The subject of Canada was brought before the lords on the 18th by Lord Glenelg, who moved an appropriate address to the queen. After adverting to the disturbances in that province, he made reference to the intended bill. With respect to ulterior arrangements his lordship saw great difficulties in the way of a legislative union between the two provinces, but thought that considerable advantage might be made of a federal union. In conclusion, his lordship defended the conduct of government in not having provided more troops for the suppression of the insurrection. Lord Brougham ridiculed Lord Glenelg’s despatches, to which that noble lord had referred in his speech. The despatches were certainly the products of a mind inadequately furnished with the experience and knowledge necessary for the task imposed upon it, but the honest intentions of the writer were equally apparent, and might have protected him from the kind of invective to which the noble logomachist subjected him. The whole speech of Lord Brougham was as damaging to himself as to the government which he assailed. He pursued the government with his irony and abuse, not because they fell beneath him in point of honour or principle, but because they refused him their confidence as Lord Chancellor, when his indiscretions and bullying rendered him alike odious to the court and unendurable to the cabinet. His lordship might fairly be considered as much the “standing counsel” for the rebellious Canadians in the lords, as Mr. Roebuck was in the commons. Nevertheless, the denunciations of the government by the eccentric peer were in the main grounded upon their errors and vacillation, and these vices in their administration were depicted with a scathing eloquence, and a malignant spirit. Lord Brougham played the part of a mere partisan, and was set down by the country for such. The patriotic prestige associated with his name passed away. Lord Melbourne, in reply, characterized Lord Brougham’s speech as “a laboured and extreme concentration of bitterness.” Concerning the charge against ministers of neglect in not providing against the possibility of an outbreak, his lordship said, that it was a difficult question which they had at the time to decide. By not re-enforcing the troops they ran the hazard of what had in fact occurred; but, on the other hand, had a considerable force been sent out, there would have been an end to all chance of an amicable termination of the disputes. It would have been instantly said, that we were filling Canada with troops, and thus manifesting a fixed intention of putting down public opinion by the force of arms. The Duke of Wellington thought that the proceeding’s should have originated in a message from the throne. With reference to the military force, he said, that he must do ministers the justice to say that he could not blame them for not having taken more active measures. He knew several officers in Canada; and the opinions of these officers, as communicated to him, were, that there was not the smallest reason to apprehend anything like insurrection in Lower Canada. At the same time his grace said, that he could not understand, when ministers had found it expedient to move troops from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick into Canada, they did not despatch fresh troops to supply the vacancy thereby occasioned. After a few words from Lord Ripon, who condemned the conduct of government, the Marquess of Lansdowne applauded the candid terms in which the Duke of Wellington had expressed his opinion on the military part of the question. The Earl of Durham, who was about to go to Canada as governor, said, that it was impossible for words to express the reluctance with which he had undertaken the arduous task, and incurred the awful responsibility which must await him in his endeavours to execute the objects of his mission. Nothing but the most determined devotion to her majesty’s service, and the welfare of his country, could have induced him to place himself in a situation in which he feared he should neither answer the expectations of his friends nor of the nation. Having noticed the various tasks which would devolve upon him, his lordship said, with an apparent foreboding of what was to ensue, that he could not perform them without the cordial and energetic support of her majesty’s cabinet, and the co-operation of the imperial parliament. Lord Glenelg closed the debate by retaliating on Lord Brougham for his fierce denunciations, and by contrasting his conduct with that of the Duke of Wellington, whose candour and magnanimity he warmly applauded. The address was agreed to.
According to notice, Mr. Grote, on the 22nd, moved that Mr. Roebuck be heard at the bar on behalf of the assembly of Lower Canada. Mr. Roebuck relied on his title to be heard as general agent for Canada, but Mr. Gladstone said that he was not aware of any constitutional right or privilege of colonies to appoint agents with powers of this general description. If allowed in practice, it must lead to interminable confusion. Lords John Russell and Stanley also expressed their aversion to hearing Mr. Roebuck as an agent of Canada; but the motion was nevertheless acceded to. On the motion of Lord John Russell, the bill for suspending the constitution of Lower Canada was read a second time; after which Mr. Roebuck proceeded to address the house from the bar. His speech was by no means conciliatory; on the contrary, his care seems to have been to select such topics as were most likely to prove generally offensive to its temper and prejudices. In one passage he remarked:—“Talk to me of being frightened at being called a traitor—at being told that my life is forfeited—at the newspapers setting forth that I am to be sent to the Tower! Do you think that I am to be frightened by such petty warfare? If I be guilty, why are there not some who dare accuse me lawfully? My papers have been seized: let them be produced. I have not run away; because I know that there is a jury in England who will render justice to the accused.” On Mr. Roebuck’s withdrawal, Mr. Hume moved the postponement of the committal to that day six months. This motion was opposed by Sir George Grey, who replied to Mr. Roebuck’s speech in a very able harangue. The subject was renewed on the 23rd by Sir William Molesworth. Mr. E. L. Bulwer gave ministers his cordial support. He thanked them for their determination to uphold the integrity of the empire, and the maintenance of the laws; and he thanked them as a friend to a liberal and popular policy, for their declared resolution to redress the grievances of Canada. He would ask Mr. Warburton and his friends, whether they were aware that till within the last seventy years printing-presses were forbidden in Canada; that at the present day the vast majority of the electors could neither read nor write; and that it often happened that the foreman of a jury could not give in the verdict because of his inability to read it? Was this a colony fit for independence? If it were a republic to-morrow, it would be a monster in legislation—half-jacobinism, half-feudalism. Mr. Bulwer designated Mr. Warburton and his friends, in the course of his speech, by the term “philosophical Radicals.” Mr. Grote, in reply, said that the designation was quite as respectable as that of “literary Whig.” The debate was closed by Lord John Russell. On a division the motion for going into committee was carried by a majority of two hundred and sixty-two against sixteen.
On the 25th Lord John Russell, in moving that “the speaker leave the chair,” informed the house that in looking over the bill he had discovered a number of verbal amendments to be necessary, and as it was desirable that these should be introduced before the discussion was resumed, he moved that the house should go into committee pro forma, in order to afford an opportunity for making the requisite alterations. Upon the question being put that the speaker leave the chair, Mr. Warburton rose and made a long speech in opposition, which was utterly devoid of any practicable suggestions. A long and rambling debate followed, without any result.
The house finally went into committee on the bill, and proceeded to consider its several clauses and the amendments proposed. The bill was read a third time, and passed on the 29th of January, by a majority of one hundred and ten against eight; the few non-contents being Radicals.
The bill came before the house of lords on the 2nd of February, when it was opposed by Lord Brougham, in a speech of great length, and in an acrimonious spirit. Lord Aberdeen also, though he supported the measure, expressed his contempt of the conduct of the government. Lord Melbourne had quietly endured the repeated attacks which had been made upon ministers; but on this occasion he retorted upon Lord Brougham’s censures with effect, convicting him of a change of principles. Lord Brougham, however, denied that he had changed his principles: it was the changed conduct of others that had compelled him to oppose them. The Duke of Wellington reproduced many of the objections that had been urged in the other house; and Lord Wharncliffe, after censuring the conduct of ministers, gave a reluctant assent to the bill. On the 5th of February, Mr. Roebuck, on the motion of Lord Brougham, was heard by the house as agent of the house of assembly of Lower Canada; but his speech could not arrest the progress of the bill. It was passed on the 8th of February; Lords Ellenborough, Fitzwilliam, and Brougham entering their protest against it on the journals of the house, though on different grounds.
The more important provisions of this bill were that the constitution of Lower Canada was suspended till November, 1840; that her majesty in council was empowered to constitute a special council, and to appoint, or authorize the governor to appoint, such and so many special councillors as she might think proper; that, until November, 1840, it should be lawful for the governor, with the advice and consent of the majority of the said councillors convened for the purpose, to make such laws or ordinances for the peace, welfare, and good government of Lower Canada, as the legislature of that province, at the time of passing the act, was empowered; and that all laws or ordinances so made, subject to the provisions thereinafter contained for disallowance thereof by her majesty, should have the like force and effect as laws passed by the legislative bodies. The governor was further to have the initiative of all measures proposed in the council, five of whom were required for a quorum. Certain restrictive provisoes followed these provisions; and it was directed that a copy of every such law or ordinance “be transmitted to the home government;” and her majesty was empowered, by an order in council, to disallow the same at any time within two years of its receipt.
THE QUESTION OF ELECTION COMMITTEES, ETC.
The necessity of an alteration in the mode of trying controverted elections under the Grenville act had been for some time recognised. A committee had been appointed to examine into this subject in 1837; and Mr. Charles Buller, who had been chairman of that committee, had, on the 21st of November last, obtained leave to bring in a bill similar in its provisions to one which had been in the hands of members in the preceding session, though it had not been discussed. This bill, in its original shape, provided that three assessors, barristers of seven years’ standing, should be appointed by the speaker to act as chairmen of election committees for the session only, and as a court of appeal from the revising barristers on matters of law. Subsequently, when this bill was in progress, it was thought better that the first assessors should be named in the act, and that the future appointments should be placed at the disposal of the speaker, subject to the confirmation of the house. On the same day Mr. O’Connell said that he also had devised a plan, which he was anxious to submit to the consideration of the house; and he likewise obtained leave to bring in a bill for a similar purpose. Mr. Buller’s bill came on for the second reading on the 27th of November, when it was opposed by Lord Stanley, who moved that the second reading be postponed till the 12th of May, in order that the question might receive a fuller consideration. Mr. Williams Wynn approved of the bill; and Mr. O’Connell abandoned his own in its favour. Lord John Russell recommended that the bill should be read a second time, thinking that it at least provided some remedy for the evils complained of. On a division the second reading was carried by a majority of two hundred and fourteen against one hundred and sixty. Nothing further was done, however, before Christmas, except that there was much discussion on the subject of election committees.
The house of commons was again occupied with the subject of controverted elections on the 2nd of April. On the motion for the recommittal of Mr. C. Buller’s bill, Sir Robert Peel rose for the purpose of bringing the subject generally before the house, and of submitting to their consideration a proposition of his own. Sir Robert’s scheme was, that the speaker should nominate a committee, which should be called “a general committee for elections,” and which should consist of four or six, or some such limited number. To this committee he would leave the duty of appointing select committees, by whom election petitions were to be tried. These last committees might consist of seven or nine members, and each was to have the aid of an assessor who should be its chairman, and in all respects on an equal footing with the members of the committee. These persons were not to be permanent, but employed as occasion might demand. There was to be no attendance of members at a ballot and the operation of chance was entirely excluded. Mr. O’Connell still thought it would be advisable to take the adjudication of these contests out of the present hands, and to transfer it to the judges. He moved as an amendment, that Mr. Buller’s bill should be referred to a select committee, who might report on the subject at large. Lord Stanley moved that Mr. Buller’s bill be considered that day six months; and proposed that a committee should be appointed to examine the conflicting cases, and to report on a mode of giving uniformity to the law. Mr. Shiel approved of Sir Robert Peel’s plan; but he thought that party spirit would stand in the way of their obtaining a declaratory act, since on some questions the two parties in parliament were systematically opposed to each other. Mr. O’Connell’s proposition was negatived, and Mr. Buller consented to withdraw his measure. On the 10th of May, therefore, Sir Robert Peel moved for leave to bring in his bill, dropping that part of his scheme, however, which established assessors. Leave was given to bring in the bill; but the attorney-general thought that all that was necessary was to repeal the Grenville act. They might then go on making one experiment after another, until they arrived at some plan that would give universal satisfaction.