YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

The Ministerial Crisis: Mr D.B. Viger and Ms
Position. Kingston, 1844.

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

*937

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

The
MINISTERIAL CRISIS:
MR. D. S. VIGER,
All MM P®©.3ITO€)Mj
BEING A
REVIEWUF THE HON. MR. VHSER'S PAMPHLET
ENTITLED
"LA CRISE MINISTERIELLS ET
MR. DJENIS BENJAMIN VIGER, ETC. EN DEUX PARTIES.""
BY A REFORMER OF 1836.

Printed and Sold at the Chronicle & Gazette Office.
1844.

The following remarks were thrown together very hastily,
the author having intended to get them inserted in one of the
Newspapers. When about to place them in the hands of the
Printer it was suggested to him, that their publication in pamph
let form would be more likely to secure for them a general cir
culation, especially among those who have not an opportunity of
seeing the Newspapers. It is hoped that there will be a suffi
cient number of Reformers in each of the Districts zealous
enough to promote the gratuitous circulation of this pamphlet
among those whose means of obtaining political information are
limited.

HON. MR. VIGER.-HIS POSITION.

The IJon. Mr. Viger's long promised explanation has at length appeared.
The pamphlet which contains it is at least sufficiently imposing in appearance.
There is an " Avertissement," " Premiere1 partie," " Seconde Partie" and
" Postscriptum." Were it not for the respect which we entertain for Mr.
Viger's personal character and for his undoubted talents, we should be tempted-
to exclaim " Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus." The greater part of
the pamphldt is occupied with Mr. Viger's speech in the Assembly on Mr.
Price's motion, which might certainly have been published at least two months
ago. The remainder, which is about the length of an ordinary editorial article
in one of our leading prints, contains no new matter whatever, and leaves Mr
Viger and his position precisely where they were.
If the Speech, when delivered by Mr. Viger, with his usual ability, failed
to convince the Members of the House of Assembly that he was right in oppos
ing the Ex-Ministers who had made a constitutional stand in defence of the
rights and liberties of the people, there need not be much apprehehsion enter
tained that the pamphlet under consideration will produce any serious effect
on the public mind. Nevertheless, Mr. Viger is not a man to be treated with
any thing like contempt, and his apparent confidence in the soundness of his
views, and the challenge he has thrown out to his opponents, would alone be
sufficient to ensure for him a notice at our hands. The following is a brief
extract from the pamphlet :
" Ce qui devra maintenant paraitre inexplicable, c'est qu'en depit de l'in-
sistance de Mr. Viger sur ces motifs, comme sur une foule d'autres, d'une
importance egale pour les Ministres, de reculer devant ce qu'il regardait
comme un grave oubli de leur devoir, on ne voit pas' qu'un seul Membre ait
tente de le r6futer. Ce qui devra surprendre encore davantage, c'est qu'a
peine il est question de ces remarques dans les nombreux discours des Ministres
ou de leurs partizans !"
Mr. Viger might have spared the word " tente." The members of the late
Ministry and their friends have always felt quite satisfied that Mr. Viger's ob
jections to their conduct were fully answered, and it is therefore a little too bad
to be told that they never even made an*attempt to refute them.
Before going into the merits of the questions at issue between Mr. Viger and
the Ex-Ministers, we would observe that we are not of the number of those
who look upon Mr. Viger either " comme devore par l'ambition" or "comme
s'etant couvert de dijshonneur," or "comme untraitrea son pays," or as being
under the influence " de vues d'une ambition vaniteuse, ou d'interets merce-
naires." Mr. Viger has passed through the ordeal of public life with so much
honor to himself as to render the charges of which he complains quite nugatory.

He has however committed'a grievous error, and his friends have put the most
charitable construction possible on his conduct when they have attributed to
him that he was " le jouet d'une espece ^hallucination," "dans la plus com
plete illusion." Could they have had any doubts on the subject the pamphlet
under consideration would, in all probability, have set them at rest.
In dealing with Mr. Viger we have the satisfaction' of being able to come
at once to the real question before the country, viz : Responsible Govern
ment. Our present opponent is far too honorable to descend to what we must
term the jugglery of Mr. Gibbon Wakefield. He does not pretend that
the late Ministry had lost ground either with the Legislative Council or with
the House of Assembly, that their measures were unpopular,, that he himself
was the leader of a party in opposition to them, and, that they were obliged
" to pick a quarrel" with the Governor to save themselves from defeat. All
those things, however, have been said or insinuated by the leading partizans of
the Provisional Ministry. Mr. Viger, on the other hand, declares that " up
to Monday 27th Nov. our Ministers enjoyed an influence in the House that
could hardly be surpassed." " Jusqu 'au Lundi, 27e Novembre nos Ministres
exereaient dans la Chambre une influence qui n'est guere susceptible d'etre
surpassee." He goes on to admit that their measures encountered no serious
opposition and that many others of great importance (qu. University bill?)
were on the point of terminating in a similar manner, " etaient sur le point de
se terminer de la meme maniere." These admissions are very important,
coming as they do from a gentleman of Mr. Viger's high character and' the
leading member of the existing Administration. Mr. Wakefield, however,
will care little personally for this exposure of his misstatements, and' it would
hardly bo fair to act upon Mr. Buchanan's principle and hold all the opponents
of the late Ministry responsible for the sayings and doings of the- Hon.. Member
for Beauharnois.
We now proceed to consider the questions at issue between Mr. Viger and
the Ex-Ministers. The former gentleman objects to all the proceedings in
Parliament on the ground that they were based on the Ministerial explanations,
authorised as it was supposed, and on the two documents first read in the House
and afterwards communicated by message, by the Head of the Government, and
that the explanations not having been authorized, and the communication of
the documents having been unprecedented and highly improper, the House had
really nothing whatever before it to form the basis of an address or of anv
other proceeding. This view of the question Mr. Viger embodied in his
amendment to Mr. Price's motion. We shall, however, be more precise in
stating what we understand to be the grounds of M r. Viger's opposition to the
Ex-Ministers. He says, 1st— that they resigned without any cause, or rather,
that there was no specific fact admitted on all hands, as the ground of their
resignation. Alluding to Mr. Lafontaine's communication, he savs that ex
cept what relates to the Secret Societies Bill it " n'avait rien de I'&at defaits
precises, clairs et distincts, essentiellment necessaire en pareille circonstance."
2d. It is denied that the Ministry ever had permission to explain in the manner
that they did, and even if such permission had been given, it should have been

held as withdrawn by the communication from the Head of the Government
protesting against it. It follows, of course, from the adoption of such a view,
that the Ministers violated their oaths of secrecy as Executive Councillors.
3d. It is asserted that the Ministers took a great latitude in their explanations
— stating facts not alluded to in Mr. Lafontaine's communication, and one
Member is accused of speaking " de ce qui s'etait passe sous Sir Charles
Bagot" We propose taking up these several objections, in the order in which
we have stated them, and shall therefore proceed to consider, 1st, the cause of
the resignation. Mr. Viger is evidently much attached to forms and prece
dents, not more so, perhaps, than some members of the late Ministry. We
are very far from finding fault with him on that score, but when we are refer
red to a precedent we must examine closely to ascertain whether the circum
stances are similar. Mr. Viger is perfectly aware that under a bona fide sys
tem of Responsible Government administered as he, Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Bu
chanan, the Ex-Ministers, a large majority of the Honse of Assembly, and a
still larger majority of the people think that it ought to be administered, a re
signation could not take place unless on what he terms facts " precises, clairs
et distincts." Hence it would be difficult to find a precedent in England for
the course taken by the Ex-Ministers, no Sovereign there having attempted,
since the Revolution, to administer the affairs of the Empire unless with the
advice of the Responsible Ministers of the Crown. The circumstances in
Canada were such its to impose on the Ministry the necessity of establishing a
precedent. Let us assume, for argument's sake at present, that the statements
of the Ex-Ministers had appeared without comment, that Mr. Secretary Daly
had risen in his place in the House and admitted both their correctness and
that the Head of the Government had given his entire sanction to their being
communicated to the House — What then would have been Mr. Viger's course ?
Would he have pretended that there were no facts "pre'cises clairs etdistincts ?"
Let us examine the statement of Mr. Lafontaine for ourselves. The facts
there stated are, 1st, that " His Excellency took a widely different view of the
position, duties and responsibilities of the Executive Council from that under
which they accepted office."
2d. That such "difference of opinion has led not merely to appoint-
" ments to office against their advice, but tp appointments and proposals to
" make appointments of which they were not informed in any manner,
" until an opportunity of offering advice respecting them had passed by,
" and to a determination on the part of His Excellency to reserve for the ex-
" pression of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon, a bill introduced into the Pro-
" vincial Parliament with His Excellency's knowledge and consent, as a Gov-
"ernment measure, without an opportunity befng given to the members of the
" Executive Council to state the probability of such a reservation."
We freely admit, and so did Mr. Lafontaine, that with the Governor's theory
regarding Responsible Government we, have nothing to do, unless in so far as
it influences him in the actual administration of public affairs. But assuming as
we now do the statement of Mr. Lafontaine to be correct, and admitted as such
by the Governor, we maintain that there were facts " precise^ clairs et distincts'

more than sufficient to justify the resignation. But if instead of taking the
broad oround which they did, the late Ministers had resigned upon what Mr.
Vio-er would call "un fait distinct," viz : on some one of the many appointments
which were calculated to undermine their political influence, what would have
been the result ? Why, the delusion under which Mr. Viger and the public
were and are still labouring would have been kept up. It would have been
supposed that the Governor was really administering public affairs with the
advice of his Council, and that the latter had resigned merely because in some
one particular case the Governor had differed from them. Then we should
have heard on all sides, both from friends and enemies — " What an unreason
able set of men ! They wanted an entire controul of the Prerogative, — they
wished to deprive the Governor of all voice in the administration of the Gov-
ernmentj" — in short all that has been falsely urged against them might, under
such circumstances, have been said with perfect truth. We contend, that not
withstanding all that has been said of the superior conduct of the Nova Scotia
Councillors, the Canadian Ex-Ministers were still more faithful to their con
stituents as well as to the great cause of Responsible Government. Lord
Falkland has, it is true, like Sir Francis Head, "let the cat out of the bag,"
and has shewn clearly that he either does not understand Responsible Govern
ment or that he has no idea of carrying it into practice. We believe the views
of Sir Charles Metcalfe — and we judge him by his own public declarations —
to differ in no essential particular from those expressed by Lord Falkland.
The Governor who could contemplate offering such a situation as the Speaker
ship of the Legislative Council without consulting his Council, either does not
understand the working of Responsible Government or does not choose to
practise it.
Our object in the foregoing remarks has been to shew, that in the circum
stances in which the late Ministers were placed, differing entirely from
those under which the resignations occurred, quoted by Mr. Vi°er as prece
dents, they would not have done their duty to Parliament or the people had
they not brought the real question under discussion. Then as to the time.
That of course is a point which their supporters ought to have the liberality to
leave, in some degree, to their own judgment. They themselves could never
have had a doubt that they would be censured by many. Some charoe them
with holding office too long, from mercenary considerations, although one of
their number had previously resigned twice, and had then been accused of be
ing too hasty. Others again raise the cry of precipitancy, and amongst the
latter class we should be almost inclined to rank Mr. Viger, who says " on ne
" croit pas devoir se permettre ici des conjectures sur les motifs de cette preci-
" pitation de leur part lors qu'fls devaient, ce semble, pouvoir souffrir encore
" quelques semaines de ce qu'ils ont qualifie d7 antagonisme, qu'ils avaient
" pu supporter pendant deja pres d'une annee." This subject has been fully
treated by Mr. Baldwin in his speech at the Toronto dinner, and we shall
therefore content ourselves here with stating that although particular cir
cumstances forced the Ministry to bring the state of public°affairs under the-
notice of the Governor General, yet we can imagine no time more suitable for
a discussion of the points of difference between His Excellency and the Coun-

cil, than when Parliament was in Session ; and we would remind Mr. Viger
that the Council were never informed of the " antagonism" until the day that
they determined on resigning, and further that the term was not employed bv
them but by the Governor General.
We have endeavored to demonstrate, that assuming Mr. Lafontaine's repre
sentation to be true, and uncontradicted in any way, there were facts quite
sufficiently " precises clairs et distincts" to be laid before Parliament and the
Country, and that Mr. Viger has no right to charge the Ex-Ministry with not
following British precedent, until he is prepared to shew a precedent of a
British Sovereign administering the affairs of the Empire on the same princi
ples as Sir Charles Metcalfe did those of Canada. The only precedent that
occurs to us at this moment that can be applied with propriety to the case be
fore us, is the resignation of Messrs. P. Robinson, Markland, Wells, Baldwin,
Dunn and Rolph, in consequence of Sir Francis Head's meeting a very similar
remonstrance to that of the Ex-ministry in a very similar manner to that of Sir
Charles Metcalfe. In that case the Council put their views on paper, in the
shape of a memorandum, which was answered by the Governor, on which the
Council resigned. Mr. Baldwin asked permission to make the usual Parlia
mentary explanations, which was granted, exactly as on the late resignations.
Not being in Parliament, he wrote a letter to the Parliamentary leader of his
party, (Mr. Perry,) stating all the circumstances connected with his accept
ance and resignation of office, which letter was read in the House of Assembly
in the course of debate. An address to the Lieut. Governor, for information,
was then passed, and all the documents communicated, when the House pro
ceeded to pass a vote of want of confidence in the new Ministry. ' Now, what
ever opposition may have been made to Mr. Baldwin's views of Responsible
Government at the time, we never heard any one assert that there was no
ground for the resignation, or that the proper mode had not been taken of
bringing the question fairly before the country.
We come now to consider, 2dly, the Ministerial explanations, the authority
for making them,, and what Mr. Viger terms the protest against them (le pro-
tet le plus formel) on the part of the Head of the Government. We shall also
prove the correctness of Mr. Lafontaine's statement as to the real cause of
the resignation of the late Ministry, which we have already assumed to be true.
Mr. Viger has very correctly stated the circumstances under which Executive
Councillors may disclose to the public " ce qui se passe ou se communique
dans leurs deliberations." He says " lis peuvent obtenirde lui (the Gover
nor) la permission de' faire connaitre aux Chambres Legislatives les points
sur Iesquels leurs vues se sont trouve"es differentes." " They may obtain per
mission from him (the Governor) to make known to both Houses of the Le
gislature, the points upon which their views are found to be different." Mr.
Viger goes on to add that they can give no explanations but with regard to
facts of public notoriety ; and refers to past history for examples. We shall
have something more to say to Mr. Viger about " precedents," but we deny
altogether his position that the Ministers are precluded from giving such expla
nations as may be required for the public good. The rule with regard to

8
explanations is perfectly clear, and there can be no limitation whatever to the
extent of the disclosures" which may he made except that which the public weal
may require. It is true that no disclosures can be made without permission,
but whenever a difference arises between the Head of the Government and his
Ministers, Parliament and the public have a right to the fullest information.
What is the object of making explanations at all ? That the public may be
able to judge whether the retiring Ministry have acted right or wrong. They
are the parties upon trial, and they have a right to expect permission to state
every thing necessary for their complete justification. It would be as un
precedented as it would be useless for the Sovereign or his Representative to
limit the explanations of Ministers, because any attempt to do so would inva
riably be met, as Mr. Baldwin declared in the House he would have met it,
viz. by a refusal to say one word until the required permission should be
granted. No new Ministry would venture to assume the responsibility of
such a refusal. But on the other hand no man or set of men would be borne
out by Parliament or the Country in asking permission, or using it when given
to make disclosures unconnected with the subject of difference. We contend
that the late Ministry made no allusions whatever, during the debates arising
out of their resignation, that had not a direct and palpable bearing on the ques
tion at issue, and that were not necessary for their vindication. Although
many insinuations have been made that they violated their oaths, no specific
case has been adduced in which they stated anything unconnected with the
cause of their resignation. As to the mode of making the explanations, that
we believe it is admitted was in accordance with all precedent. The verbal
permission has been cavilled at, and it has been said that it should have been in
writing. On this point we are unwilling to speak with much confidence, but
we are tolerably certain that precedents could be given for both modes. It
was only during last Session, a few weeks before the resignation, that a Mem
ber of the administration had resigned on another point. His permission to
explain, if we mistake not, was a verbal one. In our view of the question,
and we feel convinced that we are correct, it can be of no consequence what
ever, whether the permission is a verbal or written one. In either case it must
be full, and unrestricted or it will not be accepted at all. The explanations
are invariably made in presence of a Responsible Minister, whose duty it is to
take care that facts are correctly stated. We admit that one cause of difficulty
on the occasion of the late resignation, was the inability of the Governor's only
responsible adviser to attend the sittings of the House. Undoubtedly the best
course would have been, to have put off all explanations as well as "all public
business until the new Ministry had been formed. It was not, however, the
fault of the Ex-Ministers that a new Ministry was not formed, and we may re
mark en passant that we wonder it has never occurred to a man so fond of
" precedents" as Mr. Viger, that a provisional Ministry is both a new and
dangerous experiment. There are precedents perhaps, but then the circum
stances are as widely different as are those which led to the late resignation in
Canada, from those which caused Sir Robert Peel to refuse office in 1839.
When the late Ministry applied in the usual way for full permission to make
such explanations as were necessary for their vindication, it was frankly ac-

3
corded to them, coupled, however, with a request that they would put on paper
the substance of what they proposed communicating to the House. They had
no doubt that Mr. Daly wpuld be present, and never, of course, for one moment
imagined that there would be any difference as to matters of fact. The real
parties on their trial were the Ex-Ministers on the one hand, and Mr. Daly on
the other, but unfortunately, as we think, the Governor General was advised to
make himself a party personally, and the consequence has been, despite all the
efforts of the Ex-Ministers to prevent it, that His Excellency has placed him
self in the position of an accused person, and is at this moment looked upon by
m=my as the leader of a party adverse to the late Ministry, rather than as the
strictly impartial Representative of the Queen. Such has been the unfortunate
result of the communication to the House of the document purporting to be an
answer to Mr. Lafontaine. The course taken by the Governor on this occa
sion, and which is very strongly objected to by Mr. Viger, even while he tries
to apologize for it, though' quite inconsistent with Responsible Government as
understood in Canada, is in strict accordance with the views on that question
which His Excellency' is known to entertain. According to the Governor's
request, Mr. Lafontaine prepared a statement embodying the substance of the
proposed explanations, and sent it early on Monday morning to His Excellen
cy. — No intimation was made to Mr. Lafontaine that any objection was enter
tained to his statement until within an hour before the time that the House
was to meet on Wednesday, when the letter of the Governor General, dated
Tuesday, was placed in his hands. It was, of course, impossible for him to
communicate with his colleagues unless the explanation bad again been post
poned. No intimation was given that this paper would be communicated to
the House. It is now to be 'considered whether there was anything in the
document alluded to, which oaglrt properly to have caused further delay, or to
have prevented the explanations altogether. Mr. Viger calls Mr. Lafontaine's
letter " une espeee d'expose." The answer to it is principally an argu
ment against the view taken by the Ex-Ministers of Responsible Government,
and the protest which is such a bug-bear to Mr. Viger, in reality amounts to
nothing. It is not, as we shall shew, a protest against explanations being
made, but against the arguments made use of by Mr. Lafontaine and his col
leagues. The protest, however, is conditional. Mr. Viger does not seem to have
noticed what follows it. The whole paragraph ought to be taken together, and
it is most unfair in Mr. Viger to quote the first two lines, omitting the remain
der. Mr. Lafontaine had imputed to the Governor that " he took a widely
different view of the position, duties and responsibilities of the Executive Coun
cil from that under which they accepted office." This representation His Ex
cellency says " is calculated to injure him icithout just cause in the opinion
of Parliament and the People" it conveys " a misapprehension of his senti
ments and views, which has no foundation in any part of his conduct," unless,
mark what follows, " his refusal to make a virtual surrender of the Prero
gative of the Crown to the Council for party purposes'1'' can be regarded
as warranting the representation. Now, surely even Mr. Viger ought to per
ceive that the words following unless, explain the whole difficulty. The pro
test is merely against the argument of Mr. Lafontaine, and everything depends

10
after all, on what is understood by Responsible Government, that " unde
fined question as applicable to a Colony." We assert with perfect confi
dence that the present Governor General considers Responsible Government
as "understood by the majority of the House of Assembly, by the late Ministry,
by Mr. Viger himself,, by Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Wakefield, his own great
champions, to be inadmissible as requiring " a virtual surrender of the Pre
rogative of the Crown to the Council for party purposes." What then becomes
of the Protest ? We contend that the main facts, stated by Mr. Lafontaine,
" faits prdcises clairs et distincts" are not contradicted in the answer. Is it
denied that appointments were made without the advice of the Council, and
prejudicial to their political influence ? The next question we ask is, — Is such
a mode of proceeding consistent with the resolutions of 3rd Sept., 1841, which
the Governor General professes to take as his rule of Government ? We think
not, so does Mr. Viger and so do the House of Assembly. Here then was the
real point of difference which led to the remonstrance on the part of the Minis
ters. The Governor, in his answer, states that he observes in the explanations
" a total omission of the circumstances which he regards as forming the real
grounds of their resignation." These His Excellency then proceeds to men- '
tion, but it will be observed that there is no difference with regard to facts.
The Governor makes no allusion to those circumstances which led to the re
monstrance, but this, of course, is a virtual admission of the correctness of Mr.
Lafontaine's statement. The main difference between this and the explana
tion given by the Governor General, as any one understandiag the question will
at once perceive, is that the Governor passes over the " some preliminary re
marks" and dwells altogether on the demand made by the Council, his refu
sal to accede to which was, in his opinion, the cause of the resignation, where
as the Ex-Ministers dwell upon the erroneous system which was in opera
tion, and, which as they proved to the satisfaction of the House, had been pur
sued by the Governor General, andgave as their reason for resigning that on
remonstrating with His Excellency, they found hiin determined to adhere to
his previous course, and in a state of " antagonism" with them on the sub
ject. Nothing can more clearly shew that the Ministers were not very tena
cious even about the adoption of their own suggestions, than the following ex
tract from the letter of the Governor General, " Three or more distinct propo
sitions were made to him, over and over again, sometimes in different terms,
but always arriving at the same purpose, which in his opinion if accomplished,
would have been a virtual surrender into the hands of the Council, of the
Prerogative of the Crown." The passage italicized is a favorite one, and
in point of fact, the whole question at issue depends on the extent to which the
Prerogative is to be controlled. The great object of having a Responsible
Ministry is, that there may be a " guarantee" that the , Prerogative will be
subject to controul, and that it will be exercised in accordance with the well
understood wishes of the people, represented and. advocated by men having the
confidence of Parliament. It is important to bear the foregoing remarks in
mind, because it would be supposed from the document alluded to, that the
demand of the Council was made without any particular reason for it, whereas
we have shewn that " the some preliminary remarks as to the cause of their

11
proceeding" are of vital importance to the Country. The system previously
pursued by the Governor had been very unsatisfactory, and was calculated to
destroy the political influence of the Ministry, and they were compelled to re
monstrate and to come to an understanding with His Excellency on certain
points. Almost the only point on which there is even an apparent misunder
standing between the Governor and the Ex-Ministers, is that regarding the
" stipulation." That, however, would long since have been cleared up had
there been a Responsible Minister in Parliament. We believe that there is no
real difference between them. The Ministry have never denied that they gave the
Gov. General to understand that they could not afford him any assistance in the
administration of the Government if the system of making appointments preju
dicial to their influence was to be continued. This may be termed requiring
" a stipulation." We deny that it is so. Will any one pretend that if at the
present time, it being perfectly well known to every one that the Governor has
avowed his determination not to be influenced in any way by party considera
tions, His Excellency were to invite Mr. Viger to form an administration, he
might not with perfect propriety ask His Excellency whether such were his
views as to the mode of administering the Government, as if so, it would be out
of his power to render him any assistance? There surely would be no " stip
ulation" in all this, and we could very easilyfind plenty of English prece
dents for "stipulations" of this kind. Now, in our judgment, Mr. Viger if
called on as we have supposed, would not only be justified in taking such a
course, but he would neglect his duty to his country if he failed to do so. If
then a gentleman called on to form an administration would be justified in com
ing to such an understanding with the Head of the Government as to his views
on public policy, surely the members of an administration are equally warranted
in doing so, especially after a change in the Head of the Government, ant!
when they have reason to think that there is a wide difference between him and
them as to the policy to be pursued. We have extended our remarks on this
subject to a greater length than we could have wished, because there is an ap
parent, although no real difference between the Governor General and the late
Ministry with regard to the " stipulation," which never could have existed
had there been a Responsible Minister in Parliament during the discussion, as
was fully expected when the explanations were made. As to the other points
there is no dispute. The Ministers also felt themselves bound to explain to the
Head of the Government, that if appointments were to be made, as heretofore,
without their advice being taken, they could not continue to hold office. The
reference to the lists of candidates was also called for. The object was that
these lists should be deposited with the Responsible Secretary of the Province,
and not with the. Private Secretary to the Governor. We assert broadly, that
unless the advice most respectfully tendered by the late Council be followed
out, there can be no real Responsible Government, as it is understood by the
Country. The votes of the Ex-Ministers for Mr. Boulton's resolution, which
was seconded by Mr. Lafontaine, afford the best evidence that can be offered,
that they did not require " a stipulation" in the ordinary acceptation of that
term. As we propose to offer a few remarks elsewhere on the general question of

Responsible Government, we shall now proceed to the 3d objection taken by
Mr. Viger, viz : to the latitude taken by the Ex-Ministers in their explanations.
We have already pointed out what we conceive to be the true doctrine with
regard to Parliamentary explanations, and- we feel persuaded that we are cor
rect. The nature of the difference between the Head of the Government and
the late Council necessarily led to the disclosures of which Mr. Viger complains
but which the Ministers conceived themselves fully authorized to make. The
simple question is — had these statements anything to do with the subject under
consideration ? Now, one cause of the difference between the Governor and
the Ex-Ministers was, that appointments had been made without or against the
advice of the latter. This fact was undisputed. What possible objection then
could be made to the furnishing of instances in which it had been done ? Mr.
Viger is entirely astray in his charge that one of the Ministry made disclo
sures with regard to what took place in Sir Charles Bagot's time. The case-
to which he refers and which was simply an illustration of the manner in which
strangers were fastened on the country by means of letters from English friends, .
was not given in any way on information obtained by the gentleman who allud
ed to it, as a Member of the Council, but on private information open to any
other individual as well as to him.
We have abstained from saying anything on the subject of the "Secret
Societies Bill," although the course pursued by the Governor with reference
to that measure was entirely inconsistent with Responsible Government. The '
Ministry might, and probahly would have resigned on this question alone, as
" un fait distinct," had it hot been evident to them that the difficulty in which
they became involved with regard to it, was caused by a total misconception on
the part of the distinguished individual at the head of the Government of the
mode of working out Responsible Government. This is, after all, the real
question before the country, and Mr. Viger must not conceal from himself that
it is. It is idle for him to tell the people of Canada that the Governor General
subscribes entirely to the Resolutions of 3d Sept., 1841, and considers any
other system of Government impracticable. We do not for one moment mean
to question the sincerity of His Excellency, who has been perfectly consistent
throughout the whole of the late difficulties. We do, however, mean to say,
that the Governor General does not understand those resolutions in the same
sense in which they are understood in the Province. There is now no real
Responsible Government. Mr. Viger is fond of precedents,— let him find a
precedent for the Private Secretary of the Sovereign performing the
duties now discharged by the Private Secretary of the Governor General.
It is stated in the public newspapers at Toronto, that letters have been received
from Mr. Higgmson, pledging the Government to a certain line of proceeding
with regard to the University, and even promising large endowments of money,
wh.ch no responsible Ministers would dream of. We care not whether these
papers have stated what is strictly the truth. Perhaps they have not. The fact
however remains, that while Mr. Viger is a responsible Minister, the Governor's
irresponsible Private Sec'y is carrying on a correspondence on the local affairs
ot the Province, wh.ch fall peculiarly within the department of the responsible
Secretary, It is notorious that since the arrival of Sir Charles Metcalfe the

13
Private Secretary has discharged more of the functions of a Minister of the
Crown than any one of the really responsible Ministers. Nothing can be more
obvious than the impropriety of a Private Secretary keeping up a correspond
ence on the local affairs of the Province, and of course expressing opinions with
regard to them by which the Government must be bound. Again, Mr. Viger,
being a Responsible Minister, will be bound to defend in his place in Parlia
ment, all the answers of the Governor to the addresses daily sent to him, in
which he pledges his present and future administration as to their line of policy
on many subjects, but which in all probability none of his Ministry ever see
until they are in print. In one of them We find the following passage — " for
" although it is physically impossible consistently with the despatch of public
" business that every act of the Governor in this Colony could be made the
" subject of a formal reference for the advice of the Council, there can be no
" doubt that it will be the inclination as well as duty of the Governor to con-
" suit the Council on all occasions of adequate importance." We must
compliment the individual, whether responsible or otherwise, who frames the
various answers to addresses. Responsible Government is " an undefined
question as applicable to a Colony" but the Governor General is determined
to govern in strict accordance with it as he understands it. We are now told
that he will v consult the Council on all occasions of adequate importance"
— he himself, as a matter of course, being the judge. Why, Sir Francis Head
promised as much 8 years ago, and there has never been a Governor in the
Country that would not have made the same admission. And yet Mr. D. B.
Viger holds himself to the Canadian Public as responsible for such sentiments,
and pledges himself to his Countrymen that Responsible Gov't is fully conceded.
Let us not be misunderstood however. Every Member of the late Council
was as well aware as the Governor can be, that it is " physically impossible to
make formal references to Council of every matter that comes up for decision,"
nor did any of them desire that any such system should be practised. Every
act of the Governor, however, must be communicated by his Secretary, and
that Secretary should be a responsible Minister, thoroughly acquainted with
the policy of the Administration of which he is a Member, and capable of ad
vising the Governor on every subject not of sufficient importance to be referred
to the Council. If the Secretary recommends any step prejudicial to the Ad
ministration, which for his own sake he will not do, his colleagues will of
course hold him responsible to them. One thing is perfectly clear, viz., that
there must be a party Government, and that the Governor must be prepared to
administer the Government in accordance with the wishes of his Council, so
long as he retains them. What we complain of is, that Mr. Viger, knowing as
he must do, the opinions of Sir Charles Metcalfe on this subject, should repre
sent him as entertaining those views of Responsible Government which he Mr.
Viger has always professed, and which he admits are held " comme une
espece de foi politique dans toute l'etendue de cette Province," and of which
he says " rien ne fait plus d'honneur a ses habitants que leur sentiment pro-
fond d'attachement pour un systSme dont la pratique pent seule assurer ces
droits precieux." A great deal has been said in some of the public journals^
about the support given to the Governor General by the English press. For

14
this we were fully prepared. The press as Well as the Imperial Government,
will always take sides against the Colonists when they are contending for their
rights as British subjects. It is well, however, that the Canadian people should
know the opinions expressed by the English Ministerial press, which are tho
roughly against Responsible Government as understood by the Canadians to
have been established by the Resolutions of 3d September, 1841. The
London " Times" says —
" The truth is that " Responsible Government", or in other words repre-
" sentative government in a Colony is not and cannot in the nature of things,
" be the same thing as Responsible or Representative Government in an im-
" perial State."
We need not continue the quotation which contains precisely the same argu
ments that we heard years ago from Sir Francis Bond Head, whose opinions the
Editor of the leading journal of England understands Sir Charles Metcalfe
to hold. Again let us quote an extract from a writer in the " Times". — Al
luding to Sir Charles Metcalfe's recognition of the Resolutions of 1841, which
he regrets ; he says —
" The fact is that the principles for which he contends, and the Resolu-
" tions in question are incompatible, and cannot co-exist, and the only re-
u medy in my humble judgment must come hence. The Imperial Government
" must pass resolutions to amend those passed in Canada in 1841 ! ! ! # # #
" Sir Charles Bagot got us into a difficulty from which there is no safe way
" out but by a retreat. The fatal steps must be retraced, and the sooner they
" are so the easier we shall find the operation. There must be no squeamishness,
" no mincing the matter. Responsible Government has been tried, and found
" wanting, and we must hear no more of it. But it is not in the power of Sir
" C. Metcalfe, though he has had a fair kick at it, to give it the coup de
" grace. That power is possessed by the Imperial Government alone."
Need we add another word to prove that the English opposition to the Ex-
Ministers, is to Responsible Government, which they hate, and which they ful
ly believe Sir Charles Metcalfe to have had a kick at ! Will Mr. Viger help
to kick it over for ten years more ?
Having quoted the opinions of the " Times" we proceed to give those of
the " Morning Chronicle", the great organ of the Whigparty. It is true that '
the latter journal, unable to believe " that a man of Sir Charles Metcalfe's
good sense and liberal views could have been guilty of such an error," and de
ceived by "a well informed correspondent" ~(qu. Mr. Wakefield?) has cen
sured the conduct of the Ex-Ministers. It has, however, done so on broad
grounds, and grounds that we unhesitatingly pronounce false. The Ex-Minis
ters did not desire " to exclude him (the Governor) 'from any voice in the
management of affairs"— they did not treat him " as if he really- formed no
part of the Council over which he presided"— they did not " pick a quarrel
with the Governor as a pretext for slipping; out of office instead of being driv
en out by a Parliamentary vote." Our readers will readily guess the quarter

15
from which such charges emanated, and will understand that the censure of
the " Morning Chronicle" was owing to its belief of the statements of a person
on the spot, in whose veracity it confided. No wonder that the " Chronicle"
should exclaim against the " gross impolicy of raising a dispute on an abstract
principle of government, when circumstances had not rendered its determi
nation necessary" and against " the indecency of requiring such a pledge
from a Governor whose previous conduct had indicated no necessity for so
binding him. For our own part we look upon the above quotation as strong
evidence in favour of the Ex-Ministry, but with regard to the great principle
at stake, the views of the " Morning Chronicle" are every thing that we
^ould wish, and are in direct opposition to the " Times" and "to the Gover
nor General. We have italicised the most important passages.
From»the Morning Chronicle.
" The friends of the retiring councillors assert that the dispute has originated
" in Sir Charles Metcalfe claiming a right to make all appointments in the
" Province, without the sanction or advice of any Responsible Minister. It is
" quite clear that such a claim, on the part of the Governor, is perfectly in-
" compatible uoith any responsibility on the part of any one else ; for no
" one in his senses would consent to be responsible for the conduct of a depart-
" ment in which another person had the nomination of his subordinate agents.
" That every appointment under the Crown should be, made with the sanc-
"tion of a Responsible Minister, is the first principle of Parliamentary
" Government. And those, indeed, who would not admit the full principle
" of Responsible Government, would surely allow its application to questions of
" local patronage. A Governor from England may sometimes be able to form
" a sounder opinion respecting the policy of Government than those who have
" had the confidence of the Colonial Assembly. But with respect to appoint-
" ments to office, it is impossible that he can be so competent a judge as persons
" having, from their earliest youth, a knowledge of colonial society. With res-
" pect to such matters the Governor must, in ninety-nine cases in every
" hundred, take his opinion from some one else, instead of forming it himself ;
" and it is surely better that that other person should be recognized and respon-
" sible. If Sir Charles Metcalfe, therefore, really insisted on exercising the
"patronage of the Crown, without the sanction of any Responsible Minis-
" ter, he undoubtedly deviated from, the established rules of Parliamentary
" Government, in a manner which must have rendered it impossible for any
" of his Ministry to act under him.
We cannot conclude our notice of Mr. Viger's pamphlet without some re
marks on the peculiar position of that gentleman. He professes to approve
of the general policy of the late Administration, and to hold their views on
the subject of Responsible Government — and by his vote on the Address he
admits that the Council ought to be consulted on all appointments to office.
He differs principally with the Ministry on a question or questions of mere
form. Even upon his own view of the case the late Ministry were in an em
barrassing position, and brought into it in consequence of the Head of the Go-

16
vernment not having acted according to those principles professed by Mr.
Viger. Now even admitting them to have acted imprudently, injudiciously,
or whatever Mr. Viger pleases, is that, we ask of him seriously, a good.
reason for bringing dissension among his countrymen, whose influence must
necessarily be destroyed by a division ? With whom has he linked himself?
Let him enquire who are the parties getting up addresses in Upper Cana
da in opposition to the late Ministry. Has he any sympathy whatever with
them or they with him ? Will he condescend to be yoke-fellow with the
Grand Master of the Orangemen ? Who are the loudest in singing his prai
ses in Lower Canada? Why the very men who a few years ago objected to
his being fattened for the gallows.
Mr. Viger is a gentleman of great experience in political life, one who
professes to understand the working of representative government as well
as any other man in Canada, and he therefore must know that it is moral
ly impossible that he can continue politically connected with the party
which is opposed to the Ex-Ministry. He may possibly divide his coun
trymen—though we don't believe that he can — but what would be the con
sequence ? their utter prostration as a party. We trust that we have treat
ed Mr. Viger in the foregoing observations with that respect to which we
admit that he is entitled. We deem him to be in fearful error, both in
the view that he has taken of the great question discussed during the last Ses
sion of Parliament, and still more in the course that he has subsequently
adopted. He has done great service to the cause' of civil and religious
liberty during his long life, but the injury that he has inflicted on-the coun
try by giving his sanction "to the Government being conducted for upwards
of two months without a Ministry, is greater than can be imagined at present.
The foregoing remarks were written previous to the publication of the Gov
ernor General's answer to the highly important address from the Warden and
fifteen Councillors of the District of Gore. The object of that address was to
put the Governor General in possession "of the true state of public opinion and
the real feelings of the country," "in the absence from your Excellency of con
stitutional advisers.,?' We shall quote the most important passage.
" We therefore humbly assure your Excellency, representing as we do, va-
" rious townships in this District, and being intimately acquainted with the-
" views, feelings and wishes of the several constituencies we have the honor to
" represent, that public opinion in this District, and we believe throughout the
" length and breadth of Canada, will fully sustain the late Executive in the
" stand they 'have taken, and the views they have expressed in relation to Co-
" lonial Administration under the principle of .Responsible Government, a*
*' enunciated and set forth in the Resolutions of the Assembly of September,
"1841, and practically carried into operation under your Excellency's late
"' lamented predecessors, Lord Sydenham and Sir Charles Bagot."
It is evident that on the receipt of an address emanating from parties of so
much influence in a very important section of Upper Canada, the Provisional

17
Administration (for every act of the Governor must on our principles be ascri
bed to them,) felt the absolute necessity of advising the Governor General to
make an explicit declaration of those views on Responsible Government which
they are prepared to support, and which, any new administration that may be
formed, will have to defend in Parliament. No one has more distinctly avowed
his responsibility for every act of the Government than Mr. Viger, and yet we
hardly know how tp believe it possible that he can have sanctioned and bound
himself to defend in Parliament, the answer to the address from the Warden and
Councillors of the District of Gore. It must be obvious to every man who
reads that answer, that the Responsible Government of the present Provisional
Administration, is essentially different from that which the people of Canada
believed to have been conceded by the resolutions of 3rd September, 1841.
We shall have very little trouble in proving this to the satisfaction of every un
prejudiced reader. In the document communicated to the House of Assembly
by the distinguished individual at the Head of the Government, will be found
the following passage.
The .Governor General subscribes entirely to the Resolutions of the Leoisla-
tive 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. . ,
The resolution in question declares in express terms " That the Head of the
Executive Government of the Province, being within the limits of his Govern
ment, the Representative of the Sovereign is Responsible to the Imperial au
thority alone." This is ,oiie of the most important principles declared in the
resolution, the one upon which the whole system hangs, and the misunderstand
ing regarding which has led to all our difficulties. Let our readers mark the
contradictory language of the answer to the Gore address, which contains, Mr.
D. B. Viger's new view of Responsible Government.
"He (the Governor) is also virtu-ally responsible to the peo
ple of this Colony, and practically more' so than even- to the
Mother Country. Every day proees it and no Resolution can make
it otherwise I ! !"
One would suppose that after such a declaration the absurdity of advi
sing the Governor General to profess to uphold Responsible Government,
would have occurred to such shrewd politicians as Messrs. Viger and Dra
per, but no ! we are assured in almost the next sentence that the Gover
nor " entirely agrees" with the signers of the address if they mean that " the
Resolution of September, 1841, should be faithfully adhered to." We deny
the practical responsibility of the Governor to the people of Canada. It can
not and ought not to exist. Until the public became aware that the Governor
¦entertained strong views of his own both with regard to the measures, and the
patronage of the Government, he was considered by all parties in the Country
as the- Representative of his Sovereign, and as disposed to be perfectly impar
tial to all. What a change has since taken place ! and how painful it must be

18
to His Excellency to find himself in the position in which he now is. The
virtual Responsibility to the people of Canada, which is referred to in the an
swer to the Gore address, arises from His Excellency being now considered by
many as at the head of a party, and that party the minority both in Parlia
ment and in the Country. The very addresses which appear to give so much
satisfaction to His Excellency, what are they ? party addresses— how different
from those welcoming his arrival, which were from the whole people.
We need not pursue this subject, but we have one or two observations to
make regarding the distribution of patronage, which the present administration
has distinctly declared is to be given solely according to merit, and not with
reference to party considerations. It will be observed that the Governor has
repeated the old declaration that " Her Majesty's Government has no inclina
tion to exercise any unnecessary interference in your local affairs," and also
that "the Government should be administered according to the well understood
wishes of the people." It is admitted on all hands that the Provincial admin-
.stration must be composed of men entertaining the same political views, hav
ing confidence in one another, and having the support of a Parliamentary ma-
'oritv. If then, the majority desire that the patronage of the Crown should be
^administered with reference to party considerations, and the majority, as a mat
ter of course, always will desire that it should be so administered, does it not
follow that the Governor by throwing his personal influence into the scale
against the majority, is violating the very principle which he professes to fol
low ? Are the private opinions of the Governor or of the Imperial Cabinet,
to be the rule of Government in opposition to the well understood wishes of
the people ? The late Ministry in opposing the appointment of men to office
who held political principles adverse to those of the majority of the people,
were acting in accordance with the wishes of their supporters, who will never
tamely submit to see Government influence placed in the hands of those who
will use it to the prejudice of the public interests. There can be no doubt that
the opposition being the party of the minority, will be in favour of distributing
the patronage of the Crown to all parties, so that they themselves may get a
share. But how absurd it is for the Canadian Tories, who, when in" power,
acted most strictly on the principle of never giving offices to their opponents,
to come forward now to condemn their own practice. We cannot conclude
these few remarks on the question of patronage without a reference to the "ir
responsible and unconstitutional advisers," complained of in the address from
the Warden and Councillors of Gore, but with regard to whom the Governor
says, '" I am not aware of their existence." Now, every one knows that Sir
Charles Metcalfe, could have had no knowledge of Mr. Powell, the Clerk of
the Peace of the Dalhousie District, before he came to Canada, and it is only
fair to His Excellency to suppose that he did not appoint that gentleman,as well as
a Mr. McDonald, a mere stranger, who only came to the Province a few months
before,to highly important offices without advice or recommendation of some sort.
The public know perfectly well that Mr. McDonald had no claim whatever
to office in Canada, and that if judged according to merit, which is the pro
fessed rule, neither he nor Mr. Powell could have succeeded in obtaining the
rcoemmendation of any person really responsible to the Canadian Public in

19
preference to other gentlemen who would have accepted the vacant offices.
The persons, whoever they are, and the Private Secretary could, in all proba
bility, give some information regarding them, who recommended those appoint
ments, are those whom the signers of the Gore address and the public term
" irresponsible and unconstitutional advisers." Having made broad assertions,
we feel disposed to prove them. The office of Clerk of the Peace of the Ba-
thurst District fell vacant a short time since. That office has generally been
filled by a Lawyer, and ought always to be unless there is some strong reason to
the contrary. Among other duties is that of drawing indictments at the Quar
ter Sessions. On the vacancy occurring a gentleman applied for the situation
who is of unblemished character, born and educated in Canada, a Barrister and
Attorney at Law, and whose appointment would have given a large amount
of public satisfaction. Another candidate appeared in the person of a Mr.
McDonald, a stranger lately arrived from England, where one of his relatives
holds an official situation — he is not a Lawyer, and certainly has no peculiar
qualifications for the office. The Governor professes to maintain the principle
that office ought, in every instance, to be given to the man best qualified to
render efficient service to the State." Acting on this principle the judicial
office of Clerk of the Peace was given to a stranger from Britain utterly igno
rant of its duties, in preference to a Canadian Lawyer of respectable character
and talents ! ! ! ^Such is the Responsible Government of Messrs. Viger,
Draper and Daly. And with this illustration of the practical ivorking out of
the theory of giving offices to individuals solely on the ground of merit, we
'dismiss the subject.
We cannot better conclude our remarks than with a quotation from one of
our most eminent writers on political economy, Mr. McCulloch. It will be
found in an article on the Constitution and Government of England in " Mc-
Culloch's Geographical Dictionary" under the head " England and Wales."
The Reformers of this Province have always contended for the principles of
the British Constitution, and have invariably been guided by British practice,
to which they will at all times defer. It is therefore important that they
should clearly understand the system under which the patronage of the Crown
is distributed in the Mother country — and notwithstanding the sneers of the
London Times and the Conservative journals against the Colonists, we mis
take the people of Canada much if they do not insist on being placed on pre
cisely the same footing as their fellow countrymen in Britain. To the Gover
nor and to -the Imperial Ministry we would address the warning of Lord Dur
ham, which they would do well not to disregard. " It needs but to follow oiit
" consistently the great principles of the British Constitution, and introduce
'" into the Government of these great Colonies, those wise provisions by which
" alone the working of the Representative system can in any country be ren-
"" dered harmonious and efficient,"
Trom McCulloch's Geographical Dictionary,-^ article on " England and1
Wales," — Constitution and Government.
" Not only are the Legislative measures proposed by the Crown and the
" conduct of the internal Government of the country, and its foreign relations

20
'" with other States entrusted to Ministers, but they have also the disposal of ah\
" or by far the greater part of the patronage belonging to the Crown. Offices
" involving no political responsibility,, such as those of the household,
" have been sometimes exempted from this rule, and left to be filled up by
"the Sovereign according to his personal predilections, but this is not by any
" means an uniform practice, and Ministers have repeatedly required and ob-
" tained the disposal of these offices."
" Generally speaking, patronage in a country like England, is always exer-
" cised with a view to the acquiring or preserving Parliamentary support.
" Napoleon, the King of Prussia and the Emperors of Austria and Russia
" might select individuals to fill offices on the sole ground of their superior fit-
" ness to discharge their duties. But in a free country suitableness for office
" is not the only thing to be attended to in deciding as to the comparative
" claims of candidates for official preferment : if they possess it so much the
"better; but the primary consideration is, how is the government to be car-
" ried on ? Now that, it is plain will be best effected by securing the active
" support of the friends of Government and by weakening the party of their
" opponents ; and the distribution of patronage is one of the principal means
" by which these objects are to be realized. A government that should ne-
" gleet to avail itself of this power could not long exist. Hence in England,
"nine out of every ten situations are disposed of on the recommendation
" of persons possessed of' Parliamentary influence. This in fact is here the
" via regia to preferment and state distinction. In filling up the conspicuous
" situations, the talents and acquirements of the Candidates, as well as their
" recommendations must necessarily be taken into account ; but in the great
" majority of cases parliamentary patronage is the sine qua non. Wene the
" Government more popular than it is, this result would be still more apparent.
" A man of ability in Prussia without connections, has a much better chance of
" getting on if he devote himself to the public service than in England ; but
¦" at the same time, the chances of such a person being advanced are infinitely
"greater here than in the United States. In the latter every thing is saerifi-
"ced to party considerations; and the most splendid talents and capacity to
" render great publi* services would never advance their possessor one step" on
" the ladder of promotion if he happened to be of a different party from that in
" favour at the time, or to want party support. The reason is, that in Eiig-
" land parliamentary influence predominates merely, w;hereas in America it is
"every thing; and every tbit^ must, in consequence, be made subservient <to
M its support."