■^. > IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) LO lii 11.25 128 |50 -"^— I 1^ 12.0 1.4 |25 H; I 1.6 ^ '/] O >-# ^ Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WE««^T8»I, n.Y. 14580 (,>v.) 873-4503 ■<» CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Tachnicvl and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquas Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagas in tha raproduction, or which may significantly changa tha usual mathod of filming, ara chackad balow. D D D D D D n Colourad covars/ Couvartura da couiaur I I Covars damagad/ Couvartura andommagia Covers rastorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura rastaur6a at/ou palliculia I I Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua |~~| Colourad maps/ Cartas giographiquas an couiaur Colourad Ink (i.a. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre qua bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches at/ou illustrations mn couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avac d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortioa along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge IntArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within tha text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II ss peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutias lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans la texte. mais, lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6tA filmias. Additional comments:/ Cummentaires suppldmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Las details de cet exemplaire qui sont pejt-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographiqur, qui peuvant modifier una image reproduite, ou q-ji peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thoda normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dassous. r~~| Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur^as at/ou palliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxet Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ditachdes Showthroughy Transparence Quality of prir Qualiti indgala de I'imprerision Includes supplementary matarit Comprnnd du material suppl^mantaira Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~y Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~~7| Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I j Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ 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 6ti filmdes 6 nouveau de fapon di obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X aox y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity off: Library off the Pubiic Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quaiity possible considering the condition and iegibiiity of the original copy and in iceeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers jre filmed beginning with the ffront cover and eitding on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the bacic cover when appropriate. All other original copies are ffilmed 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 ^ (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at difffferent reduction ratios. Thove too large to be entirely included in one exposure are ffilmed beginning in the upper lefft hand corner, lefft to right and top to bottom, as many fframes as required. The ffollowing diagrams illustrate the method: L'exemplaire ffilmt ffut reproduit grAce ii la gAn6rositA de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont it6 reproduces avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de I'exemplaire ffilm6, et en confformitA avec les conditions du contrat de ffilmage. Les exemplaires orlginaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimAe sont ffiimAs en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, aelon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires orlginaux sont filmte en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derni6re page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la derniire image de cheque microffiche, seion le cas: le symbols -^ signiffie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signiffie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre ffiim^s d des taux de reduction diffffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul ciichA, il est ffilm« i partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nonibre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^Ml IJ THE f'<.. .' ■'■^\ HON. R. B. SULLIVAN'S ATTACKS UPON SIR CHARLES METCALFE, REFUTED BY E&ERTON RYERSON; BEING A Beply to the letters op a LEGION." *^^^ii^^-^> ^^^^■^<^v^»^>^^^J^, *, TORONTO: iPriatod M the Office of the Brltieh Colonist, 13T Kiny Street. 1844. •''^^^?';!W?^ppfSf'^i"wpfHi?wsi»f" > i ' . ''3 i» • J. .• fi-- iii .fs i, i»i4%*a h PREFACE. FROM THE BRITISH COLONIST. The very able and unanswerable defence of His Excellency the Right Honourable SIR CHARLES THEOPHILUS METCALFE, Governor General of British North America, against the attacks of his late Councillors in Canada, has made a firm and lasting impression upon tlie public mind. — That defence was voluntarily undertaken and carried out by the Rev. Eoerton Ryerson, D. D., a worthy divine, well known to the people of Canada. It exposes, in a most masterly manner, the unfounded attacks that were made upon Sir Charles Metcalfe, by His Excellency's late Execu- tive Councillors, and (he proofs that have been adduced by Dr. Ryerson, in the course of his arguments, have been drawn chiefly from the speeches and writings of the late Executive Councillors themselves. From the exposure which Dr. Ryerson has made of them, in that defence, the late Councillors have never attempted to clear themselves, or to answer any of the Doctor's arguments ; but, in order to deceive the country as far as possible, and to influence the General Elections, a scries of letters was published, under the auspices of the " Reform Association," under the sig- nature " Legion," which letters have been widely circulated throughout the Province. The authorship of these letters has been generally, and we believe correctly attributed, to the Honourable Robert Baldwin Sullivan, late President of the Executive Council of Canada. They were sent forth to the world, under the pretence of their bemg an answer to Dr. Ryerson's defence of the Governor General; but strange Ao say, throughout the whole series, there is not even an Attempt made by Mr. Sullivan, to touch the mam points of ♦that defence; but, on the contrary, he passes them by unnoticed, and fills column after column of close print, with personal attacks upon the Governor General, Dr. llyerson, and others, and rambling disquisitions on general topics, which had no connection with the main questions under discussion, but which were well calculated to mislead those who might peruse them, without having 9,n opportunity of perusing also their refutation. T> the letters of "Legion," alias the Honourable Robert Baldwin Sullivan, very able answers have been written by Dr. Ryerson, and published in the columns of this Journal— There is not a single point of importance touched upon by Mr. Sullivan, which Dr. Ryerson has not pointedly, and most successfully and triumphantly replied to ; and from the conviction that the circulation and perusal by the public of these able replies by Dr. Ryerson, will be of the most esseniial service, in removing the bad and erroneous impres- sions and feelings that may have been created by the letters of I^egion, and tend very materially to promote proper feeling in the community, in favour of the Constitutional and liberal Government of Sir Charles Metcalfe, in preference to the tyrannical exercise of power, aimed at by the usurpations of the late Councillors, we have published them entire, in the present shape, for general circulation throughout the Province. We will only further add, our fervent hope, that the follow- ing pages may be carefully and attentively perused by the people of Canada, and that their beneficial effects may be abundantly evident at the elections, by the return to parlia- ment of men who will act wisely and honestly in the exercise of the highly important trust to v/hich they are delegated, at becomes those who love their country, who respect those in authority over them, who giva dutiful submission to the laws and institutions by which they are governed, and who> more- over, seek, by all lawful means, the redress of all proved grievances.'and support the fair and impartial administration of the affairs of the Province, under our lawful constitution^ — allowing to each of its branches the free and harmonious exercise or its functions, as recognized by established practice, and by the recorded opinions not only of the greatest State»> men and Lawyers of the British Empire, but by the Imperial Parliament itself. ROD SAVE THE QUEENJ % LETTERS. JVb. I. General Remarks. — Legiori's Omissions, Thb authorship of the letters signed " Legion, for we are many," being i^nown and acknowledged, I place his proper name at the head of , my reply to him. The name of the unscrupulous calumniator of Sir Cliarles Metcalfe — the sneering assailant uf Mr. Viger and Mr. Parke (men whose shoe-latchets he is unworthy to unloose) — the downright falsifier of my own sentiments and words, and the truthless vituperator of my_^ motives and character— the name of this man, against the exclu- sive and unjust and high-handed policy advocated by whom, in former years, I and thousands of others in Canada have long contended — ought to be known wherever his flagitious and unprincipled writings are read. At the outset, I disclaim and deny the sentiments which he has attri- buted to me ; I deny the statement he has mad" and interwoven throughout the whole of his voluminous numbcis, of the question at issue between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Counsellors ; I deny the sentiments which he has ascribed to the Governor General ; I deny the the correctness of his most material statements from the beginning to the end of his lucubrations ; and it will be my business in this and the follow- ing papers to expose and hold up to just reprobation the most dishonest piece of political writing that was ever laid before the Canadian public. Legion learned of his patron. Sir F. Mead, to act and to write on public aifairs ; and the pupil is not excelled by his master in love of justice and truth, when writing on the principles and conduct of other men. He is the very man required end the proper champion for the Toronto Associa- tion—our Canadian '^Committee of Public Safety." They wanted a Barkre, and they have found one in Legion. He has not only assailed me throughout in all the forms of vulgar il^itticism and unsparing abuse, but charged me with telling <'a deliberate falsehood" — " a direct and malicious falsehood." He has spoken of the "corruption of unhappy Parke and bewildered Viger." He has assailed Sir Charles Metcalfe with as little ceremony and regard to truth as he has myself, calling the government house " the gorgeous camp of the eastern satrap," and Sir Charles Metcalfe himself " a colonist despising « governor," and compared him to the Roman Emperor Nero, who fiddleo • and danced while Rome was in flames, set on fire by himself. He says-^ « His Excellency looks for truth, not by the light of day, but with the dark lanterns of Gibbon Wakefield, EgertonRyerson, and Ogle R. Gowan. A dark and underhand intrigue, the corruptin of some unhappy Parke, or bewildered Viger, is more according to Indian usage ; and a few addresses got up in corners, and a few libellous answers, are more than equivalent to a Canadian court, and do better for despatches to be laid before the Imperial Parliament than votes of confidence ; for alas, votes of confidence reduce the Crown to a cipher, but a distracted country is the place for the exhibition of talent, and the exercise of the prerogative. 3ir Charles B-rw».pw ^-w ' |i f '.■fi'y? 6 |! .1;' Bftgot was a weak man, he only made the v?ountry peaceful and prosper- ous. Sir Charles MetcalFe is a great man, i'or he can afford wantonly to agitate and disturb that peaceftu country, and to took at its mitfortunet with calmness ; he can quietly lune his fiddle while Rome is blazing." Such is a specimen of the insinuations, and charges, and imputations of this mouth-piece of the Toronto Association. And who is he ? 1 answer, the man who was the riri^ht hand of Sir F. Head when he determined to trample upon the despatches of Lords Ripon nnd Glcnel":, to which he had pledged himself when he appealed to the electors of Canada in 1836 ; the mnn who was the right hand of Sir George Arthur on the eve of the execution of Lonnt. and Mathew?, when hundreds of loyal subjects, including myself, pelitioned and implored that no lives might be sacrificed after the suppression of the insurrection, ond in reply to whose entreaties Sir George Arthur, with Legion at his side, said his Council considered the execution of those unhappy men indispensable to the public safely ; the man who was the right hand of Lord Sydenham when moderation was the order of the day ; the man who was the right hand of Sir Chnrles Bagot when the doctrine of equal justice as the fundamental pnnciple of the administration, was preached to the Council of the Johnstown District. This is the man who now charges me with every thing that is mean and vile, and charges the " unhappy Parke" and the " bewildered Vigor" with "corruption" by the " dark and underhand intrigue" of Sir Charles Metcalfe ; this is the man who charges his Excellency with writing " libellous answers" to addresses, and with " tuning his fiddle" of joy and extacy at the conflngratloii of a blazing country, the flames of which he is charged with having kindled. Whether Legion drank, and fiddbd, and dimced, when Sir F. Head was firing the country, or when Lount and Mathews were hanging on thegallows, (uhile hundredsof more courageous, more endangered, and more l^val men than himself implored that Canada might not be made the only spot in the British dominions in which the throne of Victoria coidd not be upheld without hanging men for high treason,) I have not the means of knowing; but a man who can charge ihe humane »nd benevolent Sir Charles Metcalfe with being an inhuman and bloodthirsty Nero, can easily be conceived to sing and shout at scenes over which patriotism and humanity weep. Could I have supposed that the moral qualities of Legion were such as have been deve- loped in these letters, fur be it from me to have spoken of him with the respect and even affoction that I have done in my defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe : far be it from me to have regarded him as I have done in past years. And this is the chosen and acknowledged champion of the late Council and the Toronto Association — sustaining to them the same rela- tion that Barere did to the «* Convention " and "Committee of Public Safety " of the French Revolution. Never have I latterly thought of the career of Legion or read a number of his letters, or the first of his ' "Tracts for the People," without thinking of Barere, whom the* Edinburgh Review for April last (art. 1.) thus describes : "Weaknes?, cowardice, and fickleness were born with him; the best quality which he received from nature was a good temper. These, it. is true are not very promising materials; yet out of maleriols as unpDniising, high sentiments of piety and of honour have sometimes made martyrs and heroes. Rigid principles often do for feeble minds, what stays do for feeble bodies. But Barere had no prirciples at all. His character was equally des- titute of natural and of ncquired strength. Neither in the commerce of lifef nor in books, did weeverbecomeacquainted with anymind so unstable, sout- terly destitute of tone, BO incapable or indopendont thought, so ready to lose them. He resembled those creepers which must lean upon something, and which, assoon as their prop is removed, fall down in utter helplessness. He oould no more stand up, erect and self-supported, in any cause, than the ivy can rear itself up like the oak, or the wild vine shoot to heaven like the cedar of Lebanon. It was barely possible that, under good guidance and in favourable circumstances, such a man might have slipped through life without discredit." « At first he fell under the iniluence of humane and moderate men, and talked the langunge of humanity and moderation. But he soon found himself surrounded by lierce and resolute spirits, scared by no danger and restrained by no scruple. He hud to choose whether he would be their victim or their accomplice. His choice was soon made.'^ "So complete and rapid was the degeneracy of his nature, that, within a few months after the time when he passed for a good-natured man, he had brought himself to look on the despair with misery of his fellow-creatures, with a glee resembling that of the fiends whom Dante saw watching the pool of seething pitch in Maleholge." " He had one quality which, in active life, often gives fourth-rate men and advantage over first-rate men.— Whatever he could do, he could do without effort, at any moment and on any side of any question. Of thinking to purpose he was utterly incapable; but he had a wonderful readiness in arranging and expressing the thoughts furnished to him by others." "There have been men as cowardly as he, a fow as mean, a few as impudent. There may also have been as great liars, though we never met with them, or read of them." «• He brought to the deliberations of the Committee of Public Safety, not indeed the knowledge nor the ability of a greater statesman, but a tongue and a pen which, if others would supply ideas, never paused for want of words. His mind was a mere organ of communication between other minds. It originated nothing; it retained nothing ; it transmitted everything. The part assigned to him by his colleagues was not really of the highest importance ; but it was prominent, and drew the attention of all Europe. When a great measure was to be brought forward, when an account was to be rendered uf an important event, he was generally the mouth-piece of the administration." " The law which doomed him to be the humble attendant of stronger spirits, resembled the law which binds the pilot-fish to the shark. < Ken ye,' said a shrewd Scutch lord, who was asked his opinion of James the First ; ( pp. 68 — 72 ;) respecting which Legion says not one word. S. I have proved by the same testimony that the real question of antagonism between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Counsellors was not the, nor any principle of responsible government, but the distribution of patronage for one party to the exclusion of all others— (p. 79 ;) on which vital point also, Legion is profoundly silent. 4. I have proved by the same testimony that the real question of antagonism was not stated by Mr. Baldwin to the Assembly, nor decided upoB by it— (pp. 74 — 79 ;) which cardinal question likewise is not oycm Botir^ by Legion. 5. I have proved by the same testimony the statements contained in Sir Charles Metcalfe's Protest, in contradistinction and in contradiction to the parliamentary explanation of the late Counsellors— (pp. 53— 74;) on ffbkh Legion is also as he well may be, entirely speechle38, thBttfb dlbotniding in unsupported and refolied assertions against Hie £;«r -U Mjr* 9 6. I have shown by the most rigid examination of statements and wordsi which cannot bo mistaken, and can no longer be perverted, that Sir Charles Metcalfe has from the beginning fully and entirely recognized the Resolutions of 1841 (pp. 84—02 ;) to which fundamental part of niv arffument Legion does not deign to glance, but contents himself with reiterating, without the shadow of evidence, disproved assertions* 7. I have proved by the official and collective testimony of the late Counsellors themselves, that Sir Charles Metcalfe's avowed principles of administering the patronage of the Crown, are precisely 'be same with those which they professed during Sir Charles Bagot's kdministration (p. 110 :) to which Legion makes not tho slightest reterente, but supplies this deficiency by the transcendentalism of his speculations and the vehemence of his abuse against the Governor-General. b. I have proved from the declarations of the Earl of Durham, Lord Sydenham, and Sir Charles Bagot, that they avowed the very same priDct> Sles of administration, with those which are insisted upon by Sir Charles letcalfe (pp. 109, 110 ;) but Legion condescends not even to look down upon these ugly things, yet lauds Lord Durham, does not venture to attack Lord Sydenham, loudly eulogizes Sir Charles Bagot, and loudly abuses Sir Charles Metcalfe. 9. I have proved by the testimony of the London Inquirer, Hamilton Journal ^ Expreta, Toronto Examiner, and Kingston Herald, that the views of the administration of the Government htjld by Sir Charles Metcalfe, arc the same with those which were professed bv the Reformers of Upper Canada in 1841, as well as by the late Counsellors in 1842 (pp. 105—110;) these vulgar facts are too offensive to the refined taste of Legion to admit of his noticing them — the very <' shade of their virus" appears to have operated upon him as a dose of ipecacuanha, and to have induced another copious discharge of scurrillity against His Excellency. I might easily double the number of examples on collateral and minor Soints. I may notice them hereafter. The above are sufficient at present, low, on these nine important facts — embracing every material point in the present discussion — my positions and witnesses and arguments remain as completely untouched, and as entirely unnoticed, as if Legion hod not written a line. And I would leave the subject to the judgment of the public without adding another paragraph, was not Legion regarded as the strength of the Toronto Association, and did not that Association seek to make up in persevenng misrepresentations and calumny, what they want in justice, reason and truth. Having noticed the principal omissions of Legion, I will in subsequent papers adduce and expose his misrepresenta- tions and false statements — the materials with which the Toronto Association build up and cement their party. I will conclude the present paper \;ith two remarks. Legion and the Association organs have dwelt long and loutfupon the fact that Sir Charles M?tcalfe has governed several months without completing his Council.-* I answer, tl at this fact has nothing whatever to do with the original Juestions of difference between His Excellency and his late Counsellors, f their proceedings were unprecedented and unconstitutional (as has been abundantly proved,) they are answerable for all the consequences which have followed, or may follow. If they had resigned on facts, as have all refiigningBriti^Hministers for ahundrcd and fifty years, SirCharles Metcalfe could have formed a new council in less time than did Sir Charles Bagot; and had they conducted themselves at the time of, and subsequent to their r^m 10 resignation, ts did Mr. Draper 'Trheu and after he resigned, a very diflbrent, and mve honourable and beneficial state of things would have ensued. But, failing to establish their own supremacy by secret demand of " stipulation," they sought to gratify disappointed feeling, and accomplish the same object by public impeachment ; and therefore made that th* professed ground of tiieir resignation, and now make it the ground of their proceeding — keeping, as far as possible, their own policy entirely out of sight. This I have shown at large (pp. 73—81 ;) and this Legion him- self asserts. He says — " I have a single point to maintain, and that is that Sir Charles Metcalfe is no friend to responsible government." Such an allegation, coupled with the previous demand, in the circumstances under which it was made, imposed upon His Excellency the necessity of adopting one of three courses — to acknowledge himself practically guilty of the charge, and surrender what he believed then, and what Her Majesty has since declared is, the Sovereign's constitutional right, — to form a high party council, — or wait until the public mind should become fully informed on the questions at issue, when there would be less difficulty in completing' a council that would aid him in governing according to the wishes of the people. His Excellency's choosing the latter course, and in the meaj* time administering the government moderately, has demonstrated his regard to the sentiments and feelings of the country, while maintaining^ constitutional fidelity to the Throne. But even if there be an irregularity in the non-completion of the council for several months, upon U)e lajtf Counsellors rests the responsibility of every irregular proceeding whic^ has necessarily followed from their own irregular proceeding. Their own demand and impeachment, rendered co-operation between the Crown and them as impossible, as if they had averred Her Majesty to be an usurper} and had declared for a republic; nor could any resolutions or numbers alter the necessary duty of the Crown in respect to them, as long as the barrier raised by themselves should not be avowedly removed out of the way. My second remark is, that the organs of the Toronto Association professed a readiness to lay before theii readers both sides of the question,, and began by inserting the introducrury part of my defence of His Excellency ; but as soon as they came to the pith of my argument, they stopped short under various pretexts, as Legion himself has done — spin- ning out hie iHimbers with theories and caiumnies. My replies to hint will be short, simple, and practical. I call upon those editors who have published his long letters — if they wish their readers to hear the other part — to insert my brief replies. E. RYERSON, No. II. Correction of Legion^s Misrepresentations commenced. Tbrouohout his upwards-of-a-dozen letters, Legion is intent on. fa«tening vile imputations upon his Excellency, and in exciting feelings of personal hostility against him. His Excellency's residonce is the "gorgeous camp of the Eastern Satrap;" Sir Charles Metcalfe is '^si colonist-despising governor;" and Ki f;.5alification for governing Canada is, according to Les^ion, his hav»'ig been "governing slaves for forty years." Nay, Sir Charles Metcalfe is a fiddling Nero, amid the fiamea of a blazing country, which ho has "wcntunly" and incendiary-like set on fire. Such is the i>tylQ of political discussion in regard to the Repre- sentative of her MnjpstV, adopted by ihi^ ex-President of the Executive ^ 11 CouBcil-^his member and ex-leader of the Legislative Countiil. It now hafmena that his insinuations are as false as they are indecent and dfabo- ticaf. It is not true that Sir Charles Metcaife has been goverfeing slaves for forty years. It is truo that he has been a colonist forty years; but he has not been governor in a colony five years. In the first colony that he governed he set the press free^ and resigned office in consequence of it, though his free policy has since been adopted by his then displeased superiors. It is true, as stated by Legion, that widows were burnt on the funeral piles of their husbands in that colony; and it is likewise true that Sir Charles Metcalfe established a free press and other collateral instru- mentalities, which have effected the abolition of that inhuman practice. It is true that the second colony which Sir Charles Metcalfe was appointed to govern was really a stave colony when he found it; it is also true that he iiad an act of parliament in his pocket, which authorised him, if he thought proper, to abolish the Elective Apsembly and est«blisb the government of a Governor-in-Council. It is likewise true that he esta^ Dlished the free legislature; that he abolished the last rumnants of slaveryt that in less than two years, he made that hitherto slave colony a free colony— -with a freo House of Assembly, more than one half of the members of which were and still are coloured persons, who had heretofore been serfs or slaves. It is also true that he governed both in India and Jamaica without preference of religious sect or party. It is Airthermore true that he set both India and Jamaica in a blaze, amidst the coruscations of which he might have felt like dancing ; for the blnze was that of a joyous illumination, that the press was unshackled, the widow was to live, caste was to cease, and the slave was free. And when Sir CharLeft Metcalfe found that there were forging by Legion and his compeers th# shackles of a party despotism, as unrelenting as that which he had abolished in India and as exclusive and degrading as that which he had exterminated in Jamaica, he resolved to set his face and stake his all against the establishment of such slavery in Canada; and the blessings of a third colony will yet be upon him, and the blaze of a third illumination will yet throw its splendours around him, as the enemy of tyranny and the Wilberforce of liberty. Legion's first letter is chiefly occupied with quirks, witticisms, and attaci^s upon myself — a subject as foreign to the questions of difference between Sir Chailes Metcalfe and his late Counsellors, as Legion is foreign to truth, in the statements which he makes. I will make the Toronto " Committee of Public Safety" a present of them all, with two or three exceptions. In all his letters. Legion has represented me as threatening the strength >»f the empire agamst the Toronto Committee and its adherents. I made no threat. I stated a fact, and drew an inference. I stated as a faci that the authorites of the empire had decided the question in dispute; as an inference, I said — " The streng-th of the empire will, of course, be employed (if need be) to support the decision of its authorities." Legion has not dared to contradict either my fact or my inference. I expressed precisely such a "threat" in 1B34 — although not on equally strong autho- rity— 4ir}d it was fulfilled in 1837. I suppose the empire will not employ lees strength in 1847, to support the decision of its authorities, than it did in 1837. Perhaps I went too far. It will require but the fractional part of the strength of one province of the empire to deal with the military valour of Legion and his associates — unless there has been a great '* reform" in their heroism since 1837. Legion mny be more ttum a % 12 h Leonidas— he may even be an Achilles in the columna of the Exammer f but I question whether the speed of John Gilpin himself would suffice either for Lsgion or th? Examiner — with the reinforcement of the PUot and the Globe — in the face of a single grenadier of the empire's strength. As I never intimated that Mr. Bidwcll's name was brought before the Law Society, Legion's << much ado about nothing" in relation to it, is only the creation of his own imagination. Legion alleges that Mr. Howard (late Post Master of Toronto) did not "suffer obloquy" on account of his " removal from the Toronto Post Office." Mr. Howard considered his removal from office, under such circumstance, as ruinous to his public character, as he stated both to the colonial and imperial government, and as he afterwards published in his affecting pamphlet: and Legion knows it. The Legion of the Gadarenes seem not to have been more alarmed when they besought a refuge in the swine, than is the Legion of the Toronto Gaderenes at the idea of my appointment as Superintendent of Education. I suppose his fears ere this have subsided. He seems to think that my having had a "controversy," in which I advocated the equal rights and privileges of all religious denominations (and against Legion hunself, in former years), is a capital objection to it — especially as I happen to be a minister — and worse than all, a Methodist minister. What a pity that I had not been an Unitarian .'—there would then have been the "shade of a viris" in the form of an objection- So confident is L^ion on this point, that he says—" I would stake my life on the truth of my allegation, when I say, that no E.vecutive Council would have advised it; nay, more, that neither Mr. Daly, nor Mr. Viger, nor Mr, Draper, ever advised or approved of it." I have only to observe, that in this short passage there are several mistakes — such as Legion has desig-^ natedt in reference to me, " positive falsehoods." He objects to the appointment of any clergyman or minister to the office of Superintendent of Education. Upon the same principle will he and his colleagues object to the appointment of any clergyman as a professor or teacher in any public institution. This is the animus of the policy which has led to the introduction of a phrase into a bill to deprive all clergymen of their elective constitutional rights as citizens — squeezing in their names among those of a great number of public officers. I waa not awaro of the existence of such a phrase, until several months after the session of the legislature. It is— .after the example of the French Revolutionary Convention— an attack upon the clergy of the country; it is a high-handed and tyrannical measure, of the nature of which I have reason to believe the government were not fully aware when they advised the royal assent to be given to it. The tenure and right of public officers and of clergy supported by the government, may be regulated by the government that employs and supports them; but it is a violation or one of the first principles of constitutional liberty, to denude any class of men of their immemorially and universally enjoyed rights as citizens, who are not supported by the government and who obey the laws of the land. A man's elective rights are as much his property as his purse ; and he does not wish to be filched of the one any more than he wishes to be robbed of the other. A clergyman may not often be disposed to exercise his rights as an elector ; but he does not wish to be branded as an alien or as a slave. Let his own conscience and public opinion determine him in doing what he pleases with his own ; but let him not be plundered of it. HAiiLAM, referring to the adoption of some clauses of the Magna Charta, ^ 13 ' obsenres, that " A law which enacts that justice shall neither be sold) denied, nor delayed, stamps with infamy that government under which it had become necessary." So the ennctment of a law which denudes the clergy of all denominations of their hitherto recognized constitutional rights, stamps the present race of them with infamy. It is a maxim of government, that no law shall be passed which is not necessary ; and the advising and slipping through the legislature such a proscription (under the pretext of securing the independence of parlinment), is a declaration on the part of its authors whicli involves a foul imputation upon the clergy of the province, as well as an invasion of their rights. It is, I understand, justly and indignantly viewed in both *hese lights by the Roman Catholic clergy of Lower Canada; I have heard of its having been denounced in strong terms by Presbyterian clergymen, both of the Esta- blishment and Free Church ; the Editor of The Church has strongly ■poken oat on the subject, in behalf of his brethren and himself; and I believe that no minister of proper sensibility can look upon a law which strips him of his elective franchise, and yet leaves him the subject of taxation, without feeling himself proscribed and degraded. In no other Eart of the British dominions, and in no State of the American RepubliCi as such a stamp of infamy been fixed upon the clergy of any church. It was reserved for the invaders of the royal prerogaiire, in Canada, to commence this novel invasion (novel since the days of the French Revo- lution) against the constitutional rights of the clergy. This, judging from the writings of Legion and other facts which have come to my knowledge, seems to be a part and parcel of a general system of policyi which will ultimately withhold legislative aid from any literary institution connected with any church — which will not allow any clergyman to be Superintendent of Education, or officer in any public literary institution-— and which will rescue every part of the public educational system of the province (from the University down to the Primary School) from the contamination of religious instruction, and place the entire public tuition and whole administration of the country upon the broad godless basis of pretended philosophical reason. But I cannot prosecute this subject fur- ther at present. It will require a distinct and thorough discussion, to prevent Canada from ultimately becoming the hot-bed of infidelity. To return from this digression. Legion says — " The constitutional Reform Association of 1834, demanded responsible government ; well, Mr. Ryer- •on prophesied against the demand. There were disturbances, notwith- standing which Lord Durham advised responsible government." Referring to this subject again in his second letter. Legion says— << I have shewn that if he is to be believed, responsible government, which he prognosticated and warned the people of Upper Canada against in 1834, did, in consequence of the agitation commenced in 1834, become the recognised constitution of Canada in 1841, that constitutior being, as he says, adopted by himself, Mr. Sherwood, Sir Charles Metcalfe} and others, and therefore British, lawful, and loyal." Let us now examine these statements a little. Legion informs us first, that the responsible government demander' by the Toronto Asso- ciation of 1834, was granted in 1841 ; secondly, that it was granted in consequence of the agitation commenced by that Association. Both of these statements are wholly untrue. The responsible government demanded by the Toronto Association of 1834, may be judg^ from the following articles of its constitution : / 14 Iti « A responsible representative system of government, and the aboUtaaa of the Legislative Council, the members of which are nominated fbr Kfe bjr ':he Colonial Governors. ** A written constitution for Upper Canada, embodying and declaring the original principles of the government. " The abolition of the law of primogeniture. The extinction of all monopolizing land companies. The vote by ballot in the election «f representatives, aldermen, justices of the peace, be. "To oppose all undue interference by the Colonial Office, Treamiy, or Horse Guards, in the domestic affairs of the colonists." Such was the responsible government demanded by the Toronto Abmk ciation of 1834: and such we are told is the constitution granted in 1841, •—that is, according to the interpretation of the Toronto Association and the late Council, as alleged by their organ, " Legion." When such is the construction put upon the Resolutions of 1841, by the Toronto '< Com- mittee of Public Safety," there ia no difficulty in accounting for the "antagonism" which exists between them and Sir Charles Metcalfis^ respecting those resolutions. But whatever the Legion of Toronto may attempt to extract from the Resolutions of 1841, no candid man will say that they are identical with the demands of the Association of 1894. Then as to my alleged prophecy against the demand of 1834. I con- demned the leading articles of that Association (as quoted above), and did predict that the proceedings of that Association, if not checked, would lead to attempted revolution in the course of five years. The rebellion of 1837 is the witness of what followed from the proceedings of that association. In the next place, as to the "recognized constitution of Canada in 1841," being the " consequence of tlie agitation commenced in 1834:" the rebellion of 1837 was the "consequence" of that agitation ; but before the constitution of 1841 was established, the Toronto Association of 1834 was dissolved in blood ; its leaders were more than silenced and powerless — Legion himself advised the silencing of two of them upon the ffallowB ; — the House of Assembly was in harmony with the Imperial Qovernment and with the Governor-General, who asserted and exercised higher prerogativej than Sir Charles Metcalfe ever did ; and Mr. Draper was leader of the Executive Council of the Government for Upper Canada, ..■«4ind liOgion was not the Barcre of a Toronto " Committee of Public Safety," but the denouncer of all political party associations in the country, AS having produced no good, but endless evil and misery. When such a etate of things returns, then we may expect the efficient and successful operation of the resolutions of 1841. But let it be remembered, that as the Toronto Association of 1834 produced the sufferings and ruin of thoa- sands, and a lasting reproach upon Reform and Reformers, and no good in any respect whatever ; so may the Toronto Association of 1844 be productive of similar fruits. Those who will not learn from experience, muHl blame themselves fur their misfortunes. It is tifact that cannot be successfully denied, that political associations in Upper Canada have not contributed, in one instance during the last fifteen years, to the promotion of civil and religious liberty and that all which has been achieved in both respects, has been effected in the total absence of all political associations and party violence, when the following sentiment of a creat political philosopher actuated each leading mind of the country—" For nj pw^ I I< u bImU always be more fond of promoting moderation than zeal ; though» perhaps the surest way of promoting moderation in every partyi is to InereMe our zeal for the public." Legion's law appears to be on a par with his facti. In answer to a paragraph of my introductory address, he has occupied a considerable portion of his second letter to prove that the question at issue between Sir Charles Metcalfe is a question of local policy, because it " belongs to Canada ;" that it is a party question, because it is " a question between two parties ;" that it is not a question of late, because the " legal authority of the Governor-General was not questioned ;" that it is not a question of constitutional law, or the appeal would be made to the Colo< nial or Imperial courts. Upon the same principle, we might argue that aeparation from Great Britain is a question of local policy, because it '< be- longs to Canada ;" that it is " a party question because it is a question between two parties" — the one for, and the other against the separation ; that it is not one of law, because the " legal authority of the Governor is iiot questioned ;" that it is not a question of constitutional law, or an ap- peal would be made to the Colonial or Imperial courts. Legion ought to know, and were he not resolved to advocate party without regard to truth} he would say, that the branch of the prerogative involved in the question is cognizable by the high court of Parliament alone ; that the Resolutions of 1841 are not a statute, but a House of Assembly opinion and record of an understanding between the Executive and that House, In that record ttifl^vdrmu^Gaoefal is declared to be responsible to the Imperial authe- rity alone ; and as the Ilouse of Assembly, according to those resolutions, can only demand of the advisers of the Crown an account of their own acts, and as they did not resign upon their own acts, but upon an alleged and deuiad act of the Governor-General, the cose is one which should have been brought before that tribunal to which alone the Governor-General is responsible within the limits of his government. The question is thera- for<>) as much an imperial one as any question of commerce between Canada and the United States. The late Counsellors refusing to bring the ques- tion before the only tribunal where it can be constitutionally tried, argues conscious wrong on their part, both in point of fact and constitutional right. This is sufficient at present in reply to Legion's sophistical non- •ense against the prerogative. His reasoning being as migratory and re- migratory as his political opinions, (if he have any,) becomes in lusty contact with this subject in subsequent letters, and in pursuing him I may tajce further occasion to show that he comes equally in contact with colo- nial connexion, constitutional right, common sense, and matter of fact. In the course of a couple of columns of hits at myself, (which I also pre* oent to the Toronto " Committee of Public Safety," as a special acknow- ledgment of their constitutional right to all that is false, and vulgar^ and mean,) L«egion has sundry sayings about party. The politics of party ap- pear now to be his magnum bonum. He dwells upon them to the length of three letters. With him now party is patriotism ; party is responsible gpreinment ; party is liberty ; party is virtue. Such were not the senti- meats of the late Dr. Williams, when, iu one of his Lectures on Educationi be said-— " Virtue isthe great transparent river, which gives general beau- ty and happiness io the moral world ; the politics of parties are little dirty creeks and puddles, which elevated and noble minds never approach with-r ont disgust." I have stated distinctly that Sir Charles Metcalfe has never said one word against carrying on the government by or through a party ; ao that Legion in his columns of argument on this point, is fighting with a man of strow, set up by himself, and represented by him as Sir Charles Met- calfe, according to the tactics and pleasure of the Toronto " Committee of Public Safely." Now, Legion's three long letters on party government may be answered by three lines from the Hon. R. B. Sullivan, the Legia- lative Councillor, who concluded his speech of the 30th of last Novembery with the following words : « Although so much could not be gathered from his Excellency's letter, he (Mr. Sullivan) hoped— he hoped — ^^fuat a coAUTiorr could br FoaMBD, having the entire conjidence of the people, and ilanding before the Aisem- bly as r sponsible for their acta." It appears from this extract, that down to the time of writing his letter of protest, and even in that letter, Sir Charles Metcalfe made no proposal of a "coa/iViW Council ; but Mr. Sullivan — ^the retiring President of the Council— did, and " hoped,'' and " hoped" for it. With what uniformitjr and generous patriotism has this proposal been carried out by Mf. Sulli- van and his colleagues since last November ! I present this proposal like- wise, with all its "recreant limbs," to the Toronto "Committee of Public Safety," as one of the choice gems of the Hon. vituperator of the Gover- nor-General and their appropriate representative. JVb. III. Correction of Legion's Misrepresentations continued — his criticisms on facts of British his- tory refuted, and his conduct and views shown to be incompatible with the principles and practice of the British Constitution. Had Legion observed the decorum and dignity of style which became a Legislative Counsellor and the ex-President of the Executive Council, it would have afforded me much pleasure to have replied to him in a style of respect suitable to the exalted stations which his Sovereign had appointed him to fill. But when, forgetful of his own rank, or the still higher rank of his Sovereign's Representative, or only employing the weight of the former to give effect to vile aspersions upon the latter, he descends to a style of writing below that of the London Satirist, the exaltation of hit^ rank, with its attendant advantages, aggravates his offences, and demands the severer punishment. This demand is greatly increased, when his state- ments and insinuations against her Majesty's government, and her Majes- ty's Representative, tire as false as they are indecent. Several of these have been noticed ; others will be hereafter noticed. I will notice one in this place. In his first, and several of his succeeding letters. Legion has coupled the name of Sir Charles Metcalfe with that of Ogle R. Gowan, in a way to represent his Excellency as the abettor, or confrere of C tange- men ; an imputation which, no man knows better than Leg ^n, is wholly destitute and the reverse of truth. It has been stated upon the best autho- rity— «8 Legion well knows— that Mr. Gowan never had but one private interview with his Excellency— that that took place (according to his Ex- cellency's desire) a few days before the ISthof July, 1843, and solely wiUi a view by his Excellency to prevent Orange exhibitions on that day, and to induce the dissolution of Orange societies. The fact unwittingly stated by Legion that about that time there was a good deal of talk respecting eat. Such is his answer to my appeal to British Practice — tanta- fBOHnt to a practical pl«a of guilt for the violation of it on the part of him- «e(f «ind colleagues. Now, in one point I agree with Legion. I think Lord Orford and Lord Somers ought to have resigned ; not, however, because they were not consulted, but because the Partition Treaty was a bad measure. Had they resigned upon this latter ground, then I agree further with Legion, " they woiiud bave escaped censure, and placed themselves in a position to accuse ibe real advisers of the treaty." But had they resigned upon the ground of itheir right to be consulted, (the Legion-Baldwin gruund,) then the merits or demerits of the treaty itself would have been put out of the ques- 4iwi ; then no advisers of the treaty could have been got at, because the ireay would iK>t have been the matter in dispute ; then the King alone wpumI bave been the object of the accusation ; the King alone would have 20 r b«eii the alleged culprit before the Parliament and the nation. But bad they resigned on the treaty itself, then the justice and expediency of the treaty would have been the subject of Parliamentary inquiry ond decision ; then their successors would have been placed in the position of the real advisers of the treaty ; and Lords Orford and Somers " would have placed themselves in a position to accuse the real advisers of the treaty." But by voluntarily renmininn; in ofRoc, with its emoluments, Orford and Somers placed themselves in the position of the real advisers of the treaty, and were so judged. And though they sought to excuse themselves indivi- dually, they did not attempt to shelter themselves and ask the support of Parliament, by charging the Crown with unconstitutional opinions and conduct ; although they had stronger ground for doing so than is even pretended by Legion and his colleagues. Now, had the late Counsellors resiffned upon ^icts— the appointments about which they have said so much, but q/* which they will give us not one fact, not a particle of infor- mation— 4hen their successors would have been placed in the position of the real advisors of those appointments ; and then the expediency or inex- pediency of those alleged appointments and tho policy involved in thetn, would have come fairly before the Parliament and before the country, and the decision of Parliament would have influenced the future policy of go- vernment, and determined the advisers of it. But they did not do so. — Like Lord Orford and Lord Somers, long after the alleged acts of the head of the government took place, they voluntarily clung to office and its emo- luments ; they thereby prevented any others from assuming the position of real advisers of those acts ; had nothing been said about those acts, it is possible the late Counsellors would havo continued to remain as quietly in their places as they had done (how long we know not) before their col- lision with the Governor-General. But, it appears, they did like to defend those acts when called in question in Parliament, as well they had done to tacitly assume the responsibility of them ; yet they appear to have deter- mined to do so, provided the Governor-General would " come to an under- standing" to adopt their recommendations in future ; that is, they would defend his past acts if he would endorse their future acts, by agreeing to make no " appointment prejudicial to their influence," and virtually de- claring at the same time that no appointments should be given to the party of their opponents. The Queen's Representative not agreeing to such a stipulation, they found themselves in a dilemma, to extricate them- selves from which and accomplish their objects, they determined to come before Parliament with an accusation against his Excellency for having unconstitutionally performed those very acts the responsibility of which they had voluntarily assumed by their continuance in office, and which they would have defended had the Governor-General agreed to pay them their demanded price for so doing. Their conduct is fur beneath that of the Earl of Orford and Lord Chancellor Somers, and stands condemned in every respect by the practice thus appealed to. I had also appealed to facts in the history of George the Third and George the Fourth ; to which Legion answers thus : " Again, because George the Third would allow of scarcely any mini- sterial interference in the appointment of Bishops, and because Ministers chose to remain responsible for his appointments, Mr. Ryerson would ar- gue that it is the duty of all Ministers 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, he acted constitutionally, and whether he wns acting con&'^ientiously and justly in rendering persons lia- 21 ble to puniahment for acts in which ho would allow no interference ? Had the Ministers, who were not allowed to interfere, resigned, nmi had the reason of their resignation been required and given, what would be said of George the Third if he had put furth public docunienty in his own name, saying the Minibters were disaffected, and thm they hud attempted to make a tool of him 1 But, Sir, Queen Victoria ia a:i ^'uod un exuniple as George the Third : she dues not couiplain of bcin^j made a tool of, though the ladies of her own chamber aio intcrltired wiih. But again, Sir, the Duke of Wellington was Cabinet Minister when George the Fourth made two military appointments without his knowledge, and tiic Minister got his first information in the newspapers : the question here again is, not what George the Fourth did, but, was this act so extraordinary as to be men- tioned in history as a right and constitutional act ? and had the Duke of Wellington complained, as probably he did, and been told there was an antagonism between the King and himself, and that the King had an in- flexible determination to do just as he pleased, and that the Duke's con}- plaint was an attempt to make a tool of him ; and had the Duke resigned because be considered that advising was his duty, and not an infringement of the royal prerogative, what would Parliament have said upon the ques- tion ? But Mr. Ryerson says, that neither the Duke of Wellington or Mr. Pitt came down with an impeachment against the Sovereign. One very good reason was, because they remained in office, and chose to be responsible for these acts of the Sovereign : another is, that if they had explained in Parliament, their explanation would be a defence of them- selves for resigning. If their principles were upheld, those of the Sove- reign must have been denied ; and no one could havvj called the defence an impeachment of the Sovereign." Here, again, I have to remark that Legion, while he is compelled to ad- mit my facts, misrepresents both my sentiments and my argument. I •have not thought or said, from the beginning to the end of my defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, that the Sovereign or the Governor ought to make appointments or decide upon any measures without knowing the senti- ments of his advisers ; I have denied and produced in proof his own posi- tive statement that his Excellency has not done so ; nor have I said or thought of saying that ministers ought to remain in office when their ad- vice ia not asked or taken ; nor has Sir Charles Metcalfe said so, or inti- mated any thing of the kind. These perpetually recurring representations throughout Legion's letters are his own imaginary creations, unsupported ' by a single proof, and contrary to fact. My appeal was to British practice, to which the late Counsellors also pretended to appeal. In such an appeal, it is of course assumed that Bri- tish practice is authority in the case. But Legion flies from that tribunal of appeal, and arraigns its acts with as little ceremony as he does those of Sir Charles Metcal^. I appeal to the example of William the Third and his ministers ; Legion replies by attacking them right and left. I appeal to George the Third and his ministers ; Legion says, in reply, George the Third "did many things that were wrong ;" for which I suppose Legion and hia colleagues would have served him as they ore trying to serve Sir Charles Metcalfe — ostracise him. I appeal to the example of George the Fourth and one of his ministers ; Legion says, the question is not what George the Fourth did ! With what patriotic valour would Legion and his colleagues have fought against successive British Sovereigns, had they been in the place of the Orfords, and Pitts, and Wellingtons of imperial cabinets ! The thrones of the Brunswick Sovereigns would have been ■<• 22 I i Imb Mcure than thoge of tho Stuarta, undor the direction of such Coua- •eUon and such doctrines. Such proceedings long ere this would have converted England into a cruel oligarchy or bleeding republic. 1 have appealed to these undisputed and admitted facta of British prat- • (tee for a threefold object : — 1. To prove that British Sovereigns haa per- formed acts similar, or of a stronger character than those which the lata counsellors have even alleged against Sir Charles Metcalfe, i. To prove that British Ministers had never resigned upon the manner in which th<»w acts were performed, or the abstract prerogative assumed fn them, but upon •thQ ojilf themselves, without ever bringing the prerogative into question. 9. To prove that in the extremest exercise end assertion of the preroga- tive in England, no minister ever came down to parliament with the de- claration tliat the Sovereign held opinions inconsistent with the constitm- tion, as settled in 1688, and had performed acts subversive of that consti- tution, in consequence of which he and his colleagues could no longer retain oflSce, without sacrificing the constitutional rights of themselves eal * their fellow-subjects. It is perfectly clear from the facts which I have adduced and which are admitted by Legion, that the Earl of Orford, Lord flomers, Mr. Pitt, and the Duke of Wellington might have made such de- clarations to parliament, upon stronger grounds than those on which the late counsellors have made similar declarations against Sir Charles Met- calfe. Suppose the British ministers mentioned had thus proceeded ; suppose the British Sovereigns referred to had remained inflexible ; and suppose the British Parliament and the majority of the people of Englaed had sustained such ministers ; then there would have been three revole- tions, or, at least, three civil wars in England, since that of 1688. Bet those distinguished British Ministers knew their duty, and knew the Bri- tish Constitution too well, to adopt or sanction for a moment such a pro- ceeding as that which Legion and his compeers liave adopted and under- takee to defend. Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Wellington never thought of. gang to their Sovereign and making such a demand as to the future dis- tributioa of patronage, as I have proved from themselves, the lale coonr eeUera made of the Governor -General. Legion, in the above quotation, assigns two reasons why neither Mr. Pitt nor the Duke of Wellington did not come down with an impeachment ag«inst the Sovereign. His reasons imply that they might have impeach- ed the Sovereign, and tha*: " if their principles were upheld, those of the Sovereign must have been denied." If the principles of the Sovereign can be tried and condemned by Parliament, then is the Sovereign respo*- sibie to Parliament ; then may he do wrong ; then may he be punished ; each of which conclusions is at variance with a fundamental principle ot ibe British Constitution. Legion quotes the example of Queen Victoria. He is as unfortunate in lUM quotation as be is unconstitutional and absurd in his reasoning. The Q/tttMo's acceding to the advice of her ministers respecting certain appoint- owBts, has no more reference to such a question as that now under dis- icussion, than it has to a game of cricket. But the Queen decided anu ,«tated in her own name, tliat such an interference was contrary to usagCj /Md sf aiost her feelings. Sir Robert Peel did not question her right thus (to decide, but declined becoming responsible for such an act. Other rai- jiisters assumed the responsibility uf it. Parliament was dissolved ; an appeal was made to the nation ; the nation condemned the interference of ;Sir Rdsert Peel, and he remained out of power two years, when he gained M floajority in parliament on the corn-law question. The Ladies of th0 ti 2:1 Bed-chamber then resigned with their Lords ; so that Sir Robert T^'S^ ai4 no removala to recommend— only vacancies to fill up. In refer, ihtt example of Queen Victoria, to which, with Legion, I am happy to appeal, and in reference to the very interference to which he alludes, Vow RACiiBa — >the celebrated German professor, and writer on fciiigland— maken the following remarks in his work entitled " England in 1841," under dat« London, July 11, 1841 : ^'Queen Victoria was fortunate enough to find, in Lord Melbourne, « paternal friend, who, fc^ from seeking, with short-sighted presumption, to« ' give her a dislike for p olic business, endeavoured rather to habituate and attach her to it. Accordingly, the reproach that the Queen was inexpe* tienced, and indiflferent, was soon changed into the opposite ext<-eme ; and it was loudly affirmed that she took too decided a part, and that her flrm- ness of character degenerated into unconstitutional self-will. Many ad- herents of the modern political doctrines, desire entirely to set aside tho personal character of kings : they imagine that the less knowledge and rodividual will, thought, and feeling — the less decision of character, a mo« nareh possesses, the better is he qualified to fill the place of a symbol at present indispensable. As Diogenes presented the cock stripped of hi* feathers as the representative of a perfect man, so do they present a kingy stripped of all kingly qualities, o,s their ideal nf royalty ! — In a kingdon, where every one claims, as an individual right, the liberty of maintaining his political and religious opinions, where the most decided extremes dmrI together, and each party endeavours to support its own views, how can it be required that the Queen alone should have no opinion, no thoughts, no fbe'ings of her own ? Queca Victoria has, in no instance, violated the constitution, tu follow her own ambition. She was silent when her eon- sort (certainly with the observance of the legal forms) was refused what waa immediately afterwards granted him : it was only when demandi were made of her, without sufficient reuHon, which the meanest of her subjects would not have tolerated, that she manifested becoming spirit and fteling, and proved that she knew how to assert her own liberty." It might have been supposed that Legion's historical knowledge would have extended as far as the reign of Queen Victoria ; but evian in respect to our youthful and beloved Queen, he is a most unfortunate quoter of *^ wise saws and modern instances." If there have been a shadow of doubt as to the conclusiveness of my ai - guoient in reference to British practice against the late counsellors and in defence of the Governor-General, that doubt will be removed by the com- vHete failure of Legion to set aside a single fact that I have adduced — by his substantial plea of guilt in his attempts to war again' ° William the Third, George the Third, George the Fourth, and now Qut, ^^ictoria— against Lord Orford, Lord Somers, Mr. Pitt, and the Duke of \v ellingtoni WB well as against Sir Charles Metcalfe. JViiK IV. Legion^ 8 omission of the vital part of the argument, on the mode of the late Counsellors' . resignation — Exposure of his misrepresentations and evasions continued. In comparing Legion's lengthened answer to my third number, on the mode of the Ittto Counsellors' resignation, with what I bad written on 24 the subject, I liave been surprised to observe, more fully than I had at. first imagined, that he has passed in silence over the vital part of mt argument, and concentrated and laid out all his strength upon the preli- minary and subsidiary portions of it. The citadel of my argument is not even attacked; whilst this Hr ties of the Toronto Association wields his club with z. iUzing prowess against some of my outworks. The vital point of my argument — Ihat with which I commenced, and which constitutes its essence, througliout my third number— was, that •the late Counsellors did not come before Parliament with a caae of facta, which I had shewn to be essential to a ministerial explanation of the kind involved in this discussion. On this cardinal point, Legion is entirely eilent. The establishment of this point is essential to the first step of the justiticat'on of tlie late Counsellors, as the proof that a claimant of property is the person whom he represents himself to be, is essential to the establishment of his claim. Whatever else he might prove about the property or about himself, if he neglect or fail to establish that point, his case would be dismissed with costs, without being even submitted to a jury. In a court, I might therefore claim judgment against Legion by default, lie has not appeared to answer to the charge. Ho has talked and reasoned abouttmany things, but he has not said one word about ih thing itself— he has not faced the argiiment. All that I have said, there- fore, respecting the case of facts, and the fearful consequences to the Sovereign, the Throne, and the public peace, in consequence of a disre- gard of it, stands unimpaired and even unnoticed by Legion. The essence, the life, the suul of my case is unreached by the adversary^ the exterior members of it only have even been struck at. Now, in his two long letters of professed reply to my comparatively short number on this subject, Legion ought to have said something on the question. He has, it is true, raised a prodigious dust, and made an extraordinary swagger, but dust is not argument, nor is swagger proof ; except, in the vocabuuiry , and service of the Toronto Association. After all their attempts to obscure and darken the subject by evasion, by misrepresentation, by digression and scurrility, the real question stands out v/ith the prominency of the Eddystone Liglit-house in the British Channel, where is themintf- I terial case of facts f I have denied its existence ; I have, I venture to say (as will appear presently), proved to demonstration, that all the late Counsellors stated to Pailinment, in Uie form of an explanation, did not amount to a case of facts, did not approach it — no more resembles it than darkness resembles light. 1 will reduce the whole argument to about as many lines us Legion writes columns. A case of facts is a statement agreed upon by diifetent parties, and laid by mutual agreement before the tribunal authorized to decile upon the case involved. The late Counsellors laid no such statement — written or verbal—* before the Parliament. Therefore, their explanation v.'as not a case of facts. Again. No Sovereign or Governor in his senses would authorise his ^ advisers to make any statemen*. they pleased of matters of diderence between him and them; or to state any other than a case of facts. The late Counsellors did not state such a case. Therefore, their statement was unauthorined. Legion himself is witness that their explanation was not a ca$9offactCf but an ex-far te statement ; fur he calls the Governor General's letter ment maintains, come before Parliament with an ex-parte statement, u an explanation, then there is no end to such disputes as nor agitate the country, there is no security whatever fur the reputation or character o^ the Monarch or the Governor, as I have shewn at large (pp. 29-93), and to which Legion makes not one vt^ord of reply. They may represent him an enemy to the constitution, and so damage his character and excite duch hostility against him as to dethrone him, or render him unable td command the assistance contemplated by the constitution in carrying on the government. And Legiop 'night as well contend that Sir Charleii Metcalfe had authorised them to /^ut his throat, as to contend that he had authorised them to make a statement calculated to blast his characteh The attempt to prove such a case is as imprudent and absurd— as gross an insult to the common sease of the reader— as the conduct to which it refers is un-British and insulting and dangerous to the Sovereign. That such was the nature and tendency of the conduct of the late Counsellors towards Sir Charles Metcalfe, is thus stated in an editorial article of the Kingston Chronicle ^ Gazette, of August 28th : '< The difficulty which Sir Charles Metcalfe has experienced in forming a council, has arisen from an impression very generally entertained by the Canadian constituencies— that he has desired, at least, to controul the full and free exercise of the constitution. They do not deny that ho admits its existence, yet they feel that he does not cordially approve of it, and that he would if he could be freed from its trammels, which it imposes upon him. Had not this impression prevailed, Sir Charles Metcalfe might have chosen whom he pleased as hiscoxmcil, and he would have found a very large majority of the country determined to support his adnunis- tration." The fact so well stated by the Chronicle ^ Gazette is trumpet.tongued. It tells us that the representative of the Sovereign has been prevented for several months from completing an administration because of a " pre- valent impression," not that he wishes to do injustice to any man, sect, or party, but that he is an enemy of the constitution — has a political leprosy which involves every one that approaches him in the reproach and pros- cription oP the infection ! It is an anomaly which has no precedent in British history since the days of James the Second; though (as is admitted in the quotations which I made from Legion in the preceding number) successive British Sovereigns have done more than the late Counsellors have alleged against Sir Charles Metcalfe. Did ever Mr. Pitt, or the Duke of Wellington, or Earl Grey, or Sir Robert Peel, come before Parliament aad the British public, and represent the Sovereign as infected with an unconstitutional leprosy which renders it impossible for them to aid him in carrying on the government A'ithout endangering and ulti- mately destroying the constitution, and that they had the Sovereign's gracious permission to make that explanation to Parliament ? Was ever a British Sovereign represented in such a light and placed in such a posi- tion before the British nation ? No, nor would the people of England suffer for a single day their Sovereign to be placed in such a positioA ; and far better would it be for the British government (if their interference be required) to give Canada away, than to suffer the Queen's Represent- 26 atlvc thus to be murdered in his character and trampled under foot ; and that too by a proceeding the antipodes of British practice. There arc two features in which the parliamentary explanation of the Ivte Counsellors essentially differ from every explanation which any resigning British minister ever made to Parliament. 1. JVo explanation of any rt signing British minister ever implicated the character of hit Sovereign, as being inimical either in his principles or acts to the esta- blished constitution. 2. In regard to such an explanation^ there newer teas a dispute between the Sovereign and resigning ninisters either in respect to the correctness or omissions of facts. Whether the fact or facts causing the resignation of ministers were so simple, that misrepre- sentation or misunderstanding of them was impossible, as in the case cited by Legion, when Lord Grey resigned on the refusal of the Sove- reign to create a large number of Peers (in which case a written state- ment was superfluous); or whether such was the confidence of the Sove- reign in the retiring minister's judgment and honour, that a verbal communication only was required, there was never any dispute between the retiring minister and the Sovereign, or any others in behalf of the Sovereign, in regard to correctness or fairness of the statement, Hv. ce the just and shrewd observation of the Quebec Gazette in respect to my defence and Legion's letters, that « Canadian literature will have to boast of what no other country can furnish an example, two volumes about nux- understandings betiveen persons in situations of mutual confidence.^* The above two facts would in a week have decided the fate of the strongest English Cabinet that ever existed. Yet on those two factS} and what I have shewn to be the essence of my argument, Legion ia ojb silent as Patience looking at Grief. But for his silence on the essential parts of the argument, he makes ample amends in the volubility of his misrepresentations and quibbles on the circumstantial parts of it. A few examples will suflice. On page 20, 1 have used the following words : " Having stated the responsibility of ministers, let us now consider the grounds of their resignation, ai.d mode of jitstification before Parliament. They may resign on various grounds. For examplf , they may fall in a minority in one or both Houses of Parliament ; then the ground of their resignation can be explained without divulging any secret. Sometimes one or more ministers may resign on account of a difference or differences with their colleagues ; then almost any mode of explanation may be safe, as both parties are in the same house, and on the same footing, and are equally responsible for their stateuients and opinions. Again, ministers may resign on account of a difference with their Sovereign. That diffe- rence may be evinced by the Sovereign's disregarding their advice, either by rejecting or by deciding without it. This ground of resignation involves matters of more delicacy than either of the fornvor; and, accoK]- in[, ;', British usage requires the use of more form and precaution in exp! ining it." On this paragrapli, Legion makes the following remarks : "But, Sir, discussions in council are subject to tlie sane obligations of secrecy, whether the Sovereign takes part in them o. not, or whether the Sovereign is udvidcd by a new minister or l)y one or more of the old ones. Mr. Ryersun's distinction is unfounded, dangerous, and unconsti- tutional ; a Sovereign's personal character requires no such guard as Mr, Ryersun imagines ; it cuii never be called in question, legally or consti- tutionally.' 27 insti- Mr. iDSti- Now mark the misrepresentation of my words. I had not said— did not say— nor thought of saying-, that one kind of discussion in the council was less subject to the obligation of secrecy than another. On the fol- lowing (21st) page, I said — "No minister can lawfully divulge any thing that has transpired in the councils of his Sovereign, without permission of the crown." Out of the many reasons for the obligation to secrecy, I assigned one in the following words : "One of the many reasons for this obligation to secrecy is, the security of the reputation, if not the very crown of the Sovereign. If incensed or disappointed ministers could tell what they please about the opinions and acts of the Sovereign, then might they excite such hatred against him as would lead to his dethronement; or, if a representative of a Sovereign, to his removal ; and thereby inflict upon his character indelible disgrace and infamy. The Sovereign's character, as well as his crown, should there- fore be sacred." In answer, Legion says—" A Sovereign's personal character requires DO|^uard, as Mr. Kyerson in:agines ; it can never be called in queatiou legally, or constitutionally.''^ This last phrase contains the very doctrine of a great part of my defence ; and I have maintained throughout, that because the late Coun- sellors have called his Excellency's choracter in question, they have acted ** unconstitutionally." Sir Charles Metcalfe's " character," appears in a very different light before the country now from what it did ten months ago. Who has arraigned it? Who has impeached it? Who has "called it in xjnestian ?" A man's character consists, of course, of his principles, fedings, and acts. Now, have not the late Counsellors represented the Governor General's principles, and feelings, and acts, as alien io the con- stitution of Canada ? They have by speech, writing and organization, been calling the "personal character of the Representative of the Sove- reign in question" for several months, and have therefore, according to Legion's own admission, acted "illegally and unconstitutionally." And the conduct of tho late Counsellors themselves has also proved not only that " the character of the Sovereign does need the guard which' I hnagine," but that even that "guard" is '• efficient to protect it from being "called in question" by certcin Canadian counsellors and their abettors. Again, Legion says — " But if a Sovereign condescends to make per- sonal accusations, and to p!ace subjecls on their defence against them, there are iQferences which must be drawn frond the defence, which no fiction can avoid." But what are the accusations of the Governor General in the present case ? They are the "personal accusations" of a defeneive protest against spontaneous aggressive "personal accusations" which had been preferred against him by his retiring confidential advisors — accusations which charged his Excellency with being an enemy in principle, feeling and practice, to the established constitution of Canada. There can bo no defence without an implication of the author or authors of the charge or charges preferred, llad the late Counsellors regarded the principle admitted by Legion himself, that the "Sovereign's personal character can never be called in question lcj,Mlly or constitutionally," they would not have impeached the pnnciples, and feelings, and acts of the Governor General. Had there been no inipoachninnt or "accusations," there would have been no defence or protest ; and had there been no defence or pro- 28 Um^ t|#fe wouU baYe b«^ qpqf of the <^ persoiwl fccucwtiooa?' to wliich I^^ag^ia ief«rf . f hp lM^>are fouojoed upioiii a ah^ume- fal ntjppreumn of a part of my words, and a dowi^right misrepresentatiofL odf my seatin;3nts ! For immediatdy after the words quoted by l^gipn,, 9ic% the following words :--•" Cabinet consuUation* ordin/arUy may be, tmbt^l, for ^he^C^inet is a body not known in law. It is with the actiif, of ^ govermnent, and not with the modes of tuter^ourae between it» 9M9tr hturet that parliament has to do. And of these octM writttu docwn^^^f ar^ tb4 99^ kgitim^e proof," (P. 33.). .i> -^yrm^ i. It is thus that the whole strength of Legion's letters consist? in an adroitness and unscrupulous effVontery, such as I have never seen equalled in misrepresenting my reasoning and sentiments. Asniinst my argument that the late Counsellors ought to have furnished the; Governor-Qeneral with a statement of their demands in writing. Legion argues at length, with his usual fairness. The very disputes now before the country as to the real ground of difference between the. Governor-General and his late Counsdlnrs, are demonstration itself, of the correctness and importance of my argument. Had they furnished such a statement, I should not have thouffht it necessafy to write one word on tke subject ; nor would there have been any occasion, or indeed any possi- bility 01 the discussion which has taken place, and of the consequences which may follow. This single stubborn fact is of more weight in the q^e8tion than volumes of evasion and sarcasm. :,, ^.^ ^,^<^ Legion adduces the examples of Mr. Pitt in 1801, and Lord Grey in 1832, who verbally tendered their advice to their Sovereigns — whose edvice was verbally rejected by the Sovereign who gave his verbal perm's- sion for them to make a verbal explanation to pat .lament This is Legion's argument, stated in the fewest words and strongest light. He adds: — ^ It is curious to observe, in these transactions, wliat is like to luose we have witnessed in this Province, and what is unlike. In the first place 4kere is a qjupstion of prerogative in both ; advice upon the question of MMogative in both; i^fuaal to adopt their advice in bojthk a diAirqoci) between the Sovereign and his Ministers in both." ^ ,...<.; .j. „,j,,i ^y^^i^ i Tb« lalla^X an(i unloirn^ac qi thie most plausible part of Legion's ajSMi^eqtmay be expected by any school-boy. In the tirat place, I have shewn, contrary to Legion's representation of my statement, that Qalm^A consultations are ordinarily verbal. In the next place Mr. Pitt advised the measure of Roman Catholic emancipation; Earl Grey ^vised the act of creating a number of peers. Here was a speciiic fact in each case, respecting w-hich thete could be no misunderstanding — no misrepresentation — nothing which implicated or involved the principles and feelings of the Sovereign respecting the system of responsible govern- meiiiit, which had been established since 1688. Mr. Pitt and Lord Grey did not go to their Sovereign to ascertain his views on that subject, and to procure from him an " understanding' as to th" principle on which he woiifal administer it in respect to the distributior patronage. Haid Mr. Pitt and Lord Grey ^one to their Sovereign with such a propositioni vaA such a demandi thev would have soon been shewn the way out of the palace, and out of office too. Hera is the poies-apart difference between the Pitts and Greys of England, and the pretended Pitts and Greys of Canada. Here is the toto calo diflerence in the two cases. Had the Pittt and Greys of Canada gone to advise the Governor-General in favour of sQilie nieisura to be brought into parliament, such, for example, as the {uroperty tax faikl, aod be refused ; or hod they advised the creation of a nuaaber of LegisUUive Counsellors, t« enable th«n to remove the Seat of GoveiOn meet, or the appointment of certain persona or person to office^ and he reftised ; then there would have been some tluule of a^inity l^ween their position, and pcofceedii^s, oiid those of the genuine Mr.. Pitt and Earl Gnf ; and then might a verbal advice and explanation bave been sufll^ cioit and safe^ as permitted by the Sovereign. And these remarks furnish the key to Legion's sophistry in the lasl paraffraph quoted above. The fisst phrase contains a fallacy, the detection of which, like the removal of the key-stone of an arch, will prostrate tho whole structure. He says <* there is a question of prerogative in both.*^ It is true there " is a question of prerogative in both ;" but it is also true) the << question of prerogative" in the one, is as different fh>m th» ** question of jH'erogative " in the other, as the right of the prerogative and the binding of the prerogative is different from the exercise of the prerogative. The rigft^ of a man to- his farmland the oc^ of aman^ •eUing his farm, or refusing to sell it when advised, are two dilBerent thingst although they are both embraced in the ** question of preregative " rec^ pecting' his property. To deny or to demand a man's right of property, and to advise him to exercise it, involve alike '^a question of prerogative" but in totally diflRsrent senses. The real Pitts and Greys of England, advised the exercise of the prerogative as cases did occur ; the shMOwy Pitta and Greys of Canada demanded tb:; royal exposition of it, and a» agreement or "understanding" in nspect to a particular mode ef exerdting it when cases saouju) occur.' Th«; diJBference then in ''the question ef prerogative " in the two cases is, the difference between the exercise of the prerogative^ and the right of the nrerogative— the difference between the /reeebm of the prerogative and the binding of the prerogative*, Tiiis vast and fundamental difference in the "question of prerogative " iii k^ out of sight by Lpgion, but constitutes the ^fiercnce in the two oaaes»<-destroya the attempted analogy of the two cases ; and the dil^ eace in the nat«ire of the "question of prerogative" in the twocoaes) involves, of course, a corresponding difierenoe in the advice (or mtiiet dnmnnd in one instance) ofiered the ration of it, the grounds of vtmgnor, ftofi and eocplanation. J. ^rr^W^'TT^^WWy^' # 30 Thus the very precedents of Legion become so manv additional witnesses against him ; so many additional witnesses in favour of the Goyemor-General. The only remaining precedent, Legion is compelled to confess is directly against the late Counsellors ; so direct and complete that he can neither evade or disguise it ; but parries it by saying " one swallow does not make a summer." This is his mode or setting aside the authority of British practice as illustrated in the example of the Queen and Sir Robert Peel, in 1839 ; in which case the proposal of Sir Robert Peel and the reasons for it, the refusal of Her Majesty and the grounds of it, — ^the resignation of Sir Robert Peel, and the request for permission to explain, — 4Uid Her Majesty's permission for him to explain — were all in tcritingf and all read by Sir Robert Peel as his explanation. To all this Legion replies ''one swallow does not make a summer." In his second number he thought otherwise, when he said "Queen Victoria is as good an example as George the Third." We are now told " one swallow does not make a summer." It now happens, that of the several cases appealed to in this and the preceding number, that of Her Majesty and Sir Robert Peel is the only one which involved " a question of prerogative " in any degree in the sense in which the question of prerogative is involved in the present case. Sir Robert Peel did advise Her Majesty to do what she not only refused to do, but respecting which she asserted as a prerogative sanctioned by usage, her right to consult her own feelings independent of ministerial advice ; an assertion of prerogative which Sir Charles Metcalfe has not made. The question, therefore, did involve in some degree the principlea nndfedingt of the Sovereign. Measures and facts may be stated safely in various ways, and in a variety of language ; but the statement of a question, or decisions involving principles and feelings, requires the utmost precision of language^the variation of a word or particle may involve the most serious mistakes and evils. Sir Robert Peel did, therefore, what the late Counsellors ought to have done — ^wrote out the substance of what he had verbally recommended to Her Majesty— «nd hence, the sequel involved no misunderstanding or "counter-statement," and "protest" against alleged mis-statement. Legion pretends that the late Counsellors could not reduce their oral discussion to writing, "without indecorum and offensive distrust of the Governor-General." Sir Robert Peel did not think so, the Queen did not think so; nor did Sir Robert Peel wait until Her Majesty commanded him to do so. He did so from a sense of courtesy and propriety. Had the late Counsellors iniitated his respectful and honest British practice, no misunderstandings and disputes would have ttisued. Such written papers appear to fill Legion's mind with great terror. He says — «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 Governor and the Counsellors ? And supposing that it had taken place with all the forms of an affair of honour, in a Kingston newspaper, in what, Sir, must such a controversy have ended ? Is it not bad enough. Sir, to have a Governor contradicting hie late Councillors without their bandying back another contradiction ; and how could the affair have been more fairly brought before Parliament, by a demand for correspondence, which it is acknowledged on all hands never took place ?" ^«i 31 To all this, I answer, that the absence of such correspondence is the very ground of objection against this part of the proceedings of the late Couusellors. Had they reduced their demand in the first instance to writing, « ^ message rather than place itself in the hands of its adversaries. Such «|i wnheaunle of the term, but a mere party and there- fore worthless statement — and prove their proceedings to be unauthorised and irregular ; therefore they maintained that their statement and that of the Governor-General were essentially the same, and that they bad his authority for their statement. But it having been proved that the two statements are utterly incompatible with each other, Legion shifts the ground, becomes more bold, and says the Crown may permit a state- ment without any admission of its correctness, and even for the mere purpose of contradicting it — a degrading employment indeed for the Crown —an absurdity that would be laughed at in England by school-boys «• well as statesmen from Land's End to John o' Groat's. I have heretofore shown that Legion has not even toucliod the es- sential points of my argument in the defence of his Excellency on thie subject ; but I have added the above observations that the question might be put beyond dispute. Legion claims the permission of the Governor-General, because he did not forbid the intended explanation of the late Counsellors. Had bis EzceUeocy used the word forbid instead of the word Tprotttt, tbep 34 I would Legion and his colleagues have been delighted indeed ; tfren could they with some show of reason have called him a despQit»-««i enemy of light as well as of liberty— proclaimed their entire innoceacoi and demanded a verdict in their favour as first persecuted and then gaf« ged. His Excellency deprives them not of liberty, but exonerates fiim> •elf from any responsibility for the intended explanation, (which bit veital consent for an impartial explanation would give) by protesting against it. He expresses no objection to such an explanation as he Bup> posed would bo given when he authorised it ; but expresses his « aurprinf* at the explanation intended by the leaders of the late Council, and prote$t$ against it. He assumes not the office of their instructor, as to the proper constitutional course sanctioned by British usage in such a case. It wax not for him to dictate ; but for them to know and consider, whether tbej would use the means (such as I have pointed out, p. 39) to prepare a par- liamentary explanation, or to come before the legislature with an unautho- rised ex-parte statement of their own, in the teeth of the Crown's proteift and of British usage. They chose ihe latter course, and upon thenuelvea be the consequences of it. But Legion says : ^^ < lonist-despising Governor," but a despiser of all classes of colonists alike; if without a spark of sincerity, and can " tune his fiddle while Rome is in flames." Now in the above statement, there is a dishonest fallacy and a, disgraceful slander. Suppose the statement were literally true, it is yet morally false. Suppose Sir Charles Metcalfe did agree with the several olajises of persons mentioned — suppose he agreed with them all equally--> yet it does not follow that he is inconsistent or insincere. When Mac- kenzie was raising the standard of rebellion, there were found high church tories and reformers, the wealthy merchant and the humble peasant, side by side, equally agreeing with the Representative of the Sovereign and he equally agreeing with them — yet that very cohesion and unity and cordia- lity, was a proo fnot of deceit or hypocrisy, on the one side or the otherj but of genume liberality, of unaffected sincerity, of sound loyalty and noble patriotism. So in the present struggle, it is net surprising that all nnnor differences should be forgotten and absorbed in the all-important questions of the stability of the throne and the constitutional rights of tho subject, «nd that the Church bishop and the Methodist minister, the merchant and kabitantf the high tory and the constitutional reformer, should be seen ral- lying round the representative of the rights of the throne and of the sub- ject, and that he should equally respect them in their several conditions in life as true subjects of their Sovereign and true friends of their country, it is not the language of honesty, but like the language of a mind without sincerity and principle, to ascribe unprincipled hypocrisy and contempt of all classes of colonists to such a man as Sir Charles Metcalfe — a man as much above falsehood and treachery, as he is above bigotry and selfishness — il man whose heart is as guileless as his hand is beneficent. ■ o. |t is instructive an^musing to compare this philippic of Legion against ft Charles Metcalfe tor being supported by men of different classes, with r. Baldwin's late address to certain Electors of Middlesex, in which hp •6 1 ftkiMl(lrely exhort* tories and refomMri of all ehade* to rally roond hin*M ■MladlBg of oourae all the gentlemen named by Legion and otfaera, **Um nlitnevoui to be mentioned"— ^f all ranks and of all colouri. Mr. Baldwin **Ui» becauBO I would wish to see a pi ')vincial feeling peryade the whotfl miUiiof our population — because I would wish to sec every man belonging to us proud or the Canadian name, and of Canada as his country, that 1 Ihoula rejoice to see our Tory opponents forgetting all minor differencetf 9itttn satisfied under similar circumstances wo should ourselves forget them, and acting as if they remembered only that they were Canadiani.'— liach occurrence would do us reformers no good as a political party, for our principles must triumph, and even us a party we arc strong enough to iHttain them, but it would show to tho mother country, it would show to the sister colonies, it would show to tho world, that as Canadians toe hone a eowiUry and are a people. And it is therefore at a Canadian, and not as a member of party, that I should rejoice in such a Rtep towards promndal tMUMt and provincial atrength.^^ This is rery benevolent, as well as vory grandiloquent of Mr. Baldwin ■■makt him king and ostracise Sir Charles Metcalfe, and the *' Cant* 4imm will have a country and be a people." No doubt Mr. Baldwin would " rejoice in such a step towards provincial union and provincial strength." In such a step, Mr. Baldwin would welcome to his embraces his *' Tory mfiponents^'— those to the least of whom, the late Council would notcon- ■ent to give the least official crumb, from their richly spread table of jMi" tronage. In reading this passage of Mr. Baldwin's address, I could noi keepflrom my thooehts two passages from very difibrent books— the oM ^ Mrtble in the Book of Judges, in which " the bramble said onto the treesi If ft^tfttdi ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trtut M my • iktd&w : and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the e ed a w ^Lebnnod.'' The other passoga which Mr. B.'s address bronglH to Mv flRldUectlon, is one of ^Esop's Fables, where the fox that had lost its tall, •xhorted his brethren of all shades and sizes to imitate his example, as the bdilt ftuhion of promoting their comfort and elevation. t dioobt not Mr. Baldwin's sincerity. Far be it from roe to ascribe to bim the qualities and feelings which Legion has ascribed to Sir Charlea Metcalfe. I think that Mr. Baldwin is rather the honest bramble than the crafty fox in hisjparfv politics. I doubt not but be sincerely believes that 1m can govern Canada upon exclusive party principles, better than othera * can govern it upon constitutional a'ld liberal principles. But I do not like his monopoly of the word Canadi'iU, though I shall not disturb him in hia tnonopoly of all the patriotism jf the Province. There are other Cana- dians besides him, who love their native country as well as he does—* whose hearts beat as warmly for its rights as his does — ^who have contended , mueh longer for the equal rights and privileges than ho has— who have the ■ Bdvaotage of him in this, that their advocacy of civil and religious rights lias not been contemporaneous with elevation to high places— who are as . £rm friends of British Responsible Government as he is, and who have given as strong proofs of their adherence to it — whose earthly home and A<^>es are as much bound up in Canada as are his — and who believe as i< strongly as they believe their own existence, that in supporting Sir Charles Metcalfe, they are supporting tho very principles to which Mr. Baldwin hedged himself, when he advised the reply of Sir Charles Bagot to the : nddress of the Johnstown District Council— the very principles in letter V Md m spirit embodied in the Resolutions of t841'-«the equal constitationil 37 inttpife of the Throne, and the oqiinl constitutional rights of the (robjeot-x the true honour and the best interests of Canada as an integral portion of th« BritiaK Empire. No, VI. Further eocposiire of Ijegion*s fallacies and, the imcomttitutianal position and proceedings of the late Counsellors. * •# LkoioN commences hia fourth letter by charging me with "deliber&te Atlsehood," with << direct and maliciouH fal»ciiuod," because I had said **\t ia known that ecvcrut of the late Counsellors were reluctantly acquie8cui(f parties in the proceedings of the leaders." I stated what was known a0 Ctmttnt in well-informed circles at and some time after the events referred to trrniapired — a fact which I neve before heard disputed, and which, I am emfibly informed, is susceptible of alt the proof that the nature of the case admits. If it should yet appear that there has even been application from certain of the late Counsellors for remuneration for loss of office, ray re- inaik will have been more than justiHed. Time will show. I repeat the Htme observation with respect to my allusion to the " professor of laWf** Which vffia read to gentlemen on whose authority it was made before It W^nt to press ; and 1 affirm that certain members of the late Coancit n6t only intimated their belief that they would be out of office only a fbw dsri^ liQi that even after the debates took place in the legislature on their rent^- nation, one of them said to an officer of the Governor-General, "(n Ikne monthi %Dt ttill tend you back to England with a bad character" '' ' ^ ,'H- ^Theiint anomaly that strikes the mind of an attentive observer j^ ihair (Che CounBellors) proceedings, is the position in which th^ ptiaA llMonelveB before the legislature vnd the country. Their constUutioiial position is that of defendants, th^ir -aal position is that of plaintiffii. Thoy •ome before the public to answer for their own views and condQCt ; they answer by arraigning the views and conduct of the Governor-Genezal." Legion's answer to this amounts to a confession of guilt, and his plea ie tmt one of denial, but of juat\fication. He prefaces his answer, as uanaL with sundry strictures upon myself, with the view of raising a dost} ana then substantially confesses the correctness of my statement. His woxdi am as follows : . ^ '< It is a great pliy the Doctor does not examine his propositions beforo he tauuches them into the sea of political controversy ; he has a great am- bition to he thought critical, exact, and logical, but at every step he risks his case and his character as a reasoner, by stating puzzling propositionS| which turn out to be not only good for nothing, but absolutely untenable, The late Counsellors did not come before the legislature and the amtttru to answer for their own views and conduct ; those were not impeacbeoT They came before the legislature to explain the reasons for which they, t^ ministrv with a majority in parliament, left their places. The reason^ they alleged were opinions avowed by the head of the GovBRMMBirri which, being acted upon, made it impossible that they could remain rer sponsible for the acts of the government : they were hound to make thin explanation if it were true ; and they could not do so without statioff the opinion from which they dissented, or defend themselves without nOv? {•g it to be wrong. No one was ever fool enough to say that a kin; or governor may not hold wrong opinions, or direct wrong acts, thoi^b they rm 38 'V [ho] may not be rasponsible for eithor ; but it surely follows, that if the* Executive Counsellors are io ^espon&iblo for the acta done by order of a (governor, they must be allowed to have an opinion respecting these act*; and if they have an option whether to remain responsible or not, and if they arc bound to account f jr not remaining responsible, thsy must be id- lowed to show that the opinions and acts entertained or directed were wrong, otberv"'''atio:i of which he unfortunately, asusuiJ,' ^comes stranded or -^oiiie rock of absurdity, or founders in some quick- • e^ud of sophistry or wh:rlpool of Relf-cowtradiction. In his third lettefi Legion says (for it answered his purpose at that moment to say so) "the Sovereign's personal character can never be called in question legally or conetitutioually." In his fourth number, he says (for it an!"*'ered his pur- pose at that time to say so^ that none but a fool would exonerate a kib^ .t of the ex-Counsellors, a gross unconsti*' tutional act. They are responsible for the acts of the Governor-General ; yet, they rei'^gn upon his alleged opinions. Their Parliamentary expla- nation is con&iitutionally '.tmited to the acts of the Mead of the Govern- ment, for whicn alone they are responsible ; yet, (in the words of Legion) ** The reasons they alleged were opinions avowed by the Head of tho Government." Nay, they represent Him as avowing certain opinions, from which they say, " they dissented ;" not that they guve certain ad- • vice from which the Governor- General dissented. The above e'^:positioii and arguments of Legion implies that the Council is first and the Gover- nor is second in order,— the reverse of the constituiicnal order. It iinpiies that they are the judges of tlra constitutional orthodoxy in doctrine of the acting Sovereign ; that they have heard him utter political heresy, and have condemned his "opinions as wrong," and refuse any further connexion with him; and call upon the people of Canada to aid them in voting hin down as such, notwithsta:iding his constitutional respon? aibility to the imperial authority alone ! ~ - But Legion says, " the views and conduct of the lite Counsellors were not impeached, therefore they did not come before the legislature iM the country to answer for them." I answer, neither were the views and conduct of Mr. Pitt, of Earl Grey, of Sir Robert Peel, impeached ; yet did they come before Parliament to answer for them. Mr^ Pitt advised George th? Third on a certain measure ; the King refused to act upon his advice, (doubtless from the opinion that it was wrong ;) Mr. Pitt re-* signed, and came before Parliament, (not to tell what wrotig opinions the King held, which rendered it impossible for him (Mr. Pitt) to serva htm without violating the constitution,) but to state the advice which he had felt it his duty to offer t(/ his Sovereign, and which had not been approved of— leaving it to Parliament to suy, whether he (Mr. Pitt) was light or wrong in giving such advice. Earl Grey explained to Parlia- ment, that he had felt it his duty to offer certain advice (known to be the creation of a number of Peers) to his Majesty, and his Majesty had declined acting upc n it, and he (Earl Grey) there left it to Parliament, to judge whether he (Earl Grey) was right or wrong in tendering sucll ad\^ce. Sir Robert Peel explained, that .^e had felt it his duty to advisei the Queen to remove certain ladies of her bed-chamber, and her Ma- jesty had declined acting upon it, as opposed to her feelings and contrary to usage, and he (Sir Robert Peel) left it to Parliament and the natioti to judge whether his (Sir Robert Peel's) advice was proper or not. Thto nation decided it was not proper, and there the mafter ended. Now, id ali these cases, (the very cases appealed to by Legion,) the Imperial •Ministers came before Parliament (though not impeached) to explain their own views and conduct, and to seek the approval of them by Par- liament. But, according to Legion's own admission, and even argu- ment, the late Counsellors did not come before Parliament to state the views or advice which they had submitted to the Governor-General, bat the opinions of the Governor-General— not to justify their own conduct in giving that advice as to certain acts or measures, but to impugn the •opinions or — a young woman, not SO years of age, and therefore without the knowledge of the principles and working of the British Constitution, which might be supposed to be possessed by an " East India Governor" —had su^ wrong and extravagant views of the prerogative, that she daimed to exercise her own sovereign pleasure, independent of ministe- rial advice, in regard to even the ladies of the bed-chamber, and that he considered it unworthy of British statesmen, unworthy of Britons, to submit to such despotism, and therefore he (Sir Robert Peel) h^id been compelled to decline office. All this might British statesmen ')av< *>ted to Parliament, had they chosen to adopt the expedient of the ""?! '. m Counsellors, of attributing to their Sovereign certain extreme '>pinioM, (denied by the Sovereign,) instead of stating the advice which tbey hmi oflRered either for or against certain measures which the Sovereign bed declined or determined upon, leaving it w ith Parliament and the couotrj to decide whether they were right or wrong in tendering sudi adviee. The more thoroughly and critically the subject is examined, the moce clearly do the proceedings of the late Counsellors, and the lucubrations of Legion appear, both in letter and spirit, in the very teeth of the prin- ciples and practice of the British constitution. From the absurdity «f Legion's reasoning, I am inclined to think that the late Counsellayv acted, in some respects, ignorantly. Should they acknowledge their wrong opinions and wrong doings, I should hope their errors might be forgiven and forgotten. Again, Legion thus quotes my words and reasons upon them : ^* * A Canadian jury,' says Mr. Ryerson, ' cannot constitutionally sit in judgment on the views and C( iduct of a Governor-General ; for the resolutions of 1841 declare that tne Head of the Executive Governmei)^ of the Province, being within the limits of his government the Repre- sentative of the Sovereign, is responsible to the Imperial authority alone; and no man can be constitutionally arraigned before a tribunal to which lie is not amenable.' So then. Sir, (says Legion,) a Governor has only io take care that his advisers should not be known, and do every thii^ himself, and let him act ever so unconstitutionally, the Canadian Par- liament 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* wetdd be arraigning the Governor." Legion says, '* a Governor has only to take cave that his adviiif <.i ■hould not be known." As well might he take care that he bimsel" should not be known, or that the sun in the firmament should not he iltMfwa. Thejr are as much gazetted and sworn into cffice as the Go- himstjf ; jret by thlj absurd and impossible proposition doethtfjftgk 41 aUempt to set aside one of the resolutions of 1841. Those who voluii* tarily remain in office as advisers of the Crown are considered respOn*!^ sible for its acts. For those acts they may be arraigned, not the Gover- nor-General. The attacliing and impeachment of him for them is on« of the anti-responsible government absurdities and anomalies of Legion and his coadjutors. And to render his absurdities plausible, Legion be- coines even metaphysical, and makes a distinction with which I have not before met amongst either philosophers, or moralists, or jurists. He says, " Sir Charles Metcalfe's opinions and his acts are qubSiioned, not himself." And again, " Although the Governor may be very safe per- sonalty, his views and conduct would be just as open to inquiry aifd judgment as those of any member of the Reform Association." And yet again, " Views and conduct may be considered, judged, and con- demned, but they cann( i well be hanged or decapitated ; and as their views and conduct cannot be punished by themselves, their owners have' to bear the penalty for them." Here we have, in the first place, a dis- tinction between a man's opinions, and acts, and himself. The former, ib would seem, may be very bad, and the latter very good ; the former may be criminally unconstitutional and be guilty of high mssdemea- nours, and the latter be blameless. I should like to learn what a man is politically and morally apart from his opinions and acts ? And what is the impeachment of a man's opinions and acts, but an impeachment of the man himself? Yet Legion sagely tells us, that arraigning a man*s opinions and actions is not arraigning the man himself! Yet adds at tlie^ same time, (an important piece of information to be sure,) that views and conduct cannot be decapitated, but that the owners must bear the penalty for them ! It is by such solecisms and frivolous distinctions, that Legion seeks to neutralize the resolution of 1841, and impose upon his readers. , ^ ,^,a- rror is this the length of Legion's unscrupulous sophistry and impu- dent trifling with his readers on this point. The following is another example : ♦ " But although, as Mr. Ryerson says, « Cromwell had a shadow of constitutional pretension for aiiaigning Charles the First, even before his rump Parliament, yet he says the late Counsellors pjove the resolu- tions of 1841, positively against the arraigning of the views and condttct of the Governor-General, before any other tribunal than that of the Im- perial 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 1841, and if you find one word about vietvsand conduct of the Gowr- nor therein, you need not print any more of my letters." This is the most puerile and the meanest specimen of political quibbling with which I recollect of ever having met. The words of the resolutions of 1841 are— "That the Head of the Executive Government of the Province, being within the limits of his government the Representative of the So- vereij,n, is responsible to the Imperial authority alone." Now, is not, . ttvery opinion and every act in the conduct of the Governor-Genemd *♦ within the limits of his government ?" I am responsible to the Boar- of Victoria College, within the limits of my charge. Does not that re- ^{lonsibility embrace all my victcs and conduct in relation to my official duties? Does not the whole include all its parts? It is not said in the reM>Tutiens of 1841, that advisers of the Governor-General are responsi- ble to any body ; nor do the words " vieios and conduct,^^ nor does even r- ?r !'•' 42 the word responsible, occur in connection with the advisers of the Crowir in those resolutions ; yet who does not know that by those very resolu<- tions the advisers oi the Crown are held responsible to the Provincial' Parliament, and responsible also for their views and conduct? Such quibbling on the part of Legion, is beneath contempt. It argues the utter absence of reason '.nd truth, and indicates a spirit of reckless des- peration that will stick at nothing in order to accomplish i.s purposes. iVa. VII, Further Examples of Legion* s Evasions and Equivocations — His appeal to British \,]' Precedents. " jLeqion next attempts to answer my observation on the anomalous proceedings of the late Counsellors, — namely, that their explanation rot only r-'nsisted of charges against the Governor General, but that these char^. ; "^"^ general, — contained no specifications which could be met — thre i his Excellency the onus of not only proving a negative, but iv j neral negative. I observed — " Mr. Baldwin, in his * explanation,* ascribes to the Governor General certain anti-responsib'is government doctrines [which his Excellency denies], and alleges against his Excellency certain anti-responsible government ads [which his Excellency also denies], as proof that he holds these doctrines; but Mr. Baldwin specifies no acts — not even the names of the parties to whom they refer. Assuming then that his Excellency, instead of Mr. Baldwin, was on his trial before the House of Assembly, and that Mr. Baldwin was a legitimate witness in his own case, and that his Excel- lency was permitted to come to the bar and answer for himself, how could he disprove the charges preferred against him, when the specifica- tions included in those general charges, were not stated ? To this question Legion makes no answer, nor does he offer one word of answer to my whole argument, which follows this question. But in answer to the former part of my remarks, Legion strangely enough quotes the whole of the late Counsellors' letter to tiie Governor General, and then makes the following extraordinary statement : "In the whole of this document, you will perceive that there is not -0nt single charge against his Excellencfj, but simply a precise statement of the opinion of the members of the coiuicil upon their duties and responsibilities, and an allegation of candid expression of difference of opinion thereupon on the part of the Governor General, and of acts of government inconsistent with these opinions, and inconsistent with that of his Excellency." What a disgraceful play, again, hpre is upon words, and how contra- dictory to Legion's own adinissidiffs, and statements elsewhere! In passages which I quoted in the last number, Legion declares that the late Counsellors resigned upon the opinions and acts of the Governor General. What is the " allegation" against those opinions and acts . (denied by him), but charges? — call them what you will. And in the ' concluding lines of the above quotation, Legion admits, in artful phra^ <^ seology, that the explanation did contain an ''allegation" of ^^ opinions"'' and "acts,^^ against the Governor General, as "inconsistent" with - res|>onsibl« government. Now, what is this two-fold " allegation" but a two-fold cfuirge? Legion tells us, that the Idtc Counsellors resigned 43 Yipoti the opinions and acts of the Governor General, and yet tells us that their explanation contained *' not a single charge against his Excellency, but simply a precise statement of ihe opinion of members of council upon their duties," &c. Such equivocation and quibbling •re worthy of such a champion, and such a cause j Again, Legion says— " "" ) " I assert that it is not usual in the explanations of ministers, to specify particulars of advice neglected or o( acts done toithout advice. To make out Mr. Ryerson's side of the argument, it must not only be usual, but so necessary, as to malie the absence of the specilication of names, places, and other particulars, nut only anomalous or irregular, but almost criminal." Here is another evasion and misstatement of the question. I was not speaking cf particulars of advice (of the late Counsellors) rejected, but of opininns and acts alleged against the Governor General. And in the above pasaagn, Legion himself admits that British Sovereigns have *• done acts without advice." Will he inform us whether any minister since the days of William and Mary, ever stated such a fact to Parlia- ment? Will he state wheiier any British Minister ever resigned on that account? He knows that he can adduce no such examples. They allege certain acts to have been performed by the Governor General without affording an opportunity to his late Counsellors to offer advice respecting them. His Excellency denies that he has ever performed any acts of the kind. Are not his accusers then bound lo specify the acts on which they found their charge? They demand a decision it| support of their general charge, yet, up to the present hour, refuse to specify the facts embraced in that charge, and thus deny to the Repre- sentative of (he Sovereign the privilege of the meanest criminal in the land, lo meet the facts one by one alleged against him. They withhold the demanded specifications; and by doing so they practically confess the groundlessness of their charges, yet they prosecute their shameful efforts to implicate the Governor General, and to bring about a collision between the Canadian people and his Excellency and the Imperial government. Legion proceeds to give examples in support of his assertion, as follows : " For instance, when Lord Grey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Lyndhurst, explained the advice they gave to the King, in the case quoted in my third letter, they did not make any specification whatever ; Lord Grey did not say, how many members he advied to be added to the House of Peers; he did not say what their niunes or titles were to be, or even that he advised that any members should be added at all. He merely said, 'we offered to his Majesty that advice which the urgency of the case required; and that advice not having been accepted, ilie alternative we conceived it our duty to submit to his Majesty, Wi^.s offered and has been graciously accepted." Mark now the very example adduced by this " unfortunate quoter of wise saws and modern instances." 1. Lord Grey was not impeached; he had a large majority in the House of Commons. 2,. He does not give an account of the Sovereign's opinions or acts respecting the Reform Bill, or any other question of government. 3. Much less does he ascribe views and acts to the King which his Majesty denies. 44 4. Nor does he state any facts which the King disputes. 5. Nor < he assign ns the ground of his resignation what his Majesty stated was not the ground of difference. €. Nor does he omit to state what tht King averred to be the real ground of his resignation. 7. Nor does he resign upon the personal opinions and acts of the King, and make his appeal to the Parliament and to the nation against them. 8. Nor did he come before Parliament with a written protest from the King against the correctness and fairness of the intended explanation, much less did he keep that protest in his pocket, and make an explanation in defiance in the teeth of it. 9. Nor did he evade specific statements when called upon to be explicit and precise. Legion himself says, ** we find the advice was brought out in the course of debate more fully in the Howe of Commons.''^ Yes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having been called upon by a single member for a more minute statement of parti- culars, said (according to Legion's own quotation) " I stated it (our advice) in a way which I thought perfectly clear, but if my honourable friend wishes a atill further explanation, I have not the least objection to give it" But Leg'.on and his colleagues object '' to specify particulari^^' and strange to say quotes as authority the case of Early Grey and tlie Chancellor of the Exchequer, who makes at first what he conceives '*a perfectly clear" statement, and afterwards offered to give any *^ further acpkaiation" that might be desired. But we can extract no "further' explanation*' no " perfectly clear*' specification of particulars from ikt late Counsellors. Such are several points of difference in the explanation of the late Counsellors and that of Earl Grey, &c., appealed to by Legion himself — 3uch arc the omissions of British ministers in contrast with the com- missions of our Canadian counsellors. BUT there are other points of difference in respect to what Lord Grey did do, and the late Counsel- lors did not do. 1. Lord Grey resigned upon and came before Parlia- ^ment with the specific statement of a fact, not a vague statement about opinions and understandings. 2. Lord Grey stated a fact which had the concurrence of the King (not his contradiction), as well as the royal permission to state it — not the King's protest against it. 3. Lord Grey stated the fact as far as involved the advice tvhich he himself had given to the King, and he left it with Parliament to approve or condemn that » advice — not the opinions and acts of the King. A more perfect oppo- rsition and contrast, therefore, can scarcely be perceived between any two proceedings, than between the explanation (so called) of the late Counsellors and that of Earl Grey, to which Legion appeals for justifi- cation— which proves to be as complete a condemnation as can well be conceived. Legion says, " I might quote from parliamentary proceed- ings many— very many cases directly in point upon this question." I dare say he might— as I have already done— and as "directly in point" as the one r/hich he has quoted, and which I have thus shewn is as perfectly in pomt as Sir Charles Metcalfe himself could desire— con • demning the proceedings and explanations of the late Counsellors in every single particular — even apart from what I have proved to have formed a prominent feature of their proceeding, namely, their attempt to extract from his Excellency a " stipulation" or " understanding" as to the future distribution of the patronage of the crown. I have pressed this point— this all important point — in a somewhat new light, not because Legion has removed a oin, much less a pillar, from the struc- ture of my argument, but to she^v that upon Legion's own authorities 45 are ke and his coltvagiies condemned beyond the benefit of clergy, for ignorance of or forgery upon the principles and practice of the British constitution. iV(?t VIII. Exposure of LegimCs Twelve " Allegations J' I THINK it has been inadff as plain as a, b, c, in the preceding num- bers, that every single example of imperial practice to which Legion has appealed, is as clearly and strongly condemnatory of the proceed* ings of the late Counsellors, as it is possible fur it to be. Bold indeed are tb«y to be able even to look the public in the face, when thus oo(i- demned by unanimous and continuous British usage, during a century and a half. In addition to this, Legion has made no attempt ai ar answer to my argument from the nature of the case, in which I think I have shewn that the proceedings of the late Counsellors, are at vari- ance with the obvious and admitted principle of law, justice, personal safety, and expediency, (pp. 34-43.) Legion proceeds to analyze the (miscalled) explanatory statement of the late Counsellors, and find in it twelve distinct allegations,— not one of which he has the hardihood to say is denied by the Governor General ! Let us see how far they are fallacious, and how far they are both incorrect and fallacious. Legion says — ** The first allegation is, that the late ministers held office upon the avowed recognition of responsibility to the representatives of the people^ and of the Resolutions of 1841. This is not denied." ^ - . The Governor General has asserted the same thing, from the be^ii- ning, in the most explicit terms. (See Defence, &c., pp. 86-92). The statement therefore of the fact in a way which implies that the Governor General denies, or does not avow the doctrine which it involves, is a foul calumny against him. Again, Legion says — • *'The second allegation is, that the Counsellors had lately under- stood, 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. This difference of opinion is not denied.'* This ** allegation" is positively denied, and its absurdity has been shewn in the defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe, pp. 39, 49, 86, 87. ^His Excellency never differed from the late Counsellors on account of '* the position, duties and responsibilities under which they accefpted office"—- their ** duties and responsibilities" he has stated and recog- nized, as fully as they themselves have ; but he resisted the agreement and stipulation which they demanded of him, and which they had never I presumed to demand of Lord Sydenham or Sir Charles Bagot. "The third allegation [says Legion] is, that appointments were made contrary to their advice. This is not denied." The late Counsellors have admitted that his Excellency had a right *'to do so. When he did so, they ought either to have resigned, or, having remained in office after such appointments, ought to have de- ^fended them. But they did neither. They voluntarily continued in office after such appointments were made. They then went to the Governor General to get him to agree not to make any more such • appointments, and because he would not enter into any such agreement. 46 they resigned upon liis views, and complain of appointments, which they themselves had voluntarily adopted, by voluntarily remaining in •oflSce! Again, says Legion— ' "The fourtii allegation is, tlint appointments were made of which the CounselloiS were not informed in any manner until all opportunity of advising on them had passed by. This is not denied/* * I answer, this has not only been denied, but I think fully disproved, and the truth of it proved, from the very nature of the case, to be impossible. >See Defence, &c., pp. 42-44. Nor have the late Coun- sellors, in justification or support of their charge (though challenged and denied from the begir.ning), been prevailed upon to mention any "appointments" thus made. They make the general charge— they repeat it in every variety of form ; yet they refuse to give a single fact necessary to support it. " The fifth allegation is (says Legion) that proposals to make appoint* ments were made, on which the Council had no opportunity of offering advice. This is not denied." The fallaciousness of this " allegation," as involving any question of responsible government, has been shown, and its invidiousness and injustice in the present case have been exhibited. See Defence, &c., pp. 41, 42. And in reply to the whole of my, as I conceive, conclusive argument on this point. Legion has not said one word. Admitting all that is stated — though no facts have been adduced in support of the allegation — it must not be forgotten that proposals are not appointments. For the latter, not the former, are Counsellors responsible The latter cannot take place, without the Counsellors having an opportunity to offer advice or to resign. I have adduced examples of British Sove- reigns having done what the late Counsellors allege against Sir Charles Metcalfe; but British history furnishes no example of any British minister ever having gone down to parliament to complain of his Sovereign for so doing. We are told— "The sixth allegation is, that his Excellency reserved for the expres- sion of her Majesty's pleasure thereon, a bill introduced into the Assembly, with his Excellency's knowledge and consent, as a govern- mtnt measure, without an opportunity being given to the members of the Executive Council to state the possibility of such a reservotion. This is not denied." It has been denied and disproved in the unqualified sense in which it is here stated. See Defence, &c., pp. 73, 74. It was for the act of reserving the bill, not the manner of performing the act, that the late Counsellors could pretend any responsibilitv. If they were not prepared to justify the act, they had the right to resign ; but British usage con- demns their bringing the manner of the act before Parliament as a complaint or ciiarge against the Sovereign. Besides his Excellency could not communicate his purposes respecting a measure before he had finally adopted them. Again, says Legion — "The seventh allegation is, that the members of the Executive Council offered a humble remonstrance to his Excellency on this con- dition of public affairs. This is not denied." To neither the right of remonstrating, nor the exercise of it, has the Governor General made ihe slightest objection, but has recognized aad avowed it as fully as have the late Counsellors. Ugd they gone no 47 further— had they not added demands to remonstrnnce—no collision would have ensued. It is the right of a minister of the crown to remonstrate, to retire, and to go into opposition if he please, but not to make demands upon his Sovereign. Legion proceeds— ** The eighth, that his Excellency stated, that from the time of his arrival in the country he had observed an antagonism between him and them on the subject. This is not denied.*' i I reply that it is most unequivocally denied, and it has been entirely disproved, in the sense in which it is meant and avowed by the late .Counsellors. By the term "subject," they have declared they me.:n the subject of responsible government. On that subject, Sir Charles Metcalfe denies that he ever had an " antagonism" with his late council; and declares that the subject of antagonism referred to by him was the distribution of the patronage of the Crown on exclusive party principles ; and this I have proved from themselves to have been the fact. See Defence, pp. 75-79. ** The ninth (says Legion), that the members of tlie council repeat- edly and distinctly explained to his Excellency that they considered him free to act contrary to their advice, and of knowing before others his Excellency's intentions. This is not denied." This statement would appear strange indeed from any other writer than Legion. Not only is it denied, but the very reverse is a principal statement of his Excellency's protest, in which he declares that a demand was made upon him which, had it been granted, would have deprived him of all freedom of action — would have reduced him to the condition of a tool in the hands of his council. Demands which I have proved out of their own mouths were made upon the Governor General. See Defence, pp. 68-71. Legion states furthermore— "The tenth, that his Excellency disavowed any intention of altering the course of administration of public affairs, which he found on his arr.val in Canada. This is not only not denied, but is re-asserted by his Excellency in every possible form." Yes, and this declaration ought to have for ever prevented the Coun- sellors from making the representation they have made to parliament and to the country in the face of this solemn avowal. In the teeth of his own words— as admitted by themselves to have been used by him, the late Counsellors have represented his Excellency as not only "altering the course of administration of affairs which he found on his arrival in Canada," but as subverting the very constitution which then existed. Yet in the face of all these facts does Legion make the above assertion ! Legion states yet again — " The eleventh allegation is, that his Excellency did not disguise his opinion, that affairs might be more satisfactorily managed by and through the Governor himself, without any necessity of concord amongst members of the Executive Council, or obligation on their part to defend or support in parliament the acts of the government. This is not denied." This allegation has been most expressly denied so far as it applies to Canada. No man has pretended that Sir Charles Metcalfe ever pro- posed to change the composition of his council, or to exonerate its member? from the duties and responsibilities imposed upon them in the Resolutions of 1841. Besides, to go no further, Legion's tenth allega- 48 tlon conlraiVMits liin tkventh. They cnnnol be both true at the SMMefeimtf. Nor has his Exuelluncy ever admitted (hu truth uf the eleventh all«ga« Uon of Legion. Legion says finally— *' The twelfth nnd last allegation is, that on Saturday the ineinbf rs of Council discovered that this was the real ground of all their diffu- rence with his Excellency, since his arrival, and that they felt it impossible to serve her Majesty ns FiXecuiive Coansellors, for the aflTaivt of this province, consistently with thr><- duty to her Majesty or to bis Excellency, or with the public and repeated pledges in the Provincial Parliament, if his Excellency should see fit to act upon this opinion of their functions and responsibilities. Now the expression of this opinion ' of his Excellency is not denied any more than any other facts above alleged, though his Excellency would seem to deny that they formed the real grounds of the resignation." While Legion's tenth and eleventh allegations cootradict each other* his twelfth allegation contradicts itself In the iirst place, Legion hejire affirms that his Excellenoy has admitted the opinions attributed to him as the real ground of difference with his late council ; and yet in the concluding sentence, Legion admits the Governor General denied that such opinions formed the real grounds of thd resignation. Both of these statements cannot be true at the same time. In addition to which self-contradiction, the whole of the evil anticipated from the alleged (but disco jred) opinions of his Excellency, rests upon an ir—- ^** IF ki» Eoxellency should see fit to act upon this opinion of their functions and responsibilities." It has also been said, '^if the s>ky should fall down, larks would sing." Thus out of Legion's twelve enumerated allegations, more than half have been positively denied and disproved, and the remaincjr are true in a different connection and sense ftom that in which they are used by Legion. He next addresses himself to the protest of his Excellency; bat, MHgular to say, he attempts not one word of answer to the proofs which I have adduced from ths late Counsellors themselves, of the truth of the statements contained in that document. (See Defence, pp. &0-72.) More than twenty pages of close reasoning and indisput* able testimonies yet remaining in their unimpaired force against the late Counsellors. His assertions are no evidence ; nor are his specu* lations proofs. The only remark retpiiring notice is, his supposition that if the late Counsellors had omitted specifications, names, places. Of circumstances, his Excellency could have disclosed theai. This supposition is as extraordinary as most of Legion's statements. His Excellency denied the truth of the charges, and by consequence the existence of any specifications to support them. How then could he be supposed to mention facts, the reality of which he denied 1 It is thus that Legion's suppositions are as absurd as his statements are unsus« tained and unfounded. No. IX. Reply to Legiort's last Nine Letters. At the end of his fifth letter. Legion says, " I have for a long time parted fronv Mr. Ryerson ;" and at the close of his eleventh letter, he sayts, " My letters have been extended to their present length by my own bltMidec of wixiug up a disquisition upon the eooslitutioa with ctnuudtfl 49 upon Mr. Ryerson's defence." Legion's tetters and *' disqaisitions*' are very like the discourse of an individual which I heard described as being " about every thing in general and nothing in particular." His reason- ing is like his political career, rambling from beginning to end. In his first /our letters, if he did not exhaust Uie subject, he seems to have ex- hausted himself on the subject; and he occupies his remaining ntne let- ters—with one exception as long as they are raml>rmg— with repetitions and ampliHcutions of what is contained in the four Hrst letters, and to laboured attempts to talk as long as he can about any thing and about nothing. For instance, h\s fifth and sixth letters (so far as the argument of them is concerned) is u dilation upon the very same topics which he professed to treat systematically in his third anA fourth letters, and to which I have fully, though briefly, replied. His seventh letter is a mere variation of the same tune. His eighth letter is (as Legion would term it) a " disquisition" on Lord Stanley's speech on Canadian affairs. His ninth 'etter is another *' disquisition" (of his sort) on government in ge- neral and parties in particular. His tenth is a continuation of the ninth. His eleventh letter is a ramble back to the subject of his third letter, con- taining also sundry things about Dr. Sacheverel and against the respon- sibility of the Governor>General to the Imperial authority. His twelfth is another '* disquisition" about Sir Charles Metcalfe and his sayings, and Warren Hastings and the government of India, with which Legion compasses sea and land to identify his Excellency. His thirteenth letter is a repetition of previous topics, with sundry additions and modifications. Now, as Legion's last nine letters are the mere repeating with variations of his first four letters, to which I have amply replied, it is not necessary for the interests of truth, nor is it respectfu Ito the public, or just to the interests of your journal, that I should follow Legion in his '* disquisi- tions" of the perpetual ringing of changes on the same topics. I will therefore conclude this discussion by doing two things ; first, by noticing those topics connected with the question at issue before the country, in Legion's last nine letters, which I have not already discussed ; secondly, by extracting from his theoretical ** disquisitions'* a confession on seve- ral points which involve all that I have insisted upon in defence of Sir Charles Metcalfe. From which it will appear that Legion himself can- not theorize on British constitutional government without admitting every principle laid down and held sacred by his Excellency, and that when he attacks Sir Charles Metcalfe and the British government, he opposes doctrines which he admits when he theorizes. My task will be completed in this and the following number. The only topics in Legion's fifth letter which have not been disposed of, are his attempts to prove Sir F. Head a better man than Sir Charles Metcalfe, and his dilation upon an extract of a despatch which Sir C. Metcalfe addressed to Lord Stanley in May, 1843. As Legion was the chief councillor of Sir F. Head, who picked him up and made a politi- cian of him. Legion's partialities for his patron may be excused, and need not be answered. As to the despatch, it has been shown in the Colonist of the 20th of August, that Sir Charles Metcalfe had ample reason and authority for what he stated in that despatch, and that his Excellency's subsequent proceedings were as forbearing and as liberal as they were constitutional. Opinions avowed by a leader of the Coun- cil, of a startling and extraordinary character, ought of course to be known to the authorities to whom the Governor-General is responsible. Ic was also inipoitant that his Excellency should know the views of tho li 50 Imperial government, as a guide in case such opinions sliould be offici- ally proposed and embodied in the form of a demand, which was indeed made in the course of a few months, as had been feared. In Legion's sixth letter I cannot find a single argument to which I have not replied. The pecularity of it is, the frequent repetition of as- sertions which have been denied a score of times by the Governor-Ge- neral himself, and which I have refuted by all the evidence that the nature of the case admits. They are, 1st — that his Excellency made appointments without giving his Council an opporiunity to ofl'er advice respecting them. This has been denied from the beginning,— the injus- tice of it has been demonstrated ; the facts alleged have been denied. They have not been produced— not even one of them ; yet the slander- ous assertion is repeated everywhere, and on all occasions. Sdly— That his Excellency denies the right of the Council to offer advice upon all occasions ; an assertion not only in the teeth of his Excellency's general denial, but of his specific statement to the reverse, as I have showu'— (see Defence, pp. 87, 88.) The sixth letter of Legion abounds also in more than the usual proportion of insinuations and allegations against his Ex- cellency's honesty and sincerity— the cement and quintessence of Legion's letters. Legion's sevtnth letter is a mere appendix lo his sixth—'the ringing of changes, with variations, upon the same topics. The peculiarity of it is, that while Legion, after having admitted my explanation of the nature of responsible government, forms an analogical argument upon the ban dcss and fals. issuniption that I had denied the right of the Counsel' to advise the Governor-General on ** all occasions, whether as to pat e, or otherwise," as his Excellency himself has expressed it. The w-..»iU- ding part of Legion's seventh, and the whole of bis eighth letter consist* of a lengthened '' disquisition" on Lord Stanley's speech respecting Ca- nadian affairs, delivered in the House of Commons the 30th of last May. With tha several observations of his Lordship's speech I have nothing to do, except in so far as they relat^^ to the full and unequivocal recognition of responsible government in Ci.)nada, according to the resolutions of 1841. Tiiat the British Government have done so, I have shown by quotations from Lord Stanley's speech, which Legion himself cannot pervert or quibble away. (See Defence, pp. 157, 158.) Legion has, however, attempted to neutralize the eff'ect of this liberal bearing of her Majesty's Government, and to awaken against it hostile feelings, by perverting several passages of Lord Stanley's speech. I will notice but one. Lord Stanley speaks of the responsibility of the Governor-Gene- ral to the Imperial authority, us provided for in the resolutions of 1&41 ; which responsibility Lord Stanley regards as extending to the two points (the distribution of patronage and reservation of bills) objected to by the late Counsellors against the Governor-General, as well as the other acts of his government. On this Legion attempts to create the impression that Lord Stanley and Sir Charles Metcalfe deny the right of the Coun- cil to advise respecting the distribution of the patronage of the Crown, or that they are responsible for it ; a representation condemned by the whole tenor of Lord Stanley's speech, and expressly condemned by his Excellency's own words, as quoted in a previous paragraph of this num- ber. Lord Stanley's argument, and his only argument, is against the Governor':! binding himself not to muke any appointment against the recommendation of the Council. The subject which his Lordship was urguing, was not whether the Council had a right to ofl'er advice to the 51 Governor on the distribution of patronnge, but whether the Governor should consent to an agreement with his Council, that he would not make any appointments except such as they might recommend. It is thus by misrepresenting the drift and character of Lord Stanley's argu- ment, that Legion falsifies the views of her Majesty's Government, and endeavours to excite hostility against them. It is a fact of no small im- portance, that Legion, whenever he ceases to theorize, and attempts to argue upon the points at issue, can make out no argument without mis- representing the views of those he opposes. He ascribes to them senti- ment's which they either never uttered or have positively disclaimed, (more frequently the latter,) and then battles these fictions of his own imagination with an exuberance of patriotic zeal. The demand, and the only r'emanc' which Lord Stanley resists, is thus stated by his Lord- ship himsetf: — ''Their demand had been^ that the Governor-General should bind himself, that no single appointment should be made ivithout their sanction and controul.^' After reading about half of Legion's ninth long letter, I ascertained thatitwto^ intended to be a ''disquisition" on party government ; throngh- out which Legion, as usual, ascribes or assumes sentiments to hisEx^el' lency, which he has never avowed. The whole Toronro Association school have ascribed to Sir Charles Metcalfe the sentiments which were expressed last winter by Lord Falkland, to the Legislative Assemblies of Nova Scotia, and which it appears were concurred in by a majority of those bodies ; whereas Sir Charles Metcalfe has never expressed a sentiment of the kind, either in his protc . or in any one of his replies to addresses. Lord Stanley has remarked that responsible government is party government ; and from Lord Stanley's and the true sense of that phrase. Sir Charles Metcalfe has not for a moment dissented. That sense is, the governing by or through a party. As I have stated in my De- Jence, p. 77, — «• To this kind of party government. Sir Charles Metcalfe has not even hinted an objection, in any of the various dccuments which he has put forth. It is not pretended that he ever expressed the slight- est objection to the composition of his late Council ; or that he ever so much as suggested or entertained the idea of dismissing some of them, and tilling up their places from the ranks of the opposite party. To the administration of the government through a party^ his Excellency has assented as practically and as thoroughly as her Majesty herself. But there is another — a new — a very different element, which the Upper Ca- nada section of the late Counsellors have introduced into their system of the government of party — that is, governing for a party, and to the ex- clusion of a party. It is this new element which is the doctrine of Mr. Hincks' address, which has been adopted and republished by the Toronto Reform Association ; it is this new element which is the doctrine of Mr. Sullivan, in pronouncing as " childish folly" the idea of bestowing an office upon any other than the supporters of the ruling party ; it is this new element which has formed the point of ' antagonism' between Sir Charles Metcalfe and his late Cotmsellors, from an early period of bis administration ; it is this new element which originated the demand for the patronage of the Crown for party purposes, and under the false but plausible pretext that it formed the essence of responsible govern- ment, as intimated in the above quoted passages from the address adopted by the Toronto Association, and as stated by Sir Charles Metcalfe, when he says that the " demand which was made by the Council, regarding the patronage of the Crown, was based on the construction put by some of the gentlemen on the meaning of responsible government." 52 ^ t Now. liegion in his " disquisitic:" on party goyernm' ot, in the former of \k\9 above stated meanings ot the phrase, is fighting a man of straw, whom he himself had made and called Sir Charles Metcalfe. As to whether the Counsellors should consist of the principal members of one party or of all parties, his Excellency has not stated.— ^declaring simply that they should be men possessing the confidence of the Parliament.— As to party government in the second sense above stated. Legion has not answered, nor attempted to answer one oi my arguments and various au- thorities, amongst which are the former opinions of the late Counsellors, and of Reformers generally. [See Defence, pp. 102, n&, 141, 143.'| In regard to Legion's tenth letter, after falsifying my views as usual, (for the correction of which see Defence, p. 45,) he admits that the ob- ject of the late Counsellors ras to " cut off all communication between the Governor-General and any individual in the Province except them- selves.*' This is quite enough, in co.^nection with my argumi^nt on the subject, (see Defence, pp. 44, 46,) which is not touched by Legion's feeble declamation. The ekventh and twelfth letters of Legion, are a ** disquisition" on the responsibility and irresponsibility of the Governor-General to the Impe- rial authority ; and throughout those two long letters, singular to say. Legion does not so much as allude to my argument on the subject, much less does he offer one word in answer to it. This is Legion's controver- sial policy throughout his letters. Whenever he comes in cor.cact with an argun.ent which he can neither pervert nor answer, he diverges into a theory. If there is any part of my entire argument more clear and conclusive than another, or that may be called demonstrative, i; is that which relates to this subject, exhibiting as it does the precise line of dis- tinction between responsible government in a Colony and in the Parent 9tate. [See Defence, pp. 125, 129.] That line of distinction Legion a»^d his colleagues insist upon obliterating, which involve^ the annihila- tion of Imperial authority in the local government of (/anada. This is proposed to be done by the aP/Dino of a phrase to the Resolutions of 1P.41, and by denying that tiie Governor- General is responsible to the Imperial authority for all the acts of his governmeni, or for any of the acts for which his Counsellors are to be held responsible ; and they claim to be responsible for a" his acta in the administration of the local govern- ment. The words of the resolution of 1841, relative to the responsibi- lity of the Governor-General, are as follows :— " That the Head of the Executive Government of the Province, being tcithin th^ limits of his Go- vernment the Representative of the Sovereign, is responsible to the Imperial autnority alone.^^ Now, mark the words of Legion, who says—*' But when the Governor-General informs the Gore District Council that he is responsible to the Crown, Parliament and People of the Mother Coun- try, for every act that he performs; or suffers to be done, he directly passes Vy public opinion in the Colony, and refers his every act to the judgment of public opinion in the Mother Country. And as public opi- nion, as expressed by the Crown, Parliament, and People of England, professes not to interfere with the internal concerns of the Colony, or with every or any act which the Governor-General does, or suffers to be done— the responsibility which the Governor-General professes to be burthened with, is a mere pretence — a pit tence under cover of which he sets up his oWii prerogative, not that of the Queen." This is sufficiently plain ; but Lr.gion, in his speech at a pub]ic dinner in Toronto on the 23d instant, s more full and definite still. The following are his words : 33 **Om single expression in these resolutions has been seized upon, andt by a I'alse construction of its meaning and intention, made an in- stranoent of destruction to the whole fabric of responsible government in CaAaria. It was not necessary, in the resoiutijas of 1841, to allege that the Queen's Representative in this Colony was a servant of the Crown ; it was not necessary to allege his responsibility to the authorities of the Empire; but, in the desire of the Canadian Parliament to avoid all pre- tence for the exercise of arbitrary and unadvised prerogative, and with the determination of limiting the exercise of the prerogative, over which public opinion in Canada was to have no influence or controul, to mat- ters in which Imperial authorities might, for Imperial interests justly and properly interfere, it was declared that the Head of the Executive Government of this Pkovince was responsible to the Imperial authorkiea 4iione. (Cheers.) This simple declaration .vould hiive been sufficient to guide aright any Governor who desired to adopt or adhere to the re- solutions ; but it has been far diflferent in the hands of those wh'^ advise our present Ruler. A Governor who desired to act upon the resolutions of 1841, would have inquired, what xotrt the affairs of Imperial interest m tehich he teas boiuid to consult the Imperial authorities ? PFithin these he vnmld have limited his responsibility.'^ Thus then one part of the great question at issue comes prominently out for the first time. In order to denude the Representative of the Crown in the Province of this power. Legion and his colleagues deny his responsibility to the Imperial authority in the internal affairs of the Colony. In other words, they deny the exercise, directly or indirectly, of the Imperial authority in the local government of Canada ; for they deny the right of that authority to influenoe the Governor, and then deny the responsibility of the Governor to that authority. They therefore claim independence. And having claimed independence for the Gover- nor, they next denude him of ' discretion" in respect to even the distri- biition of patronage ; for the following is Legion's definition of the power of the Sovereign, in his twelfth letter, and with his own italics : — *'The Q^ieen of England does what her Ministers call justice to individuals in England — not whats^e calls justice ; and when individuals are candidates for office, the Queen of EnglantI does not exercise her own discretion." Here, then, in the first place, ths right of the Imperial authority to interfere in the local government of Canada is r'enied ; secondly, its right to influence tiie Governor is denied ; thirdly, the responsibility of the Governor to that authority is denied ; fourthly, the exercise of any *' discretion" by the local Sovereign in regard to even candidates for office, is denied. How far these facts and confessions coincide with other professions of the same partic?. c 'ery candid reader can judge. If all this does not annihilate Imperir.1 ruihority in Canada, and reduce the Oovernc himself to a cipher, I do not ki\ow what does. Disguise ancl deny it then "^s they may, the real question involved is, shall Great Bri- tain have any authority in Canada or not ; and shall the Governor in the country have any '* discretion," or shall he be a mere cipher or sign- mar "dl to be used at the "discretion" of others? Never before did I myself see so clearly the import and magnitude of the question at issue, as since a eareful examination of these letters of Legion. Throughout his whole argrnent. Legion represents the Governor- Gteneral as denying the responsibility of the Council and their right to w^ 54 •W- U ' advise him, because lie asserts his own responsibility to the Imperial au- thority ; which responsibility (as the reader will perceive by examining the resolution of 1841, above quoted) is not limited, as Legion and his colleagues are striving to limit it, as it has no other limits than the limits of the Governor-General's government. Now the Governor-General asserts, as strongly as Legion, that he canuot act constitutionally without the assistance of responsible advisers ; he also asserts (as I have hereto- fore quoted more than once) their right to oflfer him advice "on all oc- casions, whether as to the distribution of patronage, or otherwise." His Excellency furthermore asserts, that they are responsible for all acts of the government, and that when they do not choose to be responsible for these acts, they are at liberty to retire. The Governor-General and the Imperial government, in harmony with the resolutions of 1841, maintain a ttoofold responsibility for every act of the Canadian government, and that this constitutes the peculiarity of responsible government in a co- lony—namely, the responsibility of Executive Counsellors to the Cana- dian Legislature, and the responsibility of the Executive Head to the Imperial authority. Legion and his colleagues deny the latter, and by denying it endeavour to annihilate Imperial authority in Canada. Lord Stanley, in reference to this twofold responsibility, says, " The two re- sponsibilities might, by possibility, nay, perhaps without difficulty, be exercised by mutual forbearance and good sense on the part of the Go- vernor and the other body ; but let the principle of IVIr. Roebuck be adopted, and the Governor would be a mere agent in the hands of the Executive Council, and yet at the same time responsible at home."— Sir Charles Metcalfe, in his reply to the Gore District Council, express- ed the same opinion as to the feasibleness of this system of responsible IP'overnment, by the exercise of good sense and mutual forbearance. The ' .*on. Mr. Young— Speaker of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly- declares the same sentiments, in a speech at a public dinner given him in Toronto, on the 2.Sd September. He does not presume to deny the right of the Imperial Government to give any instructions to the Governor, nor does he deny the responsibility of the Governor to the Imperial au- thority. His words are—** If, indeed, the Imperial Government inter- fere to issue its instructions, or if the Executive Council were to attempt any course ofpnlicy inconsistent with the Royal instructions, or with an act of Parliament, the duty of the Governor is clear. He is the minister or servant of the Crown, and must obey its mandates whether he approves of them or no, or resign his office. Where is the difficulty then of ful- filling both of these obligations, and where the probability of their jarring with each other ? A thousand imaginary obstacles may be raised by prejudice or passion, but with mutual forbearance, and a desire to carry it harmoniously, I am convinced that the system would work well and smoothly."' Then Mr. Young's whole statement of what he means by responsible government, and especially on this very point, is in letter and spirit what Sir Charles Metcalfe has stated again and again, and what I have advocated from the beginning ; but it is in the teeth of Legion's denial of the responsibility of the Governor to the Imperial authority. Mr. Young thus proposes and answers an objection which involves the very doctrine under consideration : " But it is objected, that the Governor's first duty is to the Imperial authority, and therefore, that he cannot obey or be subject to an Execu- tive Council. Now, in the first place, no one dreams [yes, Legion has thus dreamed and written, as above quoted] of a Governor obeying any 65 one within the Colony. All that is asked is [and Sir Charles Metcalte has stated this in expr ;s8 terms, anu ;;?*«d upon it invariably], that he shall exercise the prerogative on all occasions with the advice of a suhoT' dinate officer who shall be responsible to the people. The minister being consulted on any act within his department, and approving of it, assumes the responsibility ; disapproving, must still assume the responsibility, to resign. This is the English practice, and I maintain there is no diffi- culty in extending it to the colonies in all matters arising within the co- lony, and on every exercise of the prerogative touching its local affairs. If, indeed, the Imperial Government should interfere to issue its instruc- tions, or if the Executive Council were to attempt any course of policy in- consistent with the Royal instructions, or with an act of Parliament, the duty of the Governor is clear. He is the minister or servant of the Crown, and must obey its mandates whether he approves of them or no, or resign his office. Where is the difficulty then of fulfilling both of these obli- gations, and where the probability of their jarring with each other 1 A thousand imaginary obstacles may be raised by prejudice or passion, but with mutual forbearance and a desire to carry it harmoniously, I am con- vinced that the system would work well and smoothly." The difference therefore between Mr. Young's responsible government and that of Legion and his colleagues, is, after all, in reality, precisely that of the Governor- General — the one is responsible government and British connection— the other is responsible government and indepen- dence — the one acknowledges and the other denies the authority of *he Imperial Government within the colony— the one maintains the respon- sibility of each minister for his own department, the other advocates the responsibility of each minister for all the departments— >bolh alike assert the right of each minister to give advice on all occasions within his own department. Thus much then in reply to Legion's eleventh and tioelfth letters, in addition to my as yet unanswered argument on the same subject. In regard to a misapprehended 1 misapplied remark of Lord Stan- ley, that the life of the British consttt tiuii consists in the irresponsibility of the Sovereign, and that this could not exist in Canada as the Cover- nor was responsible to the Imperial authority, his Lordship may apply such a term to designate that peculiarity of the Biiish const ution, but it can have no bearing upon the question in Canada, as his Lordship ob- jects not in the least to the Council's giving advice on all occa<' ins — recognizes their responsibility to the Legislature— only >bjects to their coercive demand or " stipulation." It appears that Legion's thirteenth letter was a sort of after-thought, or, in his imagery, an afier-birtii. It was produced a long time after the last of its predecessors. The first part of it consists of what h had said on party government, party patronage, and stipulation ich I have already disposed of— and it is not necessary for me to re^ieat the same thing over again, because Legion has done it so often. The principal part of this letter is a professed rejoinder to the first number of these my refutations of his attacks upon the Governor-Gdneral ; and in this he has out-Legioned himself in unfairness, and dishonesty of statement. It is the climax of his letters in bold misrepresentation. For example, he represents Lord Chatham, Mr. Pitt, and Sir Robert Peel, as having re- signed because the Sovereign would not come to an understanding, or agree to a stipulation with thein, when Legion could not but know, (as 5« ^.h 1 h ■SI If his qtiotations and references else^vhere prove,) that ihey eaob adviftd certain vuaaures or appointmenU, and because their advice was rejectee^ the^ resigned, explaining the nature of the measures or appointments which they had advised, and leaving Parliament to jodge wiiether th«ilr advice was proper or not,— not demanding of the Sovereign an under* standing or stipulation, that he would in future distribute the patronago of the Crown upon a certain party principle, and on his refusing to come to such an agreement, resigning upon the views of the Sovereign^— thus dragging the views, principles and merits of the Sovereign before the people, as the subject of their discussion and decision. Again, Legion represents me as admitting '* that the Counsellors onty wished to be understood as a condition of their remaining in office, that they should substantially be advised with on public affairs, &c.,'*^>a statement the reverse of fact, as every reader of what I have written can bear witness. I have not only asserted the reverse throughout, but luive proved it. See Defence, pp. 63-67. , . ^ In the first number of my refutation of Legion's letters, I noticed flAie principal points of my argument, which Legion had not answered. Le-> gion professes to supply this deficiency ; and in doing so, descends to a species of unfairness that is scarcely credible. All that I wouM desire of any reader, to satisfy himself of Legion's shameful unfairness, (tou*ie no stronger term,) is to compare his statement of the pages of my De-* fence referred to, with the pages themselves, from which he would SM that Legion's statement is not only fallacious in every instance, but in some instances positively untrue. I will take the first as an example, though the subsequent ones are equally dece]itive, and might be seiect^t! to equal advantage. The following are my words : " 1st. I have proved by certain of the late Counsellors themselves* that they did demand a stipulation from his Excellency, (pp. 6S-67 ;) respecting which, Legion says not une word." Legion, after quoting this sentence, professes to give the evidence to which I referred; in doing which, he quotes passages which I had eiven from Mr. Hinoks's pamphlet, Mr. Baldwin's explan-^tion, and Mr. Soul* ton's resolution, to which Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Hincks had appealed, and two lines from Legion's own explanatory speech; and then says, " This is the whole evidence Mr. Ryerson furnishes within his pages 63 to 67," &c. Now will the reader believe — and I refer him to my Defence, pp. 69-. 64,>— that the passages from Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Hincks, and Mr. Boulton's resolution, were quoted 1 7 me not as oroofs that they had de- manded a stipulation, but as their evidence that they had not demanded a stipulation ! ! ! This is the most impudent act of argumentative dis- henesty, and the most impudent imposition upon a reader, with which ( ever met. As this subject of stipulation is the burden of the greater part of Le* gimi's last letter, (bating his apology for himself, which I cordially pre* seat to the Toronto Association,) and as it is one of great importance, I will conclude this numbor by exposing more sp' ifically his misrepresen* tations, and adducing my argument itself, to wluoh he has made no reply. In the first place, I showed that the one of the parties being the accuser, and the other the accused,— the statements of the parties themselves wovld not be considered evidence on either stde,-*-the one statement oountevba- lancM^ eke other. I then procfeded ,(p^ 69) to eonsidar iM tmdam {to 6:? 57 UtQ Counsj^llQjrs ^Rp^Ijd ^n.prppf ^( tlwir ^^^iiJten^entr' , men quo|e frrnn .Mrrjppild!V,i,n,4ir.« t|m9k9,.an(^,^ne re^]UUPi^Af .lyij;* Bpultpn, wt^^csh^- ,gipn rej^r^^^fl^tSjipe as qi|piii}g,(Q,' prove, thaf the kt/e C|oi,inseI)pi[S «?»4{49- ]m(|ii4s^^tipul9^on— th^ very rpy^ijsfjof.^fie fact! For.af^r quqtingAheip, X, Pj:oc?e^ , ,(p, $4) tp .sliow, , theic ,u,^t^f; ^nsu^^iency tq pstalilish j[he part flij- o^fe?.^iTLi**ffl''^'?^Q6 wjt|}jt|ie folloiying jyq^qs.? ," gijicl^is the eyi^encp to wfifjdh l|9es3rjS^ Eal^wiq %nd Uiqckjs appea^ Ift support of the ass^iftipn„t|fjit '.i[b^^^te,,C/j6unsellqi;9 |iad t^t. required ^rpni th^ Heafl.of ti>9 ,pQy'er,nni^i^t ^^ny ^/ier^'t^nding|9r,stipjyiijat)ion, as tq the terips^Qn vyhic^i the p^pvi^pi^l fidmpi;;t|rftiou haid deemea it prudent to cqnt|qqe iq. 9J[|[iqe.!|p I theq f/fq- cfecltQ deraon^tr,arQ,t^s IjConqelve] that th^ jeyijdence [jso called] th/u^^^d' Q^cffd ^Qi^d p^teveq be re9eivie^ iii a court of ju?tLcp,,much iesSiCqqpfgi- )4v.e in t^qjiudginent q^ ajfti^y,, either gf tjWelve,hr)t the stipu|^tioj9 tnus,qefpan^ed, ,did involve th!C.^uifr^pder of t,he,patr:opage ,of t1)Q tyirq^n to tpeipQuiiciU foe thepurcJia^sQof Parliani9p4;ary suppofp^. .Iti^, qqw.&y!er;,,«fft^'th9^yi4ence^s to the.stipulatipn itsj^lf, that I )ia,vjB to mfit presentV'^yld^ce to, wu.ch f^egi Mr. Sullivan, in his explanatory apeeqb* .Nqvenib^r 30, '{^Ijlegefi " the impq^siblity (of himself and his colleagues) '.pfL^Lji'ia^ in. oi^ce q^er, underaianding His Excellency's views *y .Jt ^P^ap theOfihat be(are,.uivcl^rstanding Itis Exceliency's views, it was ^pQsuhk,Jpi\ t^ei[a.^^ n^ in office; and that it was upqn "His Ekciellency's views?" that the late Advisers resigned. And^hq^ come they to know his " views ?" Why, Messrs. Baldwin and Lafon- H s: 58 'V. t|iiii« went to ascertain them— views which (as the concluding phrase of Mr. Boulton*s resolution expressed it) "a cftie respect for the pretoga- Uvt of the Crmon, and proper constitutiorial delicacy towards Her Majesty's Representative forbid thkir being exfressed." Again, ^e Editor of the Examiner— 'One of the Secretaries of the Toronto Association — has the following words and Italics : — "When waited upon by Mr. Lafentaine, in behalf of himself and colleagues, in order that thejr might come to some understanding as to the principle upon which the government was to be conducted, as far as regards appointments to ojfice. His Excellency positivehy refused to recognize it as a constitutional princrple, that he should consult them at all upon this important depart- ment of the administration of public aflairs, evidently claiming its patronage ad libitum without the advice, council or concnrrence of his. responsible advisers." [March 19.] With the latter part of this state- ment, I have at present nothing to do. I have heretofore shown its falsity, and proved that it was impossible for the Governor-General to make any appointment, without the concurrence of at least one *' responsible advi- ser," and thai his Excellency has denied that the right of the Council to advise him was a subject of dispute between him and his late Counsellors. But their demanding a declaration of his Excellency's views even on that aubject, wai as unconstitutional [according to Mr. Boulton's resolution] as their demanding *^some understanding" with his Excellency, as to the future policy of appointments, or on any other subject. They were to re- main, or to retire from his counsels according to his acts, as they were responsible to the Legislature, not for his views but for his acts ; and they had no more business with his views, as to what might be or should be, than they had to do with his purse. To seek " some understanding" with him, as to what his views were or might be, was, according to Mr. Boulton's own resolution, unconstitutional ; to resign upon these views was unconstitu- tional ; to represent these views to Parliament— especially in the teeth of bis Excellency's protest— was not only unconstitutional, but unjust and dangerous, as I have shown in the second number of this argument. ** Then, as to the fact— a. fact trumpet-tongued in its import, and bear- ing on the character of the present crusade against Sir Charles Metcalfe— the fact is this: — Thelaie Counsellors admit that they would have re- mained in office had the Governor-General's views [which they went to ascertain] as to his future policy accorded with their demands or wish es. That is, they would have assumed the responsibility of his past acts, had he given them assurance or pledge, or " stipulation," as to the character of is future acts ! ! Can such a proceeding be paralleled in the entire his- tory of England, since 1688 ? Had the Governor-General's views of fu- ture policy prov<^d orthodox, according to the '' terms" of the late-born party expediency creed of the ex-Counsellors then — can it be believed ? —then all his past acts would have been defended by them— the very acts which they now pronounce unconstitutional — acts which extended over a period of months — acts aga>r.sl which they now vociferate from Essex to Gaspe— these very acts for condemning which they now demand the sup- port of the Province, — yes, those identical acts, [and the reservation of > the Secret Societies Bill among the rest,] would have been white-washed ■^would have been assumed as constitutional — would have been defended as worthy of the support of the Province, had the Governor-General only ** come [to use the Examiner^s words] to some understanding, as to the principle upon which the government was to be conducted, as far as regards appointments to office" ! ! 69 ** Now, does not this single fact prove to a demonstration, that tbejr violated the last part of Mr. Boulton's resolution ? Into the pit whiuh they dug for another, have they not fallen themselves ? And I appeal to the honest reader of any party, whether their resigning or notresigo- ing can change the nature of the Governor-Generars acts, which were performed before they resigned ? And whether they are not, in all honour, and consistency, and truth, and decency, bound to defend those acts out of office as well as in office ? Their continuance in office was, [to use a figure in Mr. Boulton's Toronto Association speech] an endorsement of every note in the shape of a government act,— during the period of their incumbency, they were the only indorsers known in the law of Responsible Government— as long as they remained in the emoluments of office, they excluded all other endorsers; and, it appears by their own confession, that they would have cojtinuedto have endorsed every note of the Governor-General's past ac.s, as well as of his future acts, had he consented to have endorsed their notes, [whicfi they presented to him,] of " some understanding as to the principle upon which the government was to be conducted, as faros regards appointmtnts to office.^^ And, because he would not endorse in advancjei for them, they repudiated what, by their continuance in office, they bad endorsed for him. Every note of His Excellency's acts would baVe been as good as the Bank of Responsibility itself, had he consented to endorse the ** stipulation " note for them ; but his refusal to do so has made htm a heretic in theory and a despot in practice, and that, too, for months while they were his voluntary and paid endorsers ! I Now, statute-law will not allow an endorser to repudiate his name fronli a discounted note, whatever may become of the drawer of it; nor will responsible law allow advisers of the Crown to repudiate notes which have been discounted, while they voluntarily continued in office, and received the pay of constitutional endorsers. They are not, indeed, liable to imprisonment ; but repudiators of all countries will receive, al (hey have always received, the repudiation of the moral world." iVb. -3r. The admissions and confes^Una of the Legion Party — 'Conclusion. ^ «»'-'9, Thb preceding numbers of my reply to Legion have sufficiently shewn, that not only had nine principal points of my argument been answered, but that many other points scarcely less important had not even been noticed, much less refuted. I may also add, that the entire argument of my ninth number, embracing the principles of government and of the administration of it, as applicable to the GovernoVf Ministers of the Crowky Legislators, and the People generally, each part of which is based not only upon the eternal principles of justice and Christianity, but fortified by the highest authorities of statesmen, philosophers, and divines— occupyihjg upwards of thirty pages — the whoio of this argument remains unimpaired by any thing that Legion has said^ Whenever Legion came in contaet with such principles and authoriiies, he found it eosier to sit down and theorise, and tu divert his reader by '< disquiiiitions," than to attedipt to remove such obstacles out of the way. I have contrasted the operations , of ffovernment administered upon exclusive party and upon just principles, and their comparative influence on the prosperity, liberties, morals and happiness of a people, and upon the character of the risinjg generation ; ii . * > ■ I «.tn nor can Legion deny the concluBions which I have established— eonclu- Bions 'Mliiih y«=b0lOW Mi fe*eh' b«V6n)l'th6 Coiiflitita' of pd^y aiSd ihd 8qiiabMed«f pany misn — fbitnibg tho baflBiiirttf kll ji/!B^]»dtemin«br, thb aych orpobiie Kb6rty, the Ilfb and health and vj^gdur'of th^ whole body p6litic. Bat IVom the putrid inass of evert lJ6p ments of defence in Garthaffe. The result of Punk credulity in thjit instance is well known. Had the late Counsellors obtained the asked-fpr "impartial" stipulation from his Excellency, they would have feared no "successors" —they would have secured for themselves and theirs a perpetual successions—the throne itself would have been powerless, and , they would have been all-powerful — and the government of Canaf'a would have been an oligarchy, instead of a mixed monarchy. But to return from this digression. 2. I have maintained that the late Counsellors had nothing to do with the avtmons of his Excellenc]^ — whether right or wrong — orily with hig octer L6gibti say^ in his sixth letter, "A Governor miay hold abstrsict appi>pyipg of' il^e acts are^1)ou^d .to' C(y&A1senDrs ftkA nOj^ij^nt'tb' resign utiiti an iibstraclk opini6n; npjr ^id they ( do BO. ''l^hie^ r^si^nra b^iu^ fi%i« we^^^^ by an f>ptrif'^n incpnsis^.' • tetii'With tlieir boliipfas pt 'thiiif tuW^ipni^. and i^spon^^^^^ ^bi^ij adtplssidn lis alsoi imbortai^t, though ii\Q cpncIuBion^is faji^e. If'Cpunselldr^,'^ hai^cf ii(^thl\i'g io do ilfitti the ppini'pns of tW)rong. ' The personal opinions of the Sovereign or her repre^ntativd cannot be brolighf before th^ pirliatnetit or the dbuntiy as a subject ot complaint or discussion, without the violation of a vita) principto of respqn8ib|i9,^oyernp)eDt. The iatp Gpqps^llors.have.tiQ brought;, the pe^r son^ opiqtpm. pf^ fh^ Rf^prj^ft^ntat^ve pf the Sotveieign bqfpre tbe pMblic^.: and eyenasciibo^tOiMpi opiplbnfi whipb >be baft frpin, the beginning dis- ; claimed as strongly fis. ever, ^f,,Bal4lwip discbui^ed rebelUpns opinioDft, whjl^hbi^yq beep,.fU39][^bMV> bipi, S. On the subje^^t pf 9 Coun-, ' seltM we have; thl^^/ojirpvir^ng, ;?ig-?ag'ipQP9^^ .aq^.^ejaRarl^ fr^pa, . Le|^|6n*s ^yj^ letter ; * << A stipulation to mnko. no appointment or offep of an appointment without consulting his Council, would halve 'amounted' to a /ormal ' acknowl^gtaieht of Inability to iict without a Cwnciiy hnd' this stimtlatimi '' no Sovereign has ever tnterek itUo. But a practice of acting wit1i>dvice on All pccasioiis, is ih Eiigiand the practice of the.constitutioil. Is there " no ^differenc^e then betw'oen a Council asking for the practice and ^heir ,' asking for a' stipulation 1 'A stipulatipn wpuTd have bpund the Gpvernpr'' Getierat at all time's arid under all circumstances; alid an expression oj'hia" intention to' eonjbrm to cdnstitutional practice, would have bound him to nothing^ although it would have given the Council all they could have wished for or wefi interested in demanding^ The mpst unifprm practice ' admits pf exceptipns in extreme cases, but & stipulatipn admits pf none whf^tever which are not expressed in it." Noyy^^.the, foreffpipg ,pa^«ige is a, ^urios^y even from Legioa himsejf. It i^ h'ereadmitteo that thp lateCou^nseuors Jtiad nojright'to ^eijnand the ^ Governpir to.'stipuliEi^e or agree that be, W9u)d,evea have a Council at.all, "nuch, les9 that jie shopld ^gree no^ io. roa|:e SJiy appointment without consu'iiing that Council; t>ut thatjill, they coyld byf^W'§hed'^'^.^° >■ expression of his intention, whiph *^ipould have bound lam to nothingj." He' Isii&tCs likewise that the most uniformi practice admits of exceptions ; . andja^utiiing that wh&t the late Counsellors have stai^'d is correct (not- , ' » wifhMtSfldiriFthe'di^iiial pf it by'Kis'Excenency),^iit apppiriimen]^^ >yW , ma4ii^y.him%i^hpui thecpiiocil hkyiiigjib pjp^'brtu^ tp ten)i|ei^,fMiy, r;-' ■jf 62 %\ i'.J'"*^^ Jti/ii »j,mt>«-^)j.!.v. . advice rMpectihff them, they will nhi metttidh oHe) and they do not Uaart even in general terms that there were more than two or three " trifling ^ appointments" so made dunng the unifonn practice of eight motUke. u ' not a man's stumbiing two or three times during a uniform travel of eight months, an exception to the general rule ? Are not two or three out pf two or three score, exceptions ? Yet on two or three exceptions, which their own expositor and defender admits are consistent with even a uniform practice, do they found a general charge against his Blxcellency —nay, do they go to him and demand cither what " would have bound ^ him to nothing," or what «no Sovereign has ever entered into !" In the ' former case, tneir conduct was absurd; in the latter, it was unconstitu- tionat Then in the Governor General's protest itscT, there is all the ^ declaratk n of intention, which Legion say^ "could have been wished;" , and even in their written intended explanation, the late Counsellors them- . selves admit that his Excellency *'diaavowed any intention of altering tiie courae of adminietration of public affairs, yrhich he found on hie arrivajt^,,, in Canada." Taking the above admissions and declarations of Legion as authority, the proceedings of the late Counsellors have been anti-British and uneon* stitutional from first to last. 4. I have maintained that the essence of responsible government con- ^sisted in the fact of there being a minister responsible for every executive act. On the contrary, Legion has lampooned (not refuted) this doctrine at no moderate rate ; and Sir Charles Metcalfe has been charged with violating the constitution, because he had not more than three responsible Counsellors. The Hon. W. Young— >Speaker of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly — observed, in a speech recently delivered in Toronto, which I have already quoted, — « JlU that is asked is, that the Governor sheUl exereite the prerogative on all occationa with the advice of a eubordim^e officer, who shall he responsible to the people." Has not this been the case during the last eight months, as well as during the preceding eighteen months ? The Hon. Mr. Boulton, who presided at a reform dinner given in Toronto, on Monday evening, the £drd Sept'r, uttered the following words : « Where there is a mixed monarchy, there can be no act of state without the intervention of some adviser who is responsible to ParUamentf as the Lord Chancellor who a£ixes the great seals to such acts. [Cheers.] This is the sort of responsible government the British people have, ana this is what we want, and this is what we will have." And have we not got it already ? Has a single act been performed by Sir Charles Metcalfi^ since he came to Canada, to which the provincial seal has not been affixed by a responsible adviser ? Mr. Hincks, in his reply to Mr. Viger, p. 15, gives the following definition of the principle of responsible govern- ment, in italics, from the London Morning Chronicle: ^'That every appointment under the Crown should be made with the sanction of a res- ponsible ministerf is the first principle of parliamentary govemmetU," Has Sir Charles Metcalfe made a single appointment without the sanction of a responsible minister ? But let Legion himself declare on this subject, all that I ever thought of contending for. In one of his theoretical moments, in his seventh letter, Legion says— '< I most folly and freely admit, that the passing of tho instrument under the great seal makes the Provincial Secretary and every Executive Counsellor who continues in office afterwards, responsible for the appoint- ment, if the object of sealing the instrument be an appointment to office* I admit aUio» that while the public know this they have a right to holl 'Y '» 63 the miniftera responsible, whether the ministers are consulted or not ; the nunifttera being bound by their acquiesence, just as fully as by actual recommendation." 5. Finallyi Legion proposes the following test of the real existence of responsible government in Canada, under the administration of Sir Charles Metcalfe — a test by which I am willing to abide — a test by which Legion and his party are of course bound to abide — a test by which Canada will no doubt abide. That test is thus stated by Legion in his gixth letter: I " WhBIV a session of parliament passes over without our SBEINe ExBcuTivB Counsellors on two sides of important (questions ; and WHEN WE SEE THEM ACT WITH THE UNITY OF SENTIMENT AND PURPOSE FOUND IN A British administration, I will beoin to believe tub OPINION IS REALLY ABANDONED, OR THAT IT IS ONE OF HARMLESS THEORY. And when I see this unanimity prevailing over men, I shall CONGRATULATE CaNADA AND CANADIANS OF ALL PARTIES, NO MATTER WmCH PARTY SHALL HAVE THE CONnDENCE OF PARLIAMENT OR OF HIS EXCBLLBNCY." Proposing to meet the Legion party upon this ground, and abide by the issue of this test, I call upon Legion and all classes of the inhabitants of Canada to give the administration of Sir Charles Metcalfe a fair trial. I leave L«)^on without personal feeling, though I have animadverted upon his writings and proceedings with deserved severity. Hib forte lies in speakine and declamation ; he missed his way when he undertook to write— and more so when he descended to write as he has done. As I embraced the doctrines of the church to which I belong, not because they were popular or unpopular, adopted by many or few, but because I believed them true; so have I embraced and advocated the views which I expressed on the question now before the country, because I believe they are constitutional, true, and even scriptural, and such as have been held by the people of Upper Canada generally for many years ;-^nvolving u they do the application of a principle understood and appreciated by even the father of Grecian history; for, says Herodotus, "JVot by one MStonee onlyf biU by universal experience ia it manifestly proved, that a govemmeni uMch secures an e