IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^ /. ^ .<^4f. 1.0 1.1 1.25 ■50 "^^^ Hi^HI 1^ U^ |2.2 U III 1.6 ;j V] «^ /^ ^>. A m V Hiotographic Sciences Corporalion 23 WSST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) B7'*-4503 ■1 :■ ma C/j CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographicaily unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou peiliculde Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured inic (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reiid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re iiur j serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blf>nk leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II sb peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'Institut a microfiim6 le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methods normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de cculeur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurd'es et/ou pelliculdes • D Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es I I Pages detached/ Pages ddtachdes Showthroughy Transparence Quality of prir Qualltd indgale de I'lrnpression includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel supplimentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponibie r~T| Showthrough/ I I Quality of print verier/ I I includes supplementary material/ □ Only edition available/ S Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t^ fllmdes d nouveau de fa9on d obtenir la meilleure image possible. d e b ri n n This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X SOX y 12X mx 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce d la gAntrositi de: La bibiiothdque des Archives pubiiques du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition end legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire fiimd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and niiding on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All otiier original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — >»> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimis sont fiim6s en commen9ant par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par ia dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration, soit par Ie second plat, selon ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmis en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: Ie symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ', Ie symbole V signifie "FIN". ■'3 .•I i iVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvant dtre fiim6s d des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas. en prenant lo nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ti LETTERS ON • -i *'<.'!■ RESPONSIBLE (GOVERNMENT. BY LEGION I dulliAJ-^ vAy T R O N T PRINTED AT THE EXAMINER OFFICE 1844. V I I i TO THE PEOPLE OF CANADA, THE RIGHTFUL INHERITORS op THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION, THESE LETTERS ARE RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED. CONTENTS Lktter I l'.vhii<(; — He assumes the protection of Mr. Bidwell, and thereby evinces iiis influence witli tlie Law Society — The Doctor is offered the office of Superintendent of Education, on conditions which he is unable to fulfil — Indian despoti.sni and Canadian freedom contrasted — The Doctor's metliod of working impossibilities — The Doctor likens himself to Leonidas, Wesley, Fletcher, Robert Hall, Chalmers, and all other eminent characters. Letter II Page 17. The question at issue, — the administration of the Prerogative — The posi- tion of Sir F. B. Head, — change introduced by the Resolutions of 1841 — The people of Canada the proper tribunal in all disputes between the Governor and his Counsellors, as to Local Affairs — Local Affairs de- fined — Legion treats of the Governor's Responsibility — Sir Charles Met- calfe's charge of disaffection against the people of Canada — Legion's definition of party, — absolute and free governments — The Doctor's argu- ments for the decapitation of Sir Charles Metcalfe refuted — Established usage, in the form of Ministerial Resignations— The cases of the Earl of Orford, Lord Chancellor Somers, Mr. Pitt, and the Duke of Welling- ton examined. Letter III Page 33. Charges of informality continued — The Doctor at fault, as a prophet, a philosopli r, a historian, and a politician— Legion discourses on Cabi- net Secrets — The Doctor apologises for the late Ministers' inexperience, Aud charges Sir C. Metcalfe with iudecorura-rUsage as to written expla- vi n)NTF.NT>. nnlifln^ niid olllrial ('oiniininicntioiiM csinhlishcd hy tin; ciifiof) of F.nrl (ircy and f)glo It. (invvaii — Sir (Minrlrs IMolraUt' a slalt'sinan of all sliadcs— IiiioiiidiiH iiud liix Spartaiis routed. liETTKii IV 1'age ."ill, TIk; Doctor charged jwitli liilncliood — Tlie Doctor's discovery that ('incitiiiatiis was one oI'iIk! Kiii;;;lits of tin; Itoiiiid Table, I'rom wliitJi liii iiirera that Mr. Baldwin .stole hi.s ideas of ltes[ionsil)le (ioverniiient from the days of Chivalry — The Doetor prflposes to arraign Sir Cliarlcs Mei- calfe l)elore the proper frihiinal, hut eainiot discover where it is to lie fuunil — Legion ri'lifivea liini Ironi hi!i perplexity — The Doctor's nioiioinaniti nbout anoiiialie.s— .Ministerial explanations and IJrilish praetioo — The Doe- tor becomes nfruid of an impeachment, and nrges Sir Cliarlcs to prove nil alibi — Legion oilers his prolessionul assistance on the occasion — The Debate in the Ilonse of ('unimons. Letter V Pack 73. Legion repudiates his relatives and absolves liis godfatlicr.«i, on the ground of the Doctor's inonopoly of tiie Calendar of Saints — Legion fortells tho Doctor's tragical end — Sir Charles Metcalfe's message to tho Assembly, and dispatch to Lord Stanley — Leg' mi discourses on the paraphrastic stylo of composition — The Doctor takes credit for Sir F. H. Head's success in gulling the Electors — Tin; Doctor asserts his perpetual privilege of flattering the party in power — Historical parallel between Sir V. 15. Head and Sir C. Metcalfe — Theory and jjractice of the British Constitution — The rise and progress of the Constitutional struggle in Canada — Tho successful intro- duction of Responsible Government, and its attempted subversion by Sir Charles Metcalfe — The alleged demand of a " Stipulation" — The Doetor charges Legion with being too much for him, and threatens to cut tho couuection — Legion appeals to the J3oiid. Letter 'VI Page 93, Sir Charles Metcalfe's abstract opinions — Farther observations on his message to the Assembly — Sir Charles offers to make a stipulation ill writing — Legion urges its withdrawal as uucoiistitutional — Legion treats of tithes, and tells how to cheat the proctor — Legion discovers a method of obtaining Parliauientaiy majorities by purchase — The Doctor proposes that the |jrcrogative should be surrendered to Mr. Secretary Daly — Legion rccoinniciuLs the Doetcu- to study the History of the King of r»tNTENTS. tii Itoliciiiiii ami lim ncvcn CaDlles, mitl nlVrs liiin to tiic lirst uiitiiuriticK— A iiuvv issue uf iKttctitH uf Ki:iglitlu)uil, uiiil l.cuiiiilaH, Julius Cicsur, uihI lla- ijiuiited KiclKird ISaxter Ciu/.ttteil. LETTEri VII Page 107. Tlio Doctor's (Icfiiiitioti of a " Stipulation" in a uroral, a legal, and ii I'ariianiontary seiisu— Legion discaiits on currency, endorsutions, and Alinisterial llcspinisibiiity, and detects the Doctor uttering Connturf'eir Coin — The Secretary and tlie Seal — The Doctor's Plan of Clieai» (iovern- nicnt, ljy dispensing with the Heads of Departments — Tlie application of liis principle to niaeiiinery and its jirohahlc rcswits — The Doctor dilVers from tiie Home Authorities, who refuse to lend hiin the strength of the Knipire — Leonidas has a desperate encounter with an anomaly in the straits. Letteu VIII - . I'aoe l:il. Lord Stanley, on Ucsponsible (joverinncnt — Legion peaches on his Lordship and discovers his informers — Lord Sydenliain and Lord John llussell's Dispatch — Legion discourses on Ministerial Responsihility and Colonial dependence, and bewilders the Doctor with liia knowledge of I'arliamcnti'.ry usages, di[)loniacy, forms, anomalies, classics and chivalry. Lettek IX Tage 137. Legion's disputation on Party (iovernment and the distribution of Patron- age, in which he incidentally suggests that Cabinet ftlinislcrs should bo previously Sainted, and takes occasion to reward his Iriends by rcconuucnd- ing Ogle II. (jiovvan, the Doctor, and (jiibbon Wakefield, for the new Cabinet — The antipalliy of Despotic Govennnonts to public opinion — Lnglish Statesmen and Party Goverinnent— Leonidas threatens to put tlio people of Canada on Military Provisions— Legion advises them rather to work for an honest livel'Uood. Lettek X ' Pace 15S. Legion'a reasons for a short chapter iii the prospect of a long siege— The distribution of Patronage continued— The Doctor recommends plotting, treachery, and intrigue, as t!ie best means of conducting a Govcnmient for the good of all parties — Legion expresses his admiration of the Doctor's expertucss — uud udviaus certain iui|irovcuieuts in the Ductor'b Ward- robe. LkttkR XI Paof. IfiG. Tlin Doctor oxpoHOH llio (lovernor to a judicial c\niiiiiiatioii, and recoin- inondfl liis jiuiiiplilvt us u text-Dock on (lOud Govcriiiiient — Tliu Doctor cliiiniit kindrud witli Doctor Hnclicvcriil, and applinH \m arguments to tliu Divine Right of tliu (iovornor-(iencral — The (iovurnor'H reHponnibility to tho pooplu of England, and IiIm dtity to the people of Cunadu,— Tiio Addrcflii of tho Gore Diotrict Conned — Legion ainuseti hia readers by making Loouidus und hiri Sparlanii pull did'crcnt waya. Lettkr XII Page 180. Sir CharlcH Mutcalfe'M definition of UoMponitiblo Goverinncnt — Legion teaches tho Doctor u practical IcsHon on tho n.sc of the Birch — The HuRpen* Hion of the Constitution of 1841 — Legion enlarges on tho advantages of an Indian residence, and recoinnicndH colonization front India in preference to England. Letter XIII Page 195. Panoramic view of tho Doctor's iniquitous career— his death struggle with Legion, and his hideous writhings grnphicully described — Legion carries oil' the Doctor amidst yells and imprecations. L E r T E R I. Sir, Tlic nnnounccmciit of a clcfj-nco for Sir Clmrlcs Metcalfe, by lilt? TJovoiojul Epjcrton Ilycrson, lir.s cxcitotl much curiosity ; which feeling has been tibuiulanlly gratifictl by tho portions of the de- fence now published. Mr. Uyei-aon does not rest altogether on liitj arguments or his facts : ho adds the weight of his name, with every embellishment which his own inordinate notions of sclf-con- Hcqiience can aflbnl it. As a Leonidas,— -he bravely thrown i imsclf into a ThormopylcO of death, having brought himself to tho con- clusion, that he, Mr.Ryereon, is equal at least to three hundred and one Spartans. As a prophet, ho appeals to his former predictions ; and, as a man of war, he threatens his opponents with the powei of tho British Empire. As a Canadian Colonist I feel indignant, that the Government should resort to tiireats, and humbled because it has chosen Mr. Rycrson as tho instrument of intimidation. Passion may however be as easily attributed to wilful error, as to conscious rectitude ; and my object in addressing you is not to exasperate feeling already sufficiently awakened j but to meet the champion of his Excellency with the weapons of argument, and to reduce the questifms agitated as much as possible to simple demonstration. Tho cause of Sir Charles Metcalfe is not intrin- sically worse because Mr. Ryerson is his advocate, or the rights of the Canadian people more sacred or valuable because they are attacked with evil intentions. My design is, to ofTer to my fellow colonists a series of remarks upon Mr. Ryersons publications; and if I shall find occasion to mention his name and opinions or those of his employer, it is not for the sake of attacking or injuring cither, but for that of necessary illustration. The injurious aspcr sions cast upon the friends of Canada by both personages, may arouse ang^y feelings, and may deprive both of the pity and sympathy accorded to honest sufl'erers even in a bad cause ; but tho importance of tho object of the pvosert contest ia too great for individual hvjstility : We assail thepositionof our enemy- we do not condescend to destroy his sentinels. Mr. Rycrson states In his announcement, the moral connexion between the people - ** Canada and their Government — the con- nexion of confidence and aftection to be " the only connexion of »t)rngth and happiness." Yet the introductory address opens, by adjuring the people of Canada by the events of 1837, and by the safety and welfare of their families. Are these arguments of confidence and affection 1 Mr. Ryerson, I suppose with authority, Mays, that Sir Charles Metcalfe must employ whatever power may be necessary to sustain the constituted authorities of the land. Are these the words of the peacemaker 1 Mr. Ryerson gives his decision — and that of Sir Charles Metcalfe as that of the authorities of the Empire, and he says, " The strength of the Em])ire will of course bo employed (if need be) to support the decision of its authorities," and he asks — are the people of Canada prepared for such a collision ? I take it that all understand what the strength of the Empire means, and were the words addressed by an ambassador to the minister of a foreign power, some notions of soldiers, and cannon and bayonets would present them- selves to the mind of the latter. It would not be the strength of love and affection, or of the moralities, or of the moral connex- ion, the only connexion of strength and happiness. Is this, I would ask, the Rev. Mr. Rycrsons strength of argument ? If he does not rely on It, why does he use it, and if he does rely on it, why should he use any other. If Sir Charles Metcalfe hhi^ autho- rized him to threaten the Canadian people with the swore, why does Mr. Ryerson, or Sir Charles Metcalfe reason with them ? Do they expect a fair decision from the people against whom force is thus invoked 1 Does he think ties of affection, the love knots of political union, can be tastefully ornamented with deaths heads and bones 1 Mr. Ryerson the lover of his country, is however the first to speak of force and strength. With a beautiful consis- tency and hannony of argument, he boasts of throwing himself into a Thermopylaj of death, and then he tells the enemy, the poor Reform Association, that he has the whole strength of the Empii'e at his back. In truth, it is the little Toronto league that are like the three hundred Spartans, for like them they are threa- tened with the strength of an Empire, and if there be any death prophesied by Mr. Ryerson it is not his own, but that of Mr. Ryerson's fellow Christians, and of their little families. So much for his bravery, his devotior, and his heroism. ... But Mr. Ryerson likens the people of Canada to a jury, and the Governor-General to a criminal on his tiial ; he is not one of the "knot of a certain class of Lawyers at Toronto," but we ac- knowledge he puts his case very strongly. Gentlemen of the jury says he — This is not a case within your jurisdiction. " The Imperial authority is unquestionably the tribunal of appeal m such a question. The same as the court of Queen's Bench is the legal tribunal of decision on any question of property between man and man." The Imperial authority has already decided the pi-isoners case — and moreover whatever power may be necessary, even to the whole strength of the Empire, wiU bo used by the prisoner at the bar, to enforce the decision. Therefore, Gentle- men of the jury, look out for yourselves and your families, and bring in a verdict of acquittal, or to say the least of it, it may be worse for you all. I think Sir, there are few juries would hesi- tate in such a case if they believed the learned Counsel. But they might be intlined to ask when the door of the jury room was shut, and the constable not listening at the key hole — what was the object in such a case of making them call God to witness that they would give a true verdict according to the evidence 1 And if the learned Counsel in his speech likened himself to Leonidas, and three hundred Spartans, the jury would have laughed in his face — if they dared. After threatening Canada with the events of 1837, Mr. Ryer- son goes on to say, *' In 1834, I gave a similar warning shortly after the then called ' Constitutional Reform Association' was es- tablished in Toronto. In 1837, mi/ warning predictions were realized bj the rnin of many, and the misery of thousands. What took place in 1837, was but a preface to what may be witnessed in 1847. The principles of the association of 1844 ai'e constitutional, BO were the principles of the association in 1834." If the Rev. Dr. means not to have the flanks of his Thermopy- Ice turned, he should state the whole truth. Now I shall remind my readers of what they know to be the truth, after which it will not be difficult to apply the necessary reasoning. The Consti- tutional Reform Association of 1834, demanded Responsible Go- vernment. The Local authorities, anu the Imperial authorities, openly, honestly, and sternly refused it. There was no quibbling, no pretence that the Colony had Responsible Government. Until the writing of Lord Durham's Report, the refusal was direct, — nei- ther party pretending to misunderstand the other. VVclii Mr. Ryenon prophesied against the demanJ; there were disturbances, notwithstanding which Lord Durham advised Responsible Govern- ment. The resolutions of 1841, were introduced into the United Parliament by a servant of tho Government, and Sir Charles Met- calfe and the Rev. Leonidas himself, pretended to uphold theso resolutions ; and Responsible Government, denied in 1834, wns conceded as the Constitution of the Country. Now what does all this prove? Is it that the Constitutional Reform Association were wrong, or that their demand was urged in the end Dosuccessfully f No I For according to Sir Charles Metcalfe's answers the Responsible Government was granted. If Sir Charles should say nothing was grafted by the Resolutions of 1641, but what Canadians had in 1834 ;— then would Sir Charles contradict his answer to his loyal supporters, and the Rev. Dr. would vtand a confessed deceiver : but if as both now assert Res- ponaible Governnjent was granted, and if Sir Charles Metcalfe be sincere \n his assertions, that be advocates and upholds it ; and if n^oreovef ho be right in principle in so doing, then it inevitably follows that the Rer, Doctor was wrong in his prophesy in 1834, wrong in his advice to his fellow Christians then ; for ho advised them not to insist upon a right f which according to bis present doctrines, insisting upon^ they obtained. If the Reverend Doctor •ays, that Responsible Government was granted in consequence of rebellion, he would be so far justifying rebellion, which I do not pre- tend to do ) I will not charge the Imperial Government of England with granting to rebellion what it refused to supplication, remon- strance, and demand. But no one will deny, that were it not for the supplication, remonstrance and demand, it would not have been granted, and if in consequence of these it was granted, and rightly granted ; the events of 1834, and subsequent years, are a very strong argument, indeed in favour of demands by Colonists, of all rights to which they consider themselves justly entitled ; not- withstanding the warnings of political clergymen, or the denials of colonist despising Governors. In 1834, Mr. Ryerson says, that he stated, that he *' did not believe there was one, out of one hundred, of the members and disciples of the Association who contemplated any thing beyond what was lawful, and constitutional," and he says the same of tho sifpporters of the present Association. Well, let us suppose this to be true; the ninety-nine, who contemplated nothing beyond yfW was lawful and constitutional j even according to Sir Charles Metcalfe and hla Lconidas, got what was lawful and constitutional; and tho one out of the hundred, who is said to have contempla" ted something unlawful and unconstitutional was defeated, I am satisfied with this conclusion, as it was then, so lot it bo now. After a very proper remark upon the uso of spiritous liquors ; the learned Spartan is pleased to observe, *♦ that tho spirit of tho former association was only the shade of tho virua whi^-h circulates through several of the speeches, and the address of the present association." If one of the little boys, whom tho Doctor was so desirous to superintend wore to say that a circulating virus could cast a shadow, and that the shade could have existed ten years before tho virus ; we suppose tho learned superintendent would award him a premium : 1 think he should be whipped, by way of impressing on his infant mind, that fine writing and nonsense are not convertible terms ; what would have been said of the Mantuan bard had he written. Tityre, tu patulo) rocubans sub tegmino viri. >, of not- ials of ' But by way of exhibiting the overshadowing virus of the Asso- ciation, tho President of Victoria College, attacks the Queens professor of Law in Kings College, who he says two years ago spoKe against accepting office ('should it bo offered to him^ with such men as Messrs Sullivan and Hincks : Now if Mr. Blake ever said any such thing, it must have been because ho blamed those men for remaining in office when Mr. Baldwin wcntout, or because he blamed Mr. Sullivan for having been an opponent to tho claim of Responsible Government until it was a conceded question ; Mr Blake's observation, if ho made it, was perfectly consistent with his present course, it not being necessary for the members of tho Reform Association by any means to approve cither of Mr. Sulli- van or Mr. Hincks, or of their conduct in tho Government. But what is to bo said of the Reverend teacher of logic to the Victorii College, who actually blames Mr. Baldwin for retiring, and who supported so far as he could the Government in which Mesars Sullivan and Hincks remained, and yet who reproaches Mr. Blake for belonging to an Association of which tho Doctors two former friends are members. If tho events to which Mr. Blake must have alluded, havo any thing to do with the present Reform Association, they only show that Mr. Blake has made two converts to >he op- position ; they joined the opposition with him, he did not accept the Solicitor-Gcnoralsliip (if it was ofTered to him) with them : bat the Reverend Doctor has a facility in coining to wrong conclusi' ons, which makes hin a much bettor advocate for the Governor- Genera!, than President of a College, or superintendent of Education. The Reverend Doctor alleges, that Mr. Blake held up Sir Chas« Metcalfe under the character of Warren Hastings, and exhibit ted the King and Government in colors of the deepest depravity and barbarism. — I allege that Mr. Blake did not hold up Sir Charles Metcalfe under the character of Warren Hastings. In the speech alluded to, he argued that it was not impossible for a British Governor to be a tyrant, and he proved his proposition by showing that Warren Hastings was a British Governor — and yet -was a cruel tyrant. He further argued that the King and Govern* ment of England did not always punish Governors who were tyrants, and he proved his proposition by showing that the King and Government did not punish Warren Hastings : He never said Sir Charles Metcalfe was in the least like Warren Hastings^, If I were now to say that Ministers of religion did not always conHne themselves within their proper sphere of usefulness, but that they injured themselves, and their cause, by meddling with party politics, and thereby created hostile feelings and prejudices against them personally which they did not deserve, and blinded men to good qualities which they really possessed, and if I were to mention the Bishop of Toronto as an instance of this kind, would Mr. Ryerson have a right to say, that I held him up under the character of the Bishop of Toronto t Mr. Blake blamed the King and Government for not bringing Warren Hastmgs to punishment for his atrocious oppression anci cruelty. And Mr. Ryerson asks, if such a man ns Mr. i^iake can do this, what may noi he and others like him be found doing against the Sovereigns representative two years hence. But Sir, Mr. Burke and Mr. Sheridan, were men eloquent, and were more violent intheir denunciations of Warren Hastings than Mr. Blake, yet not only two, but many years passed away, and neither were rebels or traitors ; what must be thought of Mr. Ryersons knowledge of history and logic, when because of Mr. Blake's attack, upon the defunct VVarren Hastings, hp solemnly warns all who have the safety and best interests of themselves and families at heart, toi pause before they enlist themselves under the banners of the Toronto Reform Associal'on. Verily Reverend Doctor, your 9 loyalty must be vory straight laced, when you arc so tender about the character of Warren Hastings. I would seriously advise you to employ the interval which may probably have to elapse before you assume the duties of Superintendent of Education in compiling for the use of schools a new history of England, from which the names of Burke and Sheridan will be excluded ; — so that when we poor Colonists quote history, we may do it in your own critical correct and loyal style, avoiding bad examples, and taking care how we assail Thermopylae's of death, defended by Rev. Doctors with the fury of three hundred Spartans and the strength of an Empire. Mr. Ryerson was at one time in hopes, at least so he says, that a mutual understanding and reconciliation would take place between the Governor*General and the late Councillors, (and no doubt there would— 'had there been any misunderstanding between them,^ but Mr. Ryerson was inclined to propose it himself. I wish with all my heart he had, and that the answer of Sir Charles Metcalfe was public. He would have found that Sir Charles would have the Government administered as he pleased, without advice, or with any advice that might fall in his way, and that he wanted no Council with popular or political influence, on any side, or with any party ; that Sir Charles Metcalfe wished for no reconciliation— that the offer to meditate would have been met by an offer of an appointment, and the attempt to purchase a whole body of Chris- tians through the person supposed to be their leader. This might well have happened, but there would be no reconcilation. Why did not Mr. Ryerson say, that his hopes of reconciliation were damped by the direct charges made by Sir Charles Metcalfe personally of treasonable designs against the late advisers of the Crown — by his allegations that in furtherance of their designs the late Executive Councillors wanted to make a tool of him the Queens Representative 1 Was the Reform Association organised before or after Sir Charles Metcalfe's answers to loyal addresses, or before his conduct of the Government showed that Responsible Government was the farthest thought from his mind. True " the voice was the voice of Jacob, but the hands were the hands of Esau." The voice repeated the words »♦ Responsible Government" for even the words had a charm in them for a people who under the reality had seen health, life, and rigour, infused into their pub- lic affairs, but the hands were clasped and tightened round the throat of British Colonial Liberty, who gasping fled from the I 10 violated halla of Legislation, wlioro she once loved to dwell, and took sholtcr amongst aasociationa of her chosen children. Mr/Ryerson would have boon tho mediator, if tho people of Canada woro at tho foot of Sir Charles Metcalfe ; ho wrould have been the friend or rathor the befriended of both parties, but ho had to make choice, and he chose not a Thermupyin}, but the gorgeous camp of tho eastern satrap. There let him dwell — let no mysterious writing on the wall scare him from his contemplations of greatness, or force him back from his envied station of chief favourite of the Gover- nor. He has talents, why should they be wasted in the humble duties of a Christian minister, or in leading the youth of Vic- toria College, over the barren road of virtue and independence ? But Mr. Ryerson is fitted, according to his own account, for his office of champion for Sir Charles Metcalfe, because ho snys that in 1838 an attempt was made to degrade, proscribe, and drivo out of tho country all naturalized subjects from the United States, and to stigmatize all reformers with the brand of rebellion ; " although thero were no Messrs. Baldwin and Hincks who could or dare speak for them, and no Mr. Sullivan who would speak for them :" and ho gives himself credit for defeating this attempt. I suspect Mr. Ryerson must have been revising tho history of Canada for his own glorification, tor I do not remember any attempt mado to degradot proscribe, and drive out of the country all naturalized subjects from the United States ; in fact very many of these natu- ralized subjects had not only been in arms for the Government, but were strongly in politics then, as they are now, with tho Govern- ment party of the time. The attempt would have been as wicked and absurd as the present attempt to defeat Responsible Govern- ment. It needed not Mr. Ryerson's power to defeat it, and nei- ther Messrs. Baldwin, Hincks, or Sullivan were required to speak to prevent it ; and as to Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Hincks not being able, or not daring, or Mr. Sullivan not being willing to say that all reformers wore not rebels, I remember well these gentlemen continually saying it, and saying it always whenever the subject was spoken of; and I believe they were called upon to say so, in public and private, in newspapers and in Courts, jus* as often and as much as Mr. Ryerson. Tho intense devotion with which Mr. Ryerson worships himself, ia in liiis point, carried to a degree of absurd Idolatry ; which is rendered only more undisguised by his allusion to Mr. Howard and Mr. Bidwcll. Mr. Howard was re- moved from the Toronto Post Ofilcej not on account of any chargo n ." mado against him, bul because oi ibe time of the rebellion tho Government thought it necessary to have its decided friends in charge of the Toronto Post Office, and righily or wrongly thoy removed Mr. Howard to make way for a decided fri«nd. Dut it is unjust to Mr. Howard to say ho suffered under obUquy ; ho suffer- ed by losing hia ofHce simply ; he got a now appointment when hia political friends came into power, but Mr. Ryerson had as much influence in procuring his new appointment as he had in hia remo- val. As to Mr. Bidwoll, Mr. Sullivan has said publicly and privately ever aioce he left the Province, that notwithstanding the whole evi* dence relating to tho rebellion had been perused by him, he had never seen any thing which justified a charge against Mr. Bidweli aa being concerned in the disturbance. It was in fact the very persons Mr. Ryerson charges with being silent and powerless, who procured Mr. Howard's re-appointment to office, and Mr. Bidwell'a release from his engagement of voluntary exile. The pretence of Mr. Ryerson that he influenced the Law Society of Upper Canada in favour of Mr. Bidweli, is, if possible, still more ridiculously absurd. With that body Mr. Ryerson had less than no influence, and In that body Mr. Baldwin and his father alway senjoyed very much confidence and respect. Let Mr. Draper, a bencher of tho law Society, say whether he was prevented from covering tho character and rights of Mr. Bidweli with perpetual infamy, by Mr. Egerton Ryerson : will he endure to have a government to which he belongs defended by such an advocate, or by aid of such pretences ? This inflated solf-sufHcicncy of the Reverend Doctor, little as it is worthy of introduction into a contest liko tho present, ought to warn Sir Charles Metcalfo to take better care who ho adopts as his champions : in this respect ho appears to be parti- cularly unfortunate. How would ho like, wore ho successful in his attempt to re establish arbitrary power, and were to bo crowned with the laurels of conquest over a subjugated people, how would he like Mr. Ryerson to publish that he Mr. Ryerson was tho victor, that he Mr. Ryerson stretched forth his hand to save a sinkiner Governor General ? How would Mr. Gowan in such on event like to have his sharo in the triumph taken by Mr. Ryerson ? Whal would M. Do Biacquiere, Captain Beale, Alderman Dixon, and the rest of the loyal addressers say to tho assumption of all merit, by this insatiable monopolizer t If all those really have any hopes of success, let fhcm take care lest the Uoctor's standing . : A I 'I'! i 19 olone in the Thcrmopyltc of dontli, should be quoted agaitiit them, vrhcn ihey look ""ir their reward. But the modest and Reverend Doctor " was about entering an a peaceful work — a work extensive nnd varied beyond the powers of the most vigorous intellect ; that of devising and constructing by the concurrence of the people in their District Councils, a fabric of Provincial Common School Education." But he arrests himself from such a work and '* leaves the glory of its accomplishment to deck anothers brow :" modest Doctor ! a less vain man would havo hesitated to undertake a work beyond the powers of the most vigorous intellect, would have looked for some assistance from the experience of his master in enlightenrd India, the country of liberty, religion, and civil rights ; he would have offered a sprig of laurel to the Governor ; ho would have looked a little to the Coun< cil sworn to advise His Excellency, and to the Parliament ; but no all are passed by. The glory was to have been all his own ; this is his notion of Responsible Government. He would not even make a tool of the Governor General in the erection of his fabric, but would himself build a vaulted arch of heaven, the sun of which was to be himself. It is only in tho night, stars ^hine out and divide the admiration of tho gazer ; but when the Reverend Doctor be- came unveiled, and presented his aspect of equal benignity to every sect and party, each sect and parly would of course sit upon its ** broad basis" wrapped in silent admiration. The choice made by Sir Charles Metcalfe of Mr. Ryerson, as Superintendant of Educr'ion, is so like many of the acts of his unadvised and irresponsible Government, that I do not pretend to wonder at it. Mr. Ryerson's sincere self-worship is so apparent in every word he writes, that no one will be surprised at his accep- tance of the office, but still the appointment is in itself worthy of remark. We have the children of a population to be educated, of various creeds, and of almost every denomination of Christian Church Government. There are not wanting churchmen in the country of talent, learning, and character to fit them for the office of Superintendant, but unfortunately men of learning, talent, and character are not permitted to busy their capabilities to serve the public in politics, and in religious contests. Leaders of contendmg churches have been often passed over, in considering the choice to be made of a Supeiintendant of Education : for all men who acted as leaders have more or less expressed themselves strongly in t.he course of religious contention, and shown sufficient acrimony to 18 make it impossible for them to work out a system in which all should be equally respected, and all equally protected. The powerful and highly educated Church of England, views with sorrow ond dis* appointment her claimed right as an establishment to direct tho education of the country, wrested from her by public opinion ; Mr. Ryerson himself being one of the most prominent instruments of what many of the members of that Church consider a spoliation. The powerful, educated, and I may say without oflfence, jealous clergy of the Church of Scotland, claim for their country and their coun- try's church, the merit of the best and most general systems of popular education. The venerable and learned Roman Catholio clergy, peculiarly tenacious of their church principles, and strict in their notions of religious education, view with natural apprehen- sion and distrust any movement which would lead to the propaga- tion of adverse principles amongst their flocks. The Methodist Church zealous and active in spreading the Gospel, and the tenets of its venerable founder, seeks the extension of his principles through* out the world ; through tho active means of missionary propagan- dism. Now is it, I would ask, fair to expect of either of these religious bodies that they would be satisfied to see the education of the youth of tho country placed under the superintendence of the active and energetic leader of one of tho other churches I Was Mr. Ryerson satisfied to leave it in tho liands of Doctor Strachan ? And would tho Bishop of Toronto, or any of his church, be satisfied to see him and his clergy passed by, not oa the ground of the necessity for a general and impartial educaiiony but for the purpose of granting that ofSce to an active, talented, and zealous leader of another church ? I know Sir that the Methodists desire no supremacy for their church, I do not accuse or think Mr. Ryerson guilty of any design to procure any unlair advantage for it : but you may depend upon my assertion, as one founded in reason, and on some little knowledge of human nature, that the people of Canada would not look with indifference to the promo- tion of either Mr. Ryerson, or Doctor Strachan, or any other head of a religious body to the office of Superintendant of Education, notwithstanding any claim to superior capabilities or superior attainments. The great difHculty in the choice of a Superinten- dant of Education in Canada, unquestionably is — the jealousy of a Clergyman of one Church entertained by the really religious of other churches. It was a bold step of the late Executive Council to advise the appointment of the Reverend Dr. Murray ; a step "ii!l' ! ii;* m !1 u which nothing would have jusliAcd but his quiet and unobtrusive charactor, and known liberality of sentiment ; but you may rely on it that no responsible ministry in their senses would daro to recommend — that the duty of devising and erecting a system of education and of carrying it out practically should be placed in the hands of either Doctor Stracjian or Doctor Rycrson, or of any other religious controversialist. Sir Charles Metcalfe, who looks upon himself as the concentration of the majesty of England — opposition to himself os disaflbction to the Queen, and passive obedience to himself, as including all other virtues, may have oITored such an appointment, but I would stako my life upon tho truth of my allegation, when I say — that no responsible Executive Council would havo advised it ; nay more, that neither Mr. Daly, nor Mr. Vigor, nor Mr. Draper, nor Mr. Parke, ever advised or approved of it. Such, however, is the Responsible Government in theory and practice of Sir Charles Metcalfe. Cut why does Sir Charles Metcalfe stay his hand ; why docs he not cxcrciso his prerogative ; why docs he permit the obedient Doctor to arrest himself ? Let those who see that unhappy vic- tim of a Solicitor Geno ral elect for Lower Canada, covered with unpitying ridiculo for tho remainder of his life, and who can tell why he docs not receive his appointment — answer the question. Tho Doctor arrests himself because he has to take up tho pen of vindication ; I wish ho would say how long is he to wield his formidable feather, which is to press down the scale in which tho fate of Canada is weighed : is the contest to last for days, or months, or years ? Of all this we are uncertain, tho Doctor only leaves the oIFieo perhaps to other hands, or in other words his obtaining tho ofHce at all depends upon his rescue of the Governor-General- But ogain, why docs tho learned logician arrest himself, and imprison himself in a Thermopylae of death, for the purposo of advocating the causo of Sir C. Metcalfe : his own words arc. **But of the need of such an advocacy there cannot be a moral possi- bility while Sir Charles Metcalfe holds tho bceptre of Government." After all it would appear, that the Doctor immolates himself, arrestd himself, and gives up the ambition of his heart, without even a moral possibility of any necessity for tho sacrifice ! . \ ,. I have little to do with Mr. Ryerson's absurdities. A man, and Mr. Rycrson beyond most men in Canada, when he thinks strongly and is internally convinced of the righteousness of his cause, writes intelligibly ; v, hen a man, on the contrary, is not convinced himself, 15 but attempts to convince othors, ho, and even Mr. Ryorson, is apt to writo absurdly. For furthor example, roaJ his further proposition ; •' lie (Sir (/linrlos Motcairc) has spent his forty years of public life in a Colony, and has thorcforo all tho habits and feelings of a colonist." That is to say, as applied to tho real fact, — Sir Charles Metcalfo has spent forty years in governing, or in connection with tho gov- ernment of a Colony, and therefore, yes therefore, ho has all tho feelings of a colonist. On tho same syllogism, an overseer of a plantation must havo all tho feelings of tho negro slave : the Judgo must have all tho feelings of the thief: the angler all tho feelings of tho fish. *' He has spent all that time, says Mr. Rycrson, not in tho atmosphere of an exclusive religious hcirurchy, but in a country where equal civil and religious rights are recognized, and has therefore all tho feelings of religious equality, an adaptation of experience and views for tho Government of Canada, not possessed by any other Statesman of his rank in tho British Empire." In tho name of common sense, what country docs Mr. Ryerson speak of — Indio, where widows mount tho funeral pile and enjoy their religious rights in firo : where tho Juggernaut rolls in his chariot over tho crushed bodies of his adorers, under tho politic eye of a Government which respects religion : whoro life, liberty, and property are held by porniigsion : where thoro aro no political rights whatsoever, not even a" shade of tho virus" of public opinion, to use tho Doctor's own figure of speech : whero tho breath of freedom never was drawn : where justice, humanity, and human happiness, havo been weighed against gold, and found ns light as the Doctor's pen : whore there is no bill of rights, no habeas corpus, no parliament, no freeholders, no representation ; and so because Sir Charles Metcalfe helped to govern that country forty years, according to Dr. Ryerson ho has " an adaptation of experience for the Government of Canada, not possessed by any Statesman of his rank in tho Dritish Empire." If Doctor Ryerson had said, that notwithstanding Sir Charles Metcalfe's residence in India ho may yet be a good man, and a benevolent man, v/o would not deny his proposition, but to say that governing slaves for forty years gives a man experience in tho Government of free British subjects, is to tell tho latter thoy aro, or should bo slaves. Mr. Ryerson accuses the Toronto Association, for having alleged again and again, that because many persons who havo heretofore opposed Responsible Government, havo came forward to support Sir Charles Metcalfe, that therefore he is opposed to Responsible Government; *• as well (ho saysj might it bo alleged that the Queen is hostile to tho Reform Bill — because the leading persons and the whole party who opposed that bill are now the members and supporters of her Government." The Reform As- sociation do not argue against Mr. Sherwood or any other person, being a convert to the doctrine of Responsible Government, or wish to exclude them from its benefits, but thoy have appealed to their fellow Colonists, asking whether they do not know very many persons who always opposed Responsible Government, an J \i 16 who Alill tront its principles as rebellious and tronsonablot who support Sir Charles Motculfu without any real or professed change of opinion, and I leave it to my readers whether this is not a moro foir exposition ot' Sir Charles Metcalfe's words and acts, than Mr. Uyersons deduction, that Sir Charles Muicalfo brought to Canada forty years of experience, of the wants, wishes, onu Government of a Iree country, because ho spent forty ycurs in the British East Indies. Sir Charles Metcalfe's humanity and liberality, Mr. Ryorson aays, have prevented him from inflicting upon the whole country, the evils which the conduct of a few individuals was calculated to [>roducc. " Mo has not formed a high party Government as he might lave done" — and yet in another purt of his introductory address Mr. Ryerson avows that ** Responsible Government is as much the established recogniz.ed govornmcnt of Canada as tho Reform Rill is tho established law of Groat Britain and Ireland, and no Governor or party can mako it otherwise, were they so disposed." Now if Responsible Government bo the established Government of Canada, and if the Governor cannot make it otherwise, how could he form the high party Government Mr. Ryerson speaks of: But according to Mr. Ryorson, ho might have formed such a Government, bocauso ho could; and according to Mr. Ryerson it would be contrary to the princi|)les of Rcsponsibin Government which is established, and which Sir Charles Metcalfe cannot alter. The conclusion is inevitable, that Sir Charles Mctcalle may do, what he can't do, which as we used to learn at school is impossible, of which conclusion^ I respectfully beg to make tho Rev. Doctor a present. I have thus Sir, lightly gone over Mr. Ryerson's introductory address, purposely deferring until my next, remarks upon his argu- ment relating to the question at issue. Had he signed himself the Doctor, or Leonidas, or three hundred Spartans, or Wesley, or Fletcher, or Robert Hall, or Chalmers, I should have been spared the necessity for this letter, but he has placed his name, and his former conduct, before the public as bearing upon the matter at issue, and as adding weight to hisarguironts. I could not therefore^ as he says, pass it over ; nor would it have been courteous to treat his name, and his inducements as nothing. I think it a piece of misjudged egotism, to mix the name of a public writer up with his arguments : it always is calculated to mislead, and at the best is loss of time, and of printing materials, which now bid fair to bo too much in request to be wasted. The above are my sentiments Sir, but as they are also the opinions of hundreds of thousands of good loyal Canadians, I have no right to a monopoly. I therefore Sir, with all deference to your readers, subscribe myself your, and their humble servant. LEGION— FOR WE ARE MANY. raiMXD AT TUK SJUMlMJkiR OfflC£, KIKG STRXST, TOUOMO. L E T T E II II. Sir, In my first letter on Iho subject of Mr. Rycrson's dofoncc, I deferred my remarks upon the (luestion in dispute, and confined myself principally to the attack upon tho Doctor's account of him- selfy hit inducements and reasons for thrusting himself into tho arena of political contention. If there were any portion of Mr. Ryerson's argument that he was bound to make out more clearly and satisfactorily than another, it was tliat part whicb ho introduced with- out necessity, and which was not necessarily involved in tho disputed question ; of tho cause the Doctor has adopted, ho must make the best he can, and it may bo expected that if he cannot find good arguments, he will produce bad ones in disguise ; but whore he introduced extraneous and remote matter, and had so free a choice either to introduce or omit it, he was under a particular obliga* tion to produce no questionablo statement either in fact or in reasoning. Thus for example, Mr. Ryorson being a true prophet in 1834, supposing he had established that point, would not by any mean* prove that everything ho chose to prophecy ever afterwards must be true, and that therefore he must now bo in tho right ; but when he alleged his prophetic vision of 1834, as tending to prove his gift of teeing into futurity now, he should have taken great care that he was not liable to be proved a false prophet on his own n Muced occasion, and lest the argument might bo turned agains thu. If. This I have done successfully, for, I have shown that if be is to be believed. Responsible Government, which he prognosticated and warned the people of Upper Canada against in 1834, did, in con- sequence 01 the agitation commenced in 1834, become the recog- nized Constitution of Canada in 1841, that Constitution being as he says, adopted by himself, Mr. Sherwood, Sir Charles Metcalfe, and others, and therefore British, lawful, and loyal. In like man- ner, there was no necessity for him to allege that British India was a country, in which experience of Representative Government might be and was acquired, but when he thought of doing so, ho 18 ill : Mi should have asked whether his readers were so profoundly igno- rant, or so miserably infatuated as not to know, that the civilized world knows not a region in which there is such a total absence of the form and substance o'' free constitution, or of responsibility oven the . lost remote to popular opinion : he should have consi- dercQ that the Canadian peop'o whether of French, British^ Ameri- can or other origin to whom he was addressing himself, in Canada, would not endure patiently being brought into comparison with Iho natives of Hindoostan or Bombay, whether Rajecpoots or Pariahs, Mussulman or Pagan idolaters, or to have their civil and religious rights and liberties placed on the same footing. If forced to the defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe's appointment, ho might have argued that as Napoleon Buonaparte spent his life in a camp, and yet became a law-giver : and, as Julius Ccesar was also a soldier, and yet a historian ; so might our gifted Governo'* General have spent the whole life, in which his notions of govern- ment were formed and established, in an acknowledged and per- fect despotism, and yet be imbued with the principles of the British Conartitution ; but he was forced into no such argument, and his is the wanton and uncalled for fallacy, that India is the school in which the law of Parliament, and the free Constitution of England may beat be studied, so much so as to give the Statesmen of that school a superiority over any other in the whole of the British timpira If Mr. Ryeroon had recommended the deposed Dey of Algiers, to be made Speaker of the House of Commons, because of his necessary experience in Parliamentary usage, the Doctor would scarcely have committed a greater blunder, or offered a greater insult to those he addressed. In short, and without again going over the ground discussed in my first letter, in every point in which Mr. Ryerson iias set up claims to b3 listened to with confidence and respect., he has shown himself not entitled to either, so that I find myself commencing the discussion with his claims to credence and attention, perfect nullities upon his own arguments, and from his own pen. I hope to have little more to say to the Doctor or his motives, and I shall therefore leave them to stand or fall) se public opinion may decide. In the introductory address I find the following pro|.osition, which I give in the Doctor's vtwn words * — ** Mr. Baldwin has now split with Sir Charles Metcalfe, and has persuaded his colleagues and many others to join bim : split not upon a mere question of local policy, but upon the allcgatior. against Sir Charles, that ho 19 has violated the fundamontal principle of Responsible Government, dis Excellency alleges that what has been charged upon him, as the violation of the principle of Responsible Government, is the maintenance of an essential prerogative of the Crown in the working of that system, and that he recognizes the system itself, both theoretically and practicall}*, as much as Mr. Baldwin does." ** Now as it is not a question of local policy between two parties in the country, or between one party and the Governor-General, but a question of Constitutional law as to what Is and what is not to be the constitutional prerogative of the Crown, or the right of the subject in the system of Responsible Government, and as it is avowed, in the resolutions of 1841, that the Governor is respon* sible to the Imperial authority alone ; and as the question involves beyond all doubt an Imperial Interest, of the highest and most sacred character, the Imperial authority is unquestionably the legitimate tribunal of appeal in such a question — the only con- st'tufional judge whether the right of power in dispute between the Governor*General and Mr. Baldwin, is the legitimate properly of the Crown or of the subject, the same as the Court of Queen's Bench is the legal tribunal of decision on any question of property between man and man. Mr. Baldwin practically renounces the Imperial authority by refusing to appeal to it, and by appealing through the Toronto Association to the people of Canada. If the people of Canada are the tribunal of judgment upon one question of constitutional prerogative, they are so upn every question of Constituiional prerogative and Canada is an independent country. Mr. Baldwin's proceeding therefore, not only leads to independence but involves a practical declaration of independence before the arrival of the Fourth of July, and all the declarations and vehemence of the Toronto Association cannot make it otherwise." The word locaf, I apprehend means in or belonging to a place, — local policy as applied to Canada means, policy in or belonging to Canada, and a question of local policy as applied to Canada means a question of policy in or belonging to Canada. Now tho question upon which the late Executive Council resigned, was purely one of tho administration .«f the Government, of, in and relating to Canada, and therefore, if logic has a rule, a language a meaning, it was a question of local policy : and the Doctor is so fnr wrong in his conclusion. Again, a question betwcjn two parties, is a question in which one parly is intore&tei in and holds one side qf tho question, and rl 20 another oppositely interestedi an adverse side. Now the friends of the late Executive Council held one side of this question and their opponents another ; and therefore it was a question between two partic ; and, moreover, the Governor-General held one side of tho same question and the late Executive Council the other ; therefore it was a question between the Governor-General and |he late Executive Council. ; ^ •». v..//, Again, a question of constitutional law as to what is and what is not the prerogative of the Crown, or the right of the subject, is a question of law, and as the legal authority of the Governor*Gene* ml, to exercise the prerogative of the Crown as he pleased, or as he was instructed, was not questioned, there was no question of constitutional law involved. Again, if there had been a question of constitutional law, u to what is or is not the prerogative of the Crown, involved, the legality of the acts, upon which the question arose, ^ould be tried by the Courts of law, and neither the local or imperial authorities mentioned by the Doctor would be the tribunal of judgment. Now Sir, as my object is not to prove that there was no question at all, which perhaps might be shown from the Doctor's Logic, I t shall states what the question was : it was a question as to the ad- ministration of the Royal Prerogative, which prerogative is a trust placed in the hands of the Queen, and of her delagtes, for the benefit of the people : and. Her Majesty's delegate in this province exercises, or should exercise, that orerogative for the benefit of the people of this Province. Unless in so far as the prerogative is limited by positive law, it is in England and in Canada, as unrestrained as in Russia or the East ^ Indies. Under despotic Governments however, the people have shown themselves parties to the administration of the prerogative* by the dethronement of So/ereigns, and the condemnation of ministers. ' v-'-'v, v^.:- - ^, .■_,.:.. ..v. «,i;j v-vmjs, ' In England the f ecple are admitted parties to the administration f the prerogative, they uphold it with their strength when they consider it to be administered for their benefit, they withhold that support when they adjudge the contrary. But for the acts of the Queen, all who advice them are held accountable, and her known sworn ministers aro supposed to advise all her acts, and are held accountable for all. • Now the position maintained by Sir Francis Head and other Governors, was, that they were themselves the ministers of the i 91 Crown, and were responsible for all acts, done in the name of ihe t Queen, within the limita of their delegated authority. ' But as this responsibility was not and could not be to the people of Canada, and as under such a system, the only way of reaching Governors and the acts of Governors, was by complaint to Eng- land, — the value of which privilege of complaining had been fully/ tested and found worthless, the people of Canada sought to be per*' mitted to influence directly the administration of the Royal Prero* gative, as regards Canadian afiUirs, in the same manner as the pec* pie of England influence the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in Imperial afTairs ; they therefore claimed, that the Governor should have advisers responsible for his acts, in the same sense that the ministers of the Crown in England are responsible for the acts of the Sovereign ; and until the demand was accedef^ to, it is very evident they were not in the same or the like political condi* > tion of their fellow subjects in England. ,. • If the resolutions of 1841, assented to by the Crown, produced any change in the mode of administering the Royal Prerogative in this colony, it was the change thus demanded ; and that change makes the people of Canada judges of the acts of the advisers of the Crown, to the same extent that the people of England are judges of the conduct of the ministers of the Crown there : that is to say, through their 'representatives they may grant them their confidence or withhold it, they may support the Government ad- vised by the ministers or oppose it, and they may if they see fit become public accusers of their ministers in the High Court of Parliament, which latter in the Colony is a ri;'' as yet in the ab- stract, having never been practically used : in short Responsible GoverrjRient means this, or the term has no meaning. •:i But Mr. Ryerson would argue that as the question was one of * prerogative, it was one of such a character, as the Imperial au- thorities alone could judge of. 1 have ^hown already that it was not a question of prerogative law, ind, if not of law, ii must have «been one of discretion, and that if it were a question of law, the vCourts, and not the Imperial Ministers, were the judges. Now, as the sole duty of the Executive Council is to advise the Crown in the administration of the prerogative, and as every question which can possibly arise between them and the Government must be one of this nature, according to Mr. Ryerson's argument, the Imperial authorities alone must be the proper tribunal in all questions, which can ari^je out of the acts of the Government or the advice of the 92 ii!/:i Counsellors. Where then would bo Responsible Government ? Why Sir, tlie Reverend Ductor would not leave us ** a shade of iho virus" of Responsible Government. Mr. Ryerson says that if the people of Canada are the tribunal of judgment upon one question of constitutional prerogative, they are so in every question of constitutional prerogative. Now tho offer of the office of Superinieudant of Education to Mr. RyersoOt is an exercise of prerogative, and entering into a treaty of com. merce with the United States, is also an exercise of prerogative, on both of which, questions may arise in which the people of Canada may have an interest, and in which they may have opinions. If however they disapproved of the Doctor's appointment, they would call the Colonial servants of the Crown to account, and be them< selves the judges of the question. If they were aggrieved by the treaty, they would approach the Imperial authorities as petitioners and complainants, and would not pretend to be judges. What be* comes then of Mr. Ryerson's axiom, that if the people of Canada be the tribunal of judgment upon one question of prerogative, they must be so in all ? Aye, but says Mr. Ryerson, when Sir Charles Metcalfe and I decide we have the strength of an Empire : — you are Colonists, are you prepared for a collision? But Mr. Ryerson may still say. Sir Charles Metcalfe is personally responsible to the Imperial Ministry, who may sustain him in his acts and interpretations, however subversive of the principles of Responsible Government they may be considered by the Canadian people ; and if he said so, he would only say what we all know to be true. But Sir, it is not for that reason that the people of Ca- nada, should support Sir Charles Metcalfe in what they consider wrong, or that they should join him in stigmatizing them, who have asserted what they, the people of Canada, consider right It may be a Christian duty to submit to wrong, but it is straining the point too far, to say we should aid in its infliction. Governors and Imperial authorities, we must remember have denied many claims of colonists which they have afterwards acceeded to, and amongst the number, Responsible Government, and in continuing to demand it notwithstanding the denials of authority, thejf are right in de> manding that Responsible Government should be rightly interpret* ed and administered, and when they have made up their own minds as to the justice and extent of these claims, there are peace* ful and constitutional means of urging, if not of enforcing that claim. God forbid that a contemplation of any other, should ionally ia his es of nadian now to jf Ca- nsider obavo may point and laims ongst mand de< rpret- own cace* : that lould ■j5 23 , have extended beyond Sir Charles Metcalfe's answers, or Mr. Ryerson's defence, ami when tliesc persons warn us against our own rebellious intentions, thny do it not sincerely or because thoy believe in any danger. They do it to take from the pcopio of Canada the aflection of their Sovereign, and their follow-sub- jects : they do it that they mny terrify us with the Imperial iEgis, the strength of an Empire : they do it though they know in their hearts that if an enemy to our Queen appeared on our frontier, the defence of Canada would not * confined to the adulators of Sir Charles Metcalfe. But Li them take care, others are listening to our controversies, and though the people of Canada may not be persuaded that they are disafTectod, there are others, to whom the talc is too welcome, not to be believed, and who will not think for the sake of anger, or desire of po- litical victor}', a representative of the Majesty of England would charge colonists with disalTuction ; and when England sends her ambassadors to check the rapacity of a foreign power, and would wish a foreign people to bo impressed with a feeling of the strength of the Empire, though not threatened with it, as we are, can you not imagine the wily Yankee counting up his chances ? Here, he says, on our North Western border lies Canada, a country which hems us in : a country with two millions of in* habitants : a country the want of which destroys our political balance, and places our free population in the hands of Southern slave-holders : , a country in which more than twoMhirds of the representatives of the people have given their votes against the Governor, votes which that Governor proclaims to indicate dis- affection and desire for separation ; are these not calculations for an enemy ? And should the storm of war burst upon our fron- tier, and a ravaged province show the rage of a foe, when he finds Canadians loyal, will it not be too late sir to ask who in- vited the enemy jn ? who told him there were rebels in Canada 1 will it not be too late to eulogize money-spending Governors who have studied the science of pol.tical liberty in India? Thermopylses of death may then. Sir, luae some of their classic beauty, they may exhibit more truth than poetry. But, Sir, I must pause, whether we are loyal or disaffected, is, I suppose, it prerogative question, of which we are not judges. Mr. Ryerson, very truly says, in his opening to the defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, No. 1. Every man in Canada is deeply in- terested in the decision of the question at isiiuc, between Sir 14 kill Charlci MetcalTo and tho lato Councillors, and he says hecannol investigate both sides fuirly, without maintaining a feeling of impartiality. Yet immedintely afterwards, he breaks out into an suJogium on Sir Charles Metcalfe, the fortune spender in tho country,; the exprcsscr of liberal views ; the manifester of patient and inflexible determinations to establish liberal Counsels, and administer Government upon principles of equal justice, to all classes, without regard to sect or party. He says the attempt made, is to destroy the public character of such a man, and banish him from the country. Now I have no objection to Mr. Ryerson's praises of tho Governor-General, or to his misrepresenting the objects of tho Reform Association. It is right he should make the best of his case. But he has eulogized the Governor-General, and censured the objects of the Association for some purpose | and that |>urpo80 is, to create a feeling in favour of one party, and against tho other. What right has he then, to pretend to be advising im- partiality. Can he not write three lines without a contradiction of himself t or does he lay down rules for discussion, and conside* ration of the question, for the wanton purpose of showing his own readiness to violate them in every respect. Why should he aay, that in the investigation, neither the reader, nor the writer has any thing to do with the motives or merits of the parties con- cerned — and yet commence his paper, with the praise of onO party, and an invective against the motives of the other t Surely if Mr. Ryerson be sincere in his advice, be has at least a strange mode of showing it. Why should he aek thb people of Canada, to consider the question without " fear," when he threatens them, and their families with a oolli&ion with the strength of the Empire $ or without favour — when Sir Charles Metcalfe's mode of distri- buting his private fortune is dragged into a question on preroga- tive 1 .■ ' ' ^-^ .""'" ' ■ ■"•■^'■"■' '% I But he praises Sir Charles Metoalfe, for his inflexible deterUni- 1 nation to administer the Government, without regard to sect or I party. This has something to do with the question at issue, and in examining the value of the praise, Mre may arrive at somO principles to be used in tho after discusssion. A party may be defined for our present purpose, as a number of persons professing an opinion, or opinions, in which they agree. Opposite parties, as two parties each respectively agreeing amongst }> own members, and opposing the opinion, or opinions of the other ^mu* M party : as the whole of a community, ii rarely of one opioion« the opinion of the majority, or of those forming the largest party, is, for the purpose of government, said to b« pub- lie opinion : at least it is the opinion, which for all practical pur- poses must be taken to be public opinion. What is just, and right, and good maybe the object of a despo- tic, as well as of a free government. No one dreams of alleging that absolute power is inconsistent with good government ; all I need maintain is, that absolute power in the ruler is inconsistent tvith all our notions of free institutions ; an absolute ruler may with the best intentions, look within his own breast for the rules of right and wrong, to his own reason for his policy ; and if hit Itoind be better constituted; and his means of information, greater than that of all others, his government may be better and wiser than any government influenced by popular opinion. To such a potentate, it is true praise to say of him, that he possessed ad inflexible determination to administer his government without re- gard to party ; because the opinions which make parties, are beneath his consideration. He judges, he thinks, he rules for him- self ; he puts down public opinion, for it is but an impediment in his way, and he rules irrespective of patty, because to him public opinion is as nothing. But just in proportion as the form of a government is removed from a despotism : disregard to public opinion becomes a crime in the ruler ; and ceases to be a subject for eulogy. And he who administers a government free and popular in its form, without regard to public opinion, or to party opinion, call it which we please, is a violator of the constitution lie is bound to uphold, and insincere in his professions of attach* ment to that constitution. Swift, in ridiculing party divisions^ describes the Kingdom of Lilliput as divided into two parties* 6ne of whom wore low heels to their shoes, and the other high heeds } and if Sir Charles Metcalfe, had been made Governor of Lilliput, ho might have governed its diminutive inhabitants without regard to their heels ; and have chosen his Coundillors from both parties indifibrently, caring nothing for their disputes, and des** pising their party diiTerences — but who would allege, that he waS influenced by public opinion, or that he was administering Res- ponsible Government t It is however just as a pigmy people*[ tliat Sir Charles has always regarded Canadians, and it is with\ this view, that he takes to himself the praise of inflexible deter- mination ; but the inflexible determination of a ruler under thu M DriiiHh Constitution is nntional clRtorminntion. nnd personal deter- inination which opposes this, is do.spotisrn. Tho throat to umphiy whatever force may be nuccNsary to enfurcn it is tyranny, and the pretence that it is consistent with Ucsponsible Cruverninent, is hypocrisy. For the purpose of avoiding unnecessary repetition, I shall at present fortiear from noticing the contents of Mr. Rycrson's number one, so fur as it is tukon up in developing his plan o( attack; there are two points of illustration introduced by him, which I do not wish hereafter to return to, and which I shall the re fore mention now. . ** No Government was over subverted, but by the assertion of sound political principles fuUely applied : It was so (he says) in the days of Charles the first, it is so with the Toronto Association." If Mr. Ryerson were to test the truth of his assertions relating to Canadian affairs, upon the same claims to correctness, which hii historical illustrations are entitled to, I should have little pains in overthrowing his argument. His aasorlion now quoted is false, and wrong in every possible point of view, as any one of the boys of his College might have told him ; for many Governments have been subverted by the assertion of false and unsound politic cal principles, many by the assertion of true political principles truly applied, and many without the assertion of any political principles at all ; and i'' Mr. Ryerson wishes to say there was nothing in the Government of Charles the first, or Louis the six- teenth which required amendment by the assertion of true political principles truly applied, he is quite welcome to make the case of Sir Charles Metcalfe a parallel one. Out my readers will at all events remember that Charles, and Louis, were both martyrs to the false principles of the divine right of Kings ; and tho assertion of the supremacy of regal will, over public opinion. If Charles the first had succeeded in establishing that right and supremacy, the British Constitution as now enjoyed would have been unknown : and if the ancient regime of France had been maintained, that Nation would not have the semblance of a free Constitution which it now possesses; and if Mr. Ryerson means to argue, that because lamentable consequences, have resulted from the overthrow of Government founded upon principles adverse to the present British Constitution, and maintained with all the power which could be used to support the Imperial Autho- rities, I have no disposition to controvert his argument. We do not seek the ovortlirow of (lovornmont, and it is Mr. Ryorftohi nnd not iho Toronto Associution, who invokes the arm of |>ower. But Mr. RyerMin says, that if hin (Sir Cliurlos Mutuallu's views) and acts are unconstitutional, then would he if a Sovereign* instead of the representative of a Sovereign, be dethroned either by decapitation, as was Charles the first, or by forced abdication, as was James the second, but as it is, ho must be dethroned by removal. Now Sir, I do protest against Mr. Ryerson's coniinu* ally bringing into view his pictures of violence, rebellion, and death. The Toronto Association are fur more interested in the preservation of peace, and tranquility in Canada than either ho, or Sir Charles Metcalfe : they are using peaceful constitutional means of asserting what they consider the rights and liberties of Canadian Colonists : and neither dethronement, decapitation, or abdication are in their view. The people of Canada do not choso their Governor, or desire to do so — and Sir Charles Metcalfe is just as welcome to administer the Government constitutionally as any other Governor : and any other Governor will meet precisely the same obstruction that he does, should he attempt to rule this country otherwise than constitutionally : and if Sir Charles Met- calfe has brought upon himself personally, odium and dislikot these are not the consequences even of his mistaken policy, but of his having wantonly placed himself in the front of political agitation ; of his having personally joined in party crimination ; of his having personally, foully impeached the motives of others ; and of his having attempted to make his motives, the rule by which ' the Constitution of Canada is to be construed. In the second number of Mr. Ryerson's defence, after stating the importance of adhering to established usages, in which I fully concur~-he proceeds to give a definition of the relative position of the Sovereign, and the Cabinet Council in which 1 also concur, and which I give as he has quoted it, with the case of the Earl of Orford, and the Lord Chancellor Somers as he has quoted them : — « ** That every reader may fully understand this question, let it be observed that the power of the Cabinet Cuunuil, as distinct from that of the Sovereign, is unknown in the British Constitution, which consists of King Lords and Commons only — that the Sove> reign, not possessing the inherent attribute of ubiquity, acts through instruments, the chief of whom constituting a Cabinet, are called S3 miniitors, and aro responsible to Farliamont for the acts and mea* •ures of the Executive. And they are juttly responsible ; becaus« they are iucumbents of oHice by their own consent^ and are con- ■enting parties, at least, to the acts and measures, in the execu- tion or adoption of which they are voluntary instruments or advis- ers. * It is true,' says Do Lolme, * the King cannot be arraigned before Judges ; because, if there wero any that could pass sen- tence upon him, it would be they, and not he, who must finally possess tho Executive power ; but, on the other hand, the King cannot act without Ministers ; it is, therefore, those Ministers,— that is, those indispensable instruments, — whom the Commona attack. If, Tor example, the public money has been employed in A manner contrary to the declared intention of those who granted it» an impeachment may be brought against those whe have the mandgement of it If any abuse of power is committed, or, in general, anything done contrary to Mte public weal, they prose- cute those who have been either the instruments or the advisen * of the measure.' '* * It was upon these principles,' adds Do Lolme, in a notei * that the Commons, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, impeached the Earl of Orford, who had advised the Treaty of Par- tition, and the Lord Chancellor Somers, who had affixed the Great Seal to it.' ** By referring either to Smollei's History of England^ or to Burnel*s History of his own Times, for 1701, tho reader will find that the Earl of Orford did not advise the treaty at all, but consented to certain parts of it, — that Chancellor Somers, as Privy Council, had advised against it, but, as Chancellor, he obeyed the Royal command, in affixing the Great Seal to it. Yet tho Commons held both Orford and Somers responsible, and de- clared, that, * by advising his Majesty to conclude the Treaty of Partition, whereby large Territories of the Spanish Monarchy were delivered up to France, they were guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor.' " Now, though, in point of fact, neither Orford nor Somers knew anything of the treaty until after it had been determined upon by the King — though both of them objected to it as a whole — yet they were held responsible even as advisers, upon the con- stitutional evidence that they both remained in office, and one of them affixed the Great Seal to a blank, which was after- wards filled up by others, at the command of the King, with tho M articles of the Partition Treaty. And such has been the doctrine of Miniaterial reaponvibilily in England from that lime to this. *' It will bo icon, in this case, that tho Commons did not inquire or care (and has not done so for one hundred and fifty yearsy whether the King determined upon tho measure before or after taking advice of his Ministers : whether they had or had not an opportunity of tendering him advice before ho decided on the mea* euro ; with the conduct of the King, or his mode of intercourse with his Ministers, the Common^ had nothing to do ; it was enough that the Ministers assented to an act or measure by voluntarily remaining in ofHce. George the Third would scarcely allow of any Ministerial interference with his exercise of ecclesiastical patronage — especially the appointment of Bishops — though Minia- (ers remaining in ofTice wore responsible. George the Fourth made two military appointments while tho Duke of Wellington was Cabinet Minister and at the head of that department, and of which the Duke knew nothing until he saw them announced in the papers. Yet neither the Duke nor Mr. Pitt ever came down to the Lords or Commons with on impeachment against his Sovereign, that ha entertained views which led to acts * inconsistent with the principle which had been introduced into the administration of aflfairs' since 1688 ; and therefore that the Parliamont must either sacrifice that principle or support them. Neither house of Parliament would have sufiered such an impeachment of the Sovereign to be made within its walls ; and such a manoeuvre on the part of any Minister to excite sympathy and strengthen himself, by damaging his Sever- eign, who might not take or ask his advice, would cause him to be spurned from every hustings in England, whatever might be his merits in other respects. But more on this subject hereafter." If ever there was an unhappy quoler of " wise saws and modern instances," it is Mr. Egerton Ryerson. Here he fully admits *the responsibility of Ministers, and, by implication, of Cana- dian Executive Counsellors, for the acts of the Government (an admission, by the way, Sir Charles Metcalfe never made) ; • and yet he denies their claim to be consulted. And because the Earl of Orford, and Lord Chancellor Somers-^the first, who did not advise the treaty at all, and the other who advised against it, chose to remain in office, and were impeached and disgraced for what they did not advise, Mr. Ryorson would infer that it no forovrr nflcrwardu wns tlio duty of Ministers lo remain in the (jovcrnmont, nnd to bo imponcliod oikJ tlixgracoJ for acts which tliry nnvur miviHud, nor hiul the opportunity of ndvising. Tho KnrI of Orford nnd tho Chanotllor attomptcd to defend Ihomselvesi on tho ground that the King, and not thoy, mado the treaty : and bocauso this dufcnco was hold nnught, we are to bo told that it if the duty of Ministers to oboy commands, and submit to punish* mrnt, and falnely pretend lo bo advisers of the Crown, when, in fact, they are not. Had Lord Orford done his duty to the public, and resigned, because ho was not consulted, and had Lord Chan* ccllor Somers rvtusud to place the Great Seal to a treaty of whioh ho disapproved, and hod resigned his place, they would have been octing constitutionallyv and they would have escaped ceo- 8ure ; nay more, they would have placed themselves in a position lo accuse the real advisers of the treaty. And suppose they had so acted, and if the reasons of their resignation had been required and given, would any one say that they acted wrongly, or rebel- liously, or that they had resigned because the King would not allow them to make a tool of him, or that they had attempted to infringe upon tho Royal Prerogative : but it was because they /did not resign, and because they remained in tho Gbvernmentt as Ministers, when they were not consulted, and when their advice was not followed, that they were found guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor : a sweet position Ministers would have, , according to the joint doctrines of Sir Charles Metcalfe and Mr. Egorlon Ryerson, — they would bo rebels jf they resigned, and guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor if they remained. The position of Baron Munchausen, between the bear and the crocodile, was nothing to this. Again, because Geor3u Me Third would allow of scarcely ony Ministerial interference in the appointment of Bishops, and because Ministers chose to remain responsible for his appoint- ments, Mr. Ryerson would argue that it is the duty of all Minis- ters to do the same. I think. Sir, the question is not what George the Third did — for he did many things that were wrong ; but whether, in so doing, ho acted constitutionally ; and whaler ho was acting conscientiously and justly in rendering persons liable to punishment for acts in which he would allow no inter- ference 1 Had the Ministers, who were not allowed to interfere, resigned, and had tho reason of their resignation been required and given, what would be said of George tho Third if he had v.^ •1 put forlh |Miblic (loritnicnt.i iti Iiin own nnmr, anying iho Mtnitf' tcrs wnru disiiiructud, iiiiiJ lliiil iliuy litid nlit'iiiptod to niuko a tool of hiiii ? liut, Sir, (jiiut.'ii Victoria is os good an rxumple as Guurgo ihu Tliird : hIio does not coinplaiit of being mndu a t(Hyl of, though tho hidicfl of her own chnnibur are iniorCurod with, liut ugnin, Sir, the Duku of Wellington wrni Cabinet Minixtur when Georgo tho Fourth itmdo two miliinry oppointinonts^ without liis knowledge, and tho Ministor got his firat information in th« newspapers t tho (piisiion hero ognin is, not what George tho Fourth did, but, wus this act so extraordinary as to bo mentioned in history as a right and constitutional act 1 ond hod tho Duke of Wellmgton com|)laincd, as probably he did, and been told there was an antagonism between tho King and himself, and tliat tho King hod an inflexible determination to do just as he pleased, and that the Duke's complaint was on attempt to make a tool of him ; and had tho Uuke resigned, because he considered that advising was his duty, and not an infringement of the Royal prerogative, what would Parliament have said upon tho question ? ' But Mr. Ryerson says, that neither tho Duke of Wellington or Mr. Pitt came down with an impcaclinicnt ngainst the Sovereign. One very good reason was, because they remained in office, and cliobo to be responsible for tlc^ ' acts of the Sovereign : another is, that if they had explained in Parliament, their explanation would bo a defence of themselves for resigning. If their prin- ciples wore upheld, those of tho Sovereign must have been denied ; ond no one could have called the dcfcnco an impeach- I roent of the Sovereign. If Mr. Ryerson alleges, that, because the Earl of Orford was made responsible for a treaty ho never odvised, ond that, therefore, Ministers are always bound to submit to public aflairs being carried on without their advice ; — that Lord Chancellor Somers was punished because he ploced the Great Seal to a treaty to which he was opposed ; that Mr. Pitt was allowed scarcely to interfere in the nomination of Bishops, and, there- fore, Ministers should not attempt to interfere in nominations ; — that the Duke of Wellington remained in office, as Commander- in-Chief, when two military appointments were made without his knowledge, therefore all military appointments may be properly made w.thout tlio knowledge of tho Commander-in-Chief ; — if these be his arguments, and ho be right, then tho late Execu- I ¥:';li( 3a live Coupcil were wrong in resigning ; in thai case they ought to have pretended to renponsibility, they ought to have lub-^ mitted to blame, for po! not theirs : if he be not right, iheyt % 80 far, have the best of the argument. -< k' >.. i vi If Mr. Ryerson, however, does not mean this, but merely would blame them for what he calls an impeachment of Sir Charles Metcalfe, I think it is pretty well understood who atteropte':! im- peachment, and who were upon the defensive ; and if mis is not now understood, it will probably be so before the end of the r'iscussion. I shall commence my next letter by remarking upon Mr. Ryer- eon's charges of ir^^i...ality ; after which I trust we shall at length come to ^he real points in question, that is to say. Whether Sir Charles Metcalfe has really adhered to the Resolutions of 1841, and to the principles and practice of Responsible jrovernment. , LEGION. -.1 t: ■i!'' '|iii. • J' i < ■ : : ■ !.- ■ •• • • ii 'i. ■, -1' "i . ■-..w n^-r.'--- ■' <;,.:,:i''^ ;'^;:»'r . .Vl\-! iA- ^;0 . ,i-^i-' - i ■> :; >^hr->'< ^.j ^.^ ,-^'^ ■ -^;--^,;a:^ iJ ' '■/ .IP -f-U: 1 V'. • i iui ::' LETTER 111. v.j 1, .1. C5IR, 1^i:n...rH ,M Mr. Rycrson having stated his views of the responsibility of ministers, proceeds to consider the grounds of the resignation of ministers in general, and their mode of justification befc^e Par- liament. I fear Sir, that in exposing Mr. Ryerson's fallacies, I have made my remarks very tedious and uninteresting to that class of your readers, who are indifferent on the point of his infalhbiiity or author- ity on political matters. I thfnk it right,the refore, to request their in- dulgence^ upon the ground that these remnrksare inte.tded not only for those who may bo led to regard Mr. Ryerson's arguments bear- ing upon the discussion in hand, in proportion as he establishes his propositions, but also for the benefit of that portion of the Cana* dian public who may be induced to believe any thing which Mr. Ryerson asierts, or to give way to any reasoning that he u^es : thus showing that Mr. Rycrson may be mistaken in any point, whether as a prophet, a philoso >her, a historian,, or a politician, will be a novelty to many ; and proof that he is wrong in almost every statement he makes, whether important or otherwise, cannot well fail to defeat the purpose for which he, as Mr. Ryerson, leaves the pu!pit and the professors chair, to appear in the forum. He says that ministers may fall in a minority in one or both Houses of Parliament, and then the ground of their resignation can be explained without divulging any secret ; this Sir may be very true, but the difficulty Sir Charles Metcalfe is in at present, is to explain the secret not of ministers resigning, but of their coming into ofiice, and remaining -r for six months, in direct detiance o a parliamentary majority. Ho suys, ministers may resign on account of a difference with their colleagues ; then he says that almost any mode of explanation would be safe, as both parties are in the same house and on the same footing ; but, he says, the case is different when there is a disagreement with the Sovereign. Let US| if you please, examine the value of this distinction. |, s 34 ih-1 . 1 tuko ii fur grantod, that when a question of policy arises m u cabinet, the Sovereign foliowa cither one opinion or the other, and tho resigning minister is ho whoso advice is not followed ; a Sovereign in this caso disagrees with a portion of tho Council : whun the Sov- ereign disagrees with a whole cabinet, it is because he seeks other advice, and follows it : a constitutional Sovereign not being supposed either to agree or disagree without advice. What diitinction, then, can be drawn between a disagreement between a minister and his colleagues, and a disagreement between a minister and new advisers. The colleagues are, it is true, in parliament, so ought tho new ad- visers to bo ; and Lord John Russell, who advised her Majesty not to accede to Sir Robert Peel's proposal to change the Ladies of the Bedchamber, was in Parliament, and was in that respect on Iho same fooling with Sir Robert Peel. The disagreement was, con« Btitutionally and politically speaking, between them, and nut between Her Majesty personally and Sir Robert Peel. ■, >• But, Sir, the present case comes within Mr. Rycrson'sown I'lGi. lion of a disagreement between a minister and his colleaguo<>, be- cause the whole cabinet did not resign ; and, Mr. Daly, who must be supposed to have advised the Governor, was in Parliament, and literally and strictly upon the same footing with the retiring minis- ters, and equally responsible with them for bis statemeats and opinions. But, Sir, discussions in Council are subject to the same obligation of secrecy, whether the Sovereign takes a part in them or not, or whether the Sovereign is advised by a new minister or by one or more of tho old ones. Mr. Ryerson's distuiction is unfounded, dangerous, and unconstitutional ; a Sovereign's personal character requiies no such guard as Mr. Ryerson imaR;ines, it can never be called in question legally, or constitutionally. But if a Sovereign condescends to make personal accujations, and to place subjects on their defence against them, there are inferences which must be. drawn from the defence, which no fiction of law can avoid, so long as subjects are permitted to account for their conduct, and call for the judgment of their peers. I however am ready to make an admission of a much broader character, and quite sufficient for Mr. Ryerson's purposes, if tho principle be ail ho wishes to maintain ; I admit that no minister should disclose the ground of his resignation when it arises from disagreements in the cabinet, in any case without permission. I cannot bo guilty of the legal absurdity of admitting Mr. Ryerson's I 85 f ' ',.. doctrine of iho liability of iho minister to a [iroscculioii for perjury, but ho would bo held liable to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors ; this surely is enough for Mr. Uycrson : he need not show why it is so ;— it is so, and ho should be Bntisfied. Mr. Rycrson very considerately says, *' should it bo alleged that they have had little or no cxixsrionco of Uritish practice and usage in suchcasos, 1 admit tho pica" *' I admit that iho late Councillors appear to disadvantogo, when compared with Sir Charles Metcalfe, in affairs of Government, that they havo not, like him, been born under tho British system of Responsiblo Government." Kind in- dulgent Doctor ! how mu.h tho lato Executive Counsellors must bo obh'ged to you for your intended mediation and for your ready excuses ; but do wait until the plea is pleaded, before you take up tho vacant oiTico of Attorney-General and admit it on behalf of your Imperial master : take care lest you have enough on your hands, without granting indulgences, to disafTucted Executive Coun- sellors. You are fond of tho character of an unsolicited advo- cate — do please to confine yourself to those who want your assis- tance. It appears that the ExccuMve Counsellors had a long personal interview with tho Governor-General on Friday, in which they stated their views and heard His Excellency's objections, and they proposed another interview the following day, upon the same sub« ject. Mr. Ryerson asks, ** Now, would it not have been only ac- cording to British usage, but courteous and fair towards Ilis Excel- lency for them, in the meantime, to have committed to paper their remenstrances and proposals, and transmitted them to him, so that ho might not misunderstand any one of tho various points at issue, that he might weigh them and make up his judgment deliberately upoD them ?" Apart from usage, apart from his position as the representative of Royalty, was it giving Ilis Excellency, (says Mr, Ryerson,) any more than (airplay for them to have done so. Then, he says, they had a second long interview with His Excel- lency on Saturday, in which all the points in difTerenoc were dis- cussed at great length, and which concluded with a determination on their part to resign. '♦ Now (asks Mr. Ryerson) would it have been anything more than respectful, or decent, or fair for them to havo done on Saturday evening whal they ought to have done on Friday evening — to have embodied in writing, the substance of what they wished his E.xcelloncy to understand, as the representa- tions and proposals which thoy had made in the long couvorsations 36 !l'l! irhicFi they had with him, and on which they desired his decision 7 But neglecting again to perform this act of courtesy and justice on Saturday evening, ought they not (again asks the Doctor,) in com- mon fairness to have accompanied those resignations with a full and explicit statement of the grounds of them, and which they de- sired permission u state to Parliament ?" Now, as this question has lo be discussed in various points of view, let us consider it in the light in which it ia placed by Mr. Ryerson. Imagine in the first place the man born under the British system of Responsible Government, and therefore it might be in- ferred understanding it from a very early period, if not from his birth, mingling with ** statesmen of all shades," white, black, brown and copper colour, for nearly half a century, working different systems of Colonial Government in both hemispheres, from the Gover. r ' r>r prostrate Empires in the East, lo the Government of emanc, ' negroes in the west ! well Sir imagine him with all the profound knowledge of free institutions, with all the experience accumulated from his cradio upwards, and then place before your minds eye the uninstructed Canadian Council, born, if Mr. Ryerson will have it, in Canada : educated, if at all, in Canada : unac- quainted with many-coloured statesmen, and ignorant of the usages of civilized Governments ; all this being admitted, let us go back to the long personal interview with the Governor-General on Fri- day, and the subsequent long interview on Saturday, and let us ask what prevented the Governor-General from asking a written state- ment of remonstrances and proposals, if he wished for it, or if there was any necessity for it. Was he not the judge of the point whether he was capable of unders'anding or liable to misunderstand the points at issue : and was he, as Mr. Ryerson has described him, the kind of man who, if he wished to weigh these points, and to avoid misunderstanding upon them, would havo remained silent when he could command t He had only to say the word and he might have had the statement in writing, but he did not say it". — was it be- cause he wished there should be no statement in writing, or that he saw no necessity for a written statement ? it must surely have been one or the other, for he at all events was not ignorant, either of what was right or of what was usual. Then again on Saturday evening when the Executive Counsellors determined on tendering their resignation on Sunday, if the Gov- ernor-General wished for a statement in writing, or if it was ne* ccsary, why did he not demand it ? and if through the whole oi the 37 protracted and extraordinary ministerial rKsgotialion they did not Tur- nishlheCrownwith a scrape ofa pen thatwouliitangibly,permanently, and truly indicate their views and intentions, why did not His Excel- lency direct as much as he wanted to be put in writing to indicate his views and intentions ? their want of experience was no excuse for him, and if he thinks to please the Governor-General by abusing Executive Counsellors for a fault, which he says, might have arisen from ignorance, cannot he see the arrogant and insolent censure he fixes upon His Excellency, who, as he could not iiave done wrong through ignorance, must, if any wrong was done, have done *t by design. But is it not much easier to attribute wrong, or bad designs to another party, and to suppose, if we are permitted by Mr. Kyerson, that Executive Counsellors do not discuss matters in Council with Governors, by means of written notes and documents, and that the Govemof'^Gencral in holding' several interviews with the Council for the purpose of discussion was perfectly right in admitting the discussion to be verbal, and cannot we suppose further, that -.,, „ ,. Now, Mr. ilyorson will .scarcely sr\y, that it was Iho duty of tho Kxccutivc Counsellors, to havo set down in writing all that was suid during tho two days. Thoy had, ovon ho will admit, only to set down tho point of disugrocmont upon which thoy really founded their offer of resignation. Dut wc are going too fast, wc have not yet done with tho point of form which Mr. Uyerson not only asserts to bo requisite on such occasions, but for the unvarying necessity of which ho gives what appear to him such conclusive and satisfactory reasons. It in a legal maxim, tho authority for which I do not remember, if I over knew it, that ono swallow does not make a summer : which dictum may be applied to all cases involving questions on tho necessity of formal observance, and will apply to tho present instance and the example quoted with great force. '■'•-'^^ • ; 'H^*-' If Mr. Rycrson'a argument of the necessity of a form, because it was adopted in one or more instances, be allowed, very serious consequences would follow. For instance, wo are all aware, that John the Baptist, baptized by immersion in tho River Jordan in more than one instance : yet most Christians are not prepared to admit immersion to be necessary to the validity of the Sacrament. Wo know also, that in many cases Lawyers in tho transfer of goods and chattels adopt the form of a written bill of sale, yet wo arc well awaro that a written bill of sale is not necessary. It may therefore be ^aid that the adoption of a certain form, even by the best authority, is no proof that tho form is essentia!, on the other hand the omission of the form in any insl?xnce, when the authority and correctness of the actors concerned is indisputable, amounts to incontrovertible proof, that the form is immaterial^ and its adoption or rejection a mere matter of choice. ' " ' ' ' '^'''*'' *-'!'' fev,4ic Now Mr. Ryerson's allegation amounts to this, that whenever there happens any difference between the Sovereign and the minis* ter it must bo reduced to writing, and thi.t it is a breach of consti- tutional usage to disagree without writter statements. Now Sir, I shall not lengthen out this letter by quoting many cases, becaus.^ however necessary the adducing many precedents may bo to Mr, Ryerson's sido of the argument, for the reason above stated they arc by no means essential to my side, I shall therefore mention two instances familiar to all readers of history : if Mr. Ryerson wislies for more he can have Ihcm. . -. .. ,.k t^.,..^«.v, ^^^ 30 Wc all rcmcmbor tliat Mr. Pitt waa in favor of, and to a certain extent pledged to, Catholic Emancipation, and that ho carried tho Irish Union,wiih tho expectation that tho rankling exasperation oflho public mind in Ireland would be healed by granting relief to Catho* lies. It is also known now that George the Third had conscientious scruples on that point, as well as decided objections on other grounds to any concessions to Catholics. Welt Sir, in 1801, Mr. Pitt and the loading members of tho administration resigned oflice, avowing as their reason, that they could not as servants of tho crown under the circumstances urge tho claims of tho Catholics : and Sir, ex- planations were made in Parliament. Now Sir, it so happens that these explanations wero made with- out any written statements of tho difToroncoi and what is moro, without ony being asked for. < . i ;> . , • So that Mr. Ryerson's censure not only Includes Sir Charles Metcalfe and the late Counsellors, but also George tho Third, Mr. Pitt, and his colleagues, inc IIouso of Lords, tho House of Com- mens, and the whole English people, who, if he is to be believed, wero ignorant of constitutional usage, and of propriety and de- corum. Again Sir permit mo to call to your recollection, that in the year 1832 tho Reform Bill passed the Mouse of Commons, and met with opposition from a decided majority of tho House of Lords, and that Earl Grey, then Prime Minister of England, dreading the consequences of a disagreement between tho Houses of Parliament on such a question, tendered his advice to King William the Fourth, to create a sufficient number of new Peers, to give tho Government a majority in the House of Lords upon the quostlon, and that the King, though himself a Reformer, hesitated to take the advice of his minister, and openly sent for the Duke of Wellington to advise with him, and to ascertain whether a ministry might not be formed who would carry a Reform Bill, without a new creation ot Peers, and that Lord Grey and his colleagues explained in Parliament, and announced their Intention to resign, and that the Duke of Wel- lington explained In Parliament, the advice ho gave, and yet that there was no written statement produced or required in the whole course of theso explanations. ' '' ' ' - ■ ^'^--s--^- On the 9ih May, 1832, Lord Grey In tho House of Lords an- nounced as follows :— "Tho result of Monday nights division has reduced me to the necessity In common wlih my collcagnes, either at onco to withdraw from his Majesty's service, or to tender to hl^ ' ! 40 Majosty such arlvico as appcnrcd jiistificJ by iho peculiar circum- stances oi the caso, with a view to carry into oHuct the measure of Reform, or fmally, in the event of this advice being rejected, to tender our resignation of the ofTicos we hold. The last alternative after much consideration we adopted. We offered to his Majesty that advice which we thought the urgency of the case, and the cir- cumstances of the times, required, and that advice not having been accepted, the alternative we conceived it our duty to submit to his Majesty hus been graciously accepted by his Majesty, who yas pleased to receive our resignations.'' On the same day the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the announcement in the House of Commons, as follows : — '' Sir, 1 feel it my duty to state to the Flouse that in consequence of what occurred in another place on Monday last, it appeared to his Ma- jesty's Government, that it would be quite impossible to carry the Reform Bill, in such a manner as they deemed it their duty to carry it, or without such alternations as would render it inefllcient and inconsistent with the pledges they had given for carrying it forward. Under these circumstances, there remained for them this only alter- native, to tender their resignations to his Majesty, or to advise his Majesty to take such measures as would enable them to carry the Reform Bill efficiently ; and if in case that advice should not be takeDf then to tender their resignations. The latter course we adopted, and, I have now to state to this house that we did ofier to his Majesty advice such as I have mentioned, which not being re- ceived, we then tendered our resignations, which his Majesty was graciously pleased to receive. At present therefore we only hold office until the appointment of our successors. ..., ,, . ' , Such was the statement made by ministers, in a resignation on a question of prerogative, there was long consideration, long dis- cussion, but no notes, no demands of the Sovereign in writing, no lefusals in writing, no explanations in writing. But if these written demands, refusals, and explanations were necessary or advisable between the Crown and ministers, how much more were they so between the Crown and those who were not min- isters ; yet the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst explained whhout any in the House of Lords, on the 17th May, 1832. I wish I could give the words of these great men ; they would be useful for many purposes, but the length of their speeches forbids my giving more than the substance. It appears from the Duke of Wellington's statement,^ that oa •:ii y ;.ii 41 the Wednesday, when ministers announced their resignations, he sent for Lord Lyndhurst, to inquire whether there wore any incnns, and if so what means, of forming a Government on the principle of carrying into execution an extensive reform in the representation of the people, that Lord Lyndhurst consulted the Duke, who considc red it his duty to consult others. Upon inquiry, the Duke found a number of friends who were not unwilling to give confidence and support to a Government formed upon such a principle, and with the positive view of resistance to that advice which was tendered to Mis Majesty ; and under theso circumstances he waited on His Majesty and submitted his advice, (not in writing.) That advice was not to rc-appoint the late ministry. The Duke then goes into the whole question, states what His Mojesty's own words wore, and his advice *' to resist the advice which had been offered to him, if he could find means of carrying on the Government of the country without acceding to it.*' Ho stigmatized the advice given as unconstitutional, ruinous, and un- just : maintained that the just exercise of the prerogative of the Crown does by no means go to the extent of enabling His Majesty ♦o create a body of Peers with a view to carry any particular mea- sure. But notwithstanding these strong opinions, how does tho Duke of Wellington conclude his explanation, it is thus : — ** But my Lords when I found that in consequence of the discussions on Monday, in another place, it was impossible to form a Government of such a nature, as would secure the confidenco of the country, I felt it my duty to inform his Majesty that 1 could not fulfil the com- mission with which he was pleased to honor me, and His Majesty informed me that he would renew bis communications with his former ministry. The matter ended not by the creation of Peers, but by the with- drawal of oppostion in the House of Lords, and on Friday the 16th February, Lord Grey announced as follows : — *< My Lords I have now the satisfaction to inform you that these communications have been brought to this result, that in consequence of His Majesty's desire most graciously expressed to me, and, in consequence of my seeing now that grounds of confidence exist to enable me lo redeem the pledges which I gave to your Lordships and the country, of not continuing in the administration unless I had a confident security of carrying the Rtiform Bill, on the table, unimpaired in its princi- ples and in all its essential details, in consequence of finding my- self well giounded in that confident expectation, and having re- 43 ;i II m ii! HI, i coivcJ from llio Sovereign Ins most giui^iou.i commaiiJd cxprcssctl to ihnt oircci, His M iJ'^sI^'h proflcni ministers continuo in their places." . , , It is curious to observe, in iIicbo trnn«nct!on% what is like lo those we have lately witnessed in this province, nnd what is un- like. In the first place there is a question of prerogative in both, advice upon n question of prerogative in both, refusal to adopt that odvico in both, a dtlTorcnco between the Sovereign and his ministers in both. .> ., . But in the English case, the King docs not deny the right of his ministers to advise, or treat their resignation because the odvice was followed, as robollinn, or disafTeciion. The Duke of Wellington does not deny to ministers the right of being consulted, as to a creation of Pecrfi, even though he denies that a creation of Peers fur the contemplated purpose was constitutional ; ho does not ndviso the King to take him into office, against the sense of tho Mouse of Commons : ho does not advise the King to prorogue Par- liament, and to keep it prorogued, and lo carry on public affairs with It a Cabinet : he docs not advise the King to get up addresses, for Ilis Majesty personally to answer them, so as to dispute tho matter with tho late ministers : on tho contrary, ho recommends His Majesty not to accede to the advice if he can f^rm a Gov- ernmcnt possessing the confidence of the country without doing so. Ho does not say that ho interfered with his advice before ho was required, or that he wished His Majosty to intrigue amongst tho friends of the late ministers lo procure their desertion ; and His Majesty does not appear to have sent for him or any one else, until hb found a serious ground of diflcrence with his advisers, which ended in their resignation : then His Mnjesty sent for leading men, to help him to form an administration, and failing in that object ho recalled his former ministers, after which those who were sent for explained their advice and defended it as a public matter, which could not and which ought not to be secret, which the parliament wore entitled to know ; public men, to use the Duke of Wellington's words, *' keeping themselves completely apart from all intrigues nndfrom all indirect, influence, using only those honourable means of opposition of whic!i no man had reason to be other than proud." But Sir, I must not wander away from tho subject at present under discussion which is the question of form raiaed by Mr. Ryerson. The following is his doctrine in his own words, a doctrine which when hid defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe goes out of print, will 43 have III) llio valno allacliod lo r^carcity, tin; ilikliiiie WlnR original and nol to bo round any wlioro ciso. Tlioso nro iiin wordM : — *» And lioro [o remove rvrrif nh-icur'iiy from iho qncsiion I (ilio Doclor) bog lo make a prolimiiinry roninrk on to tlio mode of onicial communication botwoon the crown nnd its servants, or between pub- lic onices nnd individuals. In all such cases, in all enlightened Governments no communication is considered olTicial which i» not in writing.^* Supposing this dogma of the learned Doctor to bo of thut indis' putablo character, which removes every obscurity, let us trace it to its consequences, Lord Grey made no demand in writing, received no refusal in writing, made no explanation in writing, agreed upon no statement of facts in writing, neither did the Parliament require any; from whence it would fullow that the Government in which his resignation took place was not an enlightened Government, and thut ho did not understand the usages of civilized nations. Tho Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst arc equally liable to tho samo charire, in which also is involved the character of both houses of Parliament, and of the British nation : and all this notwithstanding the Duke of vVcIlington had spent some years in India, and that England is not wanting in meddling clergymen, to have set them all right. I acknowledge Sir, however much 1 may bo shaken by Mr. Ryerson's authority, I fmd great dif- ficulty in coming to this conclusion, and I hope 1 may bo ex- cused for a suspicion that Mr. Ryerson's opinion is altogether wrong. Perhaps ho was not aware of another case in point that oc- curred in this country, which seems to bear upon his side of the question and of which ho should have tho benefit. From tho letter of Lieutenant-Colonel Gowan, lately made public, it would appear that that distinguished functionary in his commu- nications with the representative of majesty, adheres to the usago of " enlightened Governments," for his proposed ministerial ar- rangements were, as it appears, set down * in writing' by request, his confidential letter of thanks was also * in writing,' and tho con- fidence was betrayed in due form * in writing.' According to Mr. Ryerson, and to the letter if it contains any truth, all this was therefore oflicial, but the dissolution of tho Orange Society of which so much was said about the same time, was not in writing, and was therefore not oflicial, or regarded as of any consequence whatever. ^. , *'' <••'-" JV-; ^,V■ZiI JIU it.' y-JUf ;,»;».>»■« J" 44 ! .'!• For tliit renson I suppose it In timt iho *' ihiHing and shelving" plan of Mr. Guwtn cainu inlo aciuiil oporntion, and lor this roaiton it Bppoari 10 havo bccomu niniost tho avowed policy, ond laHt hopo of tho Government. To got rid of obnoxiou* individuals, without losing the support of tho Radicals, was the pith and substance of the Grand Master's plan, tho object of his written ministerial nego* lialion, — a negotiation of which, though neither of tho parties appear to be as proud as circumstances would warrant, yet of which Canada appears to havo been enjoying tho full fruits, for tho last six months, of Sir Charles Metcalfe's administration. Will you excuse a momentary digression for tho purpose of a passing hint upon this invaluable plan of policy. In the House of Commons about the time of Mr. Pitt's resignation in 1801, and I do not know for how long before and afterwards, it was the prac> tice in the Flouse, when it wiahed for an early and easy determina- lion of an election contest, in striking the Committee, (o strike out (he names of tl>3 intelligent members, particularly the lawyers on both Aides, and this in Parliamentary slang was called '* knocking llie brains out of the Committee." When Mr. Pitt and the leading men of his Government resigned, leaving their party in ' er, th« l>> atns were said to have been knocked out of the administ , M r. Gowan'a plan was evidently the same, and might have been reduced to writing in these words, ** Your I^xccllency cannot get rid of tho party, but as you wish (o govern without regard to tho party, knock its brains out." Having shown thus that al! communications in all enlightened countries to make them autiiiorative and official, are not always rr> duced to writing, I come now to the charge of perjury made against the l«te Executive Counsellors for having made these ex> planations, as Mr. Ryerson says, without leave. "I hope Sir, you havo kept in mind the memorable Friday, Satur- day, Sunday, and other days of the resignation. Well Sir, oh Saturday evening the Executive Counsellors appear to have made tip their minds to resign, and on the Sunday two of these members waited on his Excellency, and for themselves and fellows tendered the resignation, which being accepted leave was asked to make the ordinary parliamentary explanation, which leave was readily gran- ted. His Excellency at the same time expressing a wish to have the heads or substance of the intended explanation ; these wore given him on Monday morning: Now it is not pretended that his Excellency ordered, directed, or even expressed a desire to have the Vt c.x|)laiiiition wiihheld iiiiiil lie npprovcd of il : The Assembly waited iinpnliuntly fur the explanation, public budincst was at a stand, of which facts his Kxcvlluncy was well aware, but the explanation was postponed from lime lu time, until Wednusday afternoon at the re- quest of Mr. Duly, the remaining lilxncutivo Counsellor : on tliat Wednesday shortly before the meeting of the House, and without communicating any direction or desire for further postponment, Mr. Daly placed in Mr. Lalbntuine's hands, the counter ilatcment of his b).xcellency : a document intended to be laid before the II use as 's evident from its contents, and not containing a word of command or invitation to the late Executive Counsellors to alter their written explanation, or to agree with the Crovcrnor-Genoral on a new one. On Wednesday, Mr. Baldwin made an oral explanation, near!/ in the words of the written one submitted to his Excellency ; imme" diately after which Mr. Daly, expresttcd surprise because Mr. Bald- win had not produced his Excellency's Counter Statement, which Counter Statement Mr. Baldwin very oroperly thought ought to come from His Excellency's Counsolloi^ rather than from him, and Mr. Daly, proceeded to read both documents ; as by order of hia Excellency. The Counter Statement in explanation of lis Excellency, com- mences as follows : — - > i .. , **The Governor-General observes with regret on the explanation which the Gentlemen who have resigned their seats in the Execu- tive Council propose to ofier in their places in Parliament, a total omission of the circum:>tance8 which he regards as forming the real grounds of their resignation, and as this omisssion may have proceC' dedjrom their not considering themselves at liberty to diadose these circumstances, it becomes necessary that he should state thkm.'' If his Excellency meant to have forbidden the explanation of the late Councillors, he would have done so on Monday or Tuesday ; but he did not forbid it at all. If he meant that they should agreo with him in a statement of facts, he would have said so, on Monday or Tuesday, but he did not say so at all. If he meant that they should make his statement theirs, he would have said so ; and ho would not have said that as they, for a reason which he furnished* did not disclose certain circumstances — it was necessary that he should state them : If he meant, that they should add his statement to theirs, and adopt it as their own, he would not have filled it with argumciits condemnatory of themselves ; which without absur- 4fi i Mi' •I jtiji iiji!:' '!ll! i'^ns '■\y:,::\\ (lily tliuy couIJ not udojii, aiiJ \v!iich wiihouf permission they coulJ nut omit. • VVImt then did his Excellency mean ? Why Sir, he meant to do, what he did do ; that is to say, tu leave the luto Councillors to mako their 07on explanation, and us he was under no obligation of socrocy to jnako his own explanation ; and to disclose circumstances, because as ho says, " it becomes necessary tljat he should state them." Put Mr. Uycrson asks where is the proof of permission ; I an- swer the proof of permission is, in the uncontradicted assertion o f the Gentlemen themselves, in the very worda of Sir Chailes Met- calfe's explanation, who, as above shewn, states circumstances him- self, because he supposes they may not have thought ihomselves a* liberty to state them : Ilis Excellency being evidently of opinion that they were not only at liberty to state, what they did state ; but a grjat deal more which he supplies : Mr. Ryerson therefore in his presuming to deny the permission, contradicts tho Governor-Gene- ral as well a? the late Coun^scllors, contradicts Mr. Daly who read (ho written explanation of the Counsellors, and who said it was furnished at H'° Excellency's desire: makes an accusat'Ci for tho Governor, which he never made for himself ; and places him by advocating his cause in a position inconsistent with his own acts, and his own written allegations : upon the most tortuOiS wrenching of Words from their meaning and conclusions, from facts which warrant the most contrary inferences ; he wantonly and iiiipudently founds an accusation of betraying the Q,ueen's counsels vithout permission — and dares to place the word perjury, in connection with the names of public men, without in the leas( helping hia argu- ment ; or bringing himself a step nearer to tho conclusion, that Sir Charl(.3 Mctcalfrj is right, or that the late Counsellors are wrong. Mr. Uycrson in pursuance of his design^ to persuade the peopio of Canada, that the late Executive Counsellors were guilty of somo groat crime in revealing the reasons of their resignation, harps upon ih people 1 of some 1 pa upon 1 linst it ; J cxpla- J en I, as I lich led 1 sapprc- "1 part of 1 of tho ^ and his anxiety lo do jusii<'c to iliusc who were injured Ijy ih- arrniigc- mcnts unending tho Union, can be ngnrdcd as warranting a repre- sentation which iscuiculuted toii:jure hiiii wiihuu'Just cause, in tho opinion cf tho parliament and the people on whose confrJence he places his solo reliance, for tho bucccissrul administration of tho Government." Now Sir, what docs this protest amount to. Cortainly not to a protest against a statement of the real facta ; ceitainly not to tho as- sertion that there was any fact or discussion which iho public service required to be kept secret : It is in truth a protest against the omis- sion of facts, or rather of inferences which his Excellency makes, and which omissions ho has chosen to supply. If his Excellency's ex- planation contain a contradiction of facts stated by the Council, tho'igh it only complains of the omission of facts ; His Excellency has no far chosen to place his credibility in opposition to that of tho late Counsellors, for he might have forbidden them to state all, or any of the facts they did state ; and he did not forbid ihem : he gave them permission to state facts, and complained that they did not state more ; they therefore cannot bo accused of stating without permission, but they may be accused of stating what is false, cither with or without leave : a disagreement between them and his Excel- lency as to facts, cannot be said to make it loss necessary, that the reasons of the resignation should be understood by the public. His Excellency wl had the choice, chose that these reasons should bo public : tho disagreement as to facts, therefore as a part of tho case must be made public ; and if it be made pufilic, and there be assertion on the one side, against assertion on the other, the latn Counsellers cannot avoid it, unless their statements are really un- true, which would be the point for trial belonging to another part of this discussion. Mr. Rycrson's present charge is not making falso statements, it is the making statements without permission — but tho permission was given ; and the Govcrnor-Gcneral.does not complain of the absence of permission, ho complains ol the statements and professes to contradict them ; it is he thcrcf(M'e, who has chosen to put these contradictory statements at issue bcforo the public, an is- sue, which he might have avoided if he chose ; but which the late Counsellors could not have avoided by any possible means. •* Mr. Rycrso': puts his side of tho caso in these words: — "It (the (juestion) is not whether Ministers ought to state every thing necessary for their complcti; justification, but whether the Crown has not a voice in deciding the point, as well as the retiring Minis- 48 i:il:; ill I If to s ? It is ndiniUcd by Mr. HinckB that Ministers cannot explain at all without tho permission of the Crown. Can Ihey, then, explain any more than they are permitted ? Certainly not Have not the late Executive Counsellors given explanations which not only have not been perinitted, but against which the Crown has protested ? I am not now inquiring whether they gave any expla- nations not necessary for their complete justification : that is to be considered in another place. All such evasions of the question argue the untcnablensss of the proceeding of the late Counsellors. 1 am not inquiring. Did the Crown consent to the explanation which they gave/ the protest of the Crown is proof demonstrative that it did not ; and a hundred columns of speeches, and as many evasions, f cannot prove it otherwise." I do not blame Mr. Ryerson for being a sophist : he has a bad cause, and he cannot avoid sophistry. I hold him very light, however, because of his shallow sophistry ; and because he uses arguments so palpably dishonest, as to bring condemnation on the cause he undertakes to vindicate Let us divide the propositions which he has so disingenuously entangled, and see how easily their worth can be weighed. In the first place, Did the Governor-General give permission to % make an explanation ? He did. Did he, when he gave that permission, limit it in any manner ? ♦ He did not. < . _ Did he desire to see the substance of the intended explanation ; * and did he see it ? He did. Upon seeing it, did he withdraw the permission, or limit it ia >any manner 1 Fie did not. Did he '^dmit the facts and reasoning of that explanatioa» or did ''he contradict them ? He contradicted them. « In consequence of that contradiction, did he forbid that the expla- nation should be given 1 No ; but he stated such facts and argu- ments as he thought necessary for an explanation, to be made by himself, which he accordingly did make for himself; which expla- nation would be utter nonsense without the explanation of the Counsellors ; and which, therefore, presupposed the explanation of Uhe Counsellors. But Mr. Ryerson clumsily disguises the difference between permitting an explanation, and admitting its correctness. He asks, Did the Crown consent to the explanation which they gave ? — Thus, usii;^ a word which may be limited or extended, by context or 49 circumstances. But a statement may be permitted, without an admission of its correctness : it may be permitted for the mere purpose of denying its correctness. It is i!.:r permission Sir Charles Metcalfe gave, for he had the power of forbidding the explanation, which he did not do ; but permitting it, he added contradiction to it, « by his own counter statement just as he chose. * Mr. Ryerson seems to have anticipated a dilemma to arise from his argument, namely, that if the Governor and the Counsellors could not agree on a statement, there could not be any explanation at all, for he says t " When they ('the Counsellors) found that the Crown dissented from their intended explanation, what was their duty ? undoubtedly to defer their explanation until the Crown and they should agree upon the facts to be explair<^d.'' But suppose no such agree- ment could have been come tu? I answer, in the first place, ministers should have tried whether such an agreement could have been come to; secondly, if the Crown and they could not have agreed upon the facts to be explained, they would have refused the explanation, and the Parliament would have applied for the correspondence between the Crown and its late advisers. Thus the whole affair * would have been fairly brought before Parliament." So, then, according to Mr. Ryerson, when after days of delay on the part of the Governor, after the explanation was placed in his hands, and upon being furnished with a copy of the Governor's counter statement, the late ministers should have tried to bring the Governor to agree in a statement : placing themselves and him in the condition of a refractory jury. WhnN in the name of common sense, would the Governor have said hi '^v made such an imper- tinent proposal. Gentlemen, I have the ext>iaf uion you propose to lay before Parliament, you have the explanation i intend to lay before Parliament, do you presume to wish me to retrac or do you come to make your apology 1 What a laugh we should have heard from the expectant occupants of the treasury benches. How triumphantly they would have attacked the poor Ex-Couns^llors. Then they would have said, is Mr. Daly ready with the Governor's explanation in his pocket, ate you bfraid to show yours ? How fortunate. Sir, for the Counsellors, that their then friend Mr. Ryerson fwas not there to advise them. ^ But if they could not agree, they should have refused an explana- tion. Pray Sir how could they have refused an explanation. His Excellency was already with his explanation, and woul i have given it all the more readily if they had shrunk from giving theirs. Mr. o 1^0 llycrson argues all ilio limo as if the Cuunsclloi's could explain or defer explanation, ut their pleasure. Ftut, Sir, it was Sir Charles MetcalTc, and not ihey, who had (his discretion : and if they, having permission, had refused to explain, why, Sir, judgnraent would have been g'ven against them by default, and, failing in the explanation then, they would have hud their mouihs closed on the subject for ever afterwards: the precise situation of all others that it was their duty to avoid, and in which their worst enemies would desire to see Mhem placed. • But Mr. Ryersonsays the Parliament would have asked fur all the correspondence. Just Sir compare this assertion with Mr. Ryerson's complaint that there was no correspondence. The two explanations were all the written documents which passed between them, and they *were intended for the House. Does Mr. Ryerson think it would have been decent or right to have a controversy as to facts carried on between the GDvernor and the Counsellors ? And supposing it had taken place, with all the forms of an afiair of honor, in a King- ston Newspaper, in what, Sir, must such a controversy have ended? Is it not bad enough, Sir, to have a Governor contradicting his late Councillors, without their bandying back another contradiction: and how could the affair have been brought more fairly before Parlia- ment by a demand for a correspondence, which it is acknowledged on all hands never took place.' ,, It is impossible not to see 'hat Mr. Ryerson's censures if they were sustainable, fall with ter. imes more weight on bis educated and infallible Governor-General, than they could on the late Counsellors, for he at least understood the exactly proper mode and (orm of managing a dispute of this or any other nature : he had the power of forbidding the explanation, the Counsellors had not ; the contra- diction of facts, if there be any, came from him in the first place» and he had the power of deferring all explanations until there was an agreement of facts, this | wer the Counsellors had not: but he did not direct the explanation to be deferred : he had the power of commanding the whole discussion to bo conducted in writing : this ihe Counsellors could not order or even suggest, without indecorum or without shewing a predetermination to quariel which they did feel ; and, Anally, when the late Counsellors placed in writing all the case which they imagined to be perfectly understood, and when the Governor-General who was under bo oblif»ation to secrecy, under- took to add to that explanation all the facu. and reasoning which he thought necessary, if any were omitted, il must have been by his "I 51 own most deliberate choice : tlicrefore if any tiling has been disguised or kept back, necessary to explain or elucidate the transaction, if there has been any want of precision from dishonest or trcacheroua motives, theoC motlvos must be ascribed to the party who was best instructed, and who had most in his power: that party was unques- tionably on Mr. Ryerson's own arguments Sir Charles Metcalfe; and it surely would have been more decent as well as more consistent with an address of a Clergyman to influence those whom he was professing to instruct in the principles and practice of Christianity, to have ascribed want of form, or want of agreement as to facts to unintentional error on both sides, then to have made them the foun- dation of a chai-ge of unworthy motives, and placing these consider- ations out of the question, it would have been politic at least in Mr. Ryeraon, to have avoided imputations of improper motives, found- ed on facts which made the motives infinitely more attributable to the party he was defending than to the one which he was attacking. By the course he has pursuod he has put argumonta into the mouths of the opponents of Sir Charles Metcalfe, which I would not have used, and invited the charge of deliberate and studied plan of be- trayal against him, which I \. ild not have attributed to him : and, if in the course of this discussion I am able to show afiected misun- derstanding of well understood terms, evasions of the application of well defined principles, and if from these I show a desire on the part of Sir Charles Metcalfe to undermine and destroy the Responsible Government he was neither bold enough or strong enough to attack openly, let the Canadian public judge to whom designed mystification may most justly be attributed. Mr. Baldwin has been reproached[ in a Montreal paper as tlie man of one idea, that idea Responsible Government! Sir Charles Metcalfe's ideas are equally accommo- dating to William Morris, Ogle R. Gowan, Mr. DeBlacquiere, Mr. Vigor, and Thomas Parke ; let the Canadian people judge whoso interest it was to preserve vagueness and uncertainty, the one who sternly and unbendingly asserted one principle and who invited the support of none who are not its thorough advocates, or he who martials his motley crew of *' Statesmen of all shades," who agrees equally with the extreme opinions of the haughty Montreal Mer- chant and the humble hahilant ; of ihe high Church Bishop and the Methodist Minister ; of the high tory, and the asserter of popular rights, and Responsible Government, and who agrees with them all equally, because he despises them all alike. I seek Sir to draw out no hidden facts, to guess at no motives, i m 6S » have a single point to maintain and that is that Sir Charles Metcalfe is no friend of Responsible Govermnent, and that it was his declared antagonism to the interpretation placed upon that ijrm, and his acts under his own interpretation which caused the resignation. Ho thinks we have discussed the mode of proceeding only, which I have shown was neither unprecedented, unusual, or informal, or in any way to be mended by the late Councillors, and that if there be fault in the mode of proceeding, that fault is to be attributed to the infallible Sir Charles Metcalfe, who could have adopted any mode ' he liked best. So much for the fashion of the coat — the remainder of the discussion will be upon the materials. So much for Laonidas and his unsolicited championship, *' So much for Buckingham" as the East Indian Governor said when he banished the printer. LEGION. I ■'II . .>[..'i ' J • > I ■»•' '. ' -•- H . f - ih < I f(C|i;> •'■■i A\.-Jt i , .1,; •'II ij. LETTER IV. '! A-L. ' " • . • .1,: ,:: .,:,";0! Mr. Ryerson, after expressing his own satisfaction, on the re- view of his two first articles of defence, at having proved the want of form in the proceedings of the late Counsellors, as well as at his having proved their proceedings unconstitutional, a l^lief in his own success, the full enjoyment of which I do not care for disturb- ing, proceeds to show that those gentlemen have failed to esta« blish the allegations which they have made against His Excellency. But lest the weight of his condemnation should fall upon some of the gentlemen whom he or his government wish to make use of hereafter, he does what none of them would do for themselves, that is to say — ^ho tells a deliberate falsehood in their behalf, namely, that several of them are known to have been reluctantly acquiescing parties in the proceedings of their leaders. Nothing could justify Mr. Ryerson in making this allegation but *he instruc- tions or admissions of the parties themselves, either to him, Mr. Ryerson, or to others whose disclosure enabled him to make this statement as of a known fact. I feel bound to deny it as a fact, because it is calculated to injure the persons intended, or pointed at, though I cannot even guess who they are : there are but nine in all, and I assert most positively that of any one of them it is a most wicked falsehood to say that they reltictantly acquie&oed in the proceedings of the leaders or of their brother Counsellors ; let Mr. Ryerson put the question to them if he dares, and when ho has their authority or the authority of any of them for making such a statement, I shall with pleasure retract ; but at present I bring against Mr. Ryerson the charge of direct and malicious falsehood : that of impertinent meddling in concerns in which he has no busi- ness would be superfluous as against him. ' ' ' • " In Mr. Ryerson's introductory letter he introduced Mr. Blake's name with a statement, that he, Mr. Blake, had said he would not take office if offered to him with Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Hincks, not thinking it unlikely that Mr. Blake might have said so at the time of Mr.Baldwin's resignation under Lord Sydenham,! was foolish enough to believe Mr. Ryerson would not assert what was not true, and with- 54 out inquiry I account oil for what Mr. Hluke, consistently with his pretjcnt position, iniglit liave saiil; but, Sir, I was surprised to learn from the very best authority that he never said so. I do not know whether the lute Counsellors expected their re- tirement to be of short duriition or not, or whether some of them intimated, as Mr. Ilyerson says, that it would be only for a few days, his assertions have ceased with mo and many others to have weight or authority ; but this 1 will say, that if Sir Charles Metcalfe • meant what he said, when ho proclaimed himself an adherent to the system of Responsible Government, and when he had found he had been deceived by those who had promised him a majority in Parliament, and had ho regarded the Constitution it was his duty to uphold, or respected the people whom he governed — the retirement would have been short indeed. But, Sir, His Excel- lency is too high a personage to regard j^ublic opinion, as express- ed by two-thirds of the representatives of the people : he looks for truth, not by the light of day, but with tho dark lanterns of Gibbon Wakefield, Egertou Ilyerson, and Ogle R. Govvan. A dark and underhand intrigue, the corruption of some unhappy Parke, or bewildered Vigor, is more according to Indian usage : and a few addresses, got up in corners, and a few libellous answers, are more than equivalent in our Canadian Court, and do better for des- patches to be laid before the Imperial Parliament than votes of confidence ; for alas Sir, votes of confidence reduce the CrowDw to a cipher ; but a distracted country is the place for the exhibition of talent, and the exercise of proogative : Sir Chai'les Bagot was a weak man, he only made the country peaceful and prosperous : Sir Chai'les Metcalfe is a great man for he can afford wantonly to agitate and disturb that peaceful country, and to look on its mis- fortunes with calmness : he can quietly tune his fiddle, while Rome • is blazinur. J. wish Sir, that in the displays oi learning which the learned Doctor thinks it necessary to introduce, he would at least place his heroes in their right times and places. Cincinnatus was not one of the Knights of tho Round Table, nor were his days the days of Chivalry ; nor could the resignation of responsible ministers bo like any event in the days of Chivalry because Responsible^ Gov- ernment is of a consitleiably later period. " The first anomaly (says Mr. Ryerson) that strikes the mind of an attentive observer of their (the Counsellors) proceedings, is the position they place themselves before the legislature and the coun- try. Their conslitutioiial position id ilmt of ilefoiiJunls, their real position is that of plainlills. They como bclbre tho public to an- swer for thoir own viovva an«l conduct, they answer by arraigning the views and conduct of tho Crovonior-Gcneral." It is a great pity that the Doctor does not examine Ids proposi- tions a little more before he launches them into the sea of {)olitical controversy : ho has a great ambition to be thought critical, exact, and logical, but at every step he risks his case and his character as a rea- soner, by stating puzzUng j)ropositions, which tuni out to be not only good f<^r iiotliing, but absolutely untenable. The late Counsellors did not come before the Legislature and the country to answer for their own views and conduct: those were not impeached. They had, from the time they came into oflice the approbation of the Legis- ture, the country, aiid, what may be of some importance, that of tho learned Doctor himself; they came before tho Legislature to ex- plain the reasons for which they, a ministry with a majority in Parlia»nent, left their places. The leasons they alleged wero opinions avowed by the Head of tho Government, which, being acted u]ion made it impossible that they could remain res- ponsible for the acts of the Government : ihey were bound to make this explanation if it were true : and they could not do so without stating the opinion from whichthey dissented, or defend themselves without shewing it to be wrong. No one was ever fool enough to say that a King or a Govei'nor may not hold wrong opinions, or direct wrong acts, though they may Kot be personally responsible for either; but, it surely follows, that if Executive Coinisellors aro to be responsible for tlie acts done by order of a Governor, they must be allowed to have an opinion respecting these acts : and if they have an option whether to remain responsible or not, and if they are bound to account for not remaining resjjonsible, they must be allowed to show that the opinions and acts entertained or direct- ed were wrong, otherwise they could make no explanation at all, which now I see it is what Mi*. Ryerson means by the "silent dignity of retired ministers." If Mr. llyerson would think a 'ittle more, Sir, about the silent dignity of ministers of the Gospe. and less about politics he would not get into such straits. They ai-e worse tliLii the straits of Thermopyhe. The strength of an empire may help a hero out of the latter, but when a political prize fighter falls into a childish absurdity, as the poet sings of the broken " Ihc King of hpam with all his men— ^ '* ••■-"■. •"» huF, v^rr'yfr M ill IV! ;? I'M " A Canadian jury," says Mr. Ryerson, "cannot constitutionaHy sit in judgment on the views and conductof a Governor-General, for the Resolutions of 1841 declare that the Head of the Executive Go- vemmentof the Province, being within the limits of his Government, the representative of the Sovereign, is responsible to the Imperial authority alone, and no man can be constitutionally arraigned be- fore a tribunal to which he is not amenable." So then. Sir, a Gov- ernor has only to take care that his advisers should not be known, ind to do every thing himself, and let him a .£ ever so unconstitu- tionally the Canadian Parliament can express no opinion upon his acts ; because, as Mr. Ryerson says, the expression of such an opinion, or even a debate on the subject, would be arraigning the Governor. , '. 1 1 • And this abominable and slavish doctrine is that upon which Mr. Egerton Ryerson undertakes to defend Sir Charles Metcalfe. Would you not like to know, Sir, what His Excellency thought when he read the Doctor's No. 3, and how much he would have given in addition to the office of Superintendant of Education, to pur- chase Mr. Ryerson's " dignified silence." But it is nevertheless unquestionably Mr. Ryerson's doctrine, for lestwe sbould mistake his precise notion he illustrates his argument by mentioning the arraignment of King Charles the First, as a parallel case; now. King Charles I. was tried, and decapitated, constitu- tionally or unconstitutionally, it does not matter which for our present argument. Sir Charles Metcalfe is neither one or the other : his opinions and his acts are questioned, not himself ; and no one seeks to make him responsible for his acts or opinions, however bad they may be : but according to the Doctor it is all the same *. not a whit of difference between questioning a Govemor-Generars infallibility and cutting off* his head. What a bloody minded champion is Mr. Ryerson, so desperately loyal that he can see no distinction between the heads of an argument and the heads of the disputants. How very uneasily. Sir, must his head sit on hva shoulders at this moment if they are all the same. ' '"' ' ' ■ ".VMJi"' " A Canadian jury cannot constitutionally sit in judgment upon the views and conduct of a Governor-General, (says Mr. Ryerson.) Now, I say *hat a Canadian jury can and may sit in judgmentupon the Governor-General's views and conduct.as Mr.Ryerson mayveryeasily discover to his cost, if he should infringe any right of any of Her Majesty'f subjects here, and justify himself upon the Governors views and conduct. The latter he would find might and would be Ai 'W- 67 upon irson.) on the easily Her mors Id be adjudged upon ; and although iho Governor may be very safe per* lonally, his views and conduct would bo just as open to inquiry and judgment as those of any member of the Reform Association. But although as Mr. Ryerson snya, " Cromwell had a shadow of constitutional pretension, (the shade of a virus,) for arraigning Charles the First, even before his rump Parliament, (a hit at the Provin ial Assembly,) but he says the late Counsellors have the Resolutions oi l^il, positively against the arraigning andviewavad conduct of the Governor-General before any other tribunal than that of the Imperial authority alone;" for he says, the Resolutions declare that the Head of the Government is responsible to the Imperial authority alone. Now, Sir, I ask you to put on your spectacles and read the resolutions of 1S41, and if you find one word about the vicw& and conduct of the Governor therein you need not print any more of my letters. It is true, Sir, the Gover- nor is not responsible for his views or conduct, but other people are responsible for them : and how could they bo made responsible for them in Canada if Canadians could not sit in judgment upon what these others are responsible for. Views and conduct may be considered, adjudged of, and condemned, but they cannot well be hanged or decapitated ; and as the views and conduct cannot be punished themselves, their owners have to bear the penalty for them. This penalty others have to bear for Kings and Governors ; but before they suffer, the views and conduct of kings and governors must be the subject of question, adjudication, and condemnation. Mr. Ryerson quotes a passage from De Lolm , which, as usual, he manages so as to make it work againct himself. De Lolme says, " The King himself cannot be arraigned before judges, be- cause if there were any that could pass sentence uponhim it would be they and not he who m"" .; finally possess Executive power." Now this passage which may be a very good one to show the legal absurdity of arraigning the King himself, would contain very dangerous doctrine if applied to the views of the King carried into effect in his government ; for we know that there are supposed to be advisers of all acts of the King's Government, and that there are judges of these acts and of these advisers. Mr. Ryerson's application of the authority of De Lolme would prove, if it proved any thing, that what is done by the King or by his command cannot be questioned, or adjudged upon, lest the judges should possess finally the Executive power and not the King. But, we know Sir, that the acts of the King's Government are in the practice of .IS -I f the C.'oiiMiiiuliui) of Lliigliiiul (uljiiilgeJ upon, and the only iiifur- eiicc which couKl bo dnivvn wouUI be, thut the jiulgoH aiul not tho King actualli/ do f»v., when tlicir chiirn to b(! advised with upon thoni was deni(;d, would be woi-so than In the first place they allege, " That they have avowedly taken ofHce upon the principle of responsibility to the representatives of the people in parliament ; and with a full recognition on their parts of the following resolution introduced into the Legislative Assembly with the knowledge and sanction of Her Majesty's r.i ^ Representative in this Province, on the 3rd of September, 1841. " That the head of the Executive Government of the Province being within the limits of his Government, the representative of the Sovereign is responsible to the Imperial authority alone, but that nevertheless the management of our local affairs can only be conducted by him, by and w^ith the assistance, counsel, and infor- mation of subordinate officers in the Province, and that in order to preserve between the different branches of the Parliament that harmony which is essential to the peace, welfare, and good Gov- ernment of the Province, — the chief advisers of the representative of the Sovereign constituting a provincial administration under him, ought to be men possessed of the confidence of the represen- tatives of the people ; thus affording a guai'antee, that the well un- derstood wishes and interests of the people which our gracious Sovereign has declared shall be the rule of the Provincial Govern- ment, will on ALL occasions be faithfully represented and advocated." "Had the difference of opinion between his Excellency and them, and as they have reason to believe between his Excellency and the people of Canada generally, been merely theoretical the members of the late Executive Council might, and v/ould have felt it their duty to avoid every possibility of collision which might have a tendency to disturb the tranquil and amicable relations vhich apparently subsisted between the Executive Government and the Provincial Parliament. But that difference of opinion has led not merely to appointments to office against their advice, but to appointments and proposals to make appointments of which they were not informed in any manner, until all opportunity of offering advice upon them had passed by, and to a determination to reserve for the expression of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon, a bill introduced into the assembly with his Excellency's knowledge and consent, as a Government measure, without an opportunity being given to the members of the Executive Council, to state the possibility of such a reservation. Tlif^y therefore felt themselves in the anomalous position of being, according to their own avowals and solemn public pledges, i-esponsible for all the acts of the Exe- cutive Government to parliament, and not only without the oppor- t'i..ity of offering advice respecting these acts, but without the knowledge of their existence, until informed of them from private and unofficial sources. *' When the Members of the late Executive Council offered 63 U/:^K. iheli huiablo remonslranccs to His Excellency on this conLlitiun of public aflairs, His Excellency not only frankly explained the dif- ference of opinion existing between him and the Council, but stated that from the time of his arrival in the Country, he had observed an antagonism between him and them on the subject ; and notwithstanding that the members of Council repeatedly and dis- tinctly explained to his Excellency that they considered him free to act contraiy to their advice, and only claimed an oppoi'tunity of giving such advice, and knowing before others His Excellency's intentions ; — His Excellency, did not remove the impression left upon their minds by his avo\val that there was an antagonism between him and them, and a want of Cinifidence which would enable them in their respective stations, to cany on public business to the satisfaction of the country. The want of cordiality and confidence had already become a matter of public rumour, and public opinion not only extended it to acts upon which thei'o were apparent grounds for difference of opinion, but to all measures of Government involving political principles. His Excellency on the one hand, was supposed to be coerced by the Council, into a coui'so of policy which he did not approve of, and the Council were made liable to the accusation of assuming the tone and posi- tion of responsible advisers of the Goveni.ment without in fact asserting the right of being consulted thereupon. "While His Excellency disavowed any intention of altering the course of administration of public affairs which he found on his arrival in Canada, he did not disguise his opinion, that these affairs might be moi'c satisfactorily managed by and throngh the Governor himself; without any necessity of concord amongst tho members of the Executive Council, or obligation on their part to defend or support in parliament the acts of Government. To this opinion of his Excellency, as one of theory, they might not have objected, but when on Saturday last they discovered that it was the real ground of all their difliei'cnce with his Excellency and the Council since his arrival, they felt it impossible to continue to serve Her Majesty as Executive Counsellors for the affairs of the Pro- vince, consistently with their duty to Her Majesty, or to His Ex- cellency ; or with their repeated pledges in the Provincial Parlia- ment, if His Excellency should see fit to act upon his opinion of their functions and responsibilities." In the whole of this document you will perceive that there is not one single charge against his Excellency, but simply a precise on Blalcmeiit of tlie oiiiiiion of the mtMnbors of Council upon their duties and responsibilities, and an allegation of a candid expres- sion of diftcrence of opinion thereupon on the i>o.n of the Gover- nor-General, and of acts of Govcrmncnt inconsistent with these opinions and consistent with that of His Excellency. •• -'"^ But Mr. Ryerson objects that the acts arc not specified, and tlio obligation is in me to show why they were not specified. Well Sir, I assert that it is not usual in the explanation of Mi- nisters to specify the particulars of ndvice rejected, or of acts done without advice. To make out Mr.Ifyerson's side of the argument it must be not only usual, but so ncccssarji as to make the absence of the specification of names, places, and otiicr paxticulara not only anomalous or irregular, but almost crimuial. r " For instance, when Lord Grey, the Chancellor of Exchequer, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Jiyndhurst exjilained the advice they gave to the Kini , The fourth allegation is, that appointments were made of which the Counsellors were not informed in any manner until all oppor- tunity of advising upon them had passed by. This is not denied. The fifth allegation is, that proposals to make appointments were also made on which the Council had no opportunity of offering advice. This is not denied. The sixth allegation is, that his Excellency reserved for the ex- pression of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon, a bill introduced into the Assembly, with his Excellency's knowledge and consent as a Govermyiejit measure, without an opportunity being given to the members of the Executive Council to state the possibility of such ft reservation. This is not denievernment, for all whose acts, its head is not, and its tail •wnot be made accountable — even to the representatives of Ihat humblest class of our community the electors of Canada. These iit very humble, no doubt of it, and their oppressors are proud eWMigh in all conscience ; but humble as the electors are Sir, they kave fought this battle once, and they won it, and they are able and retdy !• d« thf tame again. LEGION. P m4 " L E T T E R V. Sir, It would bo ungracious in mo, to commence another letter with> out expressing my obligation for the forbearance announced by the Aeverend Doctor Ryerson, in his letter to the Editor of the Colo> nist. He appears to have found out that" Legion for we are many" was the saying or name of a devil, or collection of devils : but although he has made thin profound discovery, he does not com- mence his exorcisms now, but leaves mc to proceed with my im])ish mischief, until the approach of autumn. Perhaps you would like to know, Sir, why I adopted the name of Legion. Well, Sir, it was in the first place, so far approprit'te, because the principles I advocated were not merely those of one, but of many : and secondly because it was a name of which very few would bo inclined to dis- pute the proprietorship. I had in fact, found so general and unmitigated a feeling of disgust and ridicule cast upon Mr. Ryer- Bon, in consequence of his personification of Leonidas, and the Spartan Heroes, as well as on account of his finding in himself something like some twenty or thirty of the great men of every age and country, that I thought I could not get too far on the op- posite side, out of the way of a charge of vain glory and self adulation. I am not sorry to have given Mr. Ryerson a chance of a witicism sufficiently obvious for his comprehension ; and if it pleases him, I am not unwilling to admit, that I am just as like the devil and his imps, as he is like Leonidas and the three hundred Spartans, or like Wesley, or Fletcher, or Archbishop Cranmer, or the Sainted Richard Baxter, or any one or more of the great men whom he has put forth as illustrations of himself. I am astonished he has not discovered some similitude between himself and the learned ^erraan necromancer Faust : the fight between the Devil and Doctor Fanstus would be an amusing notion, though it would scarcely have served the Doctor's purpose ; for as well as I can remember, the Devil had the best of the fight in the end ; and fully succeeded in running away with the conjuror. Mr. Ryerson threatens to demolish my reputation for ability, i '■ S'.'il 1/ r 71 ■ome time between the present and the fall of the leaf. He i» perfectly welconae : he shall have the field all to himself. I admit now, that he is the best reasoncr, the most correct logician, the purest classic, not only in comparison with me, but with any others of far greater pretensions with whom he may please to com- pare himself: he may take away my reputation, or the reputation of any one else ho pleases. It is all one to me. I write for a purpose which is not personal ; and when the contest becomes per- sonal, I shall be silent. * In my last letter, I took to pieces the allegations of the late Councillors, and showed that no one of these was denied by the Governor-General : although his Excellency wrote an explanation for himself, which professed to be full and satisfactory. His Ex- cellency denied that the facts, as alleged, formed the ground of the resignation ; and he alleged something else, which he said was the real ground, which he said the Councillors had omitted. If one man alleged, that he saw another open his stable door, anvl take out a horse, and another alleged that he had bought the hors3, and therefore protested against horse stealing, and against an omission of that fact in the statement of the prosecutor, I rather think this would be no denial of the facts, that there were a stable, and ahorse, rnd a door, or that the defendant entered at the door, and took out the horse ; neither is his Excellency supplying an alleged omission, any denial of what was before stated ; we may add one thing to anotht-r, but \\ c cannot add an entity to a non- entity. Let us examine a little more in detail this statement of Sir Charles Metcalfe. He commences, as 1 observed in a former letter, by stating that *• he obsei'ved a total omission of the circumstances which he regards as forming the real grounds of their (the Ministers) resig- nation ; and as this omission may (as he says) have proceeded from their not con'eidering themselves at liberty to disclose these circum- stances, it becomes necessary that I should state them." I quoted this passage before, for the purpose of showing that Sir Charles Metcalfe did not deny the late Councillors leave to fitate, what they did state. I quote it now to den onstrate that he did not contradict what they did state, for he does not say that " he observes with regret" that they stated any thing untrue, but that they omitted to state something else. If this be the case, {here can be no sophism in saying, that I am at liberty to aasume mi 75 what they did state to be true. Whether what they stated, formed the real ground of their resignation or not, is the matter at issue. His Excellency says, that on Friday, " Mr. Lafontaine and Mr. Baldwin, came to the Government House, and after some other matters of business and some preliminary remarks as to the cause of their proceeding, demanded of the Governor-General that he should agree to make no appointment, and no offer of an appointment without previously taking advice of the Council ; that the lists of Candidates should in every instance be laid before the Council ; that they should recommend others at their discretion; and tteit the Governor-General after taking their advice, should not make any appointment prejudicial to their influence." Now there is one thing very clear, v hich is, that the late Coun:;!!- lors, were not in his Excellency's confidence ; and if this be not obvious from the documents published at the time of the resigna- tion, it is made abundantly so by Lord Stanley's reading a des- patch from Sir Charles Metcalfe in the course of the late debate in the House of Commons ; which despatch bears date very shortly after Sir Charles Metcalfe's arrival in Canada. From that des- patch, or from the portion thus made public, it may be guessed, that all the time from its date, until December, did not pass without serious differences between the Governor and the Councillors, as to the course of policy to be pursued ; which differences could not have existed at that period and in this Province, without discussion as to the relations between the public and the Councillors under which the latter held office. In that despatch of the month of May previous to the resignation, and written as I said before, very shortly aft€r Sir Charles M calfe's arrival, the foMowing state- ment is made, " I am required to give myself up entirely to the Council, to submit myself absolutely to their dictation, to have no judgment of my own, to bestow the patronage of the crown ex- clusively on their partizans, to proscribe their opponents, and to make some public and unequivocal declaration of my adhesion to these conditions, involving the complete nullification of Her Ma- jesty's Government." This Sir,can be no friendly, or even uncolour- ed representation of any thing that could have taken place. His Ex- cellency is fond of paraphrase, and his paraphrases are not, to say the best of them, very like his texts. Can it be thought or believed, by the most prejudiced person in Canada, that the Executive Councillors said in so many words to the new Governor-General. " We require your Excellency to give 7G i i yourself up entirely to us, to submit yourseh absolutely to our dicta- tion, to have no judgment of your own, to bestow tho patronage of the crown exclusively on our parti zans, to proscribe our opponents, and to make some public and unequivocal declaration of your Ex- cellency 's adhesion to these conditions, which involve the nullifi- cation of Her Majesty's Government.'}" These would be the word» of madmen, not of rebels or revolutionists ; yet upon the allega- tion of such a demand have the late Councillora been judged be- fore the House of Commons. When I say that the Executive Councillors never made such a demand as this, I do not mean to say, that his Excellency wilfully raade a directly falso representation to Her Majesty's Ministers : for I am very certain that however strong his prejudices may have been, he could not have meant to convey the impression, that a re- quisition in these times was made of him ; and if it was not so raade, I must surmise what was demanded or recommended, in reality, which could bo tortured into an equivalent to Inis violent and ex- treme language. You may well recollect Sir, the discussions which from time to time have taken place in the Province, on the quf^stion of Res- ponsible Government. The serious assertion of tho principle, commenced with Sir Francis Head's Council, when Mr. Baldwin and the liberal partyjoined it. The Council then asserted their responsibility for the acts of the Government. They required to be advised with on the exercise d wishes of the people, and flie wishes of that majority are practically the wishes of that majority. Could he have dissolved that Parliament again witii any hojie of renewed success ? No Sir, for had he again succeeded against the majoiity, in would have, come the Responsible Government men again. So that do his best, and work the Government how he might, he could only change the ruling party : he could not get rid of party, or party domination. To do Mr. Ryerson justice, I am free to acknowledge that he 78 llf 1^, -$ di() not mean, when he wrote against Responsible Goveniment in 1S36, to establish a High Church and a High Tory Party ; an<3, most probably, the electors did not mean to produce any such consequences, when they gave their votes to candidates who supported Sir Francis Head's views of Responsible Govern- ment : but, nevertheless, such was the result j and, in the naturo of things, such must be the result, under like circumstances ; for, if we wish to put down party, we must begin by putting down public opinion ; and if we wish to have a government which res- pects no party divisions, we must do away with representative institutions, and govern by a despotism. There is one remarkable difference between the proceedings of the two Governors. Sir Francis Head professed no adherence to Responsible Government, and yet he appealed to the people, by a dissolution of Parliament. Sir Charles Metcalfe professes to bt in favour of Responsible Government, and he appeals through £gerton Ryerson to the strength af the Empire. There is another very remarkable distinction between the cir- eumstances under which the two Governors acted. Sir Francis Head found in the Province the old system of Colonial Adminis- tration, and he endeavoured to maintain it ; Sir Charles Metcalfe found the system denied by Sir Francis Head in full and success- ful operation, and he endeavours to destroy it. There is also a difference between the position of the two Coun- cils. Sir Francis Head's Council were pronounced by the Governor to be disaffected, because they set up a claim to Responsible Government, which had never been admitted : Sir Charles Met- calfe's Council are stigmatized in like manner, for adhering to Responsible Government, after having accepted office solemnly pledged to Responsible Government, as then established. In every other respect the quarrel is the same — the principles are the same. Prerogative is the watch-word in both cases : patronage is the sore spot in both. Sir Francis Head had no objection to Reformers : till they opposed him, he could view with great complacency their opposition to what was called the Family Compact ; and Mr. Baldwin might have been an Execu- tive Counsellor, and Mr. Bidwell a Judge, had they only been satisfied with the possession of office. Sir Charles Metcalfe, in like manner, has no objection to Reformers, if they let his patronage alone ; and Mr. Viger, notwithstanding his imprison- ment, may be an Executive Counsellor, and he may sit at the 79 same Council table with Mr. Sherwood, who wished for a Uniam with Lower Canada, with a statutary majority of Upper Canadian members, and who but the other day would have it, that the Scat of Government in Upper Canada was a private c>)ndition of the late Union Act. But, Sir, it will be said that Sir Charles Metcalfe '.s a very different man from Sir Francis Head, which is very true ; for Sir Charles Metcalfe's Tory friends will wish he was half as good, and his Reform allies will say he is bettor. But what have we to do with these comparisons ; Canadians do not select Gover- nors, nor desire to choose them ; and they wish not to have Canadian politics depend upon the chances of their personal distinctions. The object of Responsible Govemmevit is the admmistration of our local affairs, according to the well-under- stood wishes of the people. The mild and benignant despotism of even the best of men may only precede the flagrant tyranny of the worst. Sir Charles Metcalfe is neilhcr the best nor the worst, and his successors may be either better or worse ; but it was not for the purpose of subjecting the people of Canada to such chances that Responsible Government was sought lo be established. I have hinted at this pai'allel between one Governor and another ; and I have no doubt that it will be followed out to an extent that will astonish .even tliose who are familiar with the late years of Canadian history : some of the Legion will probably show it in print. My present purpose is, to illustrate Sir Charles Metcalfe's paraphrastic style of writing despatches and other public documents. Another Governor — Sir Francis Head, for example, had he been Governor in May, 1843, would probably have informed the Colonial Minister that the Canadian Coun- sellors and Heads of Departments did not confine themselves to the mere obedience of orders, but, on the contrary, claimed to advise respecting these orders : that they claimed to have some- t..ing to say in all the acts of Government, because they held themselves liable to be called to account for these acts : that they claimed to interfere, with their advice, in the exercise of un- doubted prerogatives of the Crown — appointments to oiHce included : that they claimed that appointments should be made with a view to the majority in Parliament, and the political views of that majority by which the Government was sup] 'orted , and that they should not, while in office, bo exposed to the certain .>H t w 80 consequence of having the majority shortly dead against them, because of appointments to office of the active political enemies of diaC majority. He might also have said, that, on his arrival, ono single question agitated the public mind, namely, whether he, the new Governor, intended to carry on his Administration on th» principles involved in these claims, or whether he should admin- i»t«r the Government according to a discretion entirely his own ; and that his Counsellors wished him to set this question at rest, 1 by some intimation of his designs on this head. After this state- ment, he might have reasoned almost in the very words of Sir Charles Metcalfe, that the assertion of these principles amounted, t in his opinion, to a requisition " to give myself up entirely to the Council ; to submit absolutely to their discretion ; to have no judgment of my own ; to bestow patronage exclusively on their parti zan s ; to proscribe their opponents; and to make some pub- lic and unequivocal declaration of my adhesion to these conditions, involving the complete nullification of Her Majesty's Govem- » ment." In this reasoning the Governor would not have stood alone ; for this was the precise reasoning of Sir Francis Head and Sir George Arthur, on the same question, and of every enemy to the system of Responsible Government in Canada : but Sir Charles loves paraphrase better than argument ; and, instead of deducing consequences from propositions, he assumes the con- sequences, and states them as the propositions. This may be a very good style for the resolutions of an Orange lodge, or for a dutiful and loyal address, but it is a very unfair and unfortunate style for a Governor, inasmuch as, however plausible the argu- ment might be, the paraphrase is simply and manifestly untrue in fact ; and however mere beautifully put in what is assumed to be equivalent language, men \viU not patiently submit to have their I meaning travestied even by Governors. Suppose, Sir, that our present Governor had not })een the great i; man he is, and that he had weakly yielded to the demand he here states the Council to have made, How would his unequivocal de- claration have stood 1 Let us take his ■ •• ;: t • ; . i.: , ■ It will bcacknowlegcd, Sir, that to preserve such a majority, to con- tinue such an unanimity of purpose in aCanadian Parliament was no easy task, or ono that could be materially misdirected without dangeiv And was it not natural that with all the care and responsibility of preserving the peace and harmony that existed, the Executive Councillors should have viewed with uneasiness a disposition of His Excellency to do what he calls justice to all parties and to re- gard the small minority in Parliament as a party to be con- cilliated, and favoured. For the Council under such circumstances to ask, to entreat, to demand of His Excellency a knowledge of his intentions respecting appointments, respecting public measures: to ask opportunty of advising upon all, when any unconsidered or ill-advised step might not only have been fatal to the Counsel- lors as public men, but destructive of the condition of public affairs which they had been working to bring about — was neither unconstitutional or assuming. To say to his ExcUency, we feel the delicacy of our position, and of yours with the Provincial Parliament; and we know better than your Excellency or your private Secretary can know the cflect of every movement on the part of tlie Government. We have much at stake, every thing of ours, as public men, depends upon your Excellency's acts : let us know at least before these acts are consummated, and before your Excellency's honor is pledged by offers, what your intentions are, and upon what advice, or representations, or inducements they are founded. This Sir, I repeat, would be no improper lan- guage to be spoken to Her Majesty's Repiesentativc under a system of Responsible Government ; and when we consider His Excellency's antagonism, and the feeling under which he must have written the despatch of May, 1S43, it may easily be sup- posed that such language was not wantonly or unnecessarily used : and, if even Colonial Councillors, liesitatcd or refused to remain 83 nts in- a lis ist P- i\: in In office, or to be held aiiswcraljle for tlie acts of Government without being advised with upon them— is it fairly to be imputed to them, that they were endeavouring to overthrow tlie authority, which they had successfully supported ? -But, Sir, in the hands of a Governor inclined to paraphrase, how easily might such language bo turned into a demand of a stipulation : and how readily might a respecful remonstrance be made to assume the forai of an uncon- stitutional requisition. With a Governor who looked favourably oh a system of Res- ponsible Government in successful operation, and who heartily wished to continue its success, such language need not have been held at all, but this was not Sir Charles Metcalfe's case. He had, as appears from his own acknowledged antagonism, and from liis despatch of tlic previous month of May, spent mouths in reluctant acquiescence in measures and policy which he disapproved, and if his disapproval was concealed, and if he did not use his power in selecting a new and more complying Council, it was because ho feared the consequences. With such a man, — one whose commu- nications with England conveyed no cheering intelligerice of un- wonted peace, and public happiness in Canada, but on the con- trary, whose despatches were so many complaints regarding his own prerogative, any language of advice or remonstrance was full of danger. In arguing with Mr. Ryerson, I need not prove that the Government, conducted under the advice of the Counsellors, was successful, for he admits it. With his Excellency's despatch, as quoted by Lord Stanley, and with his Excellency's explanation, and his answers to loyal addresses, I need not prove that the Government was conducted in opposition to his Excel- lency's views, though with his reluctant assent. Then Sir, let us ask, what would have been the consequence had his Excellency prevailed, had the Council and not his Excel- lency been the reluctantly acquiescing party : is it sophistry to say that the Government would have been conducted diflorently from what it was conducted ; or is it too much to assume that the Council thought that so conducted it would have failed ? If such was the opinion of the Counsellors what obligation I would ask, were they under to remain in a government, to be overwhelm- ed in its fall 1 If such was their opinion, would it have been fair, candid, or consistent with their duty to have withheld it ? Could they when the blow was struck and the confidence of Par- f H liamcnt lost, havo dcfcndcJ themselves upon the Royal Prcro« gativo 1 No Sir, for then would have comu the accusations of meanly clinging to ofHcc, and of i^rctonding to responsibility, with- out having advised, and Lord Somers' case quoted by Mr. Ryor- 6on would indeed have been in point against them. I do not know Sir, how it was possible for the Executive Coun- cil to have avoided the resignation, for which I suppose they had just OS little inclination as other persons in oflico ; and if Hia Excellency delights in pharaphraso so much us to introduce it into despatches to the Secretary of State, I see no reason to doubt a like introduction into Parliamentary explanations. There is not Sir, a great deal of difference between a remonati-ance and an argument in favour of a certain course, and, a demand of a stipulation to pursue that coiu'se in future — not much difference between a declarption that " we must resign unless we arc con- sulted," and a demand of a promise to consult under all circum- stances — ^not half so much tangible distinction as there is between a stipulation in writing, and one not in writing, and yet the meriting appears to have crept into a communication with Her Majesty's Minister, and not to have been thought of in Canada : but never- theless there are distinctions between all these things, and on those Mr. Rycrson seems to bo instructed to hang the peace and liber- ties of hia country. My duty is to make the distinction such as it is a plain one ; and if I must deny his Excellency's reasons, I shall do it without losing sigiit of his position, as the Queen's Representative, neither shall I extend my denials further thai* the present discussion requires. I need scarcely infonn my readers, that the British Constitution is not a written one, or one of theory. Tt differs from that of the United States more on this point, than in any other. In the neigh- bouring republic, liberty is surrounded by a pallisado of words and enactments, under the cover of which liberty is asailed almost as often as she is defended. In the British Constitution the enactments and definitions are few. The powers defined by it, are even contradictory. It is in the established practices of the Constitution, raised aa they are capable of being, so as to apply to every possible change of circumstances, that the liberties of the British people depend as well for their present enjoyment as for their future permanency. Under such a constitution as that of England, definitions of theories of Government, are always dangerous ; inasmuch as circum- 15 Rtanccs may arise to which tlioy aro not applicable : and the at- tempt to define too closely the several powers contained in the conslitution, may be always met by the supposal of extreme cases, when the doBnitions could not bo adopted without absurdity. For example when Mr. Kycrson sets up the undoubted prerogative of the Crown, and the treason involved in interference with its ex- orcise, I am at liberty to sujiposc cases of extreme tyranny, which may accompany the carrying into effect the sovereign will, though it may not go beyond the letter of the Constitution. In like man- ner when I uphold a Government administered in accordance with the constitutionally expressed wishes of the people, Mr. Ryerson is at liberty to say, that such a Government involves the prostration of the royal prerogative, and is in fact a republic. In short a con- fltitution in which two independent wills are to prevail, is a contra- diction in itself— a moral impossibility ; and therefore there is no difficulty on either side, of proving a proposition made on the other, defining what is to be the exercise of royal prerogative, or the extent to which the wishes of the people may prevail, to be an absurdity. As there are in the British Constitution two independent wills to be consulted, harmony is produced by their accommodation to each other j and where these wills happen unfortunately to be op- posed, there is no other resource, but for each to rest upon the righteousness, reasonableness, and practicability of its own opi- nion. Sometimes thes* >ntestK have ended in a resort to arms : but according to the '» er and more modem usage, they have been 'ontinued poicel'i. each sidr- using its respective influences and I ivvers, until uni' or i ic other prevail. Vioirnt and reckless parti zans,- such as the Orangemen of Ca- nada — or such as Mackenzie, thi eaten armed resistance to these opponents : designing ones like Mr. Ryerson, talk of the strength of an empire, and of Thnrmopylies of death : [uiet and peaceable men like the Toronto league, advocate the firm constitutional ad- vancement of popular claims, sim))iy throur^h the means and pow- ers which the law and the constitution ha . c placed in the hands of the people. But Sir, 'ia,;i ro be avoided as definitions of constitutional rights may be, they ti; always produced by invasions of the rights and privileges of vu - part of the constitutional power upon the other. Had the prerogative of the Crown been always administered in Canada, with due regard to the opinions of the majority in Par- IMAGE fcVALUATBON TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^'^^^ 4i^ 1.0 I.I 1.25 KiKS 12.5 S Iti 12.0 1.4 ill 1.6 VQ /^ 7 c?;^^ ^ /A Sdraices Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STREET WFBSTER.N.Y. 14580 ;716) 872-4503 86 liamcnt, and had this accoivlaiice been secured by the choice of the advisers of the Crown, from amongst those in whom the pcr- ple placed confidence, the question of Responsible Govern- ment never would have been debated in Canada, and the resolu- tions of 1841, never would have been passed. I need not fear contradiction, when I allege, that in 1794 when 9, representation was given to the Canadas, there was no popular opinion, properly so called ; and all that Governors could do in its absence was, to use their own discretion, in the administration of prerogative : A'hether they used that discretion wisely or not, it is not for me now to inquire. As the population became numerous, and as education became more generally diffused, and as the people became more accus- toiped to a representation, popular opinion grew with tli6 growth of the Gouutry ; deference to that opinion, ought to have grown with it, but it did not : arbitrary power, and by arbitrary power I do not mean tyranny, once vested and possessed is never given up withouit a struggle of some kind ; and jas popular influence could not well be advanced without the assertion of principles, hence arose attempts to define its extent on the one hand, and to define the prerogative by which it was to be resisted on the other. I believe Sir, that if the opinions of all men in Canada, would be fairly ascertained, ninety-nine out of a hundred would be found in favour of an administration of the Government on the very sys- tem followed in England: many may think the time is not yet come, but I believe all value free British Institutions too much, to cpnsign their country to the chances of a government for all fu- turity, Lest you should be alarmed at the word stipulation, I intended in this letter to show you that there are such things as stipulations be- tween Sovereigns and ministers ; but I have got to the end of my letter without finishing this division of my subject. I find, also, that I have for a long time parted from Mr. Ryerson, which would be a misfortune, bitt for his announcement of victory in his fifth number. * ^ 91 fie thinlcs It unnecessary io prolong hif defence. The siege of his Thermopylik. is raised by Lord Stanley ; and he now takes the field with the strength of an empire, and a most strange denunciation to came from an advocate of ** a no-party Government." lam far frona being done with Mr. Ryerson's defence, as yet ; and as your readers do not complain, I shall continue to use the time given me till autumn, when I am promised the " coup de grace" by the Doctor: io continuing my observations on his celebrated defence, and in comparing it with the heterogeneous defences of the other combatants on the same side. LEGION. I h p p i' ,? W '\. I ] »' ^-■ m if LETTER VI. Sm, I apologissed in my last letter fbr having parteJ company lu this discussion with Mr. Ryerson ; I now return to his *' defence." He says, in his third number, " a second charge is ' that difference of opinion led not merely to appointments against their advice, but to appointments, and proposals to make appointments, of which they were not informed in any manner until all opportunity of offering advice upon them had passed by.' " This charge, Mr* Ryersun says, is only the assertion of one party, and denied in all its essentials by the other. Neithei* His Excellency or Mr. Ryerson, however, have denied the fact, that appointments were made contrary to the advice of the Council, or that appointments and offers of appointments were made without their knowledge. The extent to which this took place could not have been great; for had it been so, the Counsellors would have resigned long before, and would have resigned on the ground of the specific appointments. What tliey allege is, that they understood that His Excellency took a widely different vie w of the position, duties and responsi- bilities of the Executive Council, from that under which they accepted office, and thiough which they had been enabled to conduct the Parliamentary business of the Government, sustained by a large majority in the popular branch of the Legislature : and they say, moreover, that he " did not disguise his opinion that the affairs of the country would be more satisfactorily managed by and through the Governor himself, without any necessity of concoTcd amongst the members of the Council, or obligation on their part to defend or support in Parliament the acts <^ Government." His Excellency, in his explanation, protests against this a» conveying a misapprehension of his views and intentions, which had no foundation in any part of his conduct ; unless a refusal to make a surrender of the prerogative of the Crown for party, purposes, and an anxiety to do justice to thos« who were iiijured. by the arrangements attending the Union. =. .ij :>;;?: tyi :,t.},:j J w 94 d l!:a illlir ")> ■■St ■ U . I'he members of the Executive Council tlnis stated an cxpfesscd opinion, of His Excellency, which he was at full liberty directly to deny or disavow if ho pleased. J3ut he has done neither. I am far from thinking he would disavow this opinion Wow: in fact ho cannot do so witltoUt condcnming Lord Falkland's system of government, wherein bof/i parties are represented, or professed to be represented, in the Executive Council ; and whcre.consequcntly, unanimity is not even sought for or pretended to. I think it may not unfairly bo assumed that His Excellency did express this opinion, and that he holds it now j for upon no other supposition can I account for the appointment of M. Viger, for example, and Mr. Draper to the same Council, or for Mr. Parke and Mr. Sher- wood being proposed to the public as high officers of the same Government. Far be it from mc to find fault with His Excellency ( for holding such an ojiinion. It is perfectly consistent with, and iieccssai-y to a Government which has no Parliament — such a or»o 08 he was accustomed to ; and if this country were ruled by a Governor and Council without a Parliament, the presence of both »partie3 in the Council would be just and almost necessary. I wish His p]xcellency would disavow this opinion— if he means to do so at all — through a better authority than Mr. Egcrton Ryerson, or ^'r. Wakefield, or Mr, Parke : but I have no expectation of this — for I see the opinion carried into actunl practice,— a practice which can be justified only by the opinion. But His Excellency may wish to be understood to say, that whether his Council were made up of the prevailing party, or of two or many parties,he would act precisely as he did^and therefore his acts did not depend Upon his opinion, as to the unity of senti' ment and obligation to defend the acts of Government by every member of the Council. Or he may have authorized Mr. Ryerson to deny that he held any such opinion at all. In either of these cases it would be useless to continue the discussion as to that opinion ; and in fact it becomes a matter of indifference except as relates to the credibility of persons making opposite assertions. A Governor may hold abstract opinions in favour of the most despotic form of Government, and be a very good Responsible Government Governor. The Counsellors had no right to resign upon an abstract opinion ; nor did they do so. They resigned because acta were justified by an opinion inconsistent with their notions of their functions and responsibilities : and because con- tinuing in office after such an avowal would be a virtual assent not Hj led merely to these acts Imt to other acts of a like nature. It wotihl have been u contiimutice in office with n certainty of future tlisa- greemont; whicli, wlieu it cainu could not be advanced as a cause of resignation ; for the i)rinci[)le would tlieti liave been admitted^ and the country would have already been betrayed by the Council it liad trusted. But afler all the (iovernor General may have acted contrary to the advice of his Council for other reasons, bt^sides his thinking them not bound to unanimity so long as they continued in office ; or he may have omitted to ask their advice, for other I'casons than because he thought them not, while in office, obliged to defend his acts. And if His Excellency can be now considered as denying the opinion attributed to him by his late Counsellors, or in disavowing all intention of acting upon it ; if Mr. Kyersonbo any authority on this subject, or if His Excellency's answers to Addresses contain any such denial or disavowal, I am heartly glad of the resignation ; for by it we have gained one step towards Responsible GoTernment, in our Canadian sense of the tennj and as contra-distinguished from the piebald system of Lord Falk- land. But I have no such hope myself. When a Session of Parliament passes over without our seeing Executive Counsellors on two sides of important questions ; and whet' we see them with the unity of sentiment and purpose found in a British administra- tion, I shall begin to believe that the ojjinion is really abandoned, or that it is one of harmless theory. And when I see this unani- mityprevailing once more I shall congratulate Canada.andCanadians of all parties, no matter which party shall have the confidence of Parliament or of His Excellency. But if we find a divided Cabinet, with members of Council avowing and defending diiferent principles, and voting against each other, and the Governor's own opinions distinguished in Parliament from those of the whole or a portion of his Council, I shall take the liberty of reminding you of my present remarks ; and I shall ask you, wliaS else you could have expected, from the Governor General's avowed principles of Government, to which I shall bye and bye call your attention. I must in the meantime, howcvex", make some more observations on His Excellency's explanations to Parliament. His Excellency says, that it was demanded of him, " that he should agree to make no appointment and no ofler of an appoint- ment without previously taking the advice of the Council ; that the lists of candidates should in every instance be laid before them j that they should recommend any others at their discretion ; and that mm jlll I 9G Iff tho Governor General in declining to tuke their advice should not make any appointment ]>rojudiciul to their influence." In other words, says, or rather parnphrascs Hiti Excellency, " In other words, that tho patronage of the Crown should bo surrendered to the Council for tho purpose of Parliainentary support ;" for, ho says, if tho demand did not mean that, it meant nothing, as it cannot bo imagined that the mere farm of taking advice without regarding it, was the process contemplated. Now Sir, I beg you to consider maturely a few questions as I shall propose them. Suppose for a moment the stipulation out of the question, or suppose, if you please, that a stipulation was demanded, would this paraphrase, or " other words" of His Excellency, be justifiable 1 Would tho taking advice on every occasion of appointment to office be a surrender of any prerogative? Would the submission of limits of candidates in all instances be a surrender of prerogative "^ Would receiving recommendations of others than the persons named in the lists bo a surrender of prero- gative ] Yes, eays tho Governor General, as it cannot be imagined that the mere form of taking advice without regarding it was tho process contemplated. But, Sir, ia there in fact no difference between asking advice, and following it 1 Does a Governor, or any one else submitting to ask advice, involve the necessity of his regarding it when taken 1 and when, to avoid any misunder- stan(''ng on the subject, the members of Council, as appears by * their undenicd explanations, " repeatedly/ and distinctly/ exjdained to His Excellency that they considered him free to act cmUrary to their advice, and only claimed an opportunity of giving such advice," is the Governor General at liberty to say that they required a surrender of the prerogative of the CrovvTi,upon the very whimsical and witty argument, " as it cannot be imagined that the mere form » of taking advice without regarding it was the process contemplated." When you have made up your mind on these questions, I wish you to consider the following : Is this argument, such as it is, an argument against a system of advised and responsible Government, or is it not ? There is nothing said here about affairs of " adequate impor- tance," and by the words adequate importance, I suppose must be meant affairs not of adequately trifling importance, but affairs of adequately great importance. Then, if a system of advising with a Council upon affairs of email importance, be a surrender of the prerogative of tho Crown, t 9T how much more olycctionaMo a aurrcndor of tlio prerogative must it be, to adopt a syHtom of advising upon aft'uirs of great impor- tance 1 And if tl»c system cannot ho recognized and acted upon in small afl'airw, ought it to be cncoiu'uged and acted u[)on in largo onea? IJiit Ilis Excellency now professes to be in favor of Respon- sible (lovcmmeiit, anil of tli(5 resolutions of ISll. In his expla- nation he stated, that he protested against its being supposepresentativc of the people ; thus affording a guarantee that the well understood wishes and interests of the people, which our Gracious Sovereign has declared shall be the rule of the Provincial Govenmicnt, will on ' all occasions be faithfully represented and advocated." It will not, I believe, be disputc(\ that the " Provincial Admi- nistration" here spoken of, moans the Executive Council of the Province ; or that the " subordinate officers," under the Governor forming that Administration, mean the Heads of Departments comprising the Executive Council ; or that " assistance, counsel and information," mean, or include within their meaning, advice ; or that the terms "local affairs" and " all occasions," leave room for the exclusion of no affairs or occasions which might occur in the conduct of the Government. When the resolution was moved by one of Lord Sydenham's Council, and by his order, it came as near a stipulation, as I remark- ed in my last letter, as was desirable or perhaps constitutional. XiVX the GovezTior-Gencral goes much farther, for he positively de- 9tf ■„| ■I Jr^: ■1*1 (;lares in Writing, tFiat he svhscrihcs to tliat resolution ; which de- claration he' communicated to the parliament, is not only a stipu- lation, but a stipulation in writing. A:aa what does the stipulation amount to ? Why, Sir, precisely • to this — to act with the assistance, counsel, and information of the ' Executive Council in our local affairs on all occffsions. So, Sir, you see that his Excellency's objection could not te to a fbftnal stipulation, or even to a stipulation in writing, which led him to the disagreement with the Council ; for he actually gavb both to the Parliament without being required to do so hi any manner. Why, then, you will a,sk, are not the Parliament and the late Counsellors satisfied ? Have they not all they want in the way of definition, and even of positive actual stfpulation? They are not satisfied. Sir, for this reason — because the Gover- nor-General while he concedes all this, expresses in the same do- cument an opinion, that to consult the Council upon all appoint- ments to office, would be a surrender of the Royal Prerogative into the hands of the Council — because, as he says, " it cannot be imagined, the taking advice without regarding it, was the process contemplated." But, Sir, the process contemplated in taking advice upon ap- pointments to office, must be the same as the process contemplated upon other occasions ; and if there be no difference between ta- king advice and following it — and if he subscribes to the resolu- *iions of 1841, which requires that our locd affairs can only bo managed with the assistance, counsel, and information of the Exe- cutive Council, he concedes much more than the Council ever demanded of him, and more than the people of this country would * desire, for they never wished him blindly ip follow the advice of his Council: but on the contrary, when the Council advise measures which he thinks wrong, and which he therefore adjudges to be opposed to the w^U understood wishes of thr, people, the people expect hiin to dismiss the Counsellors, and to seek others more deserving of their confidence. No wonder Sir, that the friends of Responsible Government arc utterly at a loss for the means of reconciling this positive stipulation, with the rbfusal of a stipulation — this voluntary acknowledgement *of a necessity for acting with advice, v-!th as positive an allegation, that to agree to take advice would' bo a hurrender of the Preroga;- tive of the Crown — a degradation of tlie office of Governor-General. be loro arc oil, ent on, ga- i-al. 99 Whys they say, does His Excellency subscribe to a resolution which asserts the principle of advice upon all occasions, and yet calls the agreeing to do so, a surrender and a degradation to which he cannot submit 1 His parting with a Council who were success- fully carrying on a government, supported by a strong majority in Parliament, merely because they asked in practice what his Ex- cellency so freely subscribes to? Why, it is asked, are Counsel- lors stigmatized in attite papers as disaffected, to the Queen, and to his Excellency foT asking the very thing His Excellency gives of his own accord ] When Governors stretch the Royal prerogative so far, as to concede and deny the same principle in express terms, in the same document, it is no wonder Sir, that out of many Vice Regal decla- rations. Responsible Government doctrine's may be gathered ; but it is also not surprising that when Responsible Government and anti-Responsible Government doctrines came from the same per- son, and at the same time, the public should take the doctrines acted upon rather than those barely professed, as the real doctrines of the party making the declaration. There is Sir, one interpretation, and but one, which would make His Excellency's confession of political faith intelligible, if not consistent. It may be that His Excellency means to declare, that ♦ appointments to oiBce, are not "our local affairs" mentioned in the resolution of 1841, to which his Excellency so heartily sub- scribes. Perhaps his Excellency learned from Dr. Ryerson that patronage, was an " undoubted prerogative," and that it was only doubtful prerogatives which were local affairs, upon which advice was necessary. This would be very like one of the Doctor's ad captandum propositions which require no proof: but I am much mistaken if the distinction will satisfy the people of Canada. For, Sir, of all the affairs on which the responsibility of Counsellors is desired and insisted upon by public opinion, appointments to office are the most urgent. Take away from Responsible Government the nectiisity for advised appointments, and the whole fabric falls »to the gi'ound. Place the words " except appointments to office" aftflr the words " local affairs" in the resolution of 1841, and Responsible Government became an impracticable absurdity : and if, Sir, public opinion is not to be consulted with respect to patron- age, and if Executive Counsellors can answer to complaints of improper appointments, by saying that patronage is an undoubted prerogative with which Parliament has nothing to do, we had bet- I' ! ^ lit 11 pr fl 100 ter far, return to the old system, or better still, give up representa- tive institutions altogether, for nothing good or useful would re- main of them, and our Colonial Assembly representing, what Lord Stanley calls the humbler classes, would be but what Mr. Ryerson calls " the shade of a virus." < • ■ -i/..-- t , . , .■ .r. This is a subject upon which public opinion is so fixed that I feel very easy in leaving it for the present. I have to write a chapter on patronage, and party government, and undoubted pre- rogative in which this matter can be more fully discussed, and wherein I can adduce proofs and constituticnal usage fi'om which neither Egerton Ryerson, nor George the Third with all his bishops can drive me ; but I must return to the Doctor's Themio- pylae, where he stands all this time, with the patience of the Spar- tan youth, who stole a fox, and who would not open his garment though the animal was gnawing into his bowels. To return, then, Mr. Ryerson says, in his third number ** a second charge is, that that difference of opinion led not merely to appointments, and proposals to make appointments of which they were not informed in any manner until all opportunity for offering advice upon them had passed by." Mr. Ryerson says, " this is only the assertion of one party, and denied in all its essentials by the other." I have shown before that the opinion is not denied : and I have deduced from His Excellency's explanation another opinion, equally at war with Responsible Government, namely, that appointments to office, belong to undoubted prerogatives, upon which advice is usurpation ; which latter would account for the facts of which the Counsellors complained, as well as the one mentioned by them. Then as to the facts themselves, namely the appointments and proposals to make appointments, let us see whe- ther they are denied in his Excellency's explanation or otherwise. The only part of the explanation which could be tortured into a denial is in fact an admission. His Excellency says he appealed " to the number of appointments made by him on the recommendation of the Council, or of the members of it in their departmental ca- pacity ; and to instances in which he had abstained from conferring appointments on their opponents, as furnishing proofs of the great consideration which he had evinced towards the Council in the distribution of the patronage of the Crown." ihino yiUiiH'^ ,t .> ' T This surely is not a denial that appointments were given and cffered contraiy to, or without the advice of the Council. One of your readere from England or Ireland, who may haive had the 101 misfortune to be sued for tithes, would scarcely say he found it a good answer to appeal to the number of pigs he had left at the rectory. The reply would in that case be, the question is not about the pigs you did deliver, but about those you kept back. lu fact his Excellency's explanation, so far from being a denial, would lead me to suppose a very much worse case than was ever pretended to by the late Counsellors ; because for all that appears in the explanation, the number of appointments disposed of with- out, or contrary to the advice of the Council, may have \. pen one half or three fourths, or seven eights of the whole, either of which the late Counsellors do not by any means assert. They merely say " appointments," which may have been two or more ; and they did not say even that they resigned because of the appointments, but because their remonstrance respecting them, was met by an opinion hostile, as they considered it, to the pledges under which they held office, and after the avowal of which they could not hold office without virtually asserting to the opinion, or without leav- ing themselves defenceless in case that opinion continued to be acted upon. '■ ;: -!.. •. . u;. • ; . -• • ;.!.::). ■; t. -o: Now, whether that opinion was stated correctly by the late Counsellors in their words, or more correctly by the Governor-Ge- neral in his own explanation, it was an opinion which he could not hold and act upon with the late Council ; for they held themselves and the Parliament held them accountable for appointments to office; and his Excellency according to his own explanation, con- sidered that to consent to advise, would be consenting to follow advice, and that consenting to consult the Council on appointments to office would be a surrender of the royal prerogative. It is curious to see how deeply prejudiced Sir Charles Metcalfe must have been against the late Counsellors, and against the majo- rity in Parliament. He gives the Council no credit for recommen- ding fit and proper persons to office— the majority of the Assembly no credit for honest scrutiny into the appointments. No such thing Sir. The Council, according to his Excellency, would not recommend, so as to gain or secure by honest means the approba- tion of the representatives of their countrymen. Their advice would be "forthe purchase of parliamentary support," and "if it did not mean that," His Excellency tells the persons to be pur- chased — the members of Parliament themselves — " it could mean nothing." ' Unhappy Canada, whose Governor was compelled for month: ■J'.- WF 102 W ii ill after month to confer appointments on the recommendation of « Council for the purchase of Parliamentary support i Poor humbla r.1 asses, whose representatives are to be purchased, and told so, in BO many words in a Governor's message ! Miserable and corrupt colony, no wonder that Gibbon Wakefield was allowed oei2,000 by English Stockholders to enable him to carry the Beauhamois canal by purchase ! No wonder that offices are kept open, and no Government formed for month after month, sp that time may be given to your purchasable members to consider their vote — their rash unprofitable vote of last session ! no wonder that time is given to see whether the loose fish will not bite at last : and whor ther the provincial government cannot be promoted to a majority by purchase I But again, says Mr. Ryerson, another part of the charge is, that His Excellency made offers of appointments, and he asks, * " are offers of appointments appointments V* " What has the ■ Parliament to do, says the Doctor, with offers of appointments T Well, Sir, I will answer the question. To a corrupt Council who sought to purchase a corrupt parliament, qffers of appointments are not appointments : and to a Governor who cannot find officers possessing the confidence of the people, offers of appointments are not appointments, though no doubt he once thought f* that if they ' did not mean that, they meant nothing :" but to men who held the « royal word pledged by an offer, and who saw a fatal antagonisTi^ made more public by an offer than by an appointment, — who saw an intended course of pohcy as plainly in an offer as in an appoint- ment, the offer was just as bad as the appointment. What would Sir Robert Peel, who would not accept office while ladies of an opposite party remained about the Queen, and thereby gave an indication of antagonism and reluctant confidence, what would he say, if Lord John Russell or any of his opponents were offered of- fice, or were enabled to say that they refused it being offered 1 Again, Mr. Ryerson says, " will any one deny that one or more of the Counsellors, ha.ve talked with individuals, about their ap- pointments to office, have proposed it, have concerted it, have pro- mised it so Jar as they were concerned, and all this before the Gov- ernor-General had been spoken to on the subject ? And is not, asks Mr. Ryerson, the prerogative of the Crown equal to that of one of its advisers ?" Now, Sir, I will neither deny, or admit what I know nothing about : and I am willing to suppose, that some body must ascertaii) h\ I f ' 103 whether persons will accept office without the necessity of a for» mal offer and acceptance or refusal. But I very much doubt the offers and promises supposed by Mr. Ryorson nevertheless : and I take it moreover that a promise to recommend to an ofhce is 9 very different thing fronx an offer of it, aijd the promise to recom- mend is all that Counsellors could give, unless they went altogether beyond their legal, as well as their practical authority. But, Sir, • an offer by a Governor is one from which he cannot in honor withdraw, unless he has been deceived by or in the person to whom it is made : and while the Governor is free to converse with whom he pleases, and on what subject he pleases, apd although he may without violating the constitution even make offers of ap- pointments when he pleases, yet offers of appointments made by him, are not merely " so far as he is concerned." If accepted no man who had regard for the honor of a Governor would advise him to withdraw from the offer, whether ho chose to remain res- ponsible fop the appointment or not; and no Governor would listen to such a recommendation with patience : and whether ac- cepted or not, offers of appointments without the knowledge of a Council conveyed in some mode, are such ccilain indications of want of confidence, that ministers could not help noticing, and which, if defended iipon the ground that patronage was a preroga- tive on which advice was unnecessary, and on which to consent to advise would be a surrender of the royal prerogative, po minister would be justified in remaining in office. But Mr. Ryerson, in his difficulty hazards a defined principle fpr which the Governor-General will give him very little thanks. Speaking of an offer of an appointment by the Crown, he says, *' it involves the condition of a compliance with constitutional forms through the instrumentality of at least one responsible piinister." " Every act of the Governor however must, says Mr. Ryerson, be communicated by his Secretary, and that Secretary should be a res- ponsible minister :" and by way of illustrating this position he says — " Now, suppose, that the Governor-General were to send an order to the Secretary, directing hini to affix the officia] zeal to a com- mission for ail appointment respecting which the Council had never been consulted, and in which they had no opportunity of tendering advice, the Secretary would have four courses open to him. He could not positively disobey orders, but he could tender his own re- signation and request the Governor to appoint some other person to 1 1 In perform that act ; or he could afjlix the official seal to it forthwith h w i 104 or he could inrorm them, and they could either consent to it or send one or more of their number to the Governor and tender their ad- vice against it." '« Therefore," says the Doctor, " it is impossible for him to make an appointment without giving his Council an oppor- tunity of tendering their advice. What is impossible cannot be true — these great charges therefore, repeated ten thousand times is all shown not only to bo undefined and unproved but utterly ground- less and false." • ■ . , , 1 . ■ . I Now, Sir, the principal objection I have to this most satisfactory defence of the learned Doctor is, that it is perfectly inconsistent, and opposed to the Governor-General's own doctrine, and what is of very little corjsequenco to Mr. Ryerson himself: for he most lo- gically proves the impossibility of an appointment, withont giving an opportunity fur o^ering advice, and as opportunity for offering advice given to those whose duty it is to offer advice, must be and is, according to Mr. Ryerson himself, equivalent to asking advice, all appointments must, of necessity, therefore, be preceded by advice, or forbearance to offer it, the opportunity being given. But according to the Governor-General's own ex- planation, he was only asked to agree to make no appointments without allowing opportunity for advice, and to agree to this would be as the Governor-General says, "a surrender of the royal prerogative," — «• a making him a tool." Then, according to the learned Doctor, it is absolutely impossible for the Governor-Gene- . ral to avoid the advice or, the opportunity on any possible occasion. The agreement to ask advice, or to afford the opportunity of giving it on all occasions, would therefore, only be an agreement on the part of the Governor-General to do what he could not possibily avoid doing: and the Governor could therefore by no possibility avoid surrendering the royal prerogative and becoming a tool ; from which premises it would follow pretty clearly that there was no pre- rogative to surrender, and that the Governor-General is a tool, created and established as such by " the forms of the Constitution." This, Sir, is an inevitable conclusion from the Doctor's own argument, taken in conjunction with the doctrine of Sir Charles Metcalfe, — an argument and a conclusion for which the learned Doctor will have very little thanks from his patron, — a. argu ..ent and a conclusion which show that the Doctor is not much at variance with the Reform Assoc "ation ; and that this variance consists not in his want of adhesion to the principles of Res- ponsible Government, as held by the Association, but in his '■■? •-■ 105 pushing his views of it to an extreme point, beyond all the preten- sions of the disaHcctcd Counsellors, and u vast distance beyond Lord Stanley and iho House of Comnnons. When the Doctor's penduluiD has vibrated a little more, may we not hope, Sir, that it will settle down to our opinions at last? When this takes place, I hope, Sir, that in mercy to ths Toronto League, he will be silent on the subject ; for, strong as the Association is, I am not sure that it could stand the shock of the Doctor's advocacy. Mr. Ryerson's argument is. Sir, a very strong one on our side, if brought to its real and practical conclusion. I admit. Sir, that the instrumentality of a responsible Minister is neces- sary to an appointment, and that he and his colKiagues become responsible, through that instrumentality, for ever}) appointment. But, Sir, the more their responsibility is shown to follow from Che forms of the constitution, the more invincible becomes their right that consultation should not be a legal fiction ; and that oppor- tunity for giving advice should be real, if for the safety of Coun- sellors they wish it to be so. Now, Sir, the Governor-General, who has expressed the opinion that to agree to consult and take advice upon all occasions would be a surrender of undoubted pre- rogative, cannot be guilty of the absurdity of imagining that advice is, of absolute necessity, supposed to be given on all occasions : and if he asserts his orders to be orders in reality, and not condi- tional, — and if he issues them upon his own responsibility, and expected them to be obeyed, — and if he considered that the ques- tioning these orders would be an attempt to deprive him of his own will and discretion, it surely behoved his Counsellors to come to an understanding with him ; and when they found avowed antagonism, to have that point settled and arranged before they involved them- selves in further consequences. I should, Sir, endeavour to shorten this discussion, and should force it to a conclusion on my side, were it not (hat our friends appear to take a lively interest in the argument. The subject is a grave and an irritating one, but the Doctor's logic half the time puis all gravity and ill nature out of the question ; and while we deplore the misfortunes of our country, we cannot help laughing in the midst of our troubles. After all, I must get on with my argu- ir>ent, which hitherto has been very much in the style of the story of the King of Bohemia and his seven castles, — a tale which the U. '• I i ^ in w iMI lOG Doctor will find to belong to the era of chivalry — to tho timo when Leonidas, Julius Cocsar, and the Sainted Richard^Oaxtcr went out together, to seek 'heir fortunes. LEGION t I. I -•.■/; t : : ' I , , / ■■'■'' ■ ■•'■>i,qc LETTER VII. Sir, Mr. Ryerson's fourth number is a remarkable document, — re- markable, because it places the whole defence of His Excellency, and the whole contest between him and the late Counsellors, upon one issue in principle ; one which may be easily understood : and in which, if Mr. Ryerson fails, his celebrated defence withers like the gourd of Jonah. This state paper must, therefore, be consi- dered with care, with attention, and patience. Mr. Ryerson may, as he says, have engaged in this contest without solicitation ; but, I cannot believe that it was without the approval of the Governor-General ; or without explanations from His Excellency, or from sources which His Excellency was at liberty to place at his disposal : and, as Mr. Ryerson must be con- sidered as His Excellency's adopted, though not solicited cham- pion, we may consider His Excellency, in some degree, bound by Mr. Ryerson's admissions. . Now, with regard to the stipulation, what does Mr. Ryerson fii^y 1 The following are his own words : — " It should be remi^rked, that Sir Charles does not call this de- mand a "stipulation," in the legal, or, if you please, parliamentary sense of that term ; but in a moral sense, as an understanding between man and man," — a sense by which he had defined the pre- ceding argument. He says, " such stipulation," " such a surrender of the Royal Prerogative." Here, at least. Sir, is a plain and distinct disavowal of the attempt to fasten upon the late Counsellors the imputation, that they demanded a stipulation — except in a moral sense, unless a stipulation by paraphrase. What a pity it is. Sir, that His Excellency, in writing his des- paches, did not explain that they were all to be interpreted in this manner; the late Counsellors would not then have been condemned in the Imperial Parliament for demanding a direct stipulation — a stjp^^lation in writing, a stipulation under hand and seal: so then. m a ill ^^i lOS after all, there waa no stipulation asked for; it was only an under- standing between man and niun, and it waa only required by the lato Counsellors to be understood, that llicy should bo really consult- ed ; and his Excellency really did mean to say, that such an under- standing would be a surrender of the Prerogative of the Crown, " because it could not be imagined that taking advice, without re- garding it, waa the process contemplated." I showed in my last letter, that, by subscribing to the resolutlonii of 1841, His Excellency voluntarily entered into a stipula- tion, — a stipulation in writing; not merely in a moral, but what Mr. Ryerson calls a Parliamentary sense. I showed, that therefore Hia Excellency's objection was not to a stipulation or understanding in any sense, but to the substantial proposition claimed to be un- derstood ; namely, that imtronage and a])pointmcnts to offtce fell within the term " local affairs," which were to be managed with the assistance, counsel, and information of the officers forming tho Provincial Administration. The Doctor, however, in his fourth letter, shifts the ground of defence of the Governor-General altogether; for he does not make any distinction between appointments and patronage, and other local affairs : but he asserts, that the " assistance, counsel, and in- formation" are substantially obtained, by requiring, br ordering the Provincial Secretary to put the seal of the Province to com- missions appointing individuals to office. ' Mr. Ryerson's statement of his proposition is given in these words — " While there is a responsible Minister who keeps the seals of state — while every commission mnst be stamped with that seal, and consequently endoi-sed by that minister — there is Responsible Government, whatever may be the opinions of the Sovereign, as to its excellence or folly." ' "' ' "'■ ' "' ^"'■'' • '• " I have, heretofore," says Mr. Ryerson, "proved that it was im- possible for the Governor-General to make appointments in viola- tion of the principle of Responsible Government, as long as he had a responsible Provincial Secretary, and as Inng as that Secretary was the keeper of the public seal of the Province." "I have, also," says Mi\ Ryerson, " adduced His Excellency's denial, that he ever deviated from that principle, and now (consi- dering each pait of his statement separately), in reference to that particular of his statement, in which he says, that the late Counsel- lors " demanded of the Governor-General, tliat he should make no appointment, and no offer of an appointment, without previously lit 100 ISl- lat el- no sly tuking tlic advico of tho Council." '* The Govemor-CJeneral re- plied, that lie would make no such stipulation." Tliey allege to the House of Assembly, that the Govemor-tieiieral haa denied them the right of consultation, and the House, on that statement (denied, be it remembered, by His Excellency), adopts a resolution of confidence in them, on the question of their right to be con- sulted on appointments to office. This is their whole case. Let the fallaciousness be now exposed — the statement of his Excellency established, and his conduct justified." I have quoted thus, at length, from Mr. Ilyerson's defence, to avoid all uncertainty or mistake as to his principles. And, in the first place, 1 most fully and freely admit, that the passing an iiidtrumont under the Great Seal, makes the Provincial Secretary, and every Executive Counsellor, who continues in of- fice afterwards, responsible for the appointment, if tlie object of sealing the instrument be an appointment to office. I admit, also, that while the public know this, they have a right to hold the Ministers responsible, whether the Ministers arc consulted or not, the Ministers being bound by their accjuiescence, just as fully as by actual recommendation. In one sense, it is the same thing, therefore, to the public, to whom the responsibility is incurred, whether the Counsellors are in reality consulted or not — whether they know the grounds of the appointments or not — whether they know the names of the diffi^r- ent candidates or not — whether they know more eligible candidates or not : for the responsibility incurred is all the same. But is it all the same to the Ministers who incur the responsi- bility, whether they know these things, or whether they are kept in ignorance of them ] Mr. Ryerson calls the affixing the seal an endorsation by the Minister : this is a very good illustration, for it expresses, in ono word, approval and the incurrence of personal liability. Now, suppose one merchant undertook to endorse notes for another, for their mutual advantage, on being advised witJi, upon the occasion for drawing the notes, or upon the prudence of the business or speculation in the course of which they are drawn. Suppose, that after this consultation and advice being had in se- veral instances, and after several endorsations, at length two or three notes are inclosed, without any explanation, except the words "for endorsation." ;. >, ^,-. ;> l »'.»,. ,.,.•,•,« .... ■.,,.,. Well, Sir, the endorsing merchant, as Mr. Ryerson explains in I' II ■M "yy-v. •>? rob' pi i - ^ no Ills tlilnl letter, spcakiti'g of the Praviiiciul Secretary, lias fuur courses bcfbru hhn. First, ho may ondorso tho Notes. Secondly, ho may refuse to endorse them. Or, Thirdly, he may uak explanation. Or, Fourthly, he may viiry justly remonstnitd Against hotcs being sent to him for cndf)r8(^mcnt, without his being consuIt(/d. Or he may say, I shall not quarrel about those notes^ and, therefore, I eiidorHc them, your honour ond credit being already pledged ; but I demand thut you will agree to draw no more notes without taking my advice. It is true, he may say, so long an our comiox- ion lasts, I am bouild to endorse your paper, arid, provided you give mo an ripportunity of advising with you, I cannot refuse the cndorsation ; but if you draw notes without consulting mc, or without letting mc know why you dniW them, or if you promise to draw thom, so that our mutual cimracter is pledged, before I know any thing of it, it will bo contrai'y to our ugrcdmertt, and 1 must put an end to our connexion in business. If the merchant endorses thd notes, of course he becomes res- ponsible, and tho Bank where the notes are discounted hold tho endorser liable, whether ho was consulted or not — there is respon- sibility : and if a commission bo sealed by a responsible Minister — there is Responsible Government. But is it nothing to the person v/lio is made responsible, vhether the business of the person, for whom he becomes responsible, is known to or hidden from him ; or whether he is consulted or not upon the propriety of drawing the notes] Suppose he refuses to endorse the notes. - Then, Sir, he injures the credit of the party with whom he is in connexion, perhaps the credit of both ; und perhaps the notes, after all, may be proper notes, and the speculation a very good one. Then, suppose he asks explanation. Well, Sir, such was not the agreement ; and the explanation thus asked for may be too late, purchases may have been made, mer- cantile honor pledged, and a refusal to endorse would be the des- truction of public confidence ; the question wonld not then merely be upon the goodness of the speculation, or the legitimacy of the business, but it would resolve itself into this, — shall I bringruin upon our mutual credit, shall I show the Bank, which we look to for discounts, that no confidence exists between us, by a refusal to eipdorse notes already drawn .? Ill Siipposn lio rt'inonMtnilos, tlocs lio tlo any thing hut whnt ho hiiA n right to do ; ati«I if ho stippo.scs or li<)[)U8 tliiit tho oniiHsion to coMMutt was uniiiteiitioiitil, or uriHiDg tVoiii a niisuii(h>rstan(Iitig of iho (igrcDiiuMit, docs ho do any thing in rcnionatruting but whut ho ought to i\ol Plain and npplicahlo as tliis atudogy is, I can nuiko It still Hlrongoi', without violcnc"^ to thu circuuiatuiicus to which I corn* paro it. ' Wo all know that Hanks discount on tho crodit of the probabld results of busiiujss, us well us upon tho credit of possessed capital of draW(M'3 and cmlorscrs, and u lliiiik may discount to cnublo a party to carry on business, on the assuranci! that tho person who curries it on consults with his endorser, when they woidd not dis- count were they to know it was carried on without consultation. Tho people of Canada are in tho situation of this JUuik ; they give suj)port to the C«(jvcrnnient, provided it be conducted with *' the assistance, counsel, and infonnalion" of oHiccra in whom ihey have confidence. lUit the case may be made still stronger, for tho people liavo admittc''. that the (Jovernor is not resj)onsil)le to them at all ; ami, therefore, they urd in the situation of the IJunk, when tho drawer of tho notes is not responsible, and where the credit given is altoge- ther on tho ability and discretion of the endorser. Now, this being the case, let us suppose the endorsing mcrchaitt to remonstrate as follows : — " By sending nie these notes already drawn, without any corr- sultation, you not only unfairly ask me to become liable for trans- actions of which 1 know nothing, but you ask me to deceive the Bank by my endorsation, which, if I make it, they will receive as evidence of my having been ii consulted and approving party. It is riot easy to frame a pro[)er answer to this remonstrance ; but His Excellency has given the answer he would make . """T the circumstances, which answer may be thus slated, in an explan- ation to the Board of Directors : — " Mr. A. B. came to my counling-housd on Friday last, and de- manded that I should agree to draw no notes for his endorsation, without previously consulting him ; and I answered, that T would make no such stipulation ; that it would be a surrender of my pre- rogative, or privilege of drawing notes, when and how I pleased — a degradation which no merchant ought to submit to, for it cannot be imagined that taking advice, without regarding it, was the pro- cess contemplated." f n m I Bl Hi I tWnk, Sir, it would be in vain for the iiTesponsible merchant to try to persuade the Bank, after this, that he was really and truly favourable to the arrangement originally entered into; and it would be equally in vain for Lim to " ppeal to the number of notes he had drawn v^ on the counsel and advice of his endorser, or to the number ho liad forborne to draw, from the gteat consideration he had yielded to his endorser's opinion. The only excuse he could give, would be the hurry of business ; and that the transactions were stich as led him to believe there would be no difference of opinion. And so, r"r, the only available excuse which a Governor could give for acting without the advice of his Council would be, the hurry of business ; or his belief that the appointments he made would meet the approbation of his sworn advisers. But, on the contrary, even by his own account, he gave no such excuse ; but he declared that to agree, or, to use Mr. .Ryerson'a words, to come to an understanding, in a moral sense, that he would in future consult his Council, would be a surrender of prerogative — a degradation of his office : he did not allege that he had acted without advice, because he thought concurrence with his acts probable ; but, on the contraiy, he avowed an antagonism in the principle upon w'iiich appointments should be made, which rendered disagreement not only probable, but certain and ine- vitable. In the present case, it is not one, but many are made responsible; and as Mr. Ryerson speaks of one responsible ?4inister, I say, without fear of contradiction, that any one member of Council who, without the knowledge of his colleagues, would give advice on a matter upon which difference of opinion was apprehended, would he acting imfairly and trer^herously towards them. And thus, Sir, though for the despatch of business, in matters where there is no antagonism, either real or apprehended, Gover- nors may make appointments, and individual members of Council may give advice without consultation in Council, yet, when antagonism is avowed, and difference of opinion known to exist, then circumstances demand consultation, and agreement or disa- gi'eement before the act proposed be consummated. But as Mr. Ryerson's argument in the supposed case of the notes would be, that the endorsing merchant had no reason to complaim, because, whethei' consulted or not, he would still bo liable, io the Executive Counsellors, who see acts for which they 113 ine- on a iTOUld itters jver- incil irhen jxist, I disa- If the )n to be Ithey are accountable done without their advice, have no reason to com- plain; for, whether consulted or not, they are still responsible. This, Sir, is such absolute nonsense, that it seems almost an insult to the people of Canada to suppose that any of them could read Mr. Ryersons letter without seeing the absurdity of the conclusion to which he would lead then. I am far from imagining that Hia Excellency would promulgate Mr. Rycrson's doctrine as his own. But His Excellency is not answerable for Mr. Ryerson's absurdities ; and what masters it to him by what arguments the " humble classes" may be led to give him their support, or by what means the chaos of contradictory op'rions, upon which his cause rests, may for the moment be reconciled. His Excellency has spread his marriage-table, and he is driven to seek for guests in the highways and hedges, amongst the maimed, the halt, and the blind. To the Tories is offered acrutch, whichhe calls prerogative : to the Liberals Doctor Ryerson's spectacles, through which to see His Excellency's Responsible Government. But, alas! not one of the guests has got the wedding-garment of public confidence, and they devour their meal with wailing and gnashing of teeth. I had almost forgotten to allude to Mr. Ryersons adducing "His Excellency's denial that he ever deviated from that principle," meaning the principle of Responsible Government. But, Sir, read Mr. Ryerson's argument, and what is the denial worth 1 Mr. Ryerson's principle of Responsible Government is fulfilled, by the fact that there is a Secretary, who keeps the Provincial Seal ; and, therefore. His Excellency's denial of having violated the principle is nei^her mors or less than a denial that he clandestinely or forcibly affixed the Provincial Seal himself. This is the only way, according to the Doctor, in which His Excellency could have violated the principle of Responsible Government ; and no one, I am sure, thinks His Excellency has any occasion to resort to such a violacion, while he has the good fortune to possess his present obedient, though truly and seriously vei'y worthy Secretary. In like manner, when His Excellency professes to subscribe to the rosolulions of 1841, see what this mems according to the Ryersonian reading; You will find, Sir, that it only means that iJL'« Excellency means to have a Provincial Secretary ; and when you ask whether the country has been governed for eight months ptet according to the principles of Responsible Government t Yes, excltiims the Doctor, and he points to Mr. Secretary Daly. There, you unbeliever, there is Responsible Government; that comely II JW^ 114 ■i. A tiir Mil' hi gctitleraan riding past is Responsible Govenimeiit, — the Governor- General parted with Mr. Baldwin, but he did not part with Mr* Secretary Daly, and he is Responsible Government — he keeps til J Seal. This glorious and unanswcrablcVlefcnce of the Governor-General, which offers Mr. Baldwin's one idea embodied in the form of Mr. Daly, for the worship of the followers of the undefined principle, — this Ryersonian incarnation of Responsible Govemwient, reminds me forcibly of the patent stove which cooks the largest dinner with only the fuel contained in a lucifer match. Well may the Doctor say that Responsible Government does not depend upon the Governor-General's opinion, for its perfection depends upon Mr. Daly's strong box, which keeps the Seal out of the reach of the Governor. Wonderful, Doctor Faustus ! Ungi-ateful Canadians 1 ! Happy Governor-General !! ! , ;■ ; , f j It is a great pity that this gieat discovery was not communicated at an earlier period to the Governor-General, It would then not have been utterly opposed to his own notions of his own preroga- tive, and so staringly out of place in his defence. P is also to bo regretted that it was not made known to the Imperial authorities, for then tliey would not have advanced opposite principles in the late debate, and the Doctor mighthave been called home, and made " Responsible Government" for the Empire, in his own person. Far be it from me. Sir, to deprive the Governor-General of the Doctor's defence ; I acknowledge it as a stroke of genius worthy of its author. In fact, Sir, I would not take away any de.jnce from His Excellency ; for he needs them all, come from what quaiter they may. As to facts, His Excellency may have them as stated by the late Counsellors, as paraphrased by himself, and as perverted by Mr. Ryerson. If ihey do not all, or any, satisfy the Canadian people, it is not my fault. And as to principles, His Excellency is welcome to the principles of the Woodstock Monarch, of the Toronto Herald, of the Montreal Courier, of Ogle R. Gowan, and of F ^eiton Ryerson. It is tnie, not one of them is in agreement with the other, and none of them with the Govemor-Gei.eral himself: but what of that, I am willing that His Excellency may have the benefit of all the principles, however contradictory; and if they, and none of them, satisfy the Canadian people, how can I help it 1 It surely is no harm to point out a discrepancy now and then, and my present object is to ascertain whether or not the Doctor agrees with the Home authorities. my I mid ml land the U5 I take it, that Mr. Rycrson admits responsibility of Provincial Advisers for all the acts of the Government; and, notwithstanding his hocus-pocus conjuration about the Secretary and tl:e Seal, and his assertion, that if a Seal be added to a Secretary, the sum is inviolable Responsible Government ; notwithstanding this startling puzzle, he still maintains, at least, a typical and figurative responsi- bility, — still poor Mr. Daly is responsible for all : •• Stat nominis umbra" he stands the shadow of a name ; and the shade of a name may be something, as well as the " shade of a virus." Still this portentous ghost of Responsible Government shakes its gory locks in the face of his Excellency's prerogative, and declares ihat al I his acts are, and must be, advised : and as '♦ taking advice, without regarding it, cannot be the process contemplated," poor prerogative is surrendered, and Mis Excellency is a ♦• tool" of a hobgoblin, if not of a Council. But let us see whether the authorities of the Empire admit this responsibility — this constitutional necessity for even supposed advice and responsibility, upon every possible occasion. Lord Stanley, in the debate of the 30th May last, admits this principle of Responsible Government to exist in England, not merely as a shadow, but as a practical reality ; but he draws a distinction with respect to a Colony, — opposed not only to the Responsible Government of the Toronto League, but opposed still more directly to Mr. Ryerson's theory. His words arc, " T\w constitution of Canada might be formed on the model of the consti- tution here, but still they t\/uld not give it the Jiff, of the British constitution. Observe what was the nature of the T h constitu- lion, and what were the functions of the Sovereign. ♦• The basis of the British constitution was, that the Sovereign was personally irrespormble for every act of the Government, — that the responsibility rested with the confidential advisers of the Sovereign, who were responsible to the Parliamsnt aad the peoplu for the advice they gave." , , , " But — (his Lordship said afterwards)—" But because the ,. Crown was not responsible for the acts of Government, the Crown " practically exercised no political power ; and ii was obvious that the exercise of political power without responsibility would not bo more dangerous to the liberty of the country, than the exercise of responsibility without power would be an absurdity and a tontradiction." " He said, therefore, that no Minister in this country would make or allow such a proposition to Sir Charles i ) I' vi w mi m 5j ( I' I?? 116 Metcalfe as had been made to 8ir Charles Metcalfe ; the theory was well understood, and the practice followed. The Sovereign, in deference to the opinion of the Advisers of the Crown, made the appointment on the recommendation of the Minister; and every Minister, in making a recommendation to the Crown, so Jar as higher and more important considerations would permit, paid, and was bound to pay, deference to the perscmal convenience, wishes, and feelings of the Sovereign ; and, on the other hand, although the Sovereign had the power to reject the appointment recommended by the Minister, it was usual to sacrifice all personal consideration to the public advantage." This, Sir, is his Lordship's definition of Responsible Govern- ment in England. But, does he extend it to Canada ? No, Sir ; for he adds these words, too 'plain to be misunderstood, and too important to be overlooked, by any one : — *• But (adds Lord Stanley) the case of a Colony was totally different from that of this country." », His Lordship, after describing the state of a Colony, in want- ing an aristocracy, and possessing a Governor without personal influence, proceeds as follows :— *' Place that Governor, and the Legislature so constituted, in the position of a Minister (being himself responsible, and compelled to act, in every respect, with Parliament^ stripped of all real power and authority, liable to act under the control of the leading politicians and parties of the day, and what would they institute in Canada ? That which, but for the influence of the Crown and the peerage, and (with) the necessity of the Prime Minister of this country possessing the confidence of the House of Com- mons, would be the result here of a republican Government, — a Governor placed in absolute dependence on the House of Commons.** <, - Then again. Lord Stanley says, *< It was inconsistent with monarchical Government that the Governor, who was responsiblCf should be stripped of all authority and power, and be reduced to that degree of political power which was vested in the constitutional Sovereign of tJie country." Let us vjvff pause, to inquire whether these sentiments of Lord Stan\the be consistent with Mr. Ryerspn's notions of Resp9nsil;>Ie, GovelLiment. . . ^ Mr. Ryerson declares the impossibility of the Governor's acting contrary to the principles of Responsible Government, the Secre- tary who keeps the Seal being responsible. 117 [with to mal jord liblo |ting jre- Lord Stanley admits the responsibility of the Prime Minister in England ; but in a Colony, he says, the case is wholly different. Lord Stanley declares responsibility without power to be a con- tradiction and an absurdity. Lord Stanley says, that the Crown, practically, exercised no political power, because the Crown is not responsible. ' Lord Stanley states, that the Governor, who is responsible^ can- not be reduced to that degree of political power which is vested in the constitutional Sovereign of the country. Now, if responsibility without power be a contr iction and aa absurdity, and if the Governor must have the power, the Secre- tary having the responsibility, a Council through him having the responsibility must be a contradiction and an absurdity. C - ' And if Mr. Ryerson's doctrine be contradictory and absurd, according to Lord Stanley's argument, I should like to know what reason Mr. Ryerson has to boast of his being supported by the authorities of the Empire. Mr. Ryerson may say, with truth, that Lord Stanley does not agree with me, or with tho Reform Association. But, Sir, I did not profess to hold the same opinions with Lord Stanley, neither did I prognosticate that his Lordship would agree with my opinions. But I have a right to take Lord Stanley's justification of Sir Charles Metcalfe, as a better interpretation of Sir Charles Met- calfe's doctrines, than Mr. Ryerson's defence ; and I cannot do his Excellency the injustice to believe that he has acted upon con- tradiotory and absurd principles — so declared by Lord Stanley ; and as Lord Stanley's opinions are directly contrary to Responsible Governmentt so far as regards appointments to office, I have a right to say that Sir Charles Metcalfe has mistaken his own opinions, when he declared them to be in favour of Responsible Government. When he said he was in favour of that principle, he could not, unless he meant to exclude appointments to office, have considered to what the principle led him, or intr what contradictiona he was betraying himself. i ' '■ - .< -'. > ; ' . >? Mr. Cartwright, if he ever said what was attributed to him, that *' Responsible Government was a humbug," has reason to boast of having the authorities of the Empire at his back ; but not so Mr. Ryerson ; for the latter, by arguing in favour of Responsible Government, and its extension to official appointments, shadowy and unreal aa he would make it, even by his own defini- "\ w f £i< I'' II' m 119 tloii) has placed himself in opposition to tlve strength of the Empire ; and, until ho recant, he stands, by his own confession, a disaffected man. Now, I do not pretend to agreo with his Lordship ; but I do not despair of seeing his Lordship convinced thut he is wrong, — wrong in his estimate of the loyalty of tho people b( Cana* da — wrong in his notions of their want of trustworthiness and dis- cretion — and wrong m his opinions that this country can bo best governed by a constitution without the li/e of a constitution. The breath of that life has been breathed upon Canada once, and she will retain it ; and neither Lord Stanley, nor iir Charles Met calfe, nor Mr, Uycrson, shall persuade the Relormors of Canada that they are disulfected, because they desire u living British con* Etitulion for their country, or because they will not bow down before its lifeless image. We ceck no republicanism, or oxcuse for wishing for republicanism : our desire is, long and faithful alle* glance to a British Sovereign, and enduring connexion with England. But we cannot teach our children the British constitu- tion, and tell them, that, as colonists, they are shut out from it forever, because a Secretary of State ha? pronounced that the life of the British constitution cannot be given to a Colony. I am fully aware how very nearly Lord Stanley, in his definition of Responsible Government, approaches to all that the Colonists could desire : he admits that a Responsible Government was conce- ded even by Sir Charles Metcalfe ; and he says, thut tho principle had been fully recognized both in England and in Canada: but that principle is not Mr. Ryerson's principle of responsibility, and advice of Counsellors, or of Secretaries, for appointments to oflice, whether merely supposed from the forms of the constitution, or real and sub- stantial. On the contrary, Lord Stanley, while he expresses more than a doubt '' whether Responsible Government was or was not likely to be conducive to the prosperity and welfare of Canada, whether it was most likely to enlist in the ranks of the Government the greatest number of men of talent, honor, integrity, andstation," — while he leaves it to be understood that, in his opinion, these qualities are not to be found amongst those in whom the people have confi- dence, still admits that Responsible Government was conceded, as he understands;, to the following cfTuct, "that the administration of Canada was to be carried on by Heads of Departments enjoying the confidence of the people of Canada, — enjoying the confidence of the Legislature of Canada, for the due exercise of the functions of w-i, 110 do >» ities nfi. ded, tion ing le of s of these department!) ; and more, that the Governor, In preparing and introducing legislative nncasures to the Colonial Parliament, was to be guided by the advice of those whom he had called to his councils, thathewastointroduce legislative measures upon their advice and upon the advice of the local authorities throughout the Kingdom (I suppose the colony is meant), taking the responsibility of their conduct through the Colonial Legislature." Here, Sir, is a definition, — a stipulation, which, if accepted and used with moderation, ought, so far as regards all the aifdirs to which it extends, satisfy the most patriotic colonist, and which may be interpreted into more of concession and indepc n- dencethan the Colonists ever asked or desired; for it appears (so far as the conduct of the departments, and the framing and introduc- tion of measures) to make the Governor-General the passive instru- ment which I, for one, do not desire to see him, and which I hope' the Governor of this Colony never will become, and which he never' need become, so long as he has the power of placing his Council and Parliament before the people of this country to answer for measures either bad in themselves, or bad because they are contrary to the spirit of British institutions, or contrary (lo use a strong expression) even to the prejudices of the British nation. But, Sir, while Lord Stanley thus appears to take away responsibility from the Governor- General, and while he says, that *♦ without power there cannot bo responsibility," he asks the significant question, " Well, for what was he (the Governor) to be responsible, if it were not on those two heads — for the proper distribution of rewards and honours in the power of the Crown to bestow, and for the exercise of the preroga tiveof the Crown with rtspect to certain acts of the Legislature 1" Now, Sir, as Lord Stanley conceives that within these two heads of reservation from Responsible Government is contained the *' life" of the British constitution, which cannot be conceded to a colony, what becomes of Mr. Ryerson'a Responsible Government, which makes the keeper of the Provincial Seal so responsible for appoint- ments, that it is " impossible" for the Governor-General to violate the principle so long as " he has a Provincial Secretary." I think, Sir, Lord Stanley has made it very plain, that the only question which can ever arise in this Colony on the subject of Responsible Government may be stated thus, — " are the advisers of the Crown in Canada to advise upon appointments, or are they not^' No one in Canada has ever dreamed of denying the right of tho Governor-General, upon his own responsibility, of reservingbills for the expression of the Royal pleasure thereon j and for any such re- !,t^ I ■ I H u m I m i' Ill • >1 m •ervation. so long as the Provincial .Administration have the confi- denca of Parliamont : and so long, therefore, aa no bill can pass both Houses in which they are not concurring, they cannot bo held res- ponsible, if they do not^ make themselves so, by their own decla- rations. Therefore, the only question at issue is simple, tangible, and defined : How much is it to be regretted that Sir Charles Met> calfe did not say so directly, instead of vaguely alleging that he subscribed to the resolutions of 1841 ; and instead of mystifying the Counsellors, and the public, with charges of treason and disaf- fection against the late Counsellors ; and, above all, instead of per- mitting the poor Doctor to comeout as a stage player, in the tragedy of ** JLeonidas," tilting with anomalies and stipulations, and poison- ing himself with the ** shade of a virus." I propose, Sir, in my next letter, to lay before your readers my notion of what Responsible Government, according to the Resolutions of 1841, really means ; to explain what legitimate party Government is,-— to show that it is real justice to all parties ; and thot it is the in- terest of all parties to see it established. In doing so, I shall write no treason, or sedition, or say any thing which the most exclusively loyal man in Canada may not subscribe to ; without any danger of falling foul of one of the Doctor's anomalies. LEGION. ,.,4; V 4i U ■•,(:*■ ■({ )- .' i_ :• i'.*! t I )' >t ^-.l^.r't LETTER VIII. '■■f '.< /'•|V.'.«.,MJ Sir, uu ■!f.1 Before entering into any disquisition on party Government, it is necessary that I should say something more of Lord Stanley's views on Responsible Goveniment. I have shown, in my last let- ter, that he limited it to the admission, first, that the " administra- tion of Canada was to be carried on by Heads of Departments, enjoying the confidence of the Legislature of Canada, for the due exercise of their respective departments ;" and, secondly, " that the Governor, in preparing and introducing, with his sanction, le- gislative measures to tlie Colonial Parliament, was to be guided by the advice of those whom he called to his Councils." We are not now to learn that Heads of Departments act in obe- dience to orders from the Governor-General, and their responsi- bility, strictly speaking, may be confined to their obedience or disobedience of orders. Perhaps, however, Lord Stanley means, that Heads of Departments should have the confidence of the Le- gislature — that they would not remain in office if they were required to obey orders contrary to their sense of policy or proper manage- ment. Taking the definition in this latter sense, I approve of it, for it involves concurrence with the colleagues of the Heads of Departments, who have the confidence of Parliament, and, there- fore, the concesssion made by Lord Stanley is all I can ask for, so far as Heads of Departments are concerned. Then, as to the introduction of Legislative measures, there is no difference between Lord Stanley and the late Executive Counsel- lors, except that Lord Stanley's definition may make, if insisted on strictly, the Governor more of a passive instrument than they wish to see him. , i If Lord Stanley had proceeded no farther, I should expect to be met by Mr. Ryerson saying, that the Provincial Secretary was the head of the department of appointments, and that Lord Stan- ley meant, therefore, that appointments were part of the conduct of his department, which the Governor was to conduct with his .1 If Hv|B \l>lt 122 advice, or upon his responsibility. But Lord Stanley docs proceed farther, and having said before, llmt responsibility without power was a contradiction and an absurdity, he asks " for what, then, was tlie Governor-Generul to be responsible, if it were not on these two heads — for the proper distribution of the rewards and honours in the power of the Crown to bestow, and for the exercise of tho prerogative of tho Crown, which consisted in interposing tho authority of tho Crown with respect to certain acts of tho Legis- lature." The latter power, of reserving bills for the royal assent, is one essentially attached to the Governor's responsibility to the Imperial authorities, and must be exercised by him, where ho has reason to expect decided objections to the measures resen'cd, or where Im- perial interests are concerned. Lord Stanley appears to have been informed that the lateJCounsellors objected to tho reservation of the Secret Societies Bill, which they did not. They objected to His Excellency not giving them an opportunity of informing the Parliament, that it was probable His Excellency would reserve the bill. As it was, they were left in the dark ; and they reasonably complained of a secrecy to them, which could serve no purpose but that of giving a triumph to their enemies, and of exposing them to the repi'oach of knowing less about the intentions of Govern- ment than the minority who were opposing them. Of the " antag- onism" which led to this demonstration of want of confidence, tho public have since had abundance of proof, and of the rcDsonablo- ness of the complaint, they are the judges. With respect to appointments to office, however, Lord Stanley not only gives his definition of Responsible Government, but he gives his reasons for the excluaion of these appointments from the operation of the principle ; for, after showing that appointments were conferred, in England, by the advice of Ministers, and ex- plaining how they were managed, and why it should be so, he says, but " the case of a Colony was wholly different fi-om that of this country." The following is his first point of difference, — " Here (that is to say, in England,) the people respected the dignity of the Crown, from its hereditary nature, and were influenced by aloyalty and attachment to the person of the Sovereign and the monaixhy that was almost inherent." Of course, Lord Stanley means that in Canada the case is wholly different, and I can perfectly understand where his Lordship got his information. I do not mean to say that it was from Sir m 113 fays, Ithis [ere the ^alty rchy [oily ship Sir Cliarles Mctcalfo, for I firmly believe that His Excellency knew even less about Canada than Lord Stanley ; and that if ho chargod Canadians with diHh>yaUy, he woh just as liable to be deceived as Lord Stanley himself. Dut I allude to those in this country who have been its banc and its curse, ever since politics cume to bo dis- cussed in the Colony ; who have succeeded in poisoning the ear of the Sovereign and the Imperial Ministers for all times past, by unworthy insinuations of disloyalty against the people, and by claims of exclusive loyalty in themselves. But knowing, as Mr. Ryerson does, the truly loyal and ,,:. The second point of distinction taken by Lord Stanley, is one in which Mr. Ryerson has expressed as yet no concurrence. In England, His Lordship said, " there was the House of Lords, the hereditary peerage of the country, possessing an influence over public opinion by that hereditary rank, high station, and hereditary title," " Compare tliis," says his lordship, " with the situation of Canada. There they had the representative fonn of constitution, but m i ' ^* «.i 1i^ w ■P" h 'I-' 'p' ' ! 1 1 ^ 1 ^^?^ ik i 124 wljoro wiw tho parallel to tho Hoiiso of Lonla 1 Thorc was the Legiiilative Council, but it posacsscil none of the ailvanto^cs of tho Poerage of tliia country. Its members wero not elevated much by rank, station, or proptjrty above tlicir fellow citizens, ami pofl- sosscd no great influence." Here ia a point discussed in tho ad- dress of the Reform Association, the principles of which Mr. Ry- crson admitted to be sound, and not one of which, though ho has finished his defence, has he attempted to controvert. Yet this difference is given by Lord Stanley, as one of the reasons why tho "life" of tho constitution, cannot exist in Canada: and will Mr. Ryerson now advance Lord Stanley's doctrine as his, and say that the prerogative of tho Crown, with respect to official appoint* inonts, cannot be safely administered according to tho well under- stood wishes of the people, because Canada hoB not a hereditary peerage 1 I think. Sir, ho will not, and dare not express his con- currence with Lord Stanley ; and yet he prides himself upon Lord Stanley's support of Sir Charles Metcalfe. But, Sir, I do not envy him his triumph, and, if he calls this support, he has strange no- tions on tho subject. Lord Stanley's argument, if it proves any thing, proves that we should not havo rcpi'esentativc institutions at all ; that public opin- ion should not prevail in any thing, because it wants tho ingredient of aristocratic influence. It applies no more to official appoint- ments than to any thing else ; and the remedy for the evil, if it exists, is not in denying one of the inevitable effects of represen- tation, but in taking away the representation, or in creating the aristocracy in Church and State. Pray Sir, which of these does the Doctor advocate, or amongst his threats and denunciations, which of these does he threaten us with] But, Lord Stanley's third distinction, which is to take from us the life of the Biitiah Cuaiititution, is this, — ** There (he says) the Governor-General, had none of the dignity of the Sovereign about his position, having an income not more than that of a coun- try gentleman — a stranger to the colony, having probably no per- sonal influence or interest in it until his appointment, and, previous to his arrival, no connection with it." The end of this distinction, and the argument founded upon it, would be, that as the Governor has no influence personally over popular opinion, and as the Legislative Council have no influence, the want of it must be made up by power, to be exercised in de- fiance of popular opinion. -■(*i -• *J,fi-\- **.* frt- ♦'-*.-■ I8r> it. t)ver ice, Idc- W«ll, Sir, I have no reason to doubt that power may bo excr- eisoil in defiunco of popular opiiiiuu : but I utii vury well convinced, that while it i» so cxurciHcvl, tluit populur opinion will struggle and contend witli power. To speuk of a Government conducted on this principle, an onu admiuiatercd according to the weil under* stood wishes of the puoi)lo in, to uso Lord Stanley's {)hra8eology, a contradiction and an al)surdity — whether appointments to office, or any other exercise of prerogative bo in question. The strength of an empire may maintain such a government — an hum- bled and subdued people may submit to such a government ; but such n govenimennt will not be supported hij puhlic opinum: and, Sir, the more public opinion is strcngthed by representative institu- tions, and by the exercise of legitimate control in portions of the administration of the Government : the more able and determined it is and will be, to resist until it obtains constitutional influence over the whole. I road with no small surprise, Lox'd Stanley's quotation of part of one of Lord John Russell's despatches upon Responsible Government. Not, that I was suqirised to find that Lord John Russell had written the despatch, but that it should be quo- ted as existing authority oolong after Lord Sydenham had found it necessary to disobey it. Lord Stanley laments, that Lord Syden- hom did not lay it before the Legislrturo ; but I think any one who reads it will see the reason why it y/as not made public. Lord Sydenham did his best in obedience to that despatch to prevent any admission of the theory of Responsible Government ; but if he had published that despatch, he would not have preserved hia majority in Parliament for one hour. The parliament was detei'- mincd upon the assertion of the principle, and Lord Sydenham, who was too good a politician to place himself personally in op- position to the parliament and the country, yielded the point with a good grace. When ho found that resolutions were likely to be passed asserting the principle, he sent his Secretary to move the resolutions — thus adroitly avoiding the defeat; and also avoiding the necessity of personally answering a hostile address, either in the affirmative or the negative. But this being the fact, how strange it is, after the passing of the resolutions, after their adoption by tfo Governors in practice — and by the present Governor-General in theory, after a voluntary subscription by Sir Charles Metcalfe in direct contradiction to the orders contained in the despatch, after Sir Charles Metcalfe doing the very thing Lord Sydenham was I 126 desired to consider liimsclf precluded from doing, how strange it !s, to find that disobeyed dii *^ch quoted as an existing order of Government ! But, Sir, \N 'lat docs the pait Oi that despatch made public by Lord Stanley contain ? You will find in it, not one word respec- ting any distir ijtion between the prerogative of appointment, and any other prerogative. I should have wondered much if " 1 had, for I think fiord John Russell much too sound a politician to see any such distinction. It .".ontains an argument against the Gover- nor's declaring his admlssio.i of the principle of Responsible Gov- ernment at all, an admiss' .. .. hich nevertheless the Governor was obliged to concede mdircctly, but which Sir Charles Metcalfe made directly in writing in his explanation to the Provincial Assembly. It Is well worth the inqu ry, to examine what Lord John Rus- sell's argument is founded upon, '''ou will find it to be on the suppo3it'>T) of the extreme caSi- of the Govenoor receiving orders from the Secrotary of State, and advice opposed to these orders from the Executive Councillors. For, if he is to obey the orders. Lord John Russell ^ery ti-uly argues, the parallel of constitutional responsibility is gone : and if he follows the advice and disobeys the orde/s, " he is no longer a subordinate officer, but an inde- pendent Sovereign." •/. -I ■■■ There is not the slightest doubt, on the mind of any one, but that the Governor of this Province is bound to obey the orders of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, however opposed these orders may be to the advice of the Council, for the time being. But there is as little doubt but that when a Secretary of State g^ves such orders, with respect to the adn- ' nistration of our internal local affairs, he violates the principle of Responsible Gov- ernment, as explained in the Resolutions of 1841, to which Sir Charles Metcalfe subscribed. Lord John Russell foresaw that there might possibly occur caaes in which this conflict of duties would occur, and his whole instruction to Lord Sydenham was to withhold any declaration, which would have the effect of admitting the want of constituii-in^l power in the Home Goveriiment to issi.ie orders, which were to be obeyed, whenever they might be issued. But while Lord John Russell thus fo Sade the positive recognition of the theory, he made no objection to the practice; he issued no orders to tie up the Governors hands in the conduct of the Government; and he says, in the despatch, that he saw little or 127 no objection to the practical views of Colonial Government, recom- mended by Lord Durham. So far was Lord John Rusbcll from making the absurd exclu- sion of appointments to office out of the internal affairs, which Responsible Govern, nent contemplates slioukl be managed with the assistance, counsel, and information of a locd administration, that in the illustration he gives in describing what a ministry would be headed by Mr. Papineau, he makes not the slightest allusion to official appointments. His picture of such a ministry, or of their measures, is as follows : — " British officers punished fordoing their duty — British emigrants defrauded of their property — British merchants discouraged in their lawful pursuits." Lord John Russell was persuaded to see the danger of all this, and, therefore, he objected to the piiuciplo of Responsible Government being formally recognized. Yet, noiwithstanding all this, he did not find fault with its recognition, when it could not bo avoided without disquieting the Province, and, notwithstanding all these objec- tions. Sir Charles Metcalfe subscribed to the resolutions of 1841. But, Sir, did Lord John Russell, by ai>proving of Lord Sydenham's Gove? iiment, after the Provincial Secretary moved the Resolutions of 1S41, mean by such approval to say, that he would allow, as Her Majesty's Minister, Britisli Emigrants to be defrauded of their property — British officers punished for doing their duty — and British Merchants discouraged in their lawful pursuits 1 I think not. Sir, I think ho wisely said to himself, when this shall actually take place, it will be time enough forme to inter- fere, and, when I see it take place, I shall take care that n(; pinnci- ple of Responsible Government shall work these wrongs ; and he who asserted and acted upon the power of suspending the consti- tution, altogether, by a British Act of Parliament, knew well that he had the remedy in his own hands, even should the whole people of Canada support an administration, such as he pictured in his despatch. I am rn public opinion, which inlluence I believe to be greater in this community than any similar influence of the Sovereign in England. You know. Sir, there are multitudes of individuals in this country, who hold opinions because they are the opinicms of the Governor, and this too, without any hope of personal advantage, or fear of the personal consequences of op])osi- tion, and a Governor-General must be very wrong indeed when this influence does not avail him. The extent of this influence is very much regulated by the in- dividual who j)ossesse4» it. The King of Hanover, had he unhap- pily succeeded to the throne t)f England, could never have ex- ercised the influence of (^iuecn A'ictoria, neither coidd a bad man, or one without character, have the influence of Sir Charles Metcalfe : but Sir, if there be, aside of personal character and worth, one thing more than another which destroys moral influ- ence, it is the assertion of pi-erogativo, independent and irrespective of public opinion, and when wlu^lo classes of a community find them- selves involved in a wide spreading chai-ge of disaffection to their Sovereign, and their mostpopular men — those whom they had honor- ed with confidence unb 'unded and unprecedented, denounced by a Secretary of State on the information ot a Governor, as ^'un- principled demagogues, biid rash inte/estcd Counsellors','" it is no wonder Sir, that people shonld be indignant, and that influence should cease, and arbitrary power become necessary. Loi'd Stanley's second reason, for the exercise of power by the Governor, in appointments to oflicc — a power wiiich unfettered by insti'uctions and independent of public opinion, must of neces- sity, however wisely it may be admiuislered, slill be arhittary: Lord ! 1 , I ,. \ i ■T-( ■■; t , ■ i' ■ 1. h 11 mm 1 ,. \. II \ t ■IBEl 132 Stanley's second reason is, llie want of an aristocracy. If Sir, we really do want an aristocracy, a point which I shall not argue, 1 deny, that this want fonns the slightest reason why public opinion should bo contemned. I cannot sec, why a people should be better satisfied with a government administered in any respect contrary to their wishes, because they do not possess an aristocracy* If the argument tends to prove any thing, it is, that we should not have a House of Commons, or it may prove, that we should endeavour to erect an aristocracy. But if the people of Canada are expected to be contented, and to believe that government is administered ac- cording to their well understood wishes, the want of the aristocracy cannot make them contented, or persuade them to an absurd false- hood. But, if neitherthe want of personal influence, or the want of an aiistocracy be good reasons for the anti-British exercise of unad- vised prerogative, let us enquire whether the Governor of this country really is a cypher and a tool, if left to the exercise of his constitutional powers. When a Governor of this country not only feels it to be his constitutional duty, but also his instructions, to administer the Gov- ernment according to the well understood wishes of the people, his first duty is, to seek by constitutional means what those wishes are, and he finds the means in the majority of the people's represen- tatives, and in theExecutive Counsellors in whom that majority has confidence. He does not do his duty, if he blindly follows the advice of the Council, and if he sees that the interest of the peo- ple are betrayed, or corrupt practices attempted, or impolitic mea- sures proposed, he can dismiss his Counsellors. If the majority in parliament support these Counsellors, he can dissolve the par- liament, he can choose other Counsellors, he can turn the whole weight of his patronage and power, against the opposera of his Government, and he can take the sense of the people under cir- cumstances the most favorable to himself He does not "by this become a paitizan. His new Counsellors are the partizans : it is they who attack the principles and conduct of the retiring party : it is they who have to defend the principles under which they accept office: and while if the Governor be right or neai'ly right, then would scarcely be a doubt of his success, failure on his part would involve no personal defeat — no personal mortification. No one will be believed, who says, that a Governor \rith this undisputed, con- stitutional and acknowledged power, is a mere cypher, or that Sxecutive Counsellors would rashly hazard a disagreement with 133 we this I they it is ;cept iherf rould I will I con- that Iwith him upon a questionnblo point, or that they would bo mad enough to seek in such a disagreement tlio gratificiition of personal ambition, or corrupt advantage. It is an issue, they would not dare to try : and you may depend upon it Sir, that whenever you see ministers disagree with a Governor, and retire from his Councils, their principal reason for doing so is, because they could not x'cmain and agree with him, and at the same time sustain tliemsclves in popular opinion. I am not afraid Sir, of illustrating this position by applying the doctrine to the case of the late Counsellors. Put the case in the worst point of view for them, take one of the insigniiicaut appoint- ments, and let us see how the matter will stand, The late Major Powell, Sheriff' of the Bathurst District, was in public employment, besides the shrievalty during his life time. Five sons survive, one of whom was lately made Clerk of the Peace of the District, (the appointment in question) one was a merchant on the Ottawa, two are in the United States, one a physician in good circumstances, two daughters are respectably married, and a 6on who is now deceased, was Sheriff of the Bathurst District, but was removed from office, on account of difficulties in which he became involved. The family, that is the father and the sens, were opposed in politics to the majority of the Assembly, and to the late Counsellors. Had His Excellency asked the advice of the Counsellors on the appointment, they would probably have told him, that there was a very great antipathy in Canada to appointments running in families, and to whole families seeking a hereditary riglit to be provided with public situations ; that there were many persons who expected the appointment, equally eligible, and the choice of any of whom would give more public satisfaction in the neighbourhood. Suppose His Excellency nevertheless said, that he desired to make the appointment, and that the Counsellors had acquiesced, could they have sustained themselves in their majority] Well, Sir, I think they could, and if they had resigned on account of such an appointment, I think they would not have been sustained ,A Gover- nor may do more, far more than this, against the advice of his Council, either to gratify his benevolence, or his simple wish, without quarelling with the people of Canada, and the same result would have followed, had the office been disposed of witliout any consultation. But, Sir, if upon the advice above supposed being offered, or il ^:-l' ^. M m km ^i-iif 131 upon respectfnl remonstrance because advice was not taken, tlio Governor had said, that the claim of the Council to Ito consulted ■was a demand, to use his own words, of a " surrender of the royal prerogative," and had he denied the claim, and the ritflit to make the claim, as unconstitutional, 1 ask you, would the Counsellors remaining in office then, have been sustained by the Assembly, orby one single member of their party in all Canada? What! thcRcapon- aibleGovernment whl:;h the people had so long struggled for, the Responsible Government, the acknowledgment of which notwith- standing a positive instruction to the contrary, had been wrung from Lore'. Sydenham to be given up, and by whom ? by those who held office, under the solemn jdedgc of maintaining it. Sir Charles Metcalfe may have drawn a distinction in his own mind, 1?etween the ])rerogative of appointment, and other prerogatives ; ibut, neither Tory, or Radical, or Moderate, or other person in Ca- nada, had taken any such distinction ; neither had the Counsellors themselves in their often repeated pledges to the parliament and the country, and they had borne the blame of appointments, and taken the responsibility of a})pointments, without repudiation by the Governor, when they were cast upon them willi all the venom cf political enmity. It may consist with Mr. Ryerson's present course to say, that the Counsellors had nothing to do with Sir Charles Metcalfe's abstract opinions : but, Sir, his was no abstract opinion. It was to take his own version, his own despatch to Lord jStanlcy, and Lord Stanley's explanation, a denial of their right to be consulted upon, and of their responsibility for apjiointments ; and when this denial was made, no choice was left to them but office and infamy on the one hand, or duty and sacrilice on the other. If the Counsellors committed treason or sedition Sir, they had committed it in the face of parliament. When they pledged themselves to be responsible for all appointments, they committed these Climes in company with the Queen's representative who had admitted of their pledges, and with the country who had sup- ported them, and had Sir Charles Metcalfe been as well accustomed to the wodvings of a free constitution, as he was to the adminis- tration of despotic power, well and wisely in a countiy which was not free, his conscience would not have allowed him to do the in- justice to the late Counsellors which he has done. He might have set up his opinion against them, and he might have appealed to the people, or to the Secretary of state upon the difference. He plight have dismissed them from his Councils, bnt he never would '^'J^ 135 . . , have said in his answers to tlio rubid addrossos of tlieir oiiomies, that tliey were insidious, or diKairccted, neillier would he have au» thorized Lord Stanley to say llmt they were " unprincipled deina- gogiiiBS ; bad, rash, and interested Counsellors." The House of Assembly understood well the distinction between the resignation of Counsellors upon an appointment, and upon a principle : I hope I have made the distinction as plain to others . The country will bo the judges, whether the principle was worth maintaining or not. I have read through, all Mr. Ryerson's letters without discovering which side he is on, as regards the principle. I have discovered only, that he is on the side of Sir Charles Met- calfe ; and that he thinks or thought himself, very learned in Par- liamentary usages, diplomacy, forms, anomalies, classics, and chivalry. I have shown that the. personal influence, and power of the Governor, even constitutionally used, are no cypher, but a real and formidable power, and such I wish it to continue, I must however pursue the subject furtl;er; It will probably interest your readers more than tilting with Mr. Ryerson, who neverthe- less will. not be forgotten, or left unanswered in the end. LEGION, it ■jjt LETTER IX. Sm, I I have described the power of a Governor of this Colony, under a system of Responsible Government, as on active, energetic, and controlling power ; as one which, if not exercised very wrong/ully, and tery much in opposition to public opinion, will be sustained by the people of the country against any set of men, who may happen to be the advisers of the Crown. But if this power be exercised in direct contradiction to the wishes and opinions of the people ; and when it consequently fails in acquiring their support, it of ne- cessity becomes antagonistic, and, if it is to bo maintained, it must be maintained by support from abroad, byappoalsto the authorities— and to the strength of the ompir In this case, obedience and submission, not approval and support, are what the Governor wants, and so long as ho maintains the principle, are what he must enforce from the people, and however right, in the abstract, the policy may be which is thus enforced and maintained, it requires but little argument to show, that its enforcement and maintenance are not consistent with any definition, however loose, of Responsible Gov- ernment ; in short, approval and support are the conditions of Responsible Government — obedience and submission arc those of ' Despotic Government. In all countries, however free, obedience without approval must be required from some portion of the community, and in coun- tries where public opinion forms the rule of Government, the members of the community whose opinions do not concur with those of the majority, must necessarily be obeying not approving individuals. The great and invaluable privilege of the minority in a free country is, that they may, without criminality or blame, dis- approve and condemn, what they nevertheless obey: and, more- over, they may be as untiring and unsparing as they please in the use of every Constitutional meansofridding themselves of obnoxious measures and obnoxious policy. Blind and silent submission to any authority, whatever, is a contradiction and an absurdity in a free 'A 139 lil m i^ country. A sini»1«! indivitluiilmnysptupliis opinions acffiinHt tlioseof tlio wIkiIo «:(>niiiiiiiiity,rj!iy,(!V(Mi nt(iuii.sl iIimsj! ofllH" (^uet'ii andliiM iiiiiUHlors, ami «trtli(j liiipcrijil I'urliainciil, mid, ifsiich ii person ihuU one cundidiifdiituiM.'li'ctioIi niorcj tliiumnother, inclintid lo fuvor liis opinion, lio has a riglit, nay, it is his duty to vote for thai candiihite: and, if a single indivithial may without hhiino cxcrciso this privilege, ho nip.y two or more individuals ; and if u minority may do so, surely the same privilege must be allowed to a majority. But when once the opinion becomes tiiat of the majority in Par- liament, tiien a certain ])ower of enforcing its adoption accom panies it. No country can be governed well and peacefully in op- position to that opinion, and weakness of Government, distraction of Councils, contempt of authority, and impatience of rule must be the certain consequonco of the enforcement of prerogative, without regard to popular opini(jn so expressed and maintained. It is upon this necessary consequence of Represcntatfvc Institu- tions that Rosponsi'jle Crovernment rests. The consequence is so necessary that wo are accustomed to consider it a sacred and in- herent principle of the Constitution : but whether it bo a principle, or a practical consequence, wo know well that without it iro- gative nrion3 and principles of policy they avow and act upon, must agree with public opinion ; and as there has been no period in tho liistury of any free country in which differences on somo great public questions liave not been agitated ; and as the ministers cannot be supposed to accord with all sides, it would fol- •ow, that they must agree with the prevailing majority. In fact, it is because that majority has declared itself, and those forming it have prevailed, that they claim to have public servants, in their confidence, for, thereby they possess an assurance which they can have in no other way, that the consequences of thei* prevalence will be faithfully and truly carried out ; and, if the people desire to have, as public servants, those who have most powerfully assist- ^ a I ; . i« I 4 M I' , 140 ted tlicm In the contest of opinion, it is not merely upon the prin- ciple that tliose who have v. on the victory have a right to the opoila of war, but upon the more just and necessary supposai, that those who contended successfully for opinions may bo most safely en- tinistcd with their practical maintenance and enforcement. Feeling and prejudice naturally aid in producing confidence in popular leaders, for it is scarcely in the nature of man to have the same high opinion of the moral and intellectual qualification and fitness for office of an opponen*^ which he has for those of a friend and adherent in political contest. Philosophers may decry this preju- dice, but they will do so in vain. Governors-General are as liable to its infiuence as individuals of tiie humbler classes, and when we have the spectacle before us, of a Governor-General, a stranger to the country and to its inhabitants, denouncing men who oppose his views, as disaifected, as guilty of insiduous endeavours to produce separation from the mother country, and asciibing motives to their opposition unworthy of good men, or loyal subjects, we may well look for sentiments of attachment and respect to political friends, and harsh construction of the conduct of political enemies, amongst, those who have entered into the contest of principle, £3 one in which the fate of their country for good or evil is in- volved. Such are the reasonings and sentiments which make party and j>'trty spirit an inevitable consequence of constitutional liberty. To desiroy o^' put down party is to trample upon liberty itself. The people w'l! bo partizans if they be not prevented by some superior power, and such superior powei', whether exercised well or ill, must be despotic. It is impossible that it can have public opinion for its basis, and if vvc pass by public opinion we have no resting place but in the exploded doctrine of the divine rightof King's. Earthly pov/er is borne with only so long as men cannot help themselves, and when it is invoked against public opinion, by whatever name it may be called, it is a yoke which rankles on the neck of a people who claim to be free. It is no doubt a very amiable, and not an unpopular sentiment, that Goveir?ment shouldnot respect party. Let any man askhimself what he wo Jd do could he govern absolutely, and without obstruc- tion from any quarter, and he would of cour?e answer, that he would do what siiould seem good to himself, he would do what Jic should think right. Having this uncontiuUed authority, his duty would not be iulfilleu either towards God or man, if he acted ol bl e] fJ ci| ir CI tc tl ifl fill SUI 141 otherwise ; for lils rule of right and wrong would be in his own breast, and he would be without excuse in departing from it, what ever might be the opinions of others. But what is this after all, but the substitution of one man's opinion for public opinion 1 And is it not the very life and soul of all politi- cal freedom, that no msn shall be permitted to rule upon his own mere notion of right and wrong in politics, the object of rulers in a Constitutional Government is, to give satisfaction and contentment to the people, and their judgment, therefore, must be the rule of that Government as to political right and wrong. It might be well if all people agreed in opinion : it might be well if all were unin- fluenced by feeling, passion or prejudice : it may be well to per- suade them to agree, and to form their judgment uninfluenced by feeling ; but, after all, we must take poor hrimanity as we find it, and it is not the most perfect Government, Imt the one which the p.'iople with all their feelings, interests, and prejudices, awake and active as they usually are, it is the one which, thus influenced, the community think the best, will satisfy them most ; and, it is the only one which can produce contentment and have its foundation and reliance in the inmost hearts of the people. There was a time, and that not long since, when it was a prevailing doctrine that there should be but oi f? religion permitted in a State, and i»' free countries it foVowed that the State religion was the religion of the majority. Kings and Rul' 3 were forced to accommodate themselves to popular opinion, and to visit with dis- countenance, political disabilities, and even with persecution those who dissented. Happily forthe world, popular feeling has changed, and each man'? road to Heaven is at his oww choice and upon his own responsibility ; but if when popular feeling ajainst dissent ran high, had a Sovereign said to himself, I see no grounds for these religious differences, my subjects are disputing about trifles, their preachers are bad, rash, and interested Counsellors, I shall do equal justice to all sects, I shall appoint a Catholic Bishop of Lon- don, and a Protestant Bishop of Durham, oncl I shall take care that neither are polemical disputants, for I am finrdy determined to put down all distinctions in religion, and in my appointments to recognize no such differences ; — I think I need not ask how long such a Sove eign would have continued to administer his equal justice in England. Happily, as I before observed, people do not busy themselves ubout other people's religious principhs, and each man in Canada \% t "s % 1| 113 may parsue his own way, without olratructhig that of his neighbour; but it cunnot be so in j)olitics, for every man is interested, ])er30i:' ally, in the political oj)inion3 of his neighbour, and every man is jicrsonally interested in the advLtncement and prevalence of iiis own : and in matters which deeply interest individuals, it is not in the nature of man to look with indifference upon opposition, or, to liave the same sentiments of regard towards a friend and towards an opponent. It may be easy for a Governor to view our political distinctions with contempt and indifference, and to profess to treat all parties exactly alike, whether they supporter oppose the prevailing public opinion, he may call his contempt and indifference, liberality and justice, but to administer a Governmen- thus, and to pretend at the same time to govern according to the well understood wishes of the people, is, what Lord Stanley would call, a contradiction and an absurdity. The Constitution has given the pco]ile of this country a peace- ful means of ax'ranging their pai'ty differences, without surrender- ing them. We do not, however, find both parties treated alike, for the minority in a constituency lemains unrepresented, while the representative of the majority, speaks in the name of the whole. When these representatives of majorities meet in Parliament again there is a majority and a minority, the minority is constitutionally p .werlcss, the majority spealis for the whole Parliament, and for the whole people* And as concord with this majority is attainable, while concord and harmony with the whole people is unattainable and impossible, to produce this possible and constitutional concoi'd is the great use and object of an Executive Council ; they arc to ad vise the Governor in the administration of the prerogative according to the well un- derstood wishes of the people, and this is the expressed object of the Resolutions of 1811. ,„ ,, . It may be very becoming in Mr. Rycrson, to profess to belong to nopaity, and it would be still more consistent with his position really to attach himself to none ; but so long as thex'c are public questions, upon which men think differently, so long as there is freedom of thought, and freedom of election, there will be a divi- sion of opinion upon questions in Parliament, and those who usually think and act alike on one side, will unite in forming the majority ; and those who think differently, will form the minority, and tho&e together will form two parties. It is in vain to preach 143 or disclaim, or quote wise sayings to the contrary, the furmatiud of parties is the demonstrably necessary result of liberty of judg- ment, and universal experience proves that there is no fallacy in the argument* < If both sides of the House of Commons were rcpreseritecl ?.i tho Cabinet Council, that body would not represent the ascertained » wishcsof the people, but their contending opinions; and the con- test already decided in the House, would have to be decided over again in the Government. This absurdity has been inflicted upon one Colony, we know with what success, but it has never been even attempted in England. Those two parties have sometimes agreed to such minor diffei'enccs for the purjiose of forming a istrong party } but men have never united to form a Cabinet pro- ' fessing to retain and hold adverse opinions, or to give up party. • The Council in which a majority of the ])eoples representatives have confidence, must then of necessity, be a Council known to agree in the opinions of the majority; and as their business is to see, that the Government is conducted in harmony with these opi- nions, they must, before they can enjoy the necessary confidence, have shewn their intimate understanding of the politics of the » majority ; and as further, they are expected to fight the battle of opinion for the majority, they must have shown themselves ready, able, and zealous for the contest. They are placed in the position of leaders. Men will not be led, by those who are luke warm, or feeble. Popular political men, must be those who hold distinctive and strong views of questions interesting ' • community. Silence and indifference regarding these questions, hi^'.vcvcr propor in a minister of the Gospel, would never make a mm, . minister of state in a free country. The politician has no right to sa_ , that any matter which interests the public mind, is one of indifference to him. Those who are in public life, have no opportunity of being indifferent or inactive. If they are supposed to have minds cnpa- ble of judgment, they must adjudge. If they are capable of giving reasons for their opinions, they are called on for these reasons. I f they have ability to persuade, they must become advocates. The opinions of men are the results of many combinations be- yond the mere circumstances of the hour or the moment that calls them forth. The accidents of birth, fortune, education, and teir.iperament, influence the opinions of the best and most hrmest men, and while they make human reason fallible and erring, they have the advantage of teaching men the characters of their fellow men, I: n . 1 i, : •■ i '■it ! i i. * t n and of giving stability to the founcJations of mutual reliance, and strength to the ties by which men combine for great ends. Man has not been fashioned according to the wisdom of man. If it were so, all men would prcjbably think alike, and the thoughts of all would bo those of the mind from whence the formation came ; but infinite and inscrutable wisdom, has subjected the human mind to influences from which it cannot free itself; these give diversity of thought and of character, and although we cannot judge of ourselves by them, tliey enable us to judge of others. How well and how correctly we can prognosticate the opinions of those we are acquainted with, whether they happen to be sciperior or inferior to ourselves, and however new or strange the events may be, which call for their expression. The ignorant and low minded attribute to baseness and insincerity, all dissent from iheir own conclusions. The liberal and high-minded, can res- pect character, and see sincerity and honesty, in an opponent; but both can generally form a judgment upon the future conduct of others, and of public men above all others. Men unite with and support those who, in their judgment will think and act with them ; and they cannot give their confidence to those from whom they expect differences of opinion and opposition in action, no matter whether the motives attributed to that difference or opposition be good or bad. *^ Public opinion being but an a ;gregate of the opinions of indi- viduals, public confidence in one inan or set of men, is inevitable ; and its effect is certain where there is freedom ; and where this exists, there must be party, and public men muf*. have parties, if their characters have been such as to attach others to them, who coincide with the general bent of their minds, and expect since- rity to be evinced in their conduct. Mr. Pitt, was a partizan, so was Mr. Fox, so is Sir Robert Peel, and so is Lord Stanley, and 80 is Lord John Russell. Nay, tliere never was a period, not a moment in the history of England, when public opinion was free, and when there were not j^arties, and when the great men of the period, or of the moment were not partizans. The same may be said of all free countries, at every period of history. If we wish to find absence of party, or indifference to party, we must look to the history of despotism. Napoleon, put down party, he desired no confidence except in himself and in his i' 'tunes. Henry the Eighth, admitted no party spirit, neither did Queen Elizabeth. Oliver Cromwell crushed party in England, and Lord Clive and 145 Watteti Hastings put down party spiiit in India. I have not elio- flen the worst examples ; perhaps it was better for the countries they governed, to lose freedom, for the sake of strength or of i. justice or of humanity. And when Sir Cliarles Metcalfe sosweep- ingly denounces party spirit, and would substitute the despotism to which he Was accustomed, for the liberties which he found irt Ca- nada; when he places his own judgment above all public opinion, when he speaks of Councils in which he has confidence, while disregarding thoso in whom the jieople had confidence, far be it from me to attribute to him evil intentions. Greater and better men than Sir Charles MeLcalfo have destroyed i)ublic liberty, and have neither thought or worked evil by so doing ; and lie is not the first who made use of the name of liberty for lior destruction. Napo- leon bore the standard of the republic, with the motto of liberty and ecpiality, over the bridge of Areola, before he was Enipoior of the French, and he too declaimed against party, wl:eu he was establishing an iron despotism. Napoleon too, made his aj)j)ointments Avitliout regard to party. The Royalist noble, and the Ja'"^Mn of the reign of terror were alike to him, so they brought him obedience. TIic wise and good, the bloody minded, and the infamous, were ull made use of; he sought for talent, bravery and submission, utterly regardless of opinion or party. He cared not how much men difiered from each other, so they obeyed him, and popuhuity in the men whom ho made his instruments was a crime, not a recommendation to his favor. But, you will ask me, may not party and public opinion lead to crime, injustice, corruption, and national degradation ; and I can- not deny, that it may lead to those evils, any more than I can deny that good has sprung from arbitrary ])ower; but I fear the evils of despotism, more than I do those of party, and T desiio the blessings of freedom, more than I do those of irresponsible rule. I do not deny, but that there have hecn, and may be nations in which arbitraiy government would be better than freedom ; but I deny that the country in which 1 live, is in that condition, and I deny that the condition of the people of Canada requires that pub- lic opinion should be put down or disrogai'ded by any power on e" th, because of consequences which it may please the sycophants of our vice regal court to prognosticate or apprehend. I look upon popular confidence, in leading men, to be the first ingredient in free and Jllesponsible Govornmeut, and this Govcru- (r> ; m -I .'i 'k !■;■: !<■ 4 I'l % fei »!•' >7 * i 146 ment is the Government of a party; to this Government men are free to give their confidence — free to withdraw it ; if .nen in power be unjust, corrupt or incapable, the people have the remedy in their own hands, and the Canadian people know well how to use it. But if a Governor should happen to be unjust, corrupt or in- capable, the people have no remedy. If they remonstrate, there will always bo an Egerton Rycrson to tell them they are factious. If they dare to meet together, there will be an Ogle Gowan, to disperse them with his loyal myrmidians. If they make the far cry across the Atlantic, a sainted Gibbon, will be ready with his pam- phlet of fabrications for the London market. In tho House of Commons, they will bo Colonists, who may have the fonn but not *' the life" of the British constitution: — and in Canada they will have the satisfaction of seeing themselves in print with the honorary distinction of " disaffected," attached to their names, vouched by the signature of the Queen's Representative. Bat why should I further argue tho proposition that Government in a free country, must bo party Government. Mr. Ryerson and Sir Cimrles Metcalfe, are the first to deny it, and with reasoners like them, a word from a Secretary of State, is ol' moie avail than mathematical demonstration. Hear Lord Stanley's opinion given in tho debate of the 30lh May last; — ihcse are his words: "He would not enter into the question, whether A Responsible Govern- ment BY WHICH MUST BE MEANT A PARTY GOVERNMENT, WttS KOt that most likely to be condusivo to tho happiness and good govern^ ment of the people of Canada." Lord Stanley for reasons which he advanced, evidently thought it was not best for Canada, and he took care to say that the «' lifo" of the British constitution could not be given to a colony ; but at the same time he said, what every . man must feel to be true, that by Responsible Government, must be meant party Government. Lord Stanley knew it was so in En- gland, that he himself was a leader of the party in power ; qa spoke no Utopian nonsense against party ; and if he had denouncep parly Government as applicable to England if he had alagated that ho Queen's individual autfiority was to be exercised to put down party, he would have been laughed at. Sycophancy does not now o the length of idolatry in England, and Ministers of State may there be contradicted without rebellion. Lord Stanley was a mem- ber of a parly who gained power in very despite of the Queen's individual wishes and opinions ; and his government were conduc* ting public affairs on party principles ; butwhen Lord Stanley spoke 147 lean's iduc' ^poke of a colony, thcntho Governor was not "to bo reduced to that de- gree of power, wliich was vested in a Sovereign of this Country :" then Sir, he took his distinciion upon reasoning borrowed from Sir Charles Metcalfe, and excluded oflicial appointments from the Responsible Government which he was obliged to admit had been conceded, — a doctrine which would have been a contradiction and an absurdity, as appl'ed to England, but which answered well for ex- portation, and which ho dared not, if he wished re-land for homo consumption. Responsible Government is then, upon the undeniable authority »of Lord Stanley, the Government of a party, and he whr; denounces party Government, denounces Responsible Governmer i Well did Sir Charles Metcalfe know that no Government could stand which bestowed ofTice and patronage on political opponents, but he did not wish the (lovernment to stand ; well did he know that when office is bestowed on political opponents, it is always taken as a bribe to gain or to silence, and that it produces but discontent in one parly, and contempt in tho other ; and if bestowed by him against the ad- vice of his Council, that it was encouraging and rewarding opposi- tion to them. He knew that under such a system, his Counsellora tor lid )Ut m Ibe would link into public odium and contempt, and while he would not openly challenge their claims to popular confidonco, ho desired to place them in a position in which they could not possibly retain it. But, Sir, I have not only British practice, and the principles of British Statesmen on my sido, but I hnvo also the practice of Sir C. Metcalfo and the principlo^i of (lij Excclluncy's fntlior confessor, Dr. Ryorson, on tlio snmo si Jo. Let us, in the first place, enqiiirp "'hy In iho course of the Gov- ernment of Lower and Upper Cunailu, all office was bestowedupon the supporters of ihodovernmont, for iho time being, nnd all oppo- nents of thai (rovornment wore excluded, unless when they were meant to bo bribed or silenced ? 'I'hc true icnson may ho given in Lord Kllioti's words, os 1 have quoted ibom above. Hut what was the avowed reason of preference nnd exclusion 1 Why, Sir, you well know it was this, the supportors of iho (Jovernors were called loyal men, and iheir opponenla disloynl ; no matter what faction, in truth, governed the country in iho nfimo of ihe (JovcrnorCicnoral, ofTice was given as the reward of merit and loyally ; and merit in opposition was sedition, and sedition could not bo promoted or en- couraged. Look back. Sir, upon the numerous questions which have agitated Lower and Upper Canada, and particularly those in which popular claims have at length prevailed, and you will find that in every in- stance, the advocates of those claims were stigmatized as disloyal, and were on that pretence excluded from office; nnd call lo mind this further fact, that whenever it suited the (rovernmcut and the iadividual opposing them to agree, oflice was given, and disloyalty became loyally. You will remember in how many of these questions the opposi- tion was to the decision of the authorities of the Empire, nnd in how many to the Governor and his party. That, almost on every ques- tion, the Government in England supported the Governor in the Colony, whether right or wrong, and that in all casesoppositiou to the Oovernor was treated as disloyalty and sedition, and so, Sir, it must always be, so long as Governors are the partizans,when they choose to become contending parties personally. They can always make sedition out of opposition, and set up the maintenance of their own views as essential to the maintenance of the Royal Prero- gative. And thus it is with Sir Charles Metcalfe now ; he can forget the imputed treason of a, few years past ; he can forget that Mr. Ilyerson ^ >■ ' ' i I f' I , i n 151 11 : 5 Ik J m ,5 was always of very questionable loypliy, and that Mr. Viger spent a twelvemonth in prison, on an imputation of treason. l£ven Mr. Papineau it is said, would be welcome to his heart and to his Coun- cils. I, Sir, should honour Sir Chniles Metcalfe, for this oblivion, for this justice, if the condition of agreement with himself were not attached, and only that he in common with other Governors, nay, more than a.:y other Governor, has been rea(^y to stigmatize his opponents as disloyal, and to make submission to his will the test of loyalty to the Queen, and of qualification for office. Professing per- fect indiflTorence with regard to party, that is to say, of parties arising from differing opinions, ho has sought to maku passive obedience and non-resiutance, the principle of a party of which His Excellency himself is the leader. Professing to regard all parties alike, he has proscribed all alike who do not subscribe to his doctrines, and ad- mitted all alike who would subscribe to them. Charging his late Counsellors most untruly with an intention of purchasing parlia- mentary support, though they possessed it in abundance, from the freely accorded ronfidence of the people, he has by every means in his power sought to purchase the v^^ry parliamentary support which was so contraband except to himself. For eight months has official patronage been under the great Auctioneer's hammer, while the ominous ^*who bids most" has resoundud throughout the land, and al- ways the more treacherous the desertion of principle, the more wel- come was the j •"•chaser. A Superintendaru of Education was not wanted, hut parliamentary support was in demand, and Dr. Ryerson was supposed to have a large quantity on hand with the Wesleyan fiethodist brand, and the lot had to be purchased. The Solicitor- Generalship was up for sale in Lower Canada, and, learning, pro- fessional repute, and fitness for public service oifered in vain, Par- liamentary support was what was wanted, and amidst the disgust and ridicule of the whole bar of Lower Canada, poor Bernard was bought for a supposed quantum of support. To obtain parliamentary support all the decencies of the place of the Queen's Representative have been abandoned, and abject solicitation has grovelled about in obscene and obscure corners, digging for the earthworm votes of wretches without opinions, while men of lofty character and independent spirit, of all parties, have looked on with undis- guised surprise and abhorrence. This, however, is the necessary consequence, of Vice Regal partizanship, of rejecting the open course of legitimate party Government. A Governor's party cannot always do without Parliamentary support any more than a Whig 1.55 party or a Tory party. The two latter must, however, deal with avowed friends and avowed enemies. To the first of the three belongs the avowed purchase of parliamentary support, open unmitigated and unalloyed corruption, compared with which, party influence, party spuit, and party proscription, are as harmless as Dr. Ryerson's shadow of a virus. But it remained for the Doctor himself to declare the principles upon which the new system or, rather the old system revived, of a Governor-Generals party, and a Governor-General's opposition, which istoswallowupall other parties in Canada, is to be conducted. In future as in past times, all the Governor has to do when he ca nnot ha vo his way, is to write and receive a few despatches, to bring into play the authorities of the Empire, and then will come the Doctor's denunciation against defeat and opposition. Let us hear his war- ning. " I doubt not says the Doctor, but Sir Charles Metcalfe will with his characteristic forbearance and liberality, allow time and op- opportunity for these conciliations, and faithful warnmgs of the Imperial authorities to be fally understood by every man in the Province, that when the time arrives for drawmg the line of demar- cation — if it must at length be drawn — by placing all adminislra- iivet all judicial and militia offices, in the hands only of those who vill sustain the constituted authorities of the Empire, no man may be aken by surprise, that no man may be dismissed from any offi- cial situation without the clearest evidence of having arrayed himseif against the supreme tribunals of the Empire, of his having done so deliberately and wilfully, that there may be no dupes and no room for the plea of ignorance, which many made who were implicated in the movements of 1837. But I hope says the Doctor, ihat the religion, the good sense, the patriotism of the people will duly appreciate the liberal and admonitory Councils of the British Government. That no military provision nor royal proclamations^ nor removal from official situations may be required to sustain the constitution as maintained by Sove eign authority ; but that the great majority of all classes, will unite to maintain an afTec- tionate connection with the Mother Country, and a legitimate Res- ponsible Government upon the principles of equal justice to all classes of Her Majestys Canadian subjects." This insolent threat of the Doctor, surpasses all the most extreme party declarations we ever heard, and goes beyond the most violent find exclusive party proscription we over witnessed Parly draws i* 1 % ■tVJJL m \ I f^m m lb (i 166 it u no such lino of demarcation as the Doctor chalks out. Party only claims that political opinions, support of the Govornment for the time being, or opposition to it, should enter into the considerations upon wh'ch office is bestowed ; and that these considerations should not be lost sight of, so as to injure the Government which has the disposal of the patronage. Lord Stanley who declared Responsible Government to boa parly Government, nevertheless bestowed office sometimes on a political opponent. The late Executive Counsellors often recommended political opponents to office, they never recom- mended dismissal, but for active opposition of Government at elec- tions by officials, and that but in two instances, and they recognized and acted upon a well understood principle that there may be claims and merits in political opponents which the character and interests of the party in power forbade to be overlooked. They never said that the whole of the administrative, judicial and militia offices, should be in the hands ofthose only who were of their party. It remained for Sir Charles Metcalfe and Mr. Ryerson, to draw this line. To say that the Governor is alone responsible for the distribution of patronage, — to say that he may at his pleasure, make such distribu- tion as would make it impossible for his Counsellors to continue in office, and provided a secretary of slate appro vns, to charge all opposition to tlio account of disafTection, to threaten a parliament and a people with militanj provisions, rr.yal proclamations and, removals from official situations, and to offer royal favor and the situations to become vacant to all clas-;es of Her Majesty's Cana- dian subjects, who will -be of his party : this is the true way of putting down party spirit, but it is not new except in its naked avowal; it has from the beginning been the rule of the Colonial Government ; it has alienated and lost many a fair Colony to England. Responsible Government was the remedy, but so long as Governors may be partizans, whether they join personally with existing parties, or whether they cast upon the ground their own, to devour, like the serpent-rod of Moses, all other parties, Respon- sible Government will be but a pretence, a source of interminable discord, and never an element of strength, contentment or public happiness. We have one comfort however, for the present Mr. Editor, and that is, though we are threatened with military provisions by Gene- ral Leonidas, we need not eat them, while we have provisions of our own. Sir Charles Metcalfe cannot put his opponents in Canada upon rations, so easily as the Doctor supposes ; and while we can 157 T earn by honest work sufficient to live upon, without any thanks, to what the sainted Wakefield calls the paternal despotism of the Governor-General, and even without being able to trace our obliga- tions for the blessings we enjoy to vice regal proclamations or mili- tary provisions ; Wo can afford to stand a long siege, before we quail before the terrible warnings, or yield to the characteristic forbearance and liberality, which we have seen exemplified in eight months of unconstitutional Government. LEGION. ,i..J; If .#1 * II 1:f m II ' .' > ■1- 1 ■ : Irv * is; I LETTER X. •'■i I 'v 1 llfi I Sir, 1 send you for this week a short cliapter, by way of variety^ Our excellent Viceroy seems to be willing to give time fur hearing the long and the short of the matter before submitting to a decision. Parliament appears to be no longer necessary for the actual des- patch of public business. Poor public business is despatched in private. What arc despatches for, if they will not answer for the despatch of public business ? "What use is there in loyal addresses if they do not show all of public opinion a Governor needs to see: and as humanity revolts of late days at public executions ; the convict, public business, may, in accordance with this humane feel- ing, be despatched by a private Secretai-y, with more advantage than by publi.. executioners. The oriental mode of disposing of malefactors with the bow-string, is a vast impiovement in the ad- ministration of prerogative : and as the implements of execution are now of extraordinary length and in high order, made for the pur- pose of shooting across the Atlantic, when they are not in use for that pui-pose, they will seiTe to strangle Responsible Goverment, in the meantime, in Canada. As, therefore, I have no means of conjecturing when the form will be gone through of calling Parlia- ment together for the despatch of business ; I see no occasion to hurry. Perhaps before longsome "Royal Proclamation" will issue, as prt.iphesied by Doctor Ryerson, or some " military provisions" will be served out which will effectually silence public discussion ; but, before that time, I gather from the sybilline leaves of the Doctor's prophesy. Parliament will meet, and in the interim you will be permitted to print, and I to write. We may now enjoy our pri- vilege quietly, and as wc have time economically and moderately, and, therefore, as well as because I have not a long letter ready for you I send you a short one. Mr. Ryerson has laboured infinitely to show that the cause of difference between his Excellency and the late Counsellors was, in reality, that His Excellency was averse to party Government ; I5d and that the late Counsellors wiahed to introduce party as a tieVf element into Responsible Government. Had I commenced by denying that party was the cause of the quarrel I should have been held, according to the Doctor's logic, to deny the necessity or pro- priety of party Government ; to avoid this, I have shewn that party is no new element in free Government in any country what- ever, I gave Lord Stanley's opinion that " by Responsible Gov- ernment must be understood party Government," and Lord Elliott's declaration of the principles, on which party Government applied to patronage, in the emphatic words, " that it would be impossible for any Government to bestow favour and patronage upon its poli- tical opponents." I appealed to the universally known practice of all free Governments, ar tl to that of all despotic Governments, and to the principles acted upon by Sir Charles Metcalfe and declared by Mr. Ryerson, for the purpose of establishing a very simple proposition, which one would imagine to be almost self-evident when clearly stated. I may is well state that principle now, in a few words, so that those who choose to gainsay it may have no trouble in discovering what they have to contend with. I mean to say, that in all Governments administered accordlngto the understood wishes of the people, adherence or opposition to prevailing public opinion, or in other words party, will of neces- sity influence most materially the distribution of office and patron- age, and that in all despotic Goveniments adherence or opposition to the arbitrary opinion of the ruler, must to a still greater extent direct the distribution of office ; I mean to say that those who honestly and sincerely think party influence in the distribution of office an evil, and one so great as to make them wish to see patron- age distributed by a Governor-General, according to his ovni no- tions, are honest and sincere enemies to Responsible Government. Those who desire to see office given, upon the advice and respon- sibility of the party in power, for the time being, are the true friends of Responsible Government. And as to the class of non- descripts, of which Mr. Ryerson is the leader, who pretend to favour Responsible Government, while they place across the path of its legitimate operation, the public nuisance of a Governor- General's antagonism, and supported by "Royal Proclamations" and "Military Provisions," — they are hypocrites and deceivers, and deserve what they have got, the reprobation of all parties. But, Sir, I must not leave room for the supposal, that while I uphold with Lord Stanley, that Responsible Government means w^ m^ 1? 14 vtl t. m m tl w if H' ■I 1 ' 160 i I III il party Government, tliat I admit that this was the question upon which the late Counsellors resigned. Sir Charles Metcalfe, asser- ted not merely his legal light, but the propriety of his practice of disposing of office without consulting his constitutional advisers. His opinions had led to appointments contraiy to advice, and with- out advice ; and upon remonstrance his Excellency according to his own account, asserted, that to agree to ask ixdvice, would be a sur- render of the royal prerogative ; this is a sufficient reason for their resignation, and one wliich would be applicable to a Council acting upon party principles, or professing to act upon any principle but that of abandonment of the principal function for the discharge of which they were appointed. It was His Excellency wlio paraphrased their remonstrance into a demand of the surrender into tlicir hands of the prerogative of the Crown for party purposes — for the jiurcluisc of parliamen- tary support. The Counsellors arc not to be tried by his Excel- lency's paraphrases, or by Mr. llyerson's perversions of language. The lists of their aj)j)oiutmcnts, and I call them theirs, because they acknowledge them, are before the ])ublic ; there they are — administrative, judicial and military. Were they pvoscriptive — were they intolerant — M'ere they injudicious 1 Mr. Jiyer.son who ap- proved of the appointments v,p to the time of the resignation, surely has no right to argue that they \vere so. He cannot expect to persuade the parliament who approved of them, that they were so. It is Sir Charles Metcalfe who di.s[)utes the jiropriety of these appointments, though be made them himself. Mr. liyorson has no right to do so, and if these a])poiiitmcnts recommended or ap- proved by the Council were judicious, if they produced none of the calamitous effects which Mr. Ilyerson would infer from party Government, what right has he to argue that taking advice for the future, would do more harm than taking advice had done for the past 1 For what was good in Sir Charles Metcalfe's administra- tion of patronage, he can claim not a particle of credit, he avows that it was bestowed upon the advice of Counsclk)rs, and in anta- gonism to his own opinions. The people of Canada are then the judges : they have had years of experience of (xoveniment, in which office was given according to the opinions and upon the responsibility of Governors ; tlioy have had many Governors. The people of Canada have had a short period of Ileaponsible Govern- ment, in which office was distributed with the advice of a respon- sible Council. The question they have now to decide upon is, 161 wliich system they prefer, the British or the old Colonial system^ the justice of Governorii or the doforcnce to public opinion of res- ponsible Counsellors — the former resting upon " royul proclama* lions" and "military provisions" — the latter upon the well un- derstood wishes of the people. In almost every conversation T have hoard on the subject of patronage, and of advice u])on its distribution, this most common and familiar view of the; matter has recurred. The Governor cannot make appointments from his own knowledge, and he must advise with some jiersons whether Counsellors or not. What then is the leading principle of Responsible Government, but that the Governor is not responsible, and that his advisers are. He who deniesthis, must be held to deny llesponsiblo Government, accor- ding to any common understaniling, but Mr. llyerson it appears thinks otherwise. The Counselloi's it appears desired to see the lists of candidates for office, and that they might be placed in the office of the Secre- tary of the Province, rather than iu the office of the private Secre- tary. The Provincial Secretary's office under Sir Charles Met- calfe being the one accessible to the Executive Counsellors ; and the Private Secretary's office accessible to all the world except the Executive Counsellors. You would, I diink, suppose it a very reasonable and unexcepti- onable desire on the part of the Counsellors, who as Mr. Ryerson says, are responsible, to know who it was they had the responsi- bility of rejecting, as well as those whom they had the responsibi- lity of preferring. What is called the list or a list of candidates for office contains as you may suppose the names of the candidates, their claims, and the names of the persons by whom they are re- commended : and was it not a very reasonable desire on the part of the Counsellors, to know who were the real advisersof the Crown, with whose advice their advice was to be compared, and upon which it was liable to be rejected ] But against this request Mr. Ryerson exhibits a shuddering delicacy. "IstheGovernoi'-General (says Mr. Ryerson) any more than any other man of honor at liberty to make use of the name and communications of an individual, to any greater extent than may be authorized by that individual ]" Now, I never blink or go aside of any question I understand ; and I answer directly that no individual has a right to make recommen- dations or applications to the Governor-General, and to expect or reqnire they should be kept from the knowledge of the Coun«il. - ' ,• ir L 'h- '. ' . If ■ M I- 4 Nil' '^ i 1G2 Wlicrc Mr. Rycison picked n|) his liolc niul corner notions of Gov- ernment, it ia iliflicult to aay; but to tleclare in the face of the public of Canada, tliat aj)i)lication3 and reconiniondations may bo made to a (iovcnur which the individuals mailing them may at f/icir discretion kooj) from the knowledge of the sworn advisers of the Cfown, is p justification of back stairs ailvicc, and Kccret and irresponsible influence I never heard or read of before. In other countiiessuch transactions are called intrigues, and they are unwor- thy of honorable men, whether they be CJovernois or advisers: and what must be thought of a Government in which backstairs advice was so general, and intrigue so reduced to a system, that even the common applications and recommendations for oillce, would not bear the inspection of an Executive Council, and had to be kept out of their sight by a private Secretary? And what nnist be thought of Dr. llyerson, who speaks of the disclosure of lists of Candidates to a Council, as a sacrifice of individual right::! ? The parliament and the public Sir, have a right to know who advises the Crown, and to know what the advice is ; and it is not only the right but the duty of the Executive Counsellors to infnm themselves upon the subject. No man has a right to do that, with regard to public affairs which requires secrecy for his sake. Executive Counsel- lors havo no such privilege. Their advice and recommendations may all be made public without interfering with their individual rights. The Govemor-Gencrars most secret despatches may be made public by her Majesty's Ministers, without any individual right on his part to coini)lain ; upon what argument then, can Mr. Ryerson found a privilege of voluntary applicants, and self-appointed advisers of tliD Crown to have their applications and advice kept secret from tl c Executive Council of the Province? And yet this fancied privilege is set up by Mr. llyerson as the only defence for placing lists of Candidates for office in the office of a private Se- cretary. Mr. Ryei'son asks " is the name of an indi\ idual the rightful pro- perty of the Council, unless that individual chooses to make it so ?" I answer yes, the moment that individual interferes with his ad- vice, or his application in the business of the public ; nay not only is the name the property of the Council but of the Parliament when they choose to call for it. Mr. Ryerson asks is there any precedent in British history for asking a reference to lists of Candidates by a Council ? My answer is, the Queen keeps no pri- vate Secretary's office for the receipt and record of scci'et applica- pro- so V s ad- oiily limcnt any 3t3 of pri- [)lica- 163 tions for office, or for secret ami incspoiisiblc advice. In Englaiul, pulic officers are named and proposed by responsible ministers for the sanction of the Sovereign : the nomination is received not aa a favor to the ministers, but as the j)ciformunce of one of tlieir in- dispensible duties ; how then can there be a precedent for what never did happen, because tliero was nothing to occasion its hap- pening 1 It is I who have the right to ask for a precedent. Let Mr. Ryerson show me, that the Queen keeps a ])rivato list of candi- dates for office ; let him show me that the advice of a private per- son is held with her in the same regard as that of her responsi- ble Ministers ; let him show nio, that the Queen receives recom- mendations which she hides from her Cabinet Council, or into which she denies their right to inquire; and besides these, let him show, that the whole management of the patronage of the Crown, is transacted in a private Secretary's office; and that when her Majesty listens to her consititutional advisers, she regards it OS a favor to them : when all this is shown, there will a parallel be found in England f(jr the office of Captain Iligginson, as it appears to be set up in Canada. Mr. Ryerson says, that this demand showed that the late Coun- sellors wished to cut off all communication between the Governor- General and any individual in the Province except themselves. To this 1 answer, that any man who will make private communica- tions with a Governor-General, which he desires to hide from the Council, or the public, is a base intriguer, and unworthy the char- acter of a British subject ; and if such communications be received, and kept secret, unless with a view to immediate change of Coun- cils, and to publicity, whether tliat change takes place or not, the transaction may read wellenough in oriental language, butit will look vei'y dark in English, paraphrase it as much as you please. When private men advise Governors — and Governors receive their advice these men become jt>«/i^/c men, and thet/ are accountable to the public. Every subject has a Constitutional I'ight to petition, to advise, and to complain, but none have a right to do this in tecret. Let any Englishman imagine, for an instant, one of Her Majes- ty's subjects, high or low, soliciting an audience with Her Majesty, and after asking for an appointment, recommending a friend, ad- vising a measure, or, proposing a change of Ministry — saying to Her Majesty, that his name must not be told to Sir Robert Peel or Lord Stanley. I think the person, who woiffd make such a propo- m V- m •p\x :■■! itw-' * 164 fiition, would bo tliougtit iiiflfuio, for iin (Ifjrioc of ifj^ioranco wouKI excuse it; but lul uii Englislnniin further iumgiuo llcr Majiisty replying, certainly, tlicy hIuiII know notiiing about ibu matter, the Becrct is your propcnty ; I keep a private Secretary — who will not let my Cabinet know a word ronccrniiig you. It is in ///.Toflice my Government is conducted, itisin the oMt-r odices you will find those who ore rcsjwimlhlc for its conduct. Let no one take my word t'oi lliis doctrine; lot those who wish to un 'jrstand in what light secret advice to the Sovereign is looked on in England, read any history of the reign of George the Third. There they will find that the Earl of Ibite after he hud ceased to be a Minister was supposed, perhajw unjustly, to be a secret adviser of the King. Universal odium, and public scorn, and hatred fol- lowed the man who was susjiected of this baseness, the term " the King's friends," as app'iod to secret advisers was a term of reproach before which no man's character could stand in the British House of Commons, while this suspicion lasted. Let them read the debate I quoted from in a formf • 'otter, on the resignation, and restoration of Earl Grey's Ministry. Ijet them see how indignantly the Duke of Wellington and Lord Lyndhurst reject the imputa- tion of being secrv^'t advisers. If any of your readers still doubt let them read Sir Robert Peel's answer to a like charfre. " The O Hun. Gentleman (said Sir Jl. PccJ,) /uri talked of some intrigues of some recent communications. If the Hon. Genthman has ayiy in- Jbrmation oil. the subject, let him hring it forieard^ let him state who it is that assumes a power tinhnoivn to the Constitution — wJiicJi the Constitution has 7iever granted — and interferes heticecn. the responsible advisers of the Croicn and the Crou'n itself.'^ The late Executive Counsellors did not wish to prevent all com- munications to tiio Governor, except through them, but they had a right to expect that no communications, except from His Excellen- cy's superiors, should take place worth repeating, with which they should not be made acquainted. Otherwise political intrigue, se- cret antagonism, plotting and treachery would not only be casual but would be reduced to a system with its proper department, and these would be acknowledged and legalized principles of Govern- ment. Woe to the country where they prevail, and where they can be tolerated and defended with impunity ! I am not now making a charge against the Governor-General, for I am ignorant whether or not he received communications from persons in the Colony which he meant to keep secret from his UES ,'/ '"■ who the nsihlc IGJ I'ouiJcll. My clinrgo is nqniiial Mr, RycrsDii foi atto)ii])tint;to justily u Hystom of comniuiiiciitioti willi llio (lovcrnor, ul' which his Coun- cil wore to bo kopl ignorant, ami ior Mouing »tj) a riglit in in«livi- duuls to make such cumin unicat ions und to hate their nanus hept secret /Voni llio Council of the Province. I am coiiviiiccrd no man of cliaiiicfcr will ever ucknowlcdm; tlmt ho made such a communi- cation or claimed such a right. 1 know not if any man has heen promised such a secresy, but this does not relieve Mr. Kyerson from his def<'nce of secret and privileged communicatioTis, a doc- trine so slavish, so di.sh(mest, ho grovelling, that a stranger would fcir for the moral unc'-M'standing, for the sense of right and wrong, in a population to which it could bo addressed, and, by whom it could be received without indic^nation. Oh, Sir, the Doctor should leave for a while his hetoes and saints, of all ages, and study the moral code under which the British Constitution is administered. It may be that, as Lord Staidey says, wo cannot in a Colony havo the life of the British Constitution. But let us at least have the form, and if the decai/ of rottenness and death must be within, let them not bo exhibited and paradcil by teachers of [)ublic morals. If there must in a Colony be secret intrigue and back stairs advice, and a Council for rcsponsihility, and a Council for antagonism, let the latter at least have the decency to hide its existence, as well as the names of its members ; or, if this cannot be so, and if there must in this Colony bo an oflice for what Sir llobert Peel calls in- trigue, for the convenience of those who assume a power unhnoioi to the British Constitution, for the despatch of business — with those who " interfere beticeen the responsihtc advisers of the Crotcn atid the Crown itself^ Mr. Ryerson should at least forbear from tan- talizing us with the name of the British Constitution, he should, a.'j Shakespeare prophetically advises, D'off that Linn's hide, And hang a Calf-skin on his recreant limbs, LEGION. I •li I oral, fi-om his 1^ LETTER XI. Sir, Mr. Rycrson in his sixtli letter irirotmn tifl, trtily, that thcro is not an exumplo in the histury of EngIun tlio (Irlinit ions tiro iincjilliMi i'or; and, wlial is Htill of ^n^att-r c(in.sn<|iiunce, tlclinitiotiH on liis part, wlii'tlicr fuls(> or tnir, will not alter his ]>oaition us an LMiemy to KesponsiMc (Joverninont, it* liia acts arc unconstitutional. I havo ul |)n>;ionl to dual with his I'Uxci^lh^ncy's declarations nml definitions, lor wiiich, accordini^ to Mr. Ityursfju, tlu; people <»f ('u- nada »h(»uld I'eid unilur Huch di.'ep obligations. These declnnitiona are, in Mr. Uyerson's view, in harmony with the Resolutions ectation that most part of his roadovs would confine their researches to his writings. 1 cannot on any other principle dis- cover what advantage he could have hoped to gain by asserting that cither Sir Charles Metcalfe's tleclarations or acts wero declarei his part, asserted several times in his speech to have been demanded under the (loveruor's liand and seal. Lord Stan- ley drew a marked distinction between a Colony and the Mother Country, with respect to the distribution of ])atronage. Upon these distinctions ho defended Sir Charles Metcalfe, and yet Mr. Ryerson would have us believe, that Lord Stanley declared Sir Charles Metcalfe's views and decimal ions to be in hannony with British practice. I think that those who will take the trouble to refer to Lord Stanley's s]ieech will iind that he declared directly the contrary. The art with wliich Mr. Ryerson has claimed the support of British Statesmen, I have already exposed, lie dares not openly take the distinctions which form so prominent a pait of Lord Stanley's defence, lie has passed them by. lie knew i:M \i w ?|i,tv. M •t:. V W.T: m.: 1 16S Si I mi' ill tl)ey wouH l>c ofTensivc and hateful to his liberal reaclei*3 ; ami he knew that to controvert them would neither jileasc his master or Ilia tory supportera. He, therefore, covers them with a cloud, through which iiTcsponsible pi-erogative may be seen by one party nnd British Constitutional jiractice by the other. Mr. Ryei'son is never tired of reiterating his argument, " That the Head of the Executive Government of this Province being within the limits of his Government the Representative of the Sov- ereign, is responsible to the Imperial authority alone ;" and, that the authority to which Sir Charles Metcalfe is alone responsible has declared that both his views and practice ai-e constitutional accord- ing to the resolutions of 1841, Now the doctrine of despotism, all over the world, is founded on the irresponsibility of Sovereigns. Join this to authority, and you have pei'fect despotism. The divine right of Kings to rule, and «»xercise prerogative, without accountability, was the very one overthrown by the revolution of 1C88. It is true that the limita- tion.s of prei'ogative, then introduced, brought no personal respon- sibility of the Sovereign, but they produced an actual and practical necessity, that all the public acts of the Sovereign should be ad- vised, and thpt the advisers should bo responsible. The practical Constitution of England may in this point of view be defined al- most in the words of our Canadian Resolution ; that the Head of t'le Executive Government in England is responsible to divine authority alone. According to Doctor Sacheveral it was rebellion to question the acts c*" the Sovereign ; l)ut this is not what fol- lows, according to the British Constitution. Responsibility with- out power is a contradiction and an absurdity, according to Lord Stanley, and power without responsibility is tyranny. To escape that tyranny the British people hold the Crown incapable of acting without ad v^ice; and they hold the advisers responsible. This in- r''pability in the Sovereign of acting without responsible adviser?, is really and truly the essence of Responsible Government. Admit for a moment the capability or power of the Sovereign to do indi- vidual public acts, and the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance follows inevitably that of irr(!sponsii)llity of the Sovereign. What, Sir, is Lord Stanley's conclusion, from premises like these, — "the Sovereign in England exercises no political power." This is in England a well understood principle, and strange it would be if, in the assertion of irresponsibility in a Governor- General, our Parliament had been led into con3eut the question whether wc are to admit or deny that we are in the enjoyment of Responsible Government remains as much as ever un.?ettled. If we must do without it we must, and there is an end to the argu- ment ; but the prisoner cannot be persuaded by authority that the sun shines, and the wind blows as freely for him, as the passen- ger outside, whose voice penetrates to the dark recesses of his dungeon. Now, Sir, as there is as yet no Royal Proclamation, or Mili- tary Provision against opinion, let us take the liberty of examin- ing for ourselves His Excellency's declarations ; and, in the first place, his explanation to Parliamont, which I intreat your readers to look into with patience and attention, keeping in mind two assertions of principle by wliicii 1 desire to liave this matter judged, and which I dare Mr. Ryerson to controvert, either in theory or by reference to British practice. The first is. That there must, according to the principles of Responsible Government, be some ])erson or persons responsn)le in the Colony, or, in other words, some jicrson or persons who <'an be made accountabl(>, for evejy act of the rejiresentative of the (^ueen, respecting rhe local affairs of the Colony : this is the essence of Responsible Government. The second, i« a practical consequence of the first, and may bo thus stated — that in order to preserve harmony, the advisers of the Crown, should hav« the confidence of Parliament. The first principle in essential, and should be inviolable both in theory and practice. Any declaration, which necessarily involves a contradiction to it, i8 « contradiction to Responsible Government itself. The second, as we have seen, for nine months past, may be violated in practice, and a Gf>vernment may be carried on without the confidence of Pnrliament, at the simple sacrifice of the peace and harmony of t)jo <;ouri»ry, <> long as enemies of the country can be found in the C.ilony, who will talvc the responsibi- lity of advising such a Cbtvernnient. Now, Sir, the Governor-Gfini'Cid's ol»)ection, according to his own exjilanation to the deninnd wIiIlIi h»' states to have been made by the late Counsellors, was nqp |^p,cm|ae of a real or siii)])oscd 171 stipulation, but because an agreement to take aJvice on all occa- sions of appointment, vvouKl be a snrrendcr of tl)e prerogative of the Crown, " as it could not be maintained, that the mere form of taking advice w^ithout regarding it, was the process contemplated." " He appealed to the number of appointments made by h im, on tiie recommendation of the Council, and to instances where he had abstained from conferring appointments on their oppo- nents, as furnishing proofs of the great consideration he had evinced towards the Council in the distiibution of patronage. He at the same time objected as he always had done to the exclusive distribution of patronage with party views, and maintained the principle that " office ought to be given to the man best qualified to render efficient sei"vices to the state, and when there was no such pre-cinincncc, he asserted his right to exercise his discretio-n." The late Counsellors, you will observe, defend the appointments made under their advice. These appointments havo been approved by the Parliament, and by the vast majority of the people. The Governor-General insinuates thot the Council sought the distribu- tion of patronage with exclusive party views. The Counsellors say, they aHvised the distribution of patronage so as to produce contentment and harmony between the Government and the people. Mr. Byerson even approved of the conduct of the Government «s !hey ad 'ised it, and so the public affairs of the country continued to be administered to the satisfaction of the majority of the people, until the introduction of viceregal antagonism, and the substitu- tion of His Excellency's discretion, for the judgment of respon- sible advisers. But, what is the discretion which the Governor-General asserts the right of exercising — what is the prerogative which he would not surrender? It is the discretion of acting upon his own judg- ment contrary to advice, or without advice — the discretion of judg- ing for himself who are best qualified to render efficient services to the state, and where there was no pi eminence of doing as he liked. Now, Sir, upon whose responsibility was he to exercise this judgment and this discretion 1 He substitutes no new or other advisers for the Council, whose advice he pro))oses rejecting. It is not that being displeased witli tiie advice of liis ministers as being founded upon party views ; he tbi^refore seeks other advice. No, it is hi.s own unadvised discretion ;, and I ask again, who was to be responsible for the exercise of that discretion which it is treason even to question ? Why, Sir, the Governor-General him- , I: ! 172 Mii vr ■i Ml' '•J I,! f?elf, and lo wliom 1 Why, Kir, to tlio Iniporiiil autlioiify aloiio. Then Sir, ask llic quoslioii, wlietlicr the rcsijonsiliilily oC ihii Governor-CJeneral to tlin iiiij)L'rial authority, or tho rcsjjoiisihilily of some person to tho people of Canada, was tlio responsibility sought by the UcsoUitions of IS 11 ! If the latter, then there could not be a more direct disavowal of the principle of Jtes])onsil)ln Government than the (TOVcrntn'-C-rencrals own cxjilanation ; for according to that cxphination, to consent to the first and essential requirement of Responsible Clovernmont — namely, that there should always be auting to His Excellency the undoubted prerogative of the Crown " to appoint to office the ^iA\ U'i:, 175 in le n •y JO porsons His Excellency niiglii coiisidci* tlio most fit to diHcImrge tlio duties vctiuired of tliem." (S(» I miglit go on, throtigli nlniost all the addrcssi's and answers of l[is Excellency. TIioho wliicli contain anything reniarkablo, beyond the allegation, on the ono hand, of an attempt to destroy the pj-erogative of the Crown, and thanks for its defence on the other, I shall notice hereafter. At present wc have to inquire, Wliat was the ])rerogativc asserted and infringed upon, and how far its assertion and infringewient agree with our notions of Responsible Government ? The essential prijiciplc of Responsible (iovcrnment in Canada is, as I explained above, that there should always bo advisers locally responsible for every act of the CJovcrnor. The preroga- tive claimed is, that of acting without, or contrary to, the advice of those who form the Provincial C'abinet, and without changing that Cabinet, or finding others who arc to be responsible. The^ The Governor-Cioneral, in that most extraordinary after-thought, the answer to the address of the Ciore District Council, says, " that the Council should be responsible to the Parliament and the people; and that when the acts of the Governor arc such as they do not choose to be responsible for, they should be at liberty to resign." Rut what they arc to resign for it is ditllcult to dis- cover. What! resign because the Governor exercises a discretion "which ho avowedly claims, and for the exercise of which he is responsible to the Im])riial Authorities alone. What are they to be responsible for ? \yhy, for ])eruiitting the Governor to act upon his own discretion and upon his own rcponsibility. Admit, for a moment, the prerogative claimed by the Governor, of acting beyond any advice in this Province, and it inevitably follows that any Minister who would resign because of any exercise of that prerogative, would stand liable to the cliargc of attempting to usurp the Royal prcrogalive — to the charge of claiming supre- macy himself — to the charge of desiring to make a tool and a cypher of the Governor-General. Hundreds of loyal addressers are found in Canada who impeach the loyalty of the late Coun- sellors, because they refused to be responsible for the exercise of a discretion in which they were not consulted. Wlia^ then, would be said of Counsellors who, admitting tlic discretion of acting without and against advice as an un<.Ioubled prerogative, would yet resign because it was so exercised. We all know that Executive Counsellore " are at liberty to resign ;" but a resigna- tion because of a Governor-Cicucral's acting on his own respon- r 'M ..I i ■11 '■ s m n 1 I f m < 'I :l n i i' a 17G sihility, ^vhcli it is once udiulttccl to be constitutionul for him to do so, would expose tlic resigning Counsellor to ridicule and con- tempt, us well as to the imputation ol' disad'ection. If ono set of Counsellors do not agree willi tho policy a Gov- r ernor-General is (Ictermined to pursue, ho is at full liberty to find another Council who will agroo with him, and, therefore, he may reject ndvico if ho pleases, but if he cannot fmd a Council to agree with him, who possess the confidenccof Parliament, then is his policy opposed to the wishes of the people ; and if he persists in the policy, the harmony of his Government is at an end. llutit ispolfhis prero- gative of changing Counsellors tho Governor-General cla'ms : it is that of exercising his own discretion, a discretion only to be questioned in tho Province under tho penalties of disaffection. What, let us ask, were the late Counsellors to do, if they would > avoid the charge of usurping tho Royal Prerogative, of endeavour- ing to reduce the Governor-General to a nullity ? They could only have stood by to see tho exercise of undoubted prerogative, for v.'hich tho Governor was responsible to the Homo authorities ; for if they resigned, complained, or opposed that exorcise of preroga- •tive, then they would be endeavouring to usurp it, and to reduce the 'Governor-General to a nullity. The Governor-General in his answer to tho Gore address is kind enough to allow them not only the privilege of looking on while he conducts the Government ; but also, the further privilege of lying to tho Canadian people by pre- tending responsibility ; but Lord Stanley has onswered this proposi- , tion for mo. *♦ llcBponsibility without power (says his Lordship) is a contradiction and an absurdity." This answer to tho address of tho Gore District Council, is worthy of close and deliberate attention, and as it is much relied upon by Mr. Ryerson, let us see if all its doctrines are those of Responsible Government. " If you mean, (says Ilis Excellency,^ Ihot tho Governor is an irres; ansiblo officer, who can without responsibility adopt tho advice of the Council, then you are, I conceive, entirely in error. The undisputed functions of the Governor are such, that he is not only one of the hardest worked servants in the Colony, butalso has more responsibilities that any officer in it. He is responsible to the Crown and Parliament and the people of the MotJicr Country, for every act ho performs or suffers to be done, whether it originates with himself or is adopted on the advice of others. He could not divest himself of that responsibility, by pleading the advice of the Council. I7t ho is also virtually rcspnusihlc tn lliciHoplv ol tliis colony and practi- cally more so than to tlic Mother Country, livery day proves it, and no resolutions can niukc it oihcrwiso." One of iho principal eflocls of the struggle for Responsible Gov- ernment, and of Lord Durham's Ueport was, an acknoir lodgement in Lingland, that no ono had the same interest in the local affairs of Canada, as Canadians themselves. Lord John Russell disclaimed any desire on the part of Her Majesty's (J overnment to pursue any lino of policy in Canada, which public opinion condemns ; and Lord Stanley declared, that ho, tho Colonial Secretary, did not interfere with patronage. Canadians claimed Responsible Government, as a matter of right in which they wore much interested. It was granted as ono which tho Imperial Government had no interest in refusing. Now, Sir, I ask you if Ilor Majesty's Ministers thus gave up tho c.\erci.sc, if not the right of interfering in the details of local policy, and of local patronage, at the intrcaty or upon the demand of the people of Canada : was it for tho purpose of giving tho uncontrolled power, tho exercise of which was thus rclin(|ui3hed, into the hands of a petty King, with tho name of a Governor-( leneral, — of a petty King not exercising his power in tho same mode, or under the same restrictions as tho Queen of England, but swaying that power abso- f lutcly. Tho people of Canada did not complain of any want of power in their Governors, they complained of the exorcise of that power, contrary to tho IJritish Constitution, without tho advice of / responsible Ministers. Tho Uritish Ministers to satisfy thorn gave up, and disclaimed all desire or design of interfering. Pray, Sir, was this for the purpo;sc of leaving tho Governor entirely uncon- trolled, or for for tho purpose of placing popular inducnce, expres- sed through Parliament, in the placo of dosputches and instructions.' Now, Sir, if tho Governor, notwithstanding all this, is still hold practically responsible to the Crown and Parliunicnt and to tho peo- ple of the Mother Country for trmj net IhaL //<■ iwrfoima; and, if tho Crown, and Parliament, and people of the Mother Country dis- claim all wish to direct or interfere with him in our local ailairs, his responsibility must cither be to govern the country despotically, or to govern it constitutionally with tho advice of responsible Ministers. The prerogative Sir Charles Metcalfe tisscrts is, that of using hisdis cretion independently of all advice ; wc occthalit is itulependcntof all instructions of all interference from home. 'riioGovernutculls this the lvoyall'roro^ative,butit uuota ()rcrogativo of the (iucenof England . il IS the prerogative of u riuvuKial !::)at;i;p, ui a Dcbput, and ihi; I' I ' 17H 1 V 11 ■ 'i i ■ m W '■'■ i .. forbfarmncc of ilio ITomo aiillioriiics from inlerftiriiig, wouli?, Hccordiiig lo the (jiuvcriior-duiiornrs doctiino, bo lliu rcinuvul of uiir only tjalV'giiard against tyranny, unci not llio cxtuiisiun uf Uic IJriiish Consiiiuiion to tho Colony. ' Tlio strongest nrgniniMit in lavour of passivo obe(licn:o and non-rcsisianou used in llio darkest periods of Mngli.sii history, was llic rcspon>sii)lity of il>o Crown lo Divine aullioiily, and iIil- abaolnie duly of ibc tiovcTfign tu govern according to hii own conscientions opinion of right ami wrong, bccniiso ho could not f that rcsjKinHilnlil!/ In/ plcddiiin; llic mlcicc of otltevn. IMansible as tlio urguinent is, it was controverted in bailli-, and in blood .shed in tho field and on tho .scafio'd, and tho Revolution of 1083, was the victory of ros;ionsiLiiity of advisers, of the Sovereign to tho people of England, which did divest t!ie Sovereign of rcponsibility on the plea of I he advice of ofher.f, o\uv the responsibilities of tho Sovereigns themselves. Orangemen idoli/o William tlio Third, because he won a victory over their countrymen, who were more loyal to their lieridi'.ary Sovereign than atiachod to liberty, not because ho was tho hero of a Urilish revolution. Tiiit the victory of that revolution, of which wo have truly reason to be proud, was tho one won by the nobility and t!ie people of Enijliind, when t!io rcs|)onsibiliiy of Kings, and the divine right nf Jvings f(;ll to iluj ground, and the practical responsibility of Mliiistcrs to the Parlia- ment was substituted for tho inefibclual and unavailing responsi- bility of the Sovereign. The forbearance of the IiiDcrial fJovornnicnt to issue instruc- tions to the Govcrnor-Goneral for every or any acf that he perl* ms: tho relinquishment by the Impenul Government of patrtmago in the Colony : tho resolution of the Imperial {lovernment to pursue no line of policy, in Canada, condemned by public opinion ; and, finally, the assent of the Imperial Government to Ilesponhiblo Government in Canada placed iho Governor of this country in tho precise position of the Sovereign of England, in t!ie ordi- nary administration of local affairs; cither this was done, or Uef- ponsible Government gave to Governors-General absolulc and despotic power. The G ovornor-Grineral's responsibility ought to bo now to govern this country in the ordinary administration of local afiairs, under advice of persons responsible to tho country, and according to tho wishes of the Canadian people. For this he '?as substituted his own will, his own discretion, iiis own responsibility for every act of his Government. If the Home Government claimed lo hold him responsible for every act of his Government, Inic- nis: ill •siio .11(1, ,iblo ill ii-tli- larid bo ^cnl Itiul 'lily li'tit Int, 179 Hint cinlin would put nn rnc! to IlosponsIMo CJovcrnmcni in Canada. If Im bo permitted to nssurt tbiil rosponsibility, and, (lu'rcifort*, to assert an uncuiistitutioniil power ol' uctuig wiiliout and beyond ndvico, ho puts nn end lo llesponsiblo tJovcnimunl in Cntindii by Ilia own docl.irntjon, and lie Is the groutost enemy to the Conatitu- tional liberty of Canudti that Canada ever saw. Other Governors bad (be excuse of lloyal Instructions, of orders thoy were bound lo obey; he has no orders but llioso which may have arisen from liis own solioilntion, or from a desire to justify his most arbitrary and unconstitutional conduct of (Canadian affairs. Charily may once have ascribed his invasion of tlio Constitution of this country to ignoranco ol i5iiti.>h Consiituiinnal usugo ; but timo lias rcniov«;d this veil and ho must now be considered either as the originator or the instrument of a design to defeat and put down Uesponsiblei CTOVernment in Canada. If Canadians value Responsible Govern- ment tlicy cannot give way. Thi-y must use every Constitutional means ofasserting ihuir rights, till they obtain them fully. If they do not value British freedom, or if Dr. Uycrson has been able to frighten tiiem wiiii his bugbtars of "Royal I'loclainations and Mili- tary Provisions," let them kneel down and ask pardon for tdo presumption of their Parliament ; and let the roign of favouritism ui'l intrigue continue. If Canadians have not the spirit of British subjects — ^let them be the servants of servants they deserve to be ; but if they have any wish for peace and quietness, as the fruit of ignominious vassal! ; let them petition for tho abolition of jhe Provincial Pa liaui , which c.uinot exist without constantly romi ling thnm of their di;-'radalion. Phcre may be something noble in pu ' cat slaver} , but political slavery with the forms of freedom are, to ail iiitents and purposes, \viclcht.'d and utterly despicable. My design was tu conclude this branch of the subject in this letter, but 1 have occupied all the space you reserved fur mo in your next pa|)er. I sh ,!l very soon conclude my loiters, wliich iiave been extended lo their pros; nt length by my own blunder of mixing up a disquisition upon the Constitii lun with remarks upon Mr. Rycrson's defence, — ubjects which appeared to have some connection i.. .ho Doctor's pros])ectus, but which lost all simili- tude as ht tr i.eeded, I have been further embarrassed with a multitude oi i;'i isistent defences from other quarters, and my task has been somciiiing like that of Samson, when| he tied the tails of the hundred foxes together : he required a good long string for hi^ purpose, and I have been obliged lo spin a long yarn for mine. LEGION. 'H f^ i IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) A ^ J^^. A 1.0 !.l 1.25 1^12^ |2.5 \ii Mm "^ U£ 12.0 1.8 ^ m V V] %^> :> > V^f iiiic n • tiaences Corpoiation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) B72-4SC3 ^ wivm '■\ ■u F. E I T E 11 Xll. \\'^ t: icj;.i i When I concluded my last letter I was in llie nii/o( hi- mafions" and " miliUirt/ provisions.'''' The purpose for which »Sii Charles Metcalfe sets up his respon- sibility and his prerogative, is as extraordinary, as the assertion of them. It is, that he may be enabled to put down party spirit in ithe Colony; to do what he. calls justice to individuals in Canada; tp exercise the patronage disclaimed by the Mother Country, ac- cording to his individual discretion. Now, VAv, this was not the responsibility to the imperial authorities mentioned in the resohi- tiops of 1841. Party and party spirit, in Canada, are of strictly in- ternal interest and concern. The Queen of England docs wliaC her Ministers call justice to individuals in England — not what she calls justice ; and when individuals are candidates for office, the Queen of England docs not exercise her own discretion. This responsibility of Sir Charles Metcalfe to the Queen, Parliament, and people of the Mother Country, for every act that he performs is not only disclaimed by them, but it docs not exist in practice. Jt is not only a pretence inconsistent with llos[)onsiblo tJovernment : ^t is the assertion of despotic, uncontrolled and irresponsible power, which Canada is made to feel in reality, under the assum[)- tion of what does not exist, and upon the non-existence of which the existence of Responsible Government in Canada depends. The authorities of the Empire m;iy interfere with our local concej-ns, because th^y have might on their side : they nray oi'der and direct the Governor-General in every act he ])erforms, because he is their servant : and they may hold him responsible for every act of Go- vernment he does pr suffers to be done, because he is in their power ; but whenever they do these things we have in Canada, no Res- ponsible Government — no I>rilish freedom. To satisfy the claims of the Colonists, the Imperial Government disclaim ijiterference; Ijencewe have in Canada Respousible Government, if it be advised Government. But if it be not advised Government, it is despo- tism — the despotism of one who has not the duties, interests or inducements of a real sovereign — of one who cannot be a gainer by the good he does or by the mischief he causes : and it is there- fore, the worst and the vilest despotism to which a people can be subject. Other despots sink with the country they destroy, or they pise with its greatness ; but our ^Muster crosses the boundary, cm- is;] uu- l);irk.s in a packi^t, ho is lioiiv.l of, luid (IkuihIiI. nf no mom ; wliile tlio evils of liis ( M»v<>ni!iioiit rtMuiiiii slumbliiii;" blocks in tin.' way of i'litiiro riiliu's, ;uiil sources of lliu c'VcM'liistin'^ aiitaujouisin, wliicli aoums to overcloud rolonios, one would s:iy forovur, wen; it not for a few i^liinsos of sunsliino, which hulongcd to hotter days tluui those of S". Charles Metcalfe. ■■'•■'. lint Sir Charles Metcalfe is not satisfied with this unreal respon- sibility, as a foundation for his real (h.-spijtisni ; but in the same answer to the (lore District address, he says, of himself iho (lov- ' ernor-General, " Jlc is a'to cirtualh) rcspoin^lblc to Ike people (}f the Coloftj/, and, praciicdlhj more so than to those of the Mother Country : cverij da;i proves It nnd 710 resolutions can nuihe it otherwise."' ., ., . . Hero Sir, is a direct contradiction in wonls and intention to f tho resohilitms of 181 L — a dnect contradiction to JNlr. ]vi»ertr»n .Rycrson, if that bo worih. reniuikintj. it was Ibr seme purpose surely, that the C'anadian I'arlianieut resolved, "that the head of the Executive (lovernmcnt in this CJolony, behiq the represuntiir live of the Soverei<2:n, is responsible to the Imperial Authorities alone." It is for some purpose. Sir Charles Metcalfe denies this principle, and asserts ///.•; ovti responsibility to tiie people of this country, and says, that no ui:soi.i-ri<).\s can iirike it otherwise. The pur])ose3 of the resolutions and of the denial of the principle contained in them is obvious. The resolutions support llespon- siblo (jovernment: the denial uidiolds the auLaafonism of Ills Excellency. Th(! one only pissible rtason w'ly tiie .Paillament of Canada, should have solemnly denied the responsibility of tlio Governor- General to the peopU; of Canada, waml)r>rs Iioim:', witli iiliiiiiilimrc* of <^rin(l Julvlcc, i'.iiil lie riinitM uii liis ( lovciiimcnt iu;(U)r(liii:r to i\\v. well im- tliM'stood \vislu!S, exprussi'd ill llir l(iyid addrodses, ((Fsiich ns clio(».se t(t npj)l!iiid liliii. l)(J^nlili()ll^) iifo SDinotlmos gofxl, ;uid aoinclimcs tlioy !;re good for iiothin'j^ ; but Mr. Jlycrsoii iisUs you to bn satislied with tlii.s dofinition ol' His Excclloucy. My nuswor to lliis doinnnd is, that you sliould not bo sallslied with dofiiiitiou at all ; and that (h;lini- tions of a constitution (•onsistciitly wilh evcny word of wliich a (tovernmcMit can be so unconstitutionally adininistcnul as to b(j totally without cxanii)lo, aro worso than worthless : they betray a foolish people, und they are hateful to a people worthy of a Con- stitution. J3ut this is not all: this Resjionsible (Jovcrnment so excellently defined by the (Jovernor-tleneral, is declared to be practicable or impracticable accordingto circumstances: — that istosay, liis Excel- lency sees notliina; impracticable in it, ])rovidcd that the respective parties engaged in the undertaking be guided by moderation, honest purpose, common sense, and cqiiitdJile mi/ids dern'ul of part']i ap'irity ALL the parties engnged ] Who are they % First, the Governor for the time being, must be guided by moderation, honest purpose, common sense, and an equitable mind devoid of party spirit, other- wise His Excellency sees something impracticable in Kesponsiblo Government. So, Sir, you see that unless a Governor be precisely such a man as Sir Charles Metcalfe supposes himself to be, a prin- ciple of the Constitution bcc(mies impracticable. ' ■ ••■ i Now, Sir, all Responsible (lovermnent, all j-jopidar interference with rulers, liajipen to be founded upon and justified by a common opinion, namely, that Sovereigns, and even Governors are not al- ways guided by moderation, honest purpose, common sense, and equitable minds devoid of party spirit. If they were always thus qualified perhaps there would be veiy little use in freedom, but if there can ever be a I'oal and crying necessity forlfesponsible Gov- ernment at all it is precisely at the time when Governors are nei- ther unpeccablc nor infallible : and as this upon a moderate calcu- lation, may be rated atone iialf the time, during that half Itesponsible Government must be impracticable, and unfortunately that ])erj()d occurs when it is most wanting — " Success to the Moon for a brave noble creature, • •' " That gives us her lamplight all night in the dark : ^ - '* While the Sun only shines in the day, which by nature " Wants no light at all, as you all may remark." 1S7 It'T- ihlc iscly )riii- 11 CO nioiv al- and thus It if iov- nei- ilcti- riod Tlio C{ovornor-(«enoJ'ar;H l{c.s|inMsil)lrt (lOvcrntiiiMit is liko tlia jtoor Irislinrin's Sun, ydii nriy li;iv»; it wlicii you tlnn'L wiiiil it, Imt wlicii yc-ii waul il most, — it is iin|)ra('fical»l(!. Well tlu'ii \V(! roiiiL' to tli(> KM.'initive (loiinsillors. Uiiloss tliry too Jire anguld, Ilosponsiblo (lovcfnniont must l»o, fm- tlio lime, im- praoticablo. The climax of these (|ualifiralion3 is nuuh; to \n\ that they have minds devoid of party spirit. AVliat would liord Stanley have said, if instead of calling his ministry into office when the Tories beat the Whigs, -what would hr have said had the Que(,'n prorogued the Parliament, and susfXMidi'd tlie Constitution, until she could find a cabinet with minds devoid of party spirit I Where are the politicians to be found whohave minds devoid of party spirit ] There arc no such men in England who could claim to bo Cabinet Ministers. VVHiore are the men in Canada] Namo me such a Cabinet outof tho United Province: publish their names in your next paper, that the publicmay know them ; for as yet they have not shown themselves, and without them Responsible (iovernmcnt is imprac- ticable. Look over the names signed to the (lovernor's loyal ad- dresses, not one do you find there ; look to the Toronto Associa- tion, there arc none of them there ; but 1 forget, there is one man in Canada so moderate, so impartial, and so e(juitable, as to bo placed in your listof a Cabinet, I need not name him : he should bo made Conmiissury-General, and set to serve out the miliary pro- visions. But, Sir, suppose the persons could be found, occupying a per- manent position as partizans, and devoid of party spirit, would the Cabinet-makers woik be jierformcd ? not by any means, for still it must rest with the Cxovcriior-CIeiieral to decide whether they arc devoid of party spirit. Any difl'eroncc with himself may yet bo set down to the account of poor party spirit, and Responsible Government is foilhwilh suspended as impracticable. I will venture to assert that under the Goveraor-Clcnerars defini- tion given in the answer to the address of the Gore District Coun- cil, the existence of Responsible Government for a single hour is absolutely impossible, but it may be possible to find a svj/icicnt number of men of any parly, who, if the people will let them, will agree to have neither party spirit orany other spirit; and that is the Cabinet the Governor-General seeks and which he probably will find. Whether they have the confidence of the people or not, it will be for the people to determine, • * : I learned from one of Sir Walter Scott's Novels, in which I 5SI •J?" ISS V < sludiod lii:Uiuy, timt vvlion .laiiics the SimIi wan uiiiloigoin^ his t.'dtiriiliuii, a r.oin[iiiiii()ii lor llic yoiiii!' Kiiiif was kept lo lake till the flotfi^iiicfs, Hdlh.'il when llu; I'liiu't; was in fault, tlio othcT hoy WfiM uiinKMcilully vvliipl; hr; porn' wn-lcli was rcspoiisihlo. Such would ho tho uso of Sir (Jhailos Mi;!,cali()'s (Counsellors. His Kxccl- loncy would ho virtually rcspoiislhlo for doing just os ho pleased ; the Counsellora would ho rosponsiltli; for his pleasing tho I'nrlia- mont; and they, as in duty bound, would take all the thrasliings; when tired of these they would he at liherty, poor creatures! t<» resign, preserving " tho silent dignity of retiring ministers." Sir Charles, in tho meantime, would extu'cise his preiogativo so long as Responsible Government did not interfere, and when it did, then it would be impracticable, and he would goon exercising his prero- gative still, his doctrine being, — "Ishalldoasl please. If you pleasn to bo pleased with what 1 do, well and good, but 1 al'.all do us I please at all events." J)o, Sir, recommend to that Toronto Association lo accept .^'m^t- fidhj these essentials of liesixmsiUe Goccrnvienl — to cling to it liko wax, and not to be like the silly d(»g, who dropt his jjiecc of meat, and only got a mouthful of cold water. It was very wrtjiig in tho Association to say in their address that constitutional ])rinciplos were independent of all opinion. The Govcrnur-Cieneral prtjves that they are not so, for he can declare constitutional pvinci])lef; impracticable just when lie pleases. Anything bcyouilliis pleasure — his paternally des])otic pleasure, is the " shadow ttf a virus," and if you catch at that too eagerly you may chance to be choked with a double return of Doctor Jlyerson's military provisions. Such is Colonial Responsible Ciovernmcnt, and now that we know what it is and how well it is secured, we cann(jt do better than get up a loyal and devoted addiess of our own, and after that think no more on tho subject, and above all things let us never say anything more; about Britishfrccdom, or Lritish principles. Tiicy maybe consistent with the honor and dignity of King's and Queen's, but thoy arc not lobe borne withundcr the paternal despotism which holds its "bliss- ful" reign in a British Colony. There is scarcely one answer to the numerous addresses to Ilis Excellency, which does not betray a design to overthrow what the Parliament of Canada sought to eslabUsh, under the name of Res- ponsible trovcrnment, or which does notdisjjlay an ignorance of it:^ fundamental principles, only to be found in one who learned British politics in an Eatit Indian residency 1 uwxrX not prolong ISO Ills 111.: Res- iictl this controversy \>y f*n'mn [\no\\\>}\ all llit* answors but, I ofler y«iu jiiiollior s)»«(;irmM«, In His Kxccllcnry's nn:3wrr to tin; ln/i(il>iliinlx of llu; County ol' Jlussoll, wiillon at ti titiu,- wluii I IIm IvNccllciicy lu'^nii to liiivr .some suspicion tlirit Mr. Vigcr was not hdWi'i Canada, oi-,(!olom!l (Jowair (J rami Master of tlu; ujukm' section of tin; Province, or tlie .Snint»!«l (Jil)l)on, Irustetl in cither. In that answer His Excelli;ncy snya, *' The Constitntion us established by the arrangements of Lord •Sydenliuin, iuid by the resolutions of September, 181 1, 1 uni usinj^ and shall continue to use my anxious einleavours to work throui^h responsible Heads of departments, for the benefit andcontcmtnient of the people of Canada, with the advice and co-optiration of an Executive Council, which will I trust obtain tlu: conlidence of the Provincial I'arliament. And if this cannot bo done successfully the blame will bo justly due to those who in the pursuit of unbri- dled power have sought to destroy the Constitution, which they pretend to uphold, and are doing their utmost t(M»bstruct the forma- tion of any llesposible Ciovernment, while their unfounded outcry is that it is intentionally avoided." Never, I venture to assert, was the violation of a Constitution justified on such grounds, by a Sovereign or the Ue[)resentativc of n Sovereign. In England should delay lake place but for a day in the formation of a Cabinet, public business is suspended, and it would bo considered as outrageous a violation of the Constitution to do that business without a Cabinet, as without a Sovereign ; but here, while in this document, a Kesjjonsiblc CJovernment is ac- knowledged not to be formed after months of delay, His Excel- lency admits that the fonmUion of lunj llcsponslhh ll(WirnmaU is yet obstructed, and of consequence what His Excellency calls by the nainc of a Constitution is yet suspended. To the months which then had elapsed, His Excellency has added months, and time is creeping on establishing his Excellency's tloctrine, that it belongs to him to declare a Ccms/itution impracticable. And why is it impracticable ? Is it that amongst tlic hundreds who address his Excellency, and who arc received by him as the jwople, he can lind no one to assume the responsibilities of office? No such thing; too many would be found to accept office on any terms : but it is be- cause no one will accept oftice who has a hope of obtaining the confidence of Parliament and conducting the tJovernment n])on' His Excellency's plan. Thus the Constitution, which was meant to influence the will of Govcniortj, ia made to depend lor its oxist- ^ k ■'I . I, , I. i ' i* 11»0 hi ;]»• i i •Mice »i])on Jlic will of ii (lovoriKir, Tin; giinrtmfccd Cn!isfiluti(«i wliiili wuM sii|i|i()s('(l to 1)(> Mtipciioi to iill will ami to all opiiiioti, itf u haubit! ; a |ilaytliiiii; ij[ivcMi and witlilicid liy •' putiMiial tlcspotisin," nt itrt sovetvi'411 jjk'usiin'. I'orliups, Sif, tliosi? \\\ut mlvisi'tl Ilis Exct'llrncy to writt! Iiis miawcia kiiuw tlm pooiiloof C'anadii hctttM' than I do. If so — and vl' thoHO aiiavvor.s shall over bo iu;co])ted and njtprovcd as ('(»iistitu- lioiial, tlioiiSir Chus. Miitcallo, and DoctuiRyLMSoii, Mr. VVukididd, ('((ioiiul CJownn and his other advisers uro rij^ht. Tin" jx^oplo who roceivt! those aiiswiMs with uj)i)roval are fit lor dospotisni, and this country is all infant ('olony, wliosti Constitution may bo turned into inus(My ihymes, and sun;.; as a lullaby, when the infants of Canada oonipluin of arbitrary power, or prattle about Uiitieli institutions. Jlad Ilis E.\(:ellenry been llio truo Resprese.itativo of his Sov- ereign, had ho obeyed Her gracious instructions, to administer iho Ciovernincnt of this Colony accoiding to the well underslooti wishes i willi rosi^iiiition us some kuv, <»r wlietlier iis his Moiitieal iVienda iiHseit uro souices of ineniment, uie yet diflirnlties which he is uiiablo to 8Ut'muunt, and which with all honour, and duty, and obedience to ijisliuctions and i\^;aid to the interests nl' his Sover- eign and ihe empin; he mi^^lil have altogethei' avuiued. It will always l»e a mattef of (juc^stioii how u niun with Sir C. Melcaife's experience of tin; World, came thus wantonly to jdaco himself in his present condition. One solulinn ol' this problem is lo bo found in his want (;f knowledire, or rather in his want of habit utle, in administering a (Jovernnieiit in a country with the llu'ms of freedom. A great writer found the same inaptitude in a greater man than Sir Charles !\lelcaife, and as the])asHage contains jiu olVensive allusions to lU'iral cliaractei', but on the contrary if it contains any thing froru which compurisons maybe institulinl, they are such that are coin])limeiitary to His Excellency, — 1 bbullgivo it for the information of our readers. Mr. Macaulay, who writes from personal exj)oricnco of Indian (lovernment, in writing of the character of Warren Hustings, thus describes him after his return to England : — "Hastings' it is clear, was not sc-usible of his positijn. Indeed that sagacity, that judgment, that rcudlueds in devising expc^lients, which had dislingui;-hed him in the Kast, seemed now to have for- saken him ; not that his abilities were at idl inijiaired, not that ho was not still the fir.mo man who liad triumphed over Francis and Nuncomar, who bad made the Chief Justice and the Nabob V'i^icr his tools, who had deposed Chcyte Sing, and repelled Hyder Ali ; l)ut an Oak as Mr. (.1 rattan finely said slioidd not be transplanted at: fifty. A man who having lelt Kiig'.and when a boy, returns lo it after thirty or forty years passed in India, will lind, be his talents .what they may, that he lias much bolb to learn and unlearn beiijro he can take a place among British Statesmen. The working of a ■ llepresentativc system, tLo war of parties, the arts of debate, the influenao of the press?, arc novelties to him. Surrounded on eve'y «»7dR by now machines and by new tactics he is as much bewildered ;i3 Jiannibal would have been at Waterloo, or Themistocles at TrafaU gar; his very acutcncss deludes him, his very vigour causes him to stumble : the more correct his nraxims, ^vllcn applied to the 1A ;s 192 liU * 3latc of socu'ly to wliicli lie was acciistonicwn patty, and to substitute therefor his sujiposed ju.stict? and itnpartiahty. Aceifstomed to a (lovernment in which the whold corriinunity looked to the (fovcninr, and to his individual fUvor of discountenance ; and where petitions, addresses and coin-- plaitJts, were the ouly instruments of popular iirfluL*nce', he dould tibt utlderstand the* fact that a majority in a conntrj governecf accdi'ding'to' the l^ritish Constitution, look to their reyjresentntiVes, ahd to the Counsellors on whom they have confidence : while the minority,' weak in legitimate contest, seek their t)bjects through intrigue for the favor of (lovenKns. He foiiii'd the adviC0'Of his Counsellors, aocordiiitrly balanced agaiust tlie advice and complaints of fifty times a greater pumber of back stairs Counsellors, and the latter were, of course, in bis view tiie rhost obediemtj the most reasonable, and the nioet loyal, as well as the mrtat numerous: Siv Charles Metcalfe could not seethat tiieiiijus- tice, the proscription, the violence of party, where it exists, finds a sa&» remedy in the cliangeii it produces in ]H)blicopi»rion ; and that these changes produce the harmless and ])caceful levolu- tions in public administrati(m, Avhich leave untouched the bul- warks of the Constitution. He could not see, that to bind him- self personally to any line of policy, either as to aftkirs oe patronage, upon hia own responsibility, and wliother upon his own judgment or upon the judgment of uthers, exjiosed him to thcr chcnce of being personally op])osed to popular opinion ; and that when thus O)pposed, openly, decidedly and personally, the people must give up their opinions and their wishes, or he ujust sub- rait to act contrary to his avowed sentiments, or he irust exem- plify in prifctice, his pretended responsibility to the people by a withdrawal from the country. This res})onsibility, if avowed by the Queen in England would involve the necessity ol' a fre- quent change of Sovereigns, of actual revolutions. As the GrOvernor-General avows it here, it involves the necessity of a change of Governors, or the extinction of popular influence in the Goveriiment ; and take it as' v,e may, it is the most dangerous to the connection of this country with England, the most des- tructive of Jlesponsible Govern (ucnt, the most inconsistent with the Royal prerogative in tlic choice of Governors, and the most inimical to the liberties of Canada, and to its peace and tranquility of any docti'ine which can be avowed, or acted on in the Colony^ Yet such is the couclusion to which tSir Charles Metcalfe's ignor- '.W fi MM'! /. ' M I. N I , (i ' i i\ i :, ' i n 191 ance of constitutional practice luis leJ hinv, and Tiappy will it h(* for Canada, if this should in the end appear to be the sole cause of the present struggle, and if that struggle sliould not turn out to be the offspring of a deliberate plan, to tiy an experiment so often tried in vain, when it could be tried with greater SE^ety and impunity than at present ; that of governing tlie Coloi*y, either by instructions from Downing-street, or according to the un- controlled will and discretion of the representatives of Majesty.- You will shortly, if any dependence can be placed upon rumor, see an announcement of a new cabinet. We know not who the men may be, who nominally will be responsible to the people of Canada, but you may be certain that there will not, be one — no not one amongst them, in whom, 1 will not say the majority of the people, but in whom even the jiarty in the minority have the slightest portion of the confidence, necessary to a successful or a tranquil Government. They will be opposed to the people^ and without the inclination to serve them, unless as men serve their enemies, and if they had the will to do good, they will noti have the power. They will, or rather Sir Charles Metcalfe willr have a party, and he will be King of that party. He will have no occasion to call it a party, for his Excellency has already, ia his answers, shewn, that he includes all whom he considers loyal, and that all the rest arc disloyal seekers for separation. To the latter favor or patronage cannot be extended, unless upon change of opinions — patronage given to produce change of opinion is bribery. Mr. Ryerson has, apparently with the highest authority, shown how his Excellency proposes to deal with rhose who are contumacious. Here there will be the impartial, the just, the equitable Sir Charles Metcalfe, who puts party under his feet — a party leader, with his ])arty in the minority, a minority supported by a class whose violence, insubordination, contempt of law and persecuting spirit are proverbial. Was Sir Charles Metcalfe a despotic ruler with the active power of an absolute sovereign, he might rule Canada, as a conquered country, as justly as a conquered country can be ruled; bu*- he can only threaten " military provisions," while he uses the weapons of civil rule, and the forms of the constitution — a^d although he may declare Responsible Government impracticable, and abandon the pretence of respecting its usages, his best success must end weakness, and weakness is not its own master: it is cruel m without intention, and unjust from necessity. IS LEGION. il I >.liity smpt •les »lute as jnly of he Id on lend ruel (. MI .,•> .'•.l.r " >^l LETTER XIII. Sir, • I i '.I '11 "i ' fii '-1 I have quoted dnd i'emarked upon Sir Charles Metcalfe's mes- sages to Parliament, and upon his answers to public addresses^ sufficiently to "show, that his Responsible Government is one sf hb own imagining, and that it is not British, either in theory or practice ; so that if witli all the desire to persuade the people of Canada, that he was in favor of the principlcy he has made »u«h ai case for himself, it may Well be supposed that the freshly imported antagonism, expressed to his late Counsellors, with an announce- ment of his determination as to his principles of Government, was quite as much opjjosed to those of Jiritish Administration, as any he has been pleased to publish since. Of the language used in the consultations in Council, we have short statements of what opposing parties wish to be considered the substance of what they respectively required or determined u])on. Had his Excellency's subsequent definitions or explanations been satisfactory, and Itis acts consistent with tliem, there would exist some evidence of his present intentions, and it would apj)ear, that tbuse, whether ori- ginally his, or extorted IVom him by the difficulty of his position, were such as might l)o accepted with safety and relied upon as pledges to be used in future, wlu;u i>ccasion should re(]uire. But, as they are not so, as xXw.y are anti-British and unconstitutional, they prove beyond ciucstion.not only that the late Counsellors did their duty in resigning, l)ut that neither with them or with others, so long as Sir Charles Metcalfe's dctermiriation shall }irevail, is there any hope of Ilesponsible Government. The whole queS:tion might have been safely trusted to this issue, and \\\^\v. is no very good reason why it was not confined to it on my side, except that Doctor Ryerson's defence was begun to be answered, while yet in its commencement, and a very undue i^egree of attention was paid to his unimportant distinctions, and absurd strainings at gnats while he was devouring camels. It is important to us to know, what the late Counsellors uaeaut by rc:|uiring, that they 1 \A I 190 II I . 1. should be consulted. Wo liavc; liTirncd that tlicy re(|uired to be udviscd with, by the ro])ix'.scntnlivc of iMiii(!sly, in like nianiier and to thusanie extent as JMinislers are advised with by Majesty, under the C(jnslitiuioii of which ours slioiiUl, lie tlie i)erfect likeness, in all matte rs of ftifti<*^Iy joc'id ecJnctTii. Vlt'\Va!=i 'of importance to us to know what his Excellency meant, by receivin'^ the advice of his Counsellors with due attention — what his Kxcelleney meant by selectin'T for oflice, persons best ()unlilied, and when there was no pre-eminence using his discretion. We have learned, that the advice was tc bo received and 'rejected, •//' .vmc/* ien8< his Bxcdleri' -ty^s jilmsur(>i in the ordinary ct)ursoiof (vovernmenl;, tiTid without 'chnfigcof CJovernmetit, or assent of (Jounsellors ;• and that the diu- 'Cretion'to be exercincd, wa.^ bo paramonnt as not to be questioned without subjecting the objectors to a charge Af disailection. We ■hjld'TiO' occasion t») discuss abstract princij)les, for these hav«be{*n Uliscwssed and settled in theory, and by long practice in England; and 'W6 'had Lord Stanley's exjdanaiion, " that it was well kno'wn that in England the t*iov<»rci*^n exercised no political power." And we knew, that in practice, whntevertho inliuenco of the Sovereign personally might be, there w;is no such thing as discretion beyond advice — and that if Sovereign discrelion were used, it must bo supported by advice, which would meet with either condemnation of approval; from the representatives of the British people ; and and that wlien in England, acts were determined upon*, advice and real substantial assent must either be obtained from those in office, or from others who should take their jdace. • When; there- fore the exercise of discretion, self dependant and beyond advice, was asserted as an active ])rinciple in the ordinary course of Government, it was plain enough that it was not a British princi- ple without discussing the theory of the Erllish Constitution. Then it was of \ ast importance to the people of Canada, to under- stand what his Excellency nieiuit, by the administration of prero- gative and the distribution of olllce without regaul to party, and with Sovereign impartiality to each and all. Again, we turn to England, and look in vain for a day or an hour, under any admi- nistration, when such aprinciph; was either acted on or profe3S'='d. We ask, was it in the reign of W^illiam the Third, who actually penned a message to the House of Commons, which he did not send, threatening to abandon the (lovernment because 'lie coatld not control party, and who was obliged to yield throughout his reign, to the party majority in the rarliament — a rarliament in 197 ~\ which parly spirit was cnniod to iiiisrlii(;vons h^nofllis — did ho declare Kcs|)()iisil)l(! (lovciiiinpiiL im])i;H'l,i(:iil)l(;, liociiuse his AliniNters wcno not devoid of ]);iily spirit; Was it in the reign of (.|uecM» Anne, wliose ^^lloln jcign was tlio scene of fierce party contest, Ix^tweuii ilio A\ hig.s and Tories, tlirough- out wliidi j)atronage and appoint mcnt.s, were di.stnl)uted to the succossfid party for the tinio being '. Was it in tlii; reign of George the First, wlio is represented as a leader of a Whig faction, who made an instantaneous change on his accession in all offices of trust, honor and advaiitaifo, and jdaccd a new party in power ? Was Sir Robert Walpole a iMinisler whose advice w^ received witli merely due attention, and overborne because it favored a ])arty. Was the Duke of lledford or was the Marquis of llocliingham directed liy^King Cieorgc the Third, to bestow office without regard to party, or did they do sol Or did thp same Sovereign inform Lord North, tliat the patronage of tiie Crown was to be disposed of without regard to party, or was it so disposed Qf ? Mr. Fox was a JMinisler obnoxious to the King, and (his party was not the party of the King, yet was he told, that his Majesty would take liini as an adv's;:i-, but would use his own discretion in ap])ointinc-nts1 Did his Majesty make appointments, from the same party when J\lr. Fox was jNliuistcr, and when his rival Mr. Pitt came into ollice ! ( )r uiidcr the administration of, either, was prerogative administered without regard to party 1 Was' Lord Castlereagli a man to contimie a Minister with patron-, age distributed without respect to ])arty 'I Was patronage so distributed when Mr. Canning was in CJovernmenli How was it under P^arl Gi'cy and tlic AV'Jiigs ? How was it managed under Lord Melbourne and Lord John Ifussolll and how is it now under Sir Robert Peel and Lord Staidcy? We may look through every history of England, small and great, Whig or To,ry, through every administration, through the reign of every Sovereign, we may sec the evils of paity spirit wlicn carried to -exceas^T-we may sCe it led by Kings, and op])oscd to Kings, but never has it been pro- claimed as ,a rule of British Government, that patronage was tq be conferred upon persons who suppor!:ed, , an(|^ upon those who , opposed Government alike. And nevei: w'us any ,S,overeigii able tosay tliat he would exercise his own discretion ii;i the ordinary course of Government, so as to avoid, tiic partiality of party. Never was the time known, when it yf{\s not of co.nscqucnce to thci seokeir, 9f plHi^e, whethcv or not , his , friends wer9 iij ,pQ!wei;, . ft 4 'Ml 198 :ii f" 1 * 1 -fe III nliort, Wo find lliat jjrilroiinift.' Iiih I)Ocii disfiihutod at nil times, as if it was nuj. posed tliaf tli(»so wlio f'uvoiircd tlie majority in J'ailiuini'iit, and tluj Ministry for tlio limo lu-iiii^ were in tht' right, and tlu'ir oj>nonenls in tlit; wrong. This may havo in its excess lodtoovil, to Parliam(>ntary (drrtiplion, to nndno influcnro, but well exorcised it lias led to stron''tii and union, and steadfastness of popular opinion at all events good or had. Ifegard to what is calh,'d party, hut wliicli more properly may he called puhlic opi- nion, as represented hy tin; Ministry for the time being, has been ever an acknowledged princi[)leof administration in ]']ngland. Tf we want sometinng better than the Eritish Constitution, we may look to the supreme discretion of CJovernors, and the prerogative oi' Governors, but it would be folly to liken it to the discretion exercised by the Sovereign in England, or to call it the preroga- tive of the Crown, In like manner the question appeared to be of importance, whether or not a .stipulation was demanded ; and while it appeaVed to be asserted that the late Coimcll demanded a promise which would unconstitutionally limit the legal exercise of the Royal Pre- rogative, and particularly when this was allcdged to be demanded underhand and seal : but when it ap])eai-ed from a .strict examina- tion of Sir Charles Metcalfe's explanation to Parliament, as well as from Mr. Ryerson's admission, that the Counsellors only wished it to be understood as a condition of their remaining in office, thar. they should substantially be advised with on public aft'airs, inclur dinjT appointments and offer's of appointments, as English Minis? ters are advised with, all the importance of the ter-m " stipulation" was lost, and the question afterwards rested rrpon the reasonable- ' iness of their claim not upon the legality of the allodged demand. •Such was the case when Sir Robert Peel refused to remain ir^ office unless her Majesty would come to an understanding not to have the enemies of the Ministers attendants upon her Royal person ; and understandings and misunderstandings of this nature, and terms upon which office is accepted, or the refusal of terms upon whuh office is rooigned, being strictly according to British usage, and cgmmon in the arrangements ^y which Cabi- nets are made up, and '^pon which they are iissolved, — every one of which may Sn Mr. Ryerson's sense of the term, be said to have arisen from a demand of a stipulation, — the question I had to discuss was, whether the rn^erstanding which the late Counsel- p)TS desired, was a fair one ; and whethpr, when a determination to 100 act contrary tlioroto was cxprossi'd, tlioy won? not oblirrod to tako the coarse tlioy did tnko, or to rtjiiiiiin in oilioi.', aHoiitinif partios to Hifl Excelloncy's doterniiin.lion, and for ever stoppiMl tVoiii ohjer- tlng to it or its conspqucnces. Lord Chatham resigned, because he was not allowed to direct piihlic aH'airs;, not only against the opinion of the King, but of all his colleagues ; and the IJritish nation sustained him, becatisc they had more conlldetice in him than in his colleagues. Mr. I'itt, resigned, because the King would not come to an understanding on the subject of Catholic Emancipation. But in Canada, for no possible reason, except that it is a Colony, the small boon asked by the lato Counsellors namely, to he advised with, before they bec:xme responsible, is •decried as an attem|,. to destroy the Royal Prerogative. The question for Canadians to decide, is, whether or not it is compe- tent for a person in the office of an Executive Counsellor, asked t J become one, to say yes, if your Excellency will advise with me, ni, if your Excellency chof)srs to act without my advice. Can he do this, as he might do it in England, with all constitutional proj)riety, and is it disaffection and treason in a Colony l I make these observations for the purpose of again calling to the attentioi of my readers, the fact that in Jiritish Constitutional his- tory they will find a true guide in all their difficulties. No reso- lution, or series of resolutions, can lully detine Responsible Gov- ernment, or follow it into its consequences in practice. Whenever Canadians go beyond the Constitution, as understood and practised in England, they expose themselves justly to charges of repub- licanism. When they confine themselves within these limits, they may despise imputations of disaflection, home from what quarter they may. Before the concession of Responsible Government, they had the legal letter of a Constituuoh, with which they were dissatisfied. Under Responsible Government they had the life and spirit of the Constitution and they were for the time happy. With the dead legal letter, some looked for treedora in Republicanism : under Responsible Government republicanism was no longer whis- pered or thought of, — but rational, tried British freedom came to be respected in America, where, for the first time, it was known. It was found, notwithstanding the previous fears of many, to be consistent with the condition of q, colony, and to have left that colony without an enemy to its colonial condition within its boun-< baries. Responsible Government] was attempted to be explained away and destroyed, in the common mode used by all enemies pf 'I 't m soo r: i ' i- II- ■' : 3 4 I It'-' .S't ■^1 cotistltutionp.1 lil)orty ;— llio oiinmies of Rcsj)oiisiblo flovcvnmcnt have ruUiud round llio ik'slidyoi' ; aiul llio l)»jU!iy(.'rs of tlio country have honor, and placo, and ])o\vi.'r. Jl was not in the »UTishipc days of l{,espousil)le (iovernnicnt tlie people of Canada could show tliey were worthy of it. It was too great a blessing to b© easily obtained, and it n(;ver would have been valued unless obtain- ed vviti) diduudty. It never would have; becMj safe unless the fuith of its friends was tried, and llie coiistaney of the people, \yho claimed it, tested. It is \\t;ll lor tliis purpose, if for no othej", that Canadians have been exposed to so k)iig a tri-id ; well that every art has been used to beguile tlieni ; well that lliey ha.ve been led to the pure fountains of IJrilish iieed(un, and well, above all, that they can hud these without danger of repuldicauisin on the one hand, or *' paternal despotism" on the other. Ini other coup- tries constitutions have taken centuries for their growth, i jopd what is valuable in them, has been lliu fruit of contest ond bloo^. lu Canada, with Jlesponsible Government, the Biitish Constitution, in jts perfection was received, and Canadians reap where they have not sown, and gather where the have not strewed. Their duty to themselves and to their couniry is to gimrd ivvith care and jealousy the treasure they have obtained. If evil be found mingled with good, hit those who see or think they see the evil, look forits correction, not by the sacrifice of principle, but in the natural progress of public opinion. Let them see in the representative of their Sovereign, a Jjritish Sovereign and nothing more, and let them not permit, if llicy can prevent it, any power to be set above the Coustituaon, with suj)remacy over its move- ments, and assumed com])eteucy of judgment, upon it5 practica- bility. * * * * * It was my intention before concluding these letters to have rC" perused Mr. Rycrson's defence, with a view of taking up any stray points not involveil in my argument ; he has by furnishing a list of what he calls his strong points saved nic a trouble which fpw wpuld willing undertake. I am nut disposed to go over ,^^iis ,c,0|U- troversy again, ijcitlier have I, so low an opinion of Ui^sc \vhO; ax^ intprested in this discussiun as to think it, necessary. ]I shall i^evcr- tl^eless take advantage of the list of omLssious AI^'. Ijlyerpop ha^ published, ami mako sojne rpma,vks ypon , e^^icjj,; ifl;[^^ie,|pv4^)|,iu yvliichhp has given them. .„, • , . •• ... ■,,,,.,„., ,,.; uu.jW'r v(i..;n;; j,,, '{,1st,. (Mr Ryorson says) T have j)j-ovc4 by .(jprtaja ^^ tly2,,lat9 Counsellors themselves, that they did deiriaud a stlpula^ij^ -A'^n) :20l re- 5U-ay list few I. aj,-^ Ivcr- His Excellonry, ([)|>. 0:2 — 07 ;) rcspoctiiiq wliich tostlinony TiOglon «ay8 uot Olio wonl." Tlie tirat cvidoiico proiluccvl, is wliiit Mr. llincks Hdiil, in atiswer to Mr. Vigor's pamplili't, "llio votes df tlio cx-MinisteTS lor Mr. Boulton's rostdution, wliicli was socoiulod Ity Mr. Ijafontuine, nflord the best ovidonco uliicii can l)o oirere*!, that tlioy did not demand a Htipulation in the ordinary a(:co])tation ottlio tonn," The secoiid evidence is, " Mr. Maldwin sayt;, acfain an attempt has been made to mislead ibc jmbiic iiito the beliol' that tlie disruption tnnnsd wholly on a demand by tho Ministry Ibr a stipulation, as it is calked, of an nnconstitutional character, but he (Mr. IJaldwin) tlionghttbjat his learned friend, Mr. Lafuiitaine, havinj^ seconded Mr. JiouUon's %iddition to the address, was a suHlcicnt proof that all they asked was, that mutual understaudinsj; which Mr. Jioulton's resolution not only recognized but indeed declared to be absolutely neccs8Ui.y." The third point of evidence is, that " Mr. Sullivan alleged, in his explanatory speech, the impossibility of their remaining in office after understanding his Excellency's views." Tliis is the whole evidence Mr. Ryerson furnishes within his pages 62 to 67, from the late Counsellors, and he ha.s the impu- dence to assert that I have been silent on the subject. The Coun- sellors have denied that they desired his Excellency to become bound by a stipulation, which would limit his exercise of th© Royal Prerogative in future, for this would h.ave been what his Excellency had no legal authority to give ; but tiiey never denied that they wished an understanding, an understanding necessary to correct what might be iul'erred from acts of his Excellency, and which they hoped had arisen from misunderstanding. They eX* plained to his Excellency that in their sense of their duties and reponsibilities, they wore to be consulted. His Excellency ex- pressed views and determinations, ujxm the hearing of which the Counsellors must cither have resigned or been assenting parties. Stipulations between Sovereigns and Ministers are not common^ but explanations of intended policy arc as common as changes of administration ; and it wou)d be vain to attempt the if(n-matioiV of <^ovenmients, were not these e>si.>l«nati.ons and uaiderstanding^ part; of the ordinary course of Ministerial arrangements. -Should Mr.jMorris, fpr exaipple, before he took office, hnxrc Explained., to liis EX;Cellency his vio\yp ou the University Bill, and asked his Jlx- iCellency'a intentions. wi,tli % view of ascertaining whether iir copiing IdXo office he could render conscientious support to the Govern- M •I r .'iO:> m ' Went; woiihl tliis Itr (lcmniiilitiitiot)al stiptilntion, or t1(M?M tiio (.Vttislitiiliuii (1(>iiiiiii(l |)i'i)fi)iiii(l siliMiuc on ii ])roh!il)l(! p<»iiit of (liflVjrenco uiilil the difli'iriico is .shown, by acts of tlie CJover- nor ? Jlut wliy should this Hitiisy prcfL-xt for iho .suspension of ft Conatitution Ix; furfhrr dwelt tipon. 1 understand Mr. Hyorson to dony that Ministers and Soven.-igns ran constitutionally explain each others viewa and intentions, aud pait wheti they are found to he incompatible. F allege on the other side, that such explanations are common, constitutiouid, and necessary ; lot the public judge betw«?en Mr. Kyerson's school-boy criticisms and the j)ractice of the Hritisli Constitution. Mr. Ryerson i.s fond of quoting George the Third, as an infalli- ble authority, on all Constitutional points, yet he was as fond of a stipulation as any one, for after a course of intrigue against Lord Grenville and his Ministry, ho demanded of them a written re- nunciation of all schemes and intentions favourable to the Catholic claims. This they refused ; ami notwithstanding thte matter was specially moved in the House of Commons, and the King's demand alleged to be unconstitutional, bis new Ministry were sustained ; that was a demand of a stipulation ; but his Majesty's determina- tion not to permit his Ministers to bring in a Catholic Relief Bill, upon which Mr. Pitt resigned, might, in Mr. liyerson's and Sir C. Metcatfe's ex[)lanation of the term, have been construed into a demand of a stipulation by Mr. Pitt, who resigned, not because his Majesty refused his assent to a bill for Catholic Emancipation, but because his Majesty's expressed determination was against the measure. Who ever th(jught of complaining that Mr. Pitt had no facts upon which to resign, no bill prepared, no measure intro- duced, no legal dissent given. Mr. Ryerson's second charge of omission, is thus stated : " I liavo proved by the same testimony that the demand of the late Coun- sellors did involve the surrender of the prerogative of the Crown, as alleged by Sir Charles Metcalfe, (pp. 6S — 72 ;) respect- ing which, Legion says not one word." " ' ' •'"•' *"• Now, all this incontestible proof, from G8 to 72, consists of a justification of the practice of seeking advice from others than the responsible Counsellors. 2ndly. Of a justification of a practice of appointing friends of the administration and their enemies to ofHce, indifferently. 3rdly. Of an assertion that this was a hitherto ac- knowledged reform doctrine. 4th]y. Of an assertion that for a Sovereign to change his policy under successive Ministers, oi' for •■'i Mm rxjOninincj lils infcMitiontn Anno wmild bf \yocn\f\'u\ff n lVofpn««, and (l»'graiii!i\\\]y. 'I'lint it is li^lit in a Uritisli Sovi'ici^n to iiuik." !i|i|)(iititiiH'iits|)icju(liciiil to tlio iiidiionre of Ministers, jukI sixtlily, Unit tin; proper mode of (■onductin|;>; aCtovcriiineiil is lor u Sovereign to resolve upon appointments, nnd to Imve the advisers of'tlie ('rowi, who in I'jni;Iatid, virtually propose almost every appointnuuit, in this Province to take them or leavo tluMn as they judge lit. Now, Sir, so far from being silent upon those |)oint8, I have shown that Mr. T'yerson's doctrines are wholly at variance with all I'jnglish usage ; that secret advice is in I'inglanc? considcTefl mean intrigue ; that etiiMnies of the Govemment for the time being, are there very rarely appointe£ this strong .point the Canadian people are the judges, and not Mr. Ryei-son. Mr. Ryerson's thirdly alleged omission is thus stated : " I have iproved by the same testimony, that the real question of antagonism was not the, or any, principle of Responsible Govemment but the distribution of patronage for one party to the exclusion of :*iii III i f I iOi u \i. all olljora, on wliicli vlial |>«ilMt also, rit'i»iun is piofuuiully bIIoiU." , Ah to tlie tviil |iuiiit of iiiiiiitriiiiisin, I did noi, aiid I cdulil not, Rtalo all or any of ili(> |ioiiiiH ilis(:uH.sctl bclwc^ua Sir ('iiui'loB Motcalfo and his latu (^oinicii. Tliat tlu.ur|)osu of ])in'(!hasiiic( ])ailianit>ntary Bup-j port. Ho gives what he stales to he their own wtnds, h^)Wovcr, and from these we lind that they expected that a|)|)ointnientrt should «v not be maile prcjuilirial to tinir in/luciHT. 1 have justiiiod this expectation sis consistent with llrilish nsage, and I have upheld iho doctrine of adiixci/ — ms('lvr«, thnt Sir Cliiiilcs iNfffrnHo's nvr ?«''• j»rlfiN;i '[tivH fif luluiiiiistciiii'j^ flic piirndinf^i' ol' (In- (.'r(»\vti iir»> vr"«i«oly ll»o Muiiic ^v\\\^ flioso wliioli tlicy ]irolc!taftl, ilurin^j fc»ir (J^miW Uugot's lulinitiistriitioii." '»J''l '•"'Sh''CJmrW's Mi>i('iilrt''H prnfr-is'oiH, "'tliiit llic nppnintmi'mH iircr to W) mml»«Aviilrftiini^f(fMMir<' i<» |>rtiiy r<> wliut • Tionl Sydctrhanl's w<;r('. 'riie tV (iiivtf« i>liias(( (rf' Loid Svi^i'nlitiiri wii;i, Mr. KvcmMi I » * • Riiyn, " oqiutl nnd ifri|)ni'lilil juslicf" in nil oIuhsch of hei- Wif)«'Hfy*H \i subject;).'" I Hiip])o«(', iS'ir, tliJH in.iy lie n plinise ifi iiiiy pcrHons mnurtj, wiiliomt iiivolvincf iniy poliriciil pritK^iph* wliiili'vcr. Tho quostioti is, whnt i« cipinl nnd iinpinlr'tl ju^titVit ft Itfti^t jii^tu'^ftt n'Miiiistry to rn^iko n]»pointments prcjiKliTijil !Y> their iirrtiiLMir'n,' nnd it is not justic* to tho mmitry to trrur tho frioiidM ctH\ riiemifs of the adniiniMiTiiiioti f^r tho ttnic hoii^riillR^. • At nil o^rnts it \h not true, neither i.s thoro an iotn of triiih m Mr. Jij'orson'a n-sseition iti }irs 1():{(1 pnQfo, that' lioni Svilrnhrtm iiclod iipiiii the [HMneipIo citbor in his Ic'^islalion or Ids nppoinfiiicnts ; find it is not UtioWTi, nn'l it is not true, as iMr. J'yerHori asserts in his pnin[)hlet, that Mr. Baldwin took oflice Mj)on ntiy princijde appioachinjT to that ctf dis- tfibution of ((flico to i'ricnds and rncmips of tlie adniiniatrntidn alike, and without rei,nird to party. Lord Sydenham, ns Governor, was no party niiiii ; he sought tu fiirni ;i (Jov(!rnmcnt which the Parliament would .su[)poit, andluivinpf I'ormed that (lovcnunent, ho did not consider its friends and (Mieniies alike, for he avowedly and actually used his prerogative to strerifjthen that (Jovernment ; and there never was a Clovernor in Canada who wa.i les.s dispo.sed to bestow office on any man wbo voted with or supported the oppo- sition. Mr. llyerson's example in eonfirnuition of this, were it a mere blunder would expose liim to laugiiter, l)ut it is worse than a blunder, it is an exhibition ui' tho deep hypocrisy and insin- cerity with which bo baa conducted his defen • of Sir Charles Metcalfe. " When Mr. Draper, (says Air. Ilyei-son,) and Mr. l^aldMrin, (the former Attorney and the latter Soiicitor-Cieneral,) were an- nounced as Candidates, previously to the elections of 1841, Mr. Hincks, then Editor of thu Examiner, denounced Mr. Draper, and supported Mr. ]ia]dwin ; and yet j)rofessed to be favcuiraMe to Lord Sydendam's administration. Jn conseijuence of this, as my views of JiOrd Sydenham's policy were kiu)wn, I' received a letter from one of his Lordship's Household, containing the sob- ft" I aoft I li'- E V t ■» stance of the following paragraph, (incluiling the Capitals) in sen article wi-itteu in reply to Mr Hincks, headed " on opposing and supporting theCjoveminent" published in the Guardian, April 15th 1840 :— " Now we aaseit advisedly that the Governor-General i[ittaehes KQUAL importauv;' to the return of Mr. Draper and Mr. Baldwin, .iud that opposition to the one, aa well as to tlie other, under whatever pretence it may be got up, is equally opposition to the Governor-Generftl's administration. Parties aiid party spirit have nearly ruined the country, the object of the Governor-General is, to abolish parties and party feelings, bi/ uniting what is good in both 'parties. Therefore tlie moderate of both parties who possess superior qualifications to others, ought to be supported, and the violent extremes of both parties ought to be rejected as the ene- mies both of the Government and the country. Adopting tl^s course, will be supporting the Government, pursuing the opposite course, will be opposing the Government. Every man I.as a right to oppose or support the Government as he chooses, but cvpry man ought to know when he is doing the one or the other. We assu,re our readers and all concerned, that both the Altomey and Solicitor-General are bona fide government candidpites, and that opposition to either of them, is opposing the administration of the Governor-General." v, ,. Now, Sir, what was the state of facts, when Mr. Ryerson, thus became the vehicle of Lord Sydenham's opinions. Lord Syden- ham had succeeded in forming tin administration, composed of persons who had belonged todiflbrent parties, but who united for a time, under the hope that tlicy coul'l agree as to future policy. While so united, they formed one party, tliuir views and objects .%vere the same: tlic memoors of that administration were not like tho^e of a No\^ Scotia coalition, avowedly opjH)sing each other and pulling diflbrent ways. On the contrary, their object was, to unite the suppori;ers of both the candidates as one party, a very good and happy object Cv^uld it have been evenlually accomplished. Lord Sydenham's object was, to befriend and support his Ministers, and for that purpose to unite two parties, \vliicl) he desired to merge into one. Through Mr, Ryerson therefore, he let it be.knowi that support of h.s Ministei"s, was support to hiniL'jlf ; and oppo- sition to them, was opposition to himself: but when he said " every man has a right to support or oppose the Government as he chooses, but every m^.n ought to know when he is doing • one or 207 the other ;" did he mean to say, tliat he lm)ketl upon the support- ers and opposers in the same light, with ])crfect inipartiulky, aind when lie said that the violent ex' remes of both parties ought to be rejected as the enemies both of the Governnjent and the cou^try^ did be not mean to designate those who opposed his ministers as such enemies ] and did he mean to bestow office on them without regard to party ? There -ire but two parties which can be recog- nized by a Sovereign or a Governor, one ilic supportere of his ad- ministration for the time being ; the other, those who oppose it, and there is not a word in Mr. Ryerson's own paragraph] which does not breathe hostility on the part of Lord Sydenham to the opposition and favor to tb" supporters of tlie administration. Lord Sydenham fairly and patriotically, desired the abolition of former party spirit, he sought the accomplishment of his desire by bring- ing party leaders together, and by procuring their agreement, but he never tried to put down party by rewarding opposition; he never pretended to do so. Even Mr. Hincks, who appears to be one of those personally denounced for his opposition, was received into the Government upon that opposition ceasing : but Lord Sy- denham promoted no enemies. In Lower Canada the French population were excluded by him from office, simply and for no other reason than because they opposed him. Their opposition he regretted, because it made his administration weak ; but he did not soften it by promoting them while that opposition continued. Had Sir Charles Metcalfe endeavoured to bring about a recon- ciliation between parties, so as to induce them to join in the same Government : had he induced Mr. Baldwin and Sir Allan McNab to act together, he would probably have done good : he would pro- bably have strengthened his Government and lessened opposition, and the enemes of one of these gentlemen would, while they were united, have been the enemies of the other ; and those who objected to the union, would have been in opposition, but Mr. Ryerson well understood the difference between strengthening a Government by bringing it support, and destroying it by ap- pointments prejudicial to its intinouce. Jlut Mr. Ryerson has presumed to quote this paragiph, in support -of Sir Charles Metcalfe, in support of a determination, to treat opposition and assistance (o Government alike. But such was not Lord Syden- ham's policy, and no contrast could possibly be greater than the one disclosed in Mr. Ryersons paragraph. Lord Sydenham iaid, every man has a right to support or oppose the Government i '?Mi! 208 I .-ii Is I &B hf© cliooscs ; Imt evory msin odCfTit tn knmv tvlien l*er i» doing otie or thu other. Sir Charles ]Mct(,'!ilfe's policy is, every man lias a right to Hupport or o])pose the iiovornment as he chooges, but I care not which, and as it is indittbreiit to me which he does, 80 let it be to him. Lord Sydenham's doctrine and prac- tice, Were those of a British Statesman : Sii' Ghhrles Metcaillb's those of an East Indian ruler, regard 1(?S3 of 'English usage, and seeking to put down party, by substituting his own despotisfli fo» pbpular opinion.' '■•'■ '';-■■" "' ■ •.■•"•>.j .vh. • .li n;! ..-,.', ri.i-iMin- ' Mf* Ryerson quotes a passage fnim LoW Durham ''s answer to th^ Toronto address, Vvhicii be w^nld make appear very much iti faVOif of Sir Charles Metcalf's system, and would bo so if said Under the same circumstances, as Sir Cliarlcs Metcalfe haa jSro- mnl^ated his impartiality. Lord Durham said, *'0u my pa«| ptbmise you an impartial aJministTatimi of the Govejrnment, determined npt to recognize the e^xistence of parties p. ^vincial oV irtlpei'ial, classes or races; I shall Hope to receive from alt Her Majesty's subjects those public ■ services which must' ever warmly depend 6n their conprebensiveness;" Such was the doctrine of Lord Durham, who had no administration ibrnied in the country, but who looked to the future to f(jrm one, without recog'^i ion of by- gone party differences, provincial or imperial, classes or races. He intended to be, asallCjovernors should be, impartial inhis selection of«tn administration, and to make his policy as comprehensive- as he co^uld; ' to have as much support for that Government as he coald procure, but he was at the time recommending the establishment of a Government to rest upon po{)ular sup-ort, and to depend, as the British Government was de])cnding upo)i the conlidence of Par- liament. He never meant to say, that he Avould look upon support or opposition to that Government with indilference ; or treat those as friends who would obstruct it. The late ministers asked no favour from Sir Charles Metcalfe, they asked no partiality at bis hands, they did not desire to assist themselves with the weight ef his individual opinions, they did not desire to be maintained m Govemme'nt by his strength. Perfect impartiality, ws what he 8ay», they asked from him, that he should make no appointments prt!judicial to their influence, while they were his ministers j aikl when the time should conic, when they w<,uld no longer be his ministers, they ex[iected the same consideration should be exton- di^d to their successors. This is the British impartiality which enables the Queen of England, to remain beloved and respected,. \ :;>09 through Successive changes of administration, and through tha most complete political revolutions as to policy and the course of 'ftppointments. She personally recognizes the existence of no parties, classes or races, the confidence of her parliament is her 'tulfe of right and wrong in politics. Under our administration, ap- pointments are given to Whigs, not because they are Whigs, but ! because the voice of the nation places ihem in a position to conduct a Government successfully, under another administration appoint- ments are conferred on Tories for the same reason. But thisf ' could not be the case, if besides the constitutional impartiality I • have thus described, the Queen were to seek other advice, than that of her Ministers; if she were to look upon them as leaders of a new party and constitute herself the supreme arbiter between them and their opponents ; if she were to appoint their enemies to office, encourage opposition to her administration, and then say it was constitutional usage to hear the advice of L'er Ministers with due attention, to hear the advice of their enemies also with due 'attention; and to talie care that patronage was equally distributed 'between the supporters and opponents of Government. I deny, that this ever was the doctrine of Reformers, or of any other party in Canada or England. I deny that it is one, which Sir Charles 'Metcalfe can or will act upon, support and opposition to Govern- ment, whether the Government is despotic, or whether it be con- -Btitutional musi influence appointments. Under the first kind of ■ GovernTiient, the Governor and his friends, form the Govem- ■ taetit which is to be supported or opposed ; under constitutional 'government, the administration for the time being, must be con- sidered in that light. And Lord L»uiiiam, who was a statesman and a reformer himself, knew well the distinction one which Mr. Hyerson was as well aware of, as Lord Durham or any one else ; ' but hollowness, insincerity and hypocrisy, seem to be epgrained ^ ill his nature. But Mr. Ryerson, in his 110th page, quotes with greAt triumph Sir Charles Bagot's reply to an address, on the subject of Mr. Bueli's -appointment, as Treasurer of the Johnstown District, and I shall ' give the quotation at length, aPter stating the circumstances under which the reply was made. On Mr. Bueli's appointment, an accu- ' action was made by the Johnstown District Council, charging Mr. ' fiuell with disaffection and with being directly concerned in the Into insarrecilionary troubles. Sir Charles Bagot was prayed to investi- gate the charges. This hie Excellency refused to do, and as it was 0' if. u i. i:3 ; ; 4f . B ■ .1^ ' ■X' 210 his policy, as well as that of his advisers, including, I believe, every one of them, to repudiate by-gone party differences, ond to seek the support of tlio^Government from all her Majesty's subjects without distinction. His Excellency was advised not to renew inquiries into the lute rebclliou, although the itidividunl case would have borne them, and the individual charged courted inquiry. The Johnstown District Council, or the majority of them, were bitter opponents of the then administration, but this did not prevent them from repudiat- ing, very impressively, all the diolinctions, animosity, and ex- clusion which were more than suspected to be the motives of the address, to this address Sir Charles Dagot returned tho following answer ; — "I obsei-vc with pleasure, your declaration that you wholly re- pudiate all selfish, all factious, all national, all religious distinctions, animosity, and exclusion, and that you desire to see all her Majes- ty's subject's enjoy the most perfect toleration and equality ; and THE DISTKIBUTION OF THE PaTRO.XAGE OP THE CllOWN CONFINED TO NO PAUTICULAH SECTI0i\ OR PARTY, RELIGIOUS OR POLITICAL, YOU MAY BE ASSURED THAT it is in accordance with these principles that I am determined^to administer tlieCJovernmcnt of this province, and that in doing so, I but execute the commands I received from the Queen, I, therefore, call on you to co-02>crate with me in my task, and •with that view to lay aside those by-gone distinctions to which you advert, and which have been the bane of this fine Province. I call upon you to turn your attention to the practical measures neces- sary for the improvement of the country, and to prove your loyalty and earn the gratitude of your fellow subjects, by making this province what it was by nature intended to be, the most valuable dependency of the British Crown, a source of wealth in peace, and a means__of strength in war." I suppose. Sir, that very many Royal speeches, proclamations^ and answers of Kings and Queens, as well as Governors, may be quoted to|deprecate party and faction, but 1 am very certain that tliere is not one which designates the majority in Parliament, or the Ministry for the time being, as either one or the other, until Sir Charles Metcalfe set the example. Kings under Responsible Government are identified with their ^linisters, as was Sir Charles Bagot with his, when he delivered the answer above quoted. The difference between Sir Charles J3agot and Sir Charles Metcalfe was a wide one, as Mr. Ryerson well knew. Sir Charles Bagot spoke of by-gone parties which divided the country, and . caused 21t hostility to the frovcrnmcnt, l.o deprecated those, and called upon " the Johnstown District Council to lay them by and to co-operate with him ; he never meant to j)lace co-o)ierafion with his Govern- ment and opposition to it on the same footing, and he did not and could not mean to say, that his administration was a party or a section of a party; neither did he say, or mean to say, that he would distribute patronage and office, to reward sujjport and opposition alike. But Sir Charles Metcalfe, in his declarations of impartiality, directly refers to his administration as a party: he does not invite co-operation with them, he does not announce, as Lord Sydenham did, that opposition to them, or any c' iiem, would be opposition to him ; but he claims it as a proper constitutional usage of prero- • gative, that he should regard his advisers and their opponents upon terms of equality; each of them parties or sections of parties, and that qualification or ability should be his rule, without regard to whether it was applied in support oropposition of the administration over which he presided. Mr. Ryerson says, that this reply was received with dismay and dis- ' satisfaction by the opponents of the late administration, (who in ' fact constitute nineteen-twentieths of Sir Charles Metcalfe's present friends,) but these opponents well knew that office could not be confined to them, when the highest in the country were in the hands of their opponents ; they could not have been dismayed and dissatis- fied if support and opposition to Government were reduced to equality. They could only have been dismayed and di?satisfied at the obvious determination implied by that answer, that by-gone dif- ferences, arising out of the late troubles, differences which that class of politicians hoped to perpetuate for ever, should be buried in oblivion ; that all should be at liberty to co-operate with the Govern- ment, or to oppose it, and that those who chose the latter under ' pretence of former distinctions, party, religious or political, should take the necessary consequences, which opposition to Government in all countries necessarily involves. If, Sir, a practical commentar/' on what Lord Sydenham and Sir C. Bagot said and wrote either v 't!-> cv without the advice of the late ' Counsellors were wanting, the whole course of these appointments furnishes that commentary; neither thry nor the Council extended or desired to extend political considerations further than their just boun- daries ; but they made no appointments, and they did not pretend to be under an obligation to make any which they knew would be preju- dicial to the influence of the administrations serving under them. '^' i ■n I 21$ A 11 . si ■■ , 1 r Ml ; l^^ ;■ n ^1 ^1 * Men of all former and by-gone panics were appointed, but id th«, . dispoiition of offices, not necessarily diifuscd, or including nu« morous individuals they had Htrict regard to iho political position of , the applicants towards the administration ; nnd so fur were they fronu. ,• regarding opposition to (lovernmcni with indifTfrf-'ncc, that twa ofBccrs, namely, Mr. Murney und Mr. Derrie, weio removed for no . other reason than i)p[)o>il'':>" lo adniiinsiraiion cundidalrs, and their ', removal was dofendud on th;\i ground soicl)'. Whatever merits . Sir Charles Motcnire's patLrnil despnti ,m may possess, no one buti. Mr. Ryerson could bo impuJuiU ennug!i to institute a likeness be* . tween it and the Government of his j-i'adccessors, or between Jijti, declarations and theirs. I shall not lengthen ou' the concluding letter by further criticismf , on Mr. Ryerson's defence, neither do I intend to enter into contro- - .verey upon what he calls his refutation. I am satisfied to let • my letteis go before the public in defence of any refptatioa which he has produced or is able to produce. 1 shall not fol- low his example by bragging as lo what I have proved or what I have refuted ; I have no taste fer the Mountebank style of puffing my; own productions. It is not what I think is proved, the public may,) think so : and it is not what Mr. Ryerson says he has established^, , is established. Had I ever been given to a display of egotism ap(| ■■, vanity, the odious and disgusting exhibition of both, in his letterSfj,, would have prevented it; and had I been aware of the little effect they would have produced, I should not have answered them at all : had I been his enemy I could not have wished him worse than he has made himself appear, by his own writings; and as he has made him* wlf appear, so would 1 have left him. |n the course of these letters I have avoided reviving by-gone party differences. I have made no allusions to Mr. Ryerson'* political course in former times, such allusion was not necessary for my purpose, which was simpiv to answer his defence of Sir C Metcalfii, or rather his attack upon the late Counsellors^ whom he accu.'ed of ignorance of ilieir duty, falsehood, and treason. He did not believe what he wrote, and I have accused him of deception , and hypocrisy. For this he has naturally enough sought his revenge, and has select- ed Mr. Sullivan ashis olject ; respecting that gentleman's politica} .course I feel obliged to make a few remarks. <: :.f,^ . p-.Tjr«> Mr. Sullivan joined Sir Francis Head's administration, as an oppo^, fico^ to Responsible Government. He avowed that he thought it dani 11» ^ni ^roui, and inconhiiitent with tho condiiiooof a Colony. He argutd that British Responsible Qoverntnent was produced by tho actual power of the people, and not by convention or understanding; and ha looked upon the atto^npt to introduce it into Upper Canada, as a vnin one — the power of the Crown and of the Empire no| being capable of being balancud against the political influence of the people of Upper Canada, so ns to produce a likeness to the British Constitulio:), in which likRncss lie always coatended Res- ponsijiio Government consisted. The Parliament of Upper Canada sustained that view, the country was agitated, somo infatuated men took up arms in rebellion, and lives were lust on tne part of the defenders of the loyalists. The rebellion was suppressed, and Mr. Sullivan was in the Government at that miserable time, when law had to be vindicated, and when actions had to bs accounted for which motives could not justify. Two lives were tak«n in consequence of the insurrection. One of the unfortunate persons was a man very much esteemed in bis neighbourhood, but he .w«8 a leader : the other led a detachnoen /cf the insurrectionary force against the City of Toronto ; for this takis^ of life Mr. Ryerson may hold Mr. Sullivan responsible, and the multitude of loyalists who approved of it, and who desired greater extension of the penalty of death, may, if they ploase, be gratis fled when that act is re-called by their friend, Mr. Ryerson, with opproblum and condemnation. Sir C. Metcalfe may also, if ho > pleases, reward Mr. Ryerson for now calling in question an act which involves in condemnation his Sovereign and her Majesty's Ministers, as well as his own predecessors in office, and more than one of his present Counsellors, who wore in the Government ia' Lower or Upper Canada, immediately after the late rebellion. If these latter submit to the condemnation of Mr. Ryerson, Mr. Sullivan has no reason to complain. i ■ •; -; ■;>/:, I^ord Durham came to Canada, and in his report to her Majes* ty's Government attributed the troubles of the country to the want ^ of Responsible Government, — to the want of a Government ad' , ministered according to British usage. Mr. Sullivan was opposed j to Lord Durham's recommendations, for he saw Responsible Gov* j ernment in the same light then as be had seen it before. Lord.i £|(^ham recommended a union of the provinces ; Mr. Sullivan,, was opposed to it, because the union of the popular strength ofi; both provinces made a struggle for Responsible Government ) inevitable. } i5l II i'i i I n i *i 'i x 214 The tjuesiion of Union was brought forward in the Upper Canadian Parliament, without the authority of Government, and Mr. Sullivan opposerJ it, bocauso it had a certain tendency to bring on the struggle for Rc>!«ponsible Guvernment, and ho argued against the injustice and usoit'ssness of the preponderance in tho legtalation proposed to be given, as a safeguard against the popular influence of the French Canadians. ' ■ ' "^ ' '" ■ The finances of the province, in consequence of grants of money for public improvements came into a stale of difficulty amounting to insolvency ; and Upper Canada claimed assistance from the mother country. Lord Sydenham came to Canada with a proffer of tlie requisite assistance, but upon the condition of the Union of the Provinces. He saw tho accession of popular influence which would bo acquired by the Union, but he approved of and invited it. .\'.i' . -uw. r- No man who opposed the Union, as proposed by Lord Syden- ham, suggested or was able to suggest any means by which the Govei nment of Upper Canada could Lie carried on, or its finances restored, unless by irMans of assistance from the British Govern- ment, and no assistance could be obtained without the Union of the Provinces. Mr. Sullivan supported the Union under these circum- stances, not as his measure, or one that ho desired, but because it could not be avoided ; and opposition to a measure without the power of proposing an alternative, was no part to be taken by a politician either in or out of Government. ;.. ;» ,;r.v-f Mr. Sullivan opposed unjust conditions, attempted to be introduced into the Union Bill, as weii because of their injustice as because they must in their nature be temporary and unavailing. The Union Bill was enacted, and immediately thereupon came the forms of British Government, and the claim for it in substance as it was understood in England ; this Mr. Sullivan always looked Upon as an inevitable consequence of the union of the Provinces, and when her Majesty's Government chose, for the sake of tho peaCo of the country, to concede the principle, and to withdraw from intervention iii the domestic affairs of Canada, he rejoiced to believe the struggle at nn end, to see a probability of a union of parties theretofore opposed. F^e pledged himself in Parliament on many occasions to the principle of Responsible Government, of the intention and interpretation of which he never had but one optoion — and he resigned his place, when an interpretation ccn*^ m \ 215 j: trary to hit understanding of tliu principlo adopted wai endeavorad to be put upon it. Like most men, who havo been concerned in public oflfaira, ho has mado enemies, and he has never attempted to avoid it by disguise or pretence, llu has hiid the rrisfortune to difTer from principle, and to havo to contend with thorn, hut bo has done to without losing the friendrthip of those who he believes ever felt it for him ; he has with his collenguvs been stiguiatized as a revo- lutionist and a distifTected man by her Miijesiy's Uf prcsentative* and, by a lying fawner upon power and place, he has been cona- pared with villany and infamy, but ho is yet unhurt, and time will show who has most reason to regret these imputation?. •... -.it Among!4t many charges made by Mr. Uyerson, there is one which he probably believes, and that 's, that Mr. Sullivan reported his own explanatory speech in the Lngislative Council, on the disrup- lion of the Ministry. That speech was reported by the reporter ol the Montreal Crazetie, who asked for, but did not procure any assistance from Mr. Sullivan. Neither did the latter see the report until it was in the newspapers. It is probably as. correct as such reports usually are in this country, and there arc many things in it which were said, but amongst them was not any rccommendatioQ of a coalition Government. Mr. Sullivan, is not however, the Toronto Associationt neither will he be the judge of Mr. Ryerson's defence, or the one to sufler from the black hypocrisy which could pretend to respect and affection for a man whom it now abuses. The young men of Victoria college, it is to be hoped, will not follow example rather than precept ; and professors of religion will choose, rather to observe what they hear from the pulpit, than what they see in the conduct of their Minister. It is time for the sake of all, that the Doctor forsook a calling, for which he never was fitted, and as he denies Mr. Sullivan's worthiness to unloose the shoe strings of Messrs. Viger and Parke, I hope that he himself will undertake the office, as one for which he is eminently qualiffed. These gentlemen appear to know how far they may use, and they know him too well to trust him. I have but one word to say in conclusion : Governor* will be changed, parties will change, persons will come into favor, and others will lose it, resolutions will be passed, and they will be in- terpreted and misinterpreted. Mnjorties may change, (though of that there appears at present little probability,) but there is one m. 1^ 1 $16 ihxtifg BMtidfast, #hick is, tho Brittah Contmution. When Cftitik- dians ubtained Responsible QoverniHent, fhey got the life ak)d «oul of the Conftitotion with it. MeA may for a lime err in their "notions of its usergns and consoqnencns. but thoy are always set right by looking for its beaten path ; ho who starts from a point, and travels by the oompass, if his compass be wrong, is going- more from his object every hour, but he who has a binzed line in the darkest wood, can only be in error for a short space. My •advice to Canadians therefore is, to discuss with every one they meet, whether their Oovernment is conducted according to British usage; and when any man begins to draw distinctions between Responsible Government in a Colony and tho British Constitution, lA them avoid that man as an enemy. Many, very many are ainoerely opposed to Responsible Government, but none sincerely flupport it, and shrink from its interpretation' by its best com' mentary— British histofy. i(f!ji tr!.r..i*u; ' (; i- '. ' ; 1 • Jlnn'.-i ' i): ■' .1 :-i:' . V." iirAi'i 'I y >•:..' .■ .loi'hi ,;^;f:':f- [ t; "• jo'j«;a'ji l' ti? :: f; < <>'•' (( 'fif \*.i.ii. . .' I«.i!r,l i'.'i.;^^.,. i , . J' 1 f>) rjiiuv.; ,/'u.(' 1 1 ■. ' ■/ ni i!i<-»+- [mU j:,il'" i , J:«ril .Ha \r> "j.i-- ' » V i>itfi ,Lf');;it ;•>;';-■ ii>'ij(• JUh M'^,^:)v.,: ■■ ■ t ■ ,b«.)flii(it/[i vu ; 'i..i v-SiU inui , >eii / h •■ ■* ■■ :'i'i J •!) ••:-t '5Uii 81 lyi^iii lyf/ ;j"(JilK?M!..v>; ^iiuii lays?':*} iK ,ii£;jR«s irijlli J/Jiif , ; ■' ■: >■''/. if'. !•? 'iM.! • " ■ <. , LEGIO?!. ' f jf '!■ ^ .n' ...vii ■ •....,. ■';>'.i. - ,, -i .'J ,-.: •» 1' H'rt;- ■"■■ ■: , i.'iofj-r ^ . ,.. '.' . ' ,'f 1- f<>'^ r. 'id ..'■: ■ ...rv.-i- .-;!/. ^ ■ ' . . 1 ,' ; :! > 1) ' ; iv/ V'llllJH J ■ .,..' '-■,[, .nc'i'! TJhi';'. c' ''."iio 1 ■';•• ;i i.-T ; <)'::.v'i, .i bou ■ 5^; . .-^Ji !'i, 5 : li'VilY v »•*"'.>'■, . . ■;. 1 i.i; ; ; j'j.m'.'h uurti ;'•*;! 7'.>!!! ir.iiv/ i!V«o,«!o 1 '^i' : vfi' V. ;::>t!| >«(.•» v.'ill ^. !■ ' ■ i.iIi-a'^ laiuil*'!' •:)ii|^ •'-.»(..•- -/'I' t.. i\ vn 1 ' ♦ . APPENDIX. .'f .,1 '.-.^ . I, w HI ii I I ill V CONTENTS: llciolulions of 3r(J September, 1841 Expluiiatioii 6f the Into Miniittcrs, ..... Communication by tlio Governor-General, ... I'roGeedings of the Assembly, 3u(l Dcecmber, 1843, III. vi. viii. xi. T w ct D stj An-KNUIX. lA r R O C E E D 1 N Ci S OF Tin<: Lixjisi.ATivi-: asskmfu.y (jfcana/)a, on rUK QUESTION OF IfKSl'ONSI lU.K (JOVEUNMKNT, FillDAY, 3ni. SEPTFMIiFR, 1811.— Mr. n.M.DVVIN moved to KchoIvo, necnndiMl by tlin Hoijoiiruhlo Mr. VUi r.K,— That till! iiioNt iiii|i(irtiitit, ax will ax lliu iiioHt uiiil nl' tint puli. ticul riglitii of the INioplu of tliix Pniviiicc, ix tliat of having a I'riiviiicial I'arliu- inniii, for tliu prutrctioii of tliHir Lih6rtini, for tliu oxtirciao of a CunNlitiitiunal influunci) oVi!r th-j I'xcciitivt; DepartininitN of their (idvcriiiiiriit, anil for Legiit- lution upon all nialti grninid of aliioliitc nrii'Hitity, run. ■tilulionally belong to tho jurisdiction of tliu Ini^iiiriul Puiliument, a.s the para- mount authority of tlic Kiiipire. The Honourable Mr. SIOFFATT moved, secoiuled by Mr. SIlKllWOOD,— That tlie Orders of the day bu now called. Tiie i|UC8tion being put upon the said Motion, a Division ensued, and it pasijod in the negative. Sir ALLAN N. MACN.Vn moved, smmded by Captain STLELF,,— That the oaid Keiiolution be taken into coniiideration in a Committee of the whole House to-morrovv. The quefltion being put upnn the said Motion, a Division eniiued, and it passed in the negative. ■ i The Honourable Mr. HARRISON then moved, in amendment to the main Motion, seconded by M.. DkSALABLRRY,— Tliit all the wordx after " That," in the said Motion, be ;^i nick out, and the following substituted : — " the most " important, as well na the most undoubted of the political rights of the People " of this Province, is that of having a Provincial Parliament for the protection " of their liberties, for the exercise of a Constiiutional influence over the " Executive Departments of their Government, und for Legislation upon all " matters of internal Government." The question being put upon tlie Moiion of amendment, it Was agreed to unanin.ously. The question being then put upon tlic inuin Motion, as anrcnded, it was also' agreed to, and Resolved, Accordingly. Mr. BALDWIN moved to Resolve, seconded by the Honourable Mr. VIGER, That the head of the Provincial Executive Government of the Province, being within the limits of his Government the Representative of the Sovereign, is no^ constitutionally responsible to any other than the uuthoriUes of the Empire. \ > The Honourable Mr. HARRISON moved, in umemlment, secorJt d by Mi*. DeSALABERRY, that all the words after " Thai," in the said Motion, be struck out, and the following substituted; — "the head of the Execntive Gotcrn- P l'\ I , p 1.' w 2 ■ % 5 5 k ' ? iV APPENDIX. " mout of the Provl ICC, being within tlie limits of his Goveminent the Uepre- " Bcntativc of the Sovereign, a responsible to Imperial authority alone; but " ilmt nevertheless the munagement of our local afiaira can only be cou- " ducied by him, V "nd with the assistance, connnel, and infornialion of siibor- " dinate Officers in lUe Frovuice." The question being put upon the Motion of amendment, it was also agreed to unanimously. Tue question being then put upon the mai''. Motion, as amended, it was also agreed to, and I .ii ' •;; Resolved, Accordingly. ',".•>■ Mr. BALD'v'lN moved to Resolve, seconded by the Honourable Mr. VIGER, That the Uepres'^ntative of the Sovereign, for the proper conduce and efficient disposal of tht> public business, is necessarily obliged to make use of the advice and assistar'* ui suoordinate Officers in the administration oihis Govcrniacnt. The quest'ijn being put upon the said Motion, it passed unanimously in the negative. Mr. BALDWIN moved to resolve, seconded by the Honourable Mr. VIGER, Thi'.t in order to preserve that harrtiony between the different brai.ches of the Provincial Parliament, whic'* is essential to the happy conduct of public alfairs, the principal of such "ubordiuate Officers, advisers of the Representative of the Sovereign, and constituting as such the Provincial Administration under him as the head of the Provincial Government, ought always to be men possessed of the public coiuidence, whose opinions and policy harmonizing with those of liie Representatives of the People, would afford a guarantee that the well understood wishes and interests of the people, which our Gracious Sovereign hiis declared shall be the rule of tne Provmcial Government, will at all times bo faithfully represented to the head of that Govermiient, and through him ■> the Sovereign and Imperial Parliament. ,, •,■ v ■. The Honourable Mr. HARRISON moved, in amendment, seconded by Mr. DeSALABERRY, that all the words after " That," in the said Motion, be struck out, and the following substituted: — " in order to preserve between the " different branches of the Provincial Parliament, that harmony which is essential " to the peace, welfare, and good government of the Province, the chief " advisers of the Representative of the "overeigu constituting a Provincial " Administration under him, ought to be men possessed of the confidence of the " Representatives of the people, tlma affording a guarantee that the well under- ' stood wishes and interests r'' the people, which our Gracious Sovereign hiis " declared shall be the rule of the Provincial Gc /ernment, will on all occa- " sions be faithfully represented and advocated." The question being put upon the Motion of amendment, a Division ensued; and the names being called for, they were taken down, as followeth:— '" |^< Yeas.— Sl^esrs. Aylwin, Baldwin, Barthe, Boswcil, Buchanan, Cameron, Cheshiy, Child, Christie, Cook, Crane, Daly. Day (Solicitor-General), Derbi- shirc, DoSalaberry, Draper (Attorney-General), Dunlop, Dunn, Dunscombe, Durand, Foster, Gilchrist, Harrison. Hincks, Holmes, Hopkins, Killaly, Kim- ber, D. McDonald, Merritt, Moore, Morin, Morris, Neilson, Parent, Parke, APPENDIX. lie lief :ial the Icr- llcU ;ca- ed; Powell, 1 .ico, Pritico, QuesncI, Robertson, Roblin, Riicl, Simpson, Small, Henry Smith, Ilerinc'.iUB Smith, Steele, Tnchc, Thompson, Tliorburn, Tur* cottc, Viger, Williams, Woods, and Yule. — (56.) Navs. — Mes>>ro. Buiiiet, Carlwright, MacNa'.), McLean, Moflutt, Sherwood, and Wutts.~(7.) r . b"> it was carrie('. in the afTirmp.Uve. ■ , The quesiiou being then put upon tlie main Motion, as amended, it was agreed to, and licsolccd, Accordingly. Mr. BALDWIN moved to Resolve, socondedbytho IIonouraMe Mr. VIGER, That as it i3 practically always optional with such adviseis to retire from office at pleasure, this House has tlie constitutional right of holding such advisers politi- cally responsible lor every act of the Provincial Government of a local character sanclioiied by such Government while such advisers continue in office. Tlie Honourable iMr. HARRISON moved, in amendment, seconded by Mr. DeSALABERRY, that all .tlie woids after " That," iu the said Motion, be struck out,^niid J.ie following substituted: — " the people of this Province have, " moreover, a rigiit to expect from such Provincia' Administration, the exertion " of llioir best endeavours that the Imperial authority within its coi i'.utional " limits shall be exercised iu the manner most consistent with their well under- .' stood wishes and interests." The question being put upon the Motion of amendment, it was agreed to mv nimously. The question being then put upon the main Motion, as amended, it was also agreed to, and .. , > i Resolved, Accordingly. Mr. Bj\LDWIN moved to Resolve, seconded by the Honourable Mr. VIGER, That for the like reason this House has the constitutional right of holding such advisers in like manner responsible for using, while they continue in office, their best exertions to procure from the luiperial authorities the exercise of their right of deal'ng with such matters, affecting the interest of the Province, as constitutionally belong to those authoritie.s, in the manner most consistent with the well understood wishes and interests of tho people of this Province. The question beiug put upon the said Motion, it passed unanimously in the negative. _ , (True extracts from the Journals of the Legislative Assenbly.) ., W. B. LINDSAY, , , . , , . , , ... CUrk of tlie Assembly. ill 'mi „:« li i; m If on, -bi- Ibe, '^4'f:■^ Xll:.! i Jft^i' i M r n w APrKNDIX, M E S S A K FROM HIS EXCELLENCY the GOVERNOR-GENEIIAL, TO THE LECLSLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF CANADA, PRESENTED FRIDAY, 1st December, 1S43 :— C. T. METCALi^^E, The Governor-General transmits to tlic Legislative Assembly, in reply to theii* Address, of yesterday's date. Copies of all coniniunications that have passed between him and those Members of the late Executive Council who have ten- dered their resignation, on the subject of those resignations. Gpvernment-Ilouse, Kingston, 30tb November, 1813. A ^■i \. Si ■! ,! UA ■sS- Mr. Lafontaine, in compliance with the request of the Governor-General, and in behalf of himself and his late colleagues, who have felt it to be their duty to tender a resignation of office, states, for his Excellency's information, the sub- stance of the eipplunatfpii which they propose to oiTer in their places in Par- liament. They have avovyedly taken Office upon the principle of : "(» '"'y to the Representatives of the People in Parliament, and with o iu r< cognition on their parts of the following resolutions, introduced into the Legislative Assem- bly with the knowledge and sanction of Her Majesty's Representative in this Province, on the 3rd September, 1841. '.' That the head of the Executive Government of the Province, being within " the limits of his Government the Representative of the Sovereign, is respon- " sible to the Imperial authority alone, but that, nevertheless, the management " of our local affairs can only be conducted by him, by and with the assistance, " counsel apd information of subordinate officers in the Province," and, " that " in order to preserve between the different branches of the Provincial Parlia- " ment that harmpqy, which is essential to the peace, welfare, and good go.vern- " ment of the Province, the Chief advisers of the Representative of the " Sovereign, constituting a Provincial Administration under iiiui, ought to bj " men possessed of the confidence of tlm Representatives of the People, t' "affording a guarantee thr* the well understood wishes and interests of f ''■' People, which Our Gracious Sovereign has delared shall be the rule of tho '' Provincial Government, will on all occasions be faithfully represented and " advocated." They hu /ery instance, be laid before the Council; that they should recommend a / others at discretion, and that the Governor-General, in deciding after tailing their advice, should not make any appointment prejudicial to their influ' ence. In other words, that the patronage of the Crown should be surrendered to the Council for the purchase of Parliamentary support ; for, if the demand did net mean that, it meant nothing, as it cannot be imagined that the mere form of taking advice without regarding it was the process contemplated. The Governer'General replied that be would not make any such stipulation^ and could not degrade the character of his office, nor violate his duty, by such a surrender of the Prerogative of tlie Crown. He appealed to the number of appoiutments made by him on the recom- meadation of the Council, or the members of it in their departmental capacity, and to instances in which he had abstained from conferring appointments on their opponents, as furnishing proofs of the great consideration which he had evinced towards the Council in the distribution of the patronage of the Crown. rjo at the same time objected, as ho always had done, to the exclusive distri- bution of Patronage with party views, and mainl^ined the principle that Office ought, in every, instance, to be given to the nan best qualified to render efficient service to the State ; and where there was no such pre-eminence, he asserted his right to exercise his discretion. He understood from Messrs. Lafontaine and Baldwin, that iheir continuance in office depended on his final decision wjth regard to their demand; and it was agreed that at the Council to be assembled the next day, that subject should be fully discussed. He accordingly met the Council on Saturday, conriaced that they would resign, as he could not recede from the resolution which he had formed, and the same subject became the principal topic of discussioou ;>4»Hv«if !in;»*»>*j Three or more distinct propositions were wade to him, over and ovier again, sometimes in 4i0erent terms, but always ninwg at the same purpose, which, in APPENDIX. 1x \i\s opinion, if accomplished, would have been a virtual surrctider into the Imnda of the Council of the Prerogative of the Cruvvn ; and on hia uniformly replying to those propositions in the negative, his refusal was each time fnllowed by "then we must resign," or words to tliat purport, from one or more of tho Council. . After the discussion of this question at so much length, being as he has hither- to conceived, the one on which the resignation of the Council rested, he ia astonished at finding that it is now ascribed to an allcdgcd dilVerence of opinion on the Theory of Responsible Government. In the course ol the conversation which, both on Friday and Saturday, followed the explicit demand made by the Council regarding the Patronage of the Crown, that demand being based on the cnnstruction put by some of the Gentlemen on the meaning of Responsible Government, difl'ereut opinions were elicited on the abstract theory of that still undefined question, as applica- ble to a Colony, — a subject on which considerable difference of opinion is known every where to prevail ; but the Governor-General during those conversations protested against its being supposed that he is practically adverse to the working of the system of Rt .ionsible Government, which has been here established; which he has hitherto pursued without deviation, and to which it is fuiiy his intention to adhere, The Governor-General subscribes entirely to the Resolution of the Legislative Assembly of the 3rd September, 1841, and considers any other system of Government but that which recognizes Responsibility to the People and to the Representative Assembly, as impracticable in this Province. No man is more satisfied, that all G Jvernment exists solely for the benefit of the people ; and he appeals confidently to his uniform conduct here and else- where in support of this assertion. If, indeed, by Responsible Government the Gentlemen of the late Council mean that the Council is to be Supreme, and the authority of the Governor a Nullity, then he cannoc agree with them, and must declare his dissent from that perversion of the acknowledged principle. i < ; j; But if they mean that Responsible Government, as established in this Colony, is to be worked out with an earnest desire to ensure success, he must then express his surprise at their arriving at conclusions, which he does not consider to be justified by any part of his conduct, and which he conceives his repeated declarations ought to have prevented. Allusion is made in the proposed explanation of the Gentlemen of the late Council, 10 the Governor-General's having determined to reserve for the consi- deration of Her Majesty's Government, one of the Bills passed by the two Legislative Houses. That is the Secret Societies Bill. If there is any part of the functions of the Governor in which he is more than any other bound to exercise an independent judgiMent, it must be in giving the Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament. With regard to this duty he has special instructions from Her Majesty to reserve every Act of an unusual or extraordinary character. Undoubtedlythe Secret Societies Bill answers that description, being unexam- pled in British Legislation. The Gentlemen of the late Council heard his sen- timents on it expressed to them. He told them that it was an arbitrary and •> I ^ ! , r .:, X APPENDIX. unwise mcnRurc, and not even calciilnteil to cflect the object it had in view. He had given iiis consent to its being introduced into Parliament, because he had proniJHed, soon after his UMsiiniption of the (iuvcrnnicnt, tiiat he wouKI sanction Legislation on the Hiibject, as a substitute for Kxecutive Measures, wliicli he refused to adopt on account of their prescriptive character; although he deprecates the existence of Societies which tend to foment Religious and Civil discord. The Gentlemen of the latu Council cannot fail to remember with what pertinacity those measures were pressed on him, and can hardly be unaware of what would have followed at that time, if, in addition to rejecting the prescriptive Measures urged, he liad refused to permit any Legislation on the subject. Permission to introduce a Bill cannot be properly assumed as fettering tlie judgment of the Governor with regard to the Royal Assent, for much may happen during the passage of the Bill through the Legislature to influence his decision. In this case the Bill was strongly opposed and reprobated in the As- sembly, but when it went to tlie Legislative Council, many of the Members Iiad seceded, and it did not come up from that House with the advantage of having been passed in a full meeting. Taking these circumstances into consideration, together with the precise Instructions of Her Majesty, and the uncertainty of Her Majesty allowing such a Bill to go into operation, the Governor-General considered to he his duty to reserve it for Pier Majesty's consideration; as it was much better that it should not go into operation until confirmed by her Majesty's Government, than that it should be discontinued after its operation had commenced. In conclusion the Governor-General protests against the explanation which those Gentlemeu propose to ofler to Parliament, as omitting entirely the actual and prominent circumstances which led to their resignation, and as conveying to Parliament a misapprehension of his sentiments and intentions, which has no foundation in any part of his conduct, unless his refusal to make a virtual surrender of the Prerogative of the Crown to the Council for party purposes, and his anxiety to do justice to those who were injured by the arrangements attending the Union, can be regarded as warranting a representation, which is calculated to injure him, without just cause, in the opinion of the Parliament and the People, on whose confidence he places his sole reliance for the success- ful administration of the Government. « Government House, 28th Novcmler, 1843. •• • , m ! ' ■■ ■ - '1 1 ■ ,,' lU';' ''• ; ,i, - "1 • >'■ . ■ 1 - 1 .' , . 1 * ■( ' , ■ '■'[ .t ■t 1 \. t ;. i.. ' * •.>... ■ -.».*,'i ;.-• --n i,;}' 1 , . .. !1 :f— u vi.iH v.- .--''. i..ir . ■[...-.ii,'''^ ■'! ■ ■ ■■M>^iMlT Tf. • ■' .''' r • t.T ■ .fi'-\^r>-^i ' APPENDIX, lA THIRD SESSION, FIRST PARLIAMENT. A.D. ISIIJ. PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF CANADA, ON THE SUBJECT OF THE RESIGNATION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE LATE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL. Extracts from the Journals of the Lcgidativc Asscmhhj. Saturday, 2nd December, 1844. According to order, the House resumed the Adjourned Debate on a motion made by Mr. Prick yesterday, viz : — " That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor " General, humbly representing to His Excellency the deep regret felt by this " House, at the retirement of certain Members of the Provincial Administration, on the questiou of their right to be consulted on what this House unhesitatingly avows to be the Prerogative of the Crown, — appointments to Otiice ; and further to assure His Excellency that their advocacy of this principle entitlea them to the confidence of tliis House, being in strict accordance with the principles embraced in the Resolutions adopted by this House, on tlie 3rd of " September, 1841." And the said motion being again read ; . , Mr. Wakefield moved in amendment thereto, seconded by Mr. Simpson, tljat all the words ailer " That" in the said motion be struck out, and the following subtituted: — " According to the principles of the British Constitution as declared to exist " in this Province by the Resolutions of the House of Assembly of the 3rd '-' September 1841, the Members of the Executive Council are responsible to the " People and to this House as the Representatives of the People, for the exercise " of every Royal Prerogative within this Province, and that consequently " inasmuch as it would be most unjust to subject any man to responsibility for " acts in which he had not participated, it is indispensable that the Royal " Prerogative be exercised by His Excellency the Governor-General with tlie " advice of the Members of his Executive Council. " That according to the aforesaid principles of the Biitish Constituliiti, the " Provincial Representative of the Sovereign, cannot be responsible or in any " way accountable for the exercise of any branch of the Royal Prerogative to " any Provincial Authority whatever ; and therefore that he cannot ronstitu- " tionally enter into any pledge, engagement or assurance with the Members of 'f the Executive Council, or witl) any 3ther person or persons in the Province, " respecting tlie future exercise of the Prerogative. '^1 R Ml APPRNDIX. i: _ I I m 1 it |.:J i. l-\ "■ 1 " Tlint tho well known practice or tiio Brit'iHli Constitntion rccogni/cs on» " etTuctual munns, and no other, of Hccurin^ tlio obHorvnnco of tlio aforesaid " principles, namely, the Resignation of the Mcniber^i of Exccutivo Council, " whenever, on an occasion of sulliciunt importance to warrant tho application " of that legitimate check npon the exercise of the Prerogative, the tiovcrnor " General ihall have failed to ask or refused to follow their advice in some por- " ticular case or cases ; hut that if the Head of the (iovernnient were to enter " into any general engugnnieni with the Members of his Kxecutive Council, or " even with this House, binding himself in any wise, whether directly or by " implication, as to tho future exercise of any of his functions as the Represen- " tativeof the Sovereign, he would openly divest the Crown of its acknowledged " Prerogative, degrade the Royal (Jflice into obvious and proclaimed subordina- " lion to the Executive Council^ and most seriously impair tho Constitution " which it is the glory of this Province to possess." And the question being put ou the said motion of amendment, it passed unanimously in the negative. The Honourable Mr. Viger then moved in amendment to the main motion, seconded by Mr. Forbes, that all the words after "That" be struck out, and tho following substituted : — " This House adheres firmly to the principles embodied in the Resoltitiotia of " the 3rd September, 1841 ; but that no document or question has on the present " occaajon come before the House in a shape in which it can according to " Parliamentary u?age and practice, "erve as the basis of an Address to tho " Governor General on the subject of Responsible Government." And the question being put on the sa )|.tm,t constitutional question, and therefore most humbly beg , lost vital y P q a negative fctin, any desire that the Head of the iJovemment I nave to ' ,7n to enter into any stipulation, as to the terms upon which .Nhouia . . 'ration may deem it prudent eitlier to accept of or continue "* ^^'" ' , 1 confidence, which is essential to the well-being of any Gov- n the said motion, a division ensued ; and the ! The question having been put . <\ . . II J «' - iKo., .«»►« «..i,.''" down, as folloWeth :^ — : tame* being called for, they were takt ' ' YEAS. N ■•'•■■ Messrs. Armstrong, Aylwin, Baldwin, Barthe," Berthelbt, BosWell. Boulton, Boutillier, Beaubien Cameron, Chabot, Childe, C^e Crane Derbish.ro, De Witt Dunn, Duiand. Gilchrist, Harrison, Hincks, i.opkins, Job.n, Lacoste, LafontaiLe, Leslie, Donald McDonald, J. S. Macdonald, IV^rritf, Moore Monn. Morris, Papineau, Parke, Powell, Price, Prince, Quesnel, ^lobbn. Small, Her- wanus Smith, Sfole, Stewart, Tache, Thompson, Thorbt rn, Turcotte, Deaw B. Vigor, and Lo( s fA. Viger.-(49.) { v:(::3H.'..»^T(' ■ xvl APrSNDIX. NAYS. Mmuti. Cartwriglit. Clietlay, Foibci, Fottor Ilalc, MocNob, MoIa«o, NunMjr, (i«orge Bhorwood, VVilliaini, and Wooda.— (11.) So it wnt carried in tlio oflirmalive, and Ordv. :/, miobl/. W '■" ':-'v;.i. ..•1