of Earl Grey to the alarming accounts which had arrived from Canada. After reminding the Government of the heavy responsibility which would rest upon them in this matter, the noble Lord said that he should for the present content himself with put ting two questions-first, whether the Governor-General of Canada had acted without advice or instruction from Her Majesty's Government at home, and had been allowed so to act; and secondly, whether Her Majesty's Government had any explanation to offer as to the present condition in which Canada appeared to be.

Earl Grey replied that he had just received a despatch from Lord Elgin, which would be laid before the House when it next met. It would appear from that communication, that Lord Elgin had acted throughout with his accustomed judgment and good sense; and, that, although a riot of a very aggravated nature had certainly taken place at Montreal, there was no reason to apprehend a war of races in Canada. As for the question of responsibility, in his opinion it rested quite as much with the noble Lord and the Opposition as with the Government.

Lord Stanley remarked that no Government had been fonder of throwing responsibility on their opponents than the present Administration. So long, however, as he retained his seat in that House, so long should he continue to exercise the right of expressing his opinion.

After some further discussion, the Marquis of Lansdowne rose to order, and recommended that the discussion should be postponed till the despatch was laid on the table.

In the House of Commons also, on the same evening, attention was drawn to the subject. Mr. Herries called for official papers, and Mr. Roebuck inquired whether the assent of the Crown to the Indemnity Bill had been previously signified by the Imperial Government to Lord Elgin. Lord John Russell promised to communicate Lord Elgin's despatch to the House, and also the votes and proceedings of the Assembly; meanwhile he declined to answer Mr. Roebuck's questions until the Governor-General's statement of the facts was before Parliament. He stated that on the 30th of April Montreal was in a state of tranquillity, and the provinces were then free from disturbance.

The next evening Mr. Roebuck recurred to the subject, reading extracts from a private letter which he had received from Montrealwhich showed that the Indemnity Bill had been supported by a majority of British members in the Assembly, and stated that twothirds of the Montreal people, "including all the wealth and respectability of the city," supported the Government. Mr. Roebuck added to this information a warning of his own.

No doubt, he said, at the present moment, alarm was created in Canada and England by a notion that "annexation was connected with these riots. At the present moment that was not the case; but he warned the House of Commons, lest, by an injudicious interference with the conduct of the Government of Canada, and the opinions of the majority as expressed through their own representatives, they should make the question of annexation one which should occupy the minds of the

Canadian people.

The money which the Canadian Legislature was about to appropriate by the Indemnity Bill was the money of Canada, and not the money of England. It was about to appropriate it at the suggestion of an Administration supported by the majority of that Legislature; and it had the sanction of the Crown. In that Parliament, no Bill for the appropriation of money could be discussed without there being a Committee, exactly as in the British House of Commons; and the Minister must have come down aud, when he proposed the Committee, must have stated that he had the sanction of Her Majesty in making that proposal for 100,000l., for purposes of which Her Majesty was cognizant. He would entreat the House to beware how they interfered with the natural and proper constitutional expression of the opinion of the Canadians themselves.

Mr. Hawes deprecated discussion until Members should have had an opportunity of reading the papers on the subject, just issued.

Mr. Gladstone agreed that the subject was not as yet ripe for judgment, and if Mr. Roebuck had rested his warning on the ground of imperfect information, it would have had his hearty concurrence. But when he heard the honourable and learned Gentleman lay down as the ground of his warning a principle which would stand on just the same footing when the House should be fully informed-when he heard him say, "The people of Canada have been voting the money of Canada, and therefore I warn you not to interfere," he must protest against a doctrine which interfered with the

supremacy of Parliament over all Imperial concerns. Why, it might be that England might be at war with some foreign power, and that some Colonial Legislature might be found voting a subsidy to that power; and because it was the money of the colony and not of this country, would that be a reason against the interference of the Imperial Parliament? The House of Commons had a perfect right to interfere in all Imperial concerns. It was a question of policy, and of wisdom, and of prudence, whether the House should interfere or not; but the fact that this money was the money of Canada would not of itself be a conclusive reason against their interference, if it should seem upon other grounds to be called for. The contest had not been described as a question of races within the Assembly: but that was not the point-was it so without? That would be for consideration when they should have full information. Mr. Roebuck said truly, that as the matter was one involving money, it would have been absolutely impossible, according to constitutional forms, to proceed without the sanction of the Crown; which meant, of course, the sanction of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. But the very fact that the sanction of the Crown was required and given must bring the matter within the cognizance and jurisdiction of that House.

The conversation here dropped, but the transactions in Canada and the merits of the Indemnity Bill soon become the subject of a more formal and regular discussion in both Houses. Lord Brougham introduced the question in the House of Lords, and Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons. The latter Gentleman was the first to take up

the subject, which he did upon a motion for going into Committee of Supply on the 14th of June, calling the attention of the House in the first instance to certain parts of the recent Act to provide compensation for losses incurred in the Canadian rebellion. The question, he observed, was of vast importance; it involved the first principles and duties of Government, and touched the very foundation of all social order. He abstained from giving judgment upon the conduct of Lord Elgin, for whose talents and character he entertained the highest respect and regard, and upon whom had been laid an undue and excessive share of responsibility, which placed him in an impracticable position, disabling him from adequately discharging his duty to the colony on the one hand, and to the Crown on the other. He should pass by the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, which had devolved so much discretion on the Governor-General of Canada, as well as the conduct of the Canadian Government in regard to local questions, and to the unhappy riots at Montreal; he should confine himself strictly to imperial considerations. He admitted that the onus was with him to show a case for the interference of Parliament; and be adopted the doctrine laid down by Lord J. Russell, in 1839, that there were cases of internal policy in a colony, wherein the honour of the Crown and the safety of the supreme Government were so seriously involved that it would be improper to delegate authority with respect to them to the Colonial Government. The question arose upon the Act of the Canadian Parliament purporting to provide for the indemnifying of persons in Lower Canada, whose property

was destroyed during the rebellion of 1837 and 1838. The first question was, whether this Act was passed for the purpose of indemnifying, or was intended to embrace the indemnification of, persons who had borne arms against the State? If it were, secondly, could it be said that such an act of legislation involved imperial considerations; thirdly, if so, was it consistent or at variance with the honour and dignity of the Crown? With regard to the last two questions, no serious doubt could be felt as to this being an imperial consideration, and that such a measure would be inconsistent with the honour of the Crown. Mr. Gladstone then entered upon an examination of the enactments contained in the Act, pointing out the ambiguities it contained, and the expositions of it which had been given, which would let in claims for indemnity of persons who had been guilty of high treason. Moreover, Lord Elgin had acknowledged that the Government of 1845 intended to extend the indemnity beyond the limits of "loyal subjects," and if so, it was difficult to understand how persons who had taken part in the rebellion could be excluded. Reasoning from this evidence and from the result of the amendment proposed by Mr. Wilson in the Canadian Legislature, he was brought to the conclusion that although the construction of the Act might be, to a certain extent, ambiguous, the evident intention of its framers was not to treat participation in the rebellion as a disqualification. If it should be said that the sense of the people of Canada had been pronounced in favour of the Act, and therefore it did not belong to this House to meddle with the subject, he denied that

the talents of Lord Elgin and the spirit of his general administration, he avowed that it would be the duty of the Government to leave this Act in operation, trusting that its opponents, whom he believed to be loyal men, would, when the present excitement was over, endeavour to avert its evil consequences. Believing that a direct course would be most likely to satisfy Canada, he had declared at once the policy which Her Majesty's Government meant to pursue, which was better than tampering with difficulties.

Mr. Herries feared that Lord John Russell was not prepared to declare that the Act would not be carried into effect so as to indemnify parties concerned in rebellion, and the Act was so worded that no other power but the Government of this country could prevent that result, for the instructions of Lord Elgin could not do so. Whilst Lord John Russell disdained the intention of indemnifying rebels, his argument as to the impossibility of defining the term implied that rebels would be indemnified. The blame of all that had happened in Canada, he contended, was imputable not to Lord Elgin, but to the home Government, whose proceedings with reference to the colony he severely arraigned. He concluded by moving an address to Her Majesty to withhold the Royal assent to the Act, until Her Majesty had received satisfactory assurances that no persons who had been engaged in, or had aided or abetted, the rebellion should be admitted to participate in the indemnity.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Cochrane, who made a smart attack upon Mr. Roebuck, accusing him of having been the advocate of rebels.

Mr. Roebuck returned a spirited

but somewhat bitter reply; and, addressing himself to the question before the House, maintained that the line drawn in the Act was the only one that could practically be adopted, suggesting cases in which men characterized as rebels would be equitably entitled to compensation for the destruction of their property. The motion would be dangerous to English supremacy, not by rousing the anger of the majority in Canada, but by stimulating that terrible spirit in which the minority in other countries were now inciting resistance to the determination of the majority. The guarantee required by the motion was impossible: either there must be no compensation, or the line drawn in the Act must be adopted; even if it were possible to give the guarantee, it would be impolitic and dangerous, for it would run counter to the wishes of the people of Canada, as expressed by their constituted authorities.

Mr. C. Bruce opposed the motion and defended the Act, the disallowance of which would be attended with fatal results, and he was glad the Government was not disposed to concede to the opponents of the Act.

The debate, having been adjourned, was resumed by Dr. Nicholl, who contended that the exceptions in the Act must be rigidly confined to persons convicted of high treason by due course of law, or who had submitted and been transported to Bermuda; and that it was utterly incompetent to Lord Elgin to authorize any extension of the exception to treasonable practices, or any other offence, short of treason ascertained by legal proceedings in a court of common law. If the Attorney-General could declare that Lord Elgin had such