canada had received domiciliary visits : his papers were taken, drawers broken open, and his types seized and retained by the
Government. If there were any thing seditious in the article, why was not the English, the original publisher, prosecuted ? American papers bad been excluded from Canada, and the expression of liberal opinion suppressed by the Governor. He would pass over earl
and call the attention of the Hoase to tl e questionable proceedings,
constitution of the Special Council, formed on the 28th of June, only he passing of the ordinances— The before t Th. co cil consisted of five members, three of whom were the dependents _,;„-,a-oulti.aam, at least his secretaries, and one of them, he believed, was his " Durham, was however, only one civilian in the Council. One of the There .1 innwhich the Counci was to inquire into al cases of persons charged with tree- ion which should be brought before them ;land there were at that time between three hundred and four hundred cases of that description. Every one of them, en have been discussed in one day ; for although the Council was ap- b°retveer' lyu: the 28th, on the 29th the ordinances were priblinhed. But was lisrirOdbeunto-lerated—thie moekery ofjustiee? Was it possible that all these cases cat be inquired into and decided upon in one day ? And yet this was one of
thelidrreealarities connected with the ordinances. As to the ordinances them.
„ha', there were two parts ofo ft oth them tilehremcuoTassidez.aeds considered. rnstit, all to hands trans. nii)i; Donation of he persons 'liegal; and e co. ldasot but remark that it was most singular that Lord Du- la' should have introduced this system of punishment for political offences into pooh. But then it was said that the Bermudas was not a penal settlement : but be asserted that felons were sent there, and were kept there imprisoned, the islands being second only to Norfolk Island as a penal settlement.
But why were these men banished ? The excuse was given in Mr. Charles Buller's letter, published in the Morning Chronicle. He said— e I enclose you our first great act—about the prisoners. It will appear to you borribly unconstitutional and despotic, but it is really mild. We put no one to death. Our transportation is, you will see, not to be penal, but merely accompanied by measures necessary for security. The rest are merely ba- DiAlcd; we confiscate no property. We were obliged to include a great many al' our provieion, in conformity to a general rule laid down in each case, whom we do rot wish and do not intend to treat so hardly. This is rather an advan- tage, ea it will enable us immediately to bring the pardoning power into opera- tion. IVS--eadno` interfere with the ordinary thraoaljaara tam r with the %eat a ega gillnriUese men wareTerw. From an or carp jury t err certain se uittal was e call clear. The ignorant Canadians would have said a err ea, ere in to revolt were right all along, or that the Govern- ment had not dared to punish. The British party would have said that our trial bad been a mere mockery of justice, and that we had let their guilty enemies lemon them by a trick."
It was monstrous that this sort of language should be held by a per- ton holding an official situation. He denied the truth of the allega- tion that the prisoners had pleaded guilty. He could prove this from a document in his possession, a letter to Lord Durham from Wolfred Nelson, in the original French; some passages of which he would translate- ., We have rebelled, my Lord ; but do not let this expression frighten you, for it ia not sgairost the person of her Majesty, but against a bad Colonial Menhirs. anion. If the arrival of your Lordship bad taken place sooner, it would have been approved by all Canadians; and if their efforts had made your mission neceisary, they would have been glad to have thus caused the happiness of their country." . . . " They never had recourse to arms for the purpose of stuck, and if they had ever used them, it was only in their own defence."
Then came the confession of guilt, as it was called-
" We are anxious to avoid being hroll5ht before the tribunals of the country, u it is impossible for us to find an impartial tribunal ; lout from such we should have nothing to fear." They state, that to tranquillize the feelings of s generous and confiding people they asked this; but for themselves, they would not have insulted the noble lord so much as to make such a request. They then proceeded to compliment Lord Durham ; and said that they pray ed God for the success of his mission, and for the restoration of peace, and that the enmple of his Excellency might be followed in repudiating all distinctions of
origin.
Where was the confession of guilt? Did such generous sentiments as these justify banishment to the Bermudas ? But this part of the ordi. names was the least objectionable ; though the Government thought that theonly illegality consisted in the selection of the Bermudas. There was an objection to the sentence of banishment against men untried or un- heard. Mr. Papineau, one of the banished men, had never advised resort to arms. He had done nothing worse than could be .proved against Mr. O'Connell any week. What was the case of Louis Per- mult?-- He had been sent to New York to buy types for his brother's paper, the Vindicator. When there, he heard of the disturbances in Canada, and his brother's death. He did not return to Canada, for be did not wish to be tried, on any charge that might be brought against him, by a packed jury : he remained in New York, and was sentenced to death if be returned to his native country. Was there a shadow of law Injustice in such proceedings as these ? He would now call atten- tion to the Police ordinance of Quebec— him the strangest public paper that he had ever seen : by whom it was draws he could not tell, but it was evidently by one who did nut know any thing of the law of England. The first part of it directed that, as regarded Quebec and Montreal, any justice of the peace might cause any person to !stemmed to prison fur any period not exceeding two months for being disorderly in the street. This was not the strangest part of it : in the next put it enacted that any person found loitering in the streets, or on the foot- Ptits, or pulling down papers posted up, or whistling or singing, or causing a disturbance in the streets by screaming or crying nut, should be sent to prison fora period not exceeding two months. Was this a tolerant act, or a regular system of proceeding ? If such an order could be made to remain a part of the law of this country, the most gross acts of injustice and cruelty might be committed on unofTending people. He supposed, however, that these orders were drawn up by the legal gentlemen belonging to the Council, namely, Mr. Turton and Mr. Charles Buller, out of zeal fur the morals of the Canadians! Lord Durham's Secretary had said that he supposed the ordinances Would appear horribly unconstitutional and despotic— This person, who was at once Secretary to the Governor, alias member of the Council, alias Chief Commissioner for the distribution of Unappropriated Linda alias Member for Liskeard, had, since his arrival in the colony, been in constant communication with one of the roost sanguinary men in Canada. This was a Mr. Thom : one of that name had already causer! some trouble to the noble lord, and he was not the only Mr. Thom of a sanguinary disposition oho would give the noble lord trouble. This person was the editor of a Tory Maria Canada—the Montreal Herald. That paper recommended, that if /hPapineau shouldres hpresume to , o set his foot in Canada that he should at once It put to death; and e expressed his regret that the unfortunate prisoners who btl_hee.xi taken had not at once been hanged, instead (to use his own words) of kept in gaol to be fattened for the gallows. This was a specimen of the !flamer in which persons connected with the present Government of Canada apt themselves from party associations. This coats stated that he was an inti-
mate friend of the Secretary of the Governor, and was i t constant enamor' iss- tion with him.
He would now come to another appointment calculated to create ilia- satisfaction in Canada. Mr. Arthur Buller, a barrister of four years' standing. had been put over the heads of experienced lawyers of tree country, and made Judge of the Court of Appeal. Had such ate appointment been made:by a former Governor, it would have been re- sisted to the utmost. The conduct of the Government of Canada bail been most unwise ; and at home Ministers had behaved in a weak an fluctuating manner. On Thursday last, the Prime Minister had de- fended the ordinances with much vehemence ; and declared that the opposition to them was worthy of a low and truculent democracy.-- The SPEAKER said, Mr. Leader must not allude to proceedings in the other House.
Mr. LEADER bowed to the chair ; and therefore would only suppose that at some time or other a great minister had called the majority of a great assembly of legislators a low and truculent democracy. What strong language would not this be for a minister who came into power by the aid of the people ? By what means did he expect to be main- tained in power ?— If the head of them denounced a Democracy in this way, was it that he wished it to be understood that he relied on Court favour?—which, indeed. he might have in a high degree, but which support he would find to be weak ia comparison with that which he formerly derived from the people. For his user part, he thought that the country had a right to complain of the conduct of the Government ru denouncing that on Thursday as being attended with hominess: danger to the country, and on Friday being prepared to adopt it when they found the majority of the other House determined to force it on them. On Thursday, the noble viscount at the head of the Government declared that the ordinanoe was good and legal and proper ; and on Friday he came down and admitted that. it was illegal and bail—that be was perfectly indifferent to it. Under these cir- cumstances, he thought that Lord Durham had a good ground of complaint against his colleagues in the Government ; for they had treacherously sacrifeet that noble lord to the majority against him in the other House. He might may, that although there was an adverse majority in one branch of the Legislature,
this was not the case with respect to the House of Commons; and they could
with advantage vindicate and defend their absent friend and colleague there, and prevent any measure implying censure upon him, from passing. Tiler, however, intended to let the bill pass through this House without opposition'. The noble earl might, therefore, fairly complain of the conduct of Ministers, ae the people out of doors did of their being weak and contradictoryin their He thought that it was a weak and immoral act to pass a bill of indenni:ry; therefore he objected to it. In conclusion, lie knew not on what groan! her Majesty's Ministers would defend the desertion of their friends any more than the desertion of the principles they professed ; but lie believed that they would require bills of indemnity for many more acts besides the present.
Mr. HAwES disapproved of the bill of indemnity. He thought tee, Lord Durham and the Government at Home ought to be responsible for their conduct ; and he understood that by them no bill of indem- nity was required. The measure was the work of a spirit who was "every thing by turns, and nothing long." He regretted Mr. Leadeic attack on Mr. Charles Buller, an absent friend-..
Mr. LEADER...." No; I disown him."
Mr. HAWES could not so easily shake off or disown a Wend, %..nosu., abilities and conduct had gained him the respect of the House. He: had made inquiries among the most respectable firms in London, cur... netted with Canada, and there was but one feeling of approbation r; its respect to Lord Durham's conduct.
Sir WILLIAM I:of-LETT maintained, that it was quite absurd to pose that the ordinances sentencing eight persons to transportatior,, and fifteen to death if they returned from banishment, could have bee- passed, as the Canada Act directed, by and with the advice of the Spe- cial Council, which was only constituted on the same day that thr. ordinances were passed. The Council could not possibly have ex- omitted the facts, or come to a sound judgment as to whether the a...- eused parties were deserving of death, or pardon, or merited bailish- ment on pain of death. The ordinances, however, were disallowed; and the very serious question occurred, whether Lord Durham bad not ex- ceeded his large and ample powers ? He had no doubt whatever as ‘,-4
the ill it of the o dinances. If the were le al Lord Durham had
abso ate power over ug Mao I c in to ntants of Canada • and such Er Roarer he faorlesslv asserted was never intended Li g to Parliament. Sir Wil7177m went into an .explatts.- tam of the intent ousirryiso: was the-Giiiiiiiro-FiThirrotincil from performing certain acts _widely...1k • Ei;g1717-sfiirenif-TrOZers might have per funned : for the_coloni,L. -Lefilslaluocrilad"Tre_piawef-7"Tr) suspending and Owning certain acts .1:1. the Irriperran'arliament ; Tot iLwas con7aiGed t tat the tempuras-A_ pnrpo'seiMiiVEreli Lord Durham and his Cutnicirwere constituleiLdil- mit minim thiser TaotdihalrauffiefilTiind if from theist" As time fiolur of setting aside—tha courts aaf-,j4+st4ea. anTIEroldinary administration_of the crimin_al 1.1)Ya hcaever,suppnacte That anyluel monstrous_ power was conferred by ally part of the No Fiference whatever was made to the ell and he had not the subject in his mind at all. illiaIL
Sir
a legiraiitliffei7E to show that the teirstillre of Lower Canada was expressly prohibited by the Imperial Parliament from creating any new offence where the punishment was more than three months' im- prisonment, or any offence at all without the sanction of the Queen in Council. The act of 1774 declared that all accused ...persons should be tried but Jury. 7 be ColonlaT Legislature-liairrio power to oars!jiarLord burham and his -COuncintad even Itss power than the susten&I Legislature had possessed : and yet they passed ordinaneez of the kind so often described. There was this material difference between Sir John Colborne's and Lord Durham's edict : Sir John said to the absconding parties—" If you do not come in and duke you.- trial, when caught you shall be punished ;" Lord Durham said, " It you do come in, you shall be punished." He certainly should oppose any proposition to extend Lord Durham's powers under the pretext of ex- plaining and defining them.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL believed, that if nothing had been said about the ordinances in England, matters would have gone on smoothly arse harmoniously in Canada, where Lord Durham's administration had been highly successful. The introduction of the indemnity was offi- cious, insidious, and unnecessary. All who could have brought action, bad confessed their guilt ; and volenti non fit injuria. But forsooth, they bad not confessed their treason—they had only confessed that they opposed the Queen's Government ; and this was not treason ! lie was sorry to hear such doctrines broached in that House. There bad been a mistake respecting the nature of the ordinalice. It was a legislative, not a judicial act. Had it been the latter, it would have been indefensible. But the question was, whether the Governor mid Council bad the power to pass such a legislative act. He contended that under the act of 1791, valid, constituted the Camunan Leguda. -bye!, sifebe:a" IStiwhr WTripen. -DIlharitisi tflitka hreNthatieFatt- ThoritTiitais-dialecT,NTEL certain restaains not touching the matter Iv trerterr.:-. - Chi at doubt was there then that the Legislature of Lower Canada, which existed before the passing of the At 1st Victoria, had the authority to pass such an ordinance as had been issued by Lord Durham and his Council ? But Lind Durham and his Special Council had all the authority of the old Lenntilarre aid terdeteivelefitlekee to Ka See! ereeT-Trili e'rekCt-g! nisr„44ialunal lew±;_and if so, they miight alter the criminal law as it aftectei andivielpetleels noTu7Fas They riAghr-a teiriT-i-siTF Fe-sraeFt to—siity_ tiEsis ; and ir-triere was a CoeIrialter 'ffie crumnal law, there was a _power_ to ssWirmIrabeas Corpus A& lima n■Ct-Oisly had taus been done, but acts of attainder had been passe . And indeed all these powers had been exercised by the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada : uow, Upper Canada possessed only the same power us Lower Canada; and could there be a doubt, when the first had exercised these powers, that the latter also possessed them ? He would show, when he came to that part of the case, that there were acts of this kind pissed by the Legislative Assembly. of Upper Canada. The •itstaLsymuld.lna.simcs•fore, thet the forgeieishoule oilemeecenale • •leitele. lease.eerssedathis_Lue ; 7.717 eg illeT-bAlip NOWVIIOUt12.5d to the EarLallu.thatu.....w.1-his.-Spacial illa
Bet then came the question, whether by the proviso in the Act of 1st Victoria, introduced by Sir Willium Follett, these powers were not Bmited ; and Sir John entered into a long and dry legal argument to
persuade 11117TIdirsTi Trili entered Iiiraireertrirs—ini effto- pelmet any ulterateaTirifirrny orteguree, juul eerounocalacia_re- Bating to land. He also referred .to the acts of the Legislature of teeplgi•Tirree 4, to ;1717■Ciiiiit-ibial its!senRlareTeretseied-05a-power of banishment and att="iletIer to-TinffifiiiIiim.
'''Sir EDWARD SEGDEN asked Lord John Russell, box lie could con- sent to the bill which declared the °refinance to be illeeel, if he acqui- esced in the doctrine of his Attorney- Genend ? Sir Edward, how- ever, contended, that the conduct of Lord Durham e as illegal in this; respett, if in no other, that he bad executed the ordinances without reporting them, as the Act directed, to her Majesty inConecil for ap- prosul. As to the bitoiebed persons, they aright return to Canada, and ]to Government would dare to put them on their tr! .1. It would be A sort of judicial murder to take them before a jury Meer the si eyed evdmance declaring their guilt and fixing their punishment. The well- 1,11pCpe were glaringlx illegal. Sir John Co!buree's might ha;eThein 'Asti contrary o tart-, nut fey were not so monstrously illegal as to aerffie the minds of men and call for the inierpusition of Parliament.
e .1.;.ir_Cit:eittees 'KEY had no doubt as to the illegality of the ordi- !„aye a • fox thee : t rat w im r t le suseended Legislature uT Lower ',..zsliai!!1 etas esmiarfi'estraimetUrossi dr.1)!. bx net of '37,:iimment., I ter: Juan Colburees act only provided fu !Iiiii• snide seeedy tram of persons accused of treason. As to the transportation to liermuilu, in tees opinion the Governor-General possessed the power he had assumed, and that teat of the ordinances was net illegal.
Sir ROBERT Lectes suggested a clause which would have rendered tk persons named in the ordinances liable to prosecution nor with- *waling those ordinances were annulled.
Sir Homer Rout: expressed his entire cum:um:ilea in Sir John Caerpbell's opinion.
Colmar] Si irritottPE congratulated the House on the s, show up " of Lon) John RUSSCII; who ought to send his fastest ship trobrine Lord Durham home again.
Lerd Jolter Bassi:et. was confirmed in his opinion that the bill Omelet be passed without alteration, by the conflicting ]cal opinions he fusel heard.
The bill went through the Committee, and was reported.
Lord JOHN RFSSELI., on Wednesday, moved the order of the day foe the third reading of the bill.
Mr. LEADER wished to say a few words in reply to some misap. peelensions of his speech on Tuesday ; and to ask Lord John Russell v question respecting the twenty-three unfortunate mere proscribed by Lord Durham's ordinances. Mr. Hawes had charged him with a breach of fzieedship, and of confidence, in his remarks on Mr. Charles Buller's letter— As to any breach of friendship, his acquaintance with Mr. Buller commenced en eveltical grounds; and when at last they unfortunately dittoed on army po- litical questions, it alainst entirely cease'''. However, if he had been on the vont intimate terms of private friendship with Mr. Buller, he confessed that, iv hie opinion, private friendship ought to yield in every instance to public duty. In that House, almost every Member was in the habit of calling every other llessakr his noble or honourable friend; and it certainly was amusing some- times to hear the language of these noble and honourable friends to cue windier. He confessed that he bad not so light or loose a uotiou of fliesolship as to be able to treat it in that manner. As to any breach of confidcwc, he was sure M. Hawes had no intention to attribute that to him, and no one who knew Isis would do so. The real fact was, that if any breach of confidence had been oalumitted, it was cu iiiiii itted by the person who scut the letter of Mr. Buller, or rather extracts from it, to the 1f1 ruing Chronicle. In the absence of any official infurmatien from the Government, he was compelled to take the heat inieeetuation he could from any quarter ; and that extract from a letter in the i.i.oftesnment paper, the Morning Chronicle, seemed to him to be the most official document be could conic at. 'theta was also another misstatement in :be pepers, no doubt unintentional, with respect to what he said of Mr. Buller's iota/coarse with Mr. Thom, the bloodthirsty (he could not use any other ex. versekel) editor of the Minuted Herald, who advised that Papineau should be eaeareivated. The wipers made him state that Mr. Buller was in constant csssenemsication with tlas man : now, he really said no such thing. He knew aria whether they were in COMIVO:lit %than or not. All that he did was to lead an extract hum the Montreal Herald, stating, on the part of the editor, that hr bad had a couversation with Mr. Buller, and was iu communication with him.
ele thought too that Mr. Hawes was wrong in describing the stet
of Canada as tranquil, which he did on the authority of tnereteti. London trading to the colony; for it appeared, that whereas in fer2 years 14,000 or 13e100 persons had emigrated to Lower and te'e Canada, last year there were only 1.200 emigrants. In the 4.7' he had received, it was stated that distrust, discontent, and grettl, tress—the inevitable cot:sequences of an unsuccessful insurrection-% veiled in Canada. He had not charged Lord Durham with eit6 but had said the effect of his ordinances was cruelty. tecio had he confounded judicial with legislative acts, as the Aeton:: General pretended. It would have been well if the Crown lteiti had instructed Lord Durham before his departure on the differeneee
tween executive and legislative acts. He now begged to ask leg John Russell, what would be done with the twenty. three personae,
could be tried by jury, after what had passed, an or 0 scribed by Lord Durham's ordinances? 11, was im ►ossible that well's-de775____j2Tan ortioe masse" the rovernme juries. Such a proceie mg. as it • war tig en remar to judiciiTZW—Trertrg could 
Previous page
