The Morning Chronicle says that Mr. ROEBUCK'S second speech last
night disgusted some of the friends of Canada—that " many left the
House who would have staid and voted with him ; some voted against him who would otherwise have left the House and not voted at all." Possibly ; but we should regard the votes of such men as of very little value. They could not have been among those who were capable of appreciating the question at issue, and of giving an independent vote upon it. How foolish or bow unprincipled must he be, who, though prepared, on conviction, to vote against the Resolutions, yet votes in favour of them, because the Member for Bath Jet himself loose against Ministers in a speech somewhat intemperate and indiscreet ! It is easy,
however, to say that the second speech of Mr. ROEBUCK lost him votes —will the chronicle say bow many the first gained him ? The opening speech of Mr. ROEBUCK was of the first order,—elaborate, yet plain ; forcible and earnest, but moderate and conciliatory ; full of details and statements of facts, yet perfectly clear and distinct. It would be difficult to name the other Member of the house of Commons who with such a subject to haudle, and so many points to put intelligibly, yet not offensively to the House, would not have been comparatively tiresome, confused, unintelligible, and incorrect. • How many votes this masterly speech gained, it would puzzle those to reckon who grieve over the de- serters.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL considered it an argument against Mr. Roy.- BUCK'S scheme, that it varied in some particulars from the demands of the House of Assembly ; and he intimated, that perhaps Mr. Roe- neve might be disavowed by the Assembly. Was that any reason for rejecting the plan, if a good one ? Have Ministers, in their proceeding, showed such tenderness towards the feelings of the Canadians and their representatives as entitles them to say—" This may be a very politic and equitable scheme for the adjustment of difficulties, one approved of by your friends, and therefore probably acceptable to yourselves ; but we cannot assent to it, lest it may possibly not give you satisfac. tion ;"—have men any right to use this sort of language, who are en- gaged ilk a proceeding which they know must irritate and enrage the Canadians, and which they cannot justify on any principle of consti- tutional law? Lord JOHN RUSSELL must know—he has himself said it often—that a proposition which coming from an enemy would be looked upon as an insult, will be received with a kindly spirit from the lips of a friend. Ministers argue this question as if the men they had to deal with were children or fouls.