On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    away from Canada a fundamental liberty , an extension of which you say you are bound to add to Ireland ? The sort of liberty is in both cases the same . It relates to

    the right of the people to control public money , Ireland and Canada have both this right quoad the national revenue : to the Irish people you say it is right to add the power of controlling their municipal revenue ; whilst to the Canadian people you say it is no longer right that they should control even their national revenue ? The right of the Canadians to

    this power is a chartered right , as well as a just right . The right of the Irish to municipal self-government is not a chartered right—it is simply a just right . On the face of it , then , the Canadians C have a stronger claim to that which you purpose to anadians have a stronger claim to that which you purpose to

    take away , than the Irish to that which you intend to give . Your only ground for depriving the Canadians of this chartered right is , that they have exercised it ! I confess I cannot reconcile this to any one idea of popular liberty . I confess that I do not see why the difference between colonies and

    sister countries should make any difference in the application of broad principles of government ; still less do I apprehend how it can be justly made to affect the faith of compacts , so that a chartered right held inviolable in the one case should be justifiably violated in the other ! If you cannot satisfactorily demonstrate the difference which

    reconciles this apparent solecism in justice as well as in logic , are you not , my Lord , laying down a precedent which may be fatally employed hereafter against the cause of liberty in this country ? If the exercise of the power of withholding supplies for the purpose of overcoming the grievances of irresponsible government be a sufficient cause for destroying that

    power in Canada , why may it not in England ? I think , my Lord , the spirit of a certain assembly in this country , at this hour , sufficiently proves that the day may arrive when the House of Commons will adopt exactly the same conduct as Canada , and from exactly the same cause . If so , shall you then be prepared to advocate the abolition of the present right of the Commons to vote supplies ? Is this a power which you

    will feel justified in wresting from the constitutional liberties of the people , and placing in the hands of an executive , responsible onl y to the Crown ? I * confess I tremble when I contemplate the position in which your conduct towards Canada may involve you towards England . You can base your proposed course towards this Colony , my Lord , alone on the flat of a minister and the principle of $ ic volo sicjubeo ; and you will do so at the cost to the government of the affection of England and the allegiance of Canada .

    Untitled Article

    2 J 54 Hints to the Home Secretary .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 1, 1837, page 264, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1831/page/9/